The photographs of Joel Peter Witkin are not for the faint-hearted: their subject matter includes dissected cadavers, dead babies, aborted fetuses, the deformed, circus freaks, severed heads and limbs, naked dwarves, various transsexuals and intersex persons, all often in sexually explicit tableaux referencing great works of Art.

I remember looking through a book of his work with a colleague – she seemed untroubled by the dark and grizzly material, and appreciated the wonderful aesthetic qualities Witkin brought to it.

Untroubled, that is, until she came across one photo called ‘Nude with Mask‘.

This photograph shows a girl of about eight, lying across an armchair, naked other than for a black velvet ‘bat-mask’ which covers the top half of her head. The way she is draped across the armchair, perpendicular to the viewer’s gaze, reveals nothing intimate. But her body looks soft, shapely and warm; her nipples are distinct; her posture is languorous and sensual, her mouth half-open in a pout. The old, over-stuffed, satin cushion she’s laid across molds itself to her form as if doing so gave it pleasure. It feels like she’s awaiting a response from the viewer.

On seeing this image my colleague pulled a face and gave an ‘eeugh’ of disgust and quickly turned to the next page and the next picture.

Her reaction won’t surprise those of us who are sensitive to such things. Yet my colleague was no prude: she was a lively and courageous-minded sort of person, an artist and mother to at least one daughter. She was someone whom I liked and respected.

I’d long learned the expediency of not being seen to question the orthodoxy on these matters, so my initial impulse was to say nothing.

But I also wanted to subtly needle her into having to explain and defend her reaction. I counted to ten then, disingenuously, said something like:

‘Yes, I know how you feel, children can be kind of yucky, can’t they.’

She gave me a startled, puzzled look.

“No, there’s nothing wrong with children – what bothers me when I see a photo like this is what a child molester would feel if he saw this photograph.”

I left it at that. Pursuing this exchange would have only drawn attention to my interest in this issue, an issue which can only legitimately preoccupy a criminologist, an abuse survivor or a law enforcement agent – and preferably a female one rather than a male.

But this exchange has stayed in my memory.

I’m not sure what I would have said next, had I felt it safe to prolong the exchange and challenge her openly. Her reaction raises a lot of questions: would it have been different if the photographer had been a woman? Did the fact that a man took it contribute to her difficulty with the image ?

Why had she reacted with disgust at something that even she acknowledged wasn’t of itself disgusting, whilst showing no disgust at images that showed genuinely shocking things?

And can one take someone’s evaluation of their own gut reactions at face value? Do we really know why we react in certain ways to particular stimuli? For example, could it be that she actually felt in herself a positive response to the child’s sensuality and, uneasy with that response, defused it by attributing it to an imaginary paedophile?

What does it mean when a person’s reaction to beauty is not to appreciate it but to imagine it (according to their point of view, that is) being somehow misused or ‘abused’? Isn’t this like looking at the Mona Lisa and feeling distressed because one can’t stop thinking what it would be like to have a pot of black paint and uncontrollable impulse to deface it?

Maybe she might have justified her reaction by comparing it to that of someone who cannot enjoy a walk through a beautiful woodland, knowing that there was a developer out there longing to grub it up to make room for a shopping mall and parking lots?

Anyway, my response to her ‘eeurgh’ was clearly not the one she’d hoped for – she’d been surprised that I’d so misinterpreted her response to the image. Her little performance was something she’d probably already acted out several times, and each time it must have elicited the desired response: kudos for her evident disapproval of anything that had the slightest hint of paedophilia, ‘child abuse’ or child pornography.

Maybe I could have questioned her about the nature of her archetypal paedophile – presumably an ugly, greasy haired middle-aged man, with ‘paedo moustaches’ and his cardigan tucked into his sweatpants; her ‘eeugh’ suggested that she imagined the image in question would provoke him into a bout of furious masturbation.

Lucas Cranach – ‘The Nymph of the Fountain’ (1537)

Well, I could have assured her that there existed at least one paedophile whose response to this image was primarily an appreciation of its aesthetic qualities: the beauty of the posing, the lighting, its composition and atmosphere. Yes, I found pleasure and very mild stimulation from the girl’s body and pose, but nothing more than an average, heterosexual man would presumably experience in front of, say, Cranach’s ‘The Nymph of the Fountain’: a ‘twinge’, but nothing to send anyone scuttling off looking for the privacy of a lockable room, well-supplied with hand oil and tissues.

And from all the paedophiles I know, either in person or through the internet, I’d say that her imagined paedophile is very much a creation of the unfettered popular imagination; a ‘creation’ that doesn’t even qualify for for the status of ‘caricature’ since the latter derives its potency from the amplification of recognisable elements of truth

Indeed if any sexuality or love requires gentleness, sensitivity, attentiveness, restraint, responsiveness, selflessness and serenity it is paedophilia. As so often the public imagination has got it 180° wrong: that which they imagine paedophiles to be is exactly what they are not, exactly what they can not be.

Just as I had to leave my colleague’s false ideas about paedophiles unchallenged it is likewise risky and generally counter-productive to try to speak out and correct the untruths and mistakes of the public imagination.

The internet is rife with images of cruelty, suffering and horror.

One can, if one chooses, look at photographs and films of decayed and damaged cadavers, accidents and injuries, one can watch people being executed or murdered, one can watch violent closed-circuit camera recordings of crimes, or cruelty to both humans and animals, one can look at deformed new-borns destined to live only a few hours, or maybe even snuff pornography (if indeed it even exists).

A Google search for the phrase “illegal imagery” brings up only results concerned with the depiction of children and/or their sexuality. You will find no mention of any of the types of imagery listed in the above paragraph. Indeed even ‘snuff porn’ seems to be a grey area and may be only illegal to make and distribute, not possess.

It seems that, in the West at least, one can look at all of the above with impunity: the only type of imagery which it is illegal to see are those relating to children and their sexuality.

Why could this be? Why are the worst and most disturbing horrors permissible yet something as universal and unremarkable and everyday as a child’s genitals not?

Let’s imagine someone like my artist colleague defending her attitudes. She might make the following points:

“Such images should be illegal because they depict the commission of a crime.”

The internet is rife with footage of crimes being committed, recorded either on CCTV or by onlookers with mobile phones. These can be viewed by any man, woman or child on Youtube. Indeed most of our films and television series centre round the depiction of crimes.

Nor does all illegal imagery of children depict the commission of a crime: a child is not committing a crime by simply being naked, nor is a man holding a camera committing a crime by being in the same room as her – indeed that man could be her father capturing his daughter’s enjoyment of her bath-time.

“Child sexual abuse is a crime more serious than any other.”

Really!? Does this mean that she’d rather her daughter were (non-sexually) tortured and murdered than have her bottom or genitals stroked by a friendly neighbour?

“Such images may incite paedophiles to offend.”

Well, couldn’t the same be said about depictions of other crimes? violence? robbery? murder? As noted above, our culture is awash with depictions of such crimes. And the popularity of violent computer games suggests that there are a large number of people who get some pleasure from at least simulating such acts. Some of these might develop a desire to actually perpetrate the acts they’ve been simulating on the screen.  However society chooses not to make the depictions of such crimes illegal.

Moreover there seems to be evidence that porn reduces ‘offending’ rather than incites it.

“Every time someone looked at such an illegal image the child depicted suffers anew the abuse.”

Whilst this is plainly a ridiculous statement as it stands (as if sticking nails into a likeness of someone could deliver them pain) there is some tangential validity to it. I imagine the feelings of the loved ones of a victim of one of Daesh’s filmed murders. It must be terrible to simply know that footage of your loved one’s execution is circulating round the internet, and people are watching it, maybe even getting some kick out of it.

Also, inevitably, there must be a terrible process in which those close to the victim inevitably recreate, from snippets of information and rumour, and against their will, the things they imagine depicted in the footage.

So likewise I can imagine that someone may feel distress at the idea that illegal images of themselves, made when they were children, are circulating round the internet, especially if they become aware that they are much-viewed.

But that does not explain why the images of child sexuality are illegal and not the ones of other crimes and events that could be distressing to those depicted, or their families and friends.

Nor does this explain why there is an increasing number of prosecutions for the possession of cartoons depicting child sexuality.

Indeed I suspect that the creeping illegality of cartoons (for two examples of this see here and here) suggests the real motivation behind the unique status of child sex imagery.

Are these images, in fact, illegal because they act as persuasive witnesses to the existence of child sexuality?

Could the true goal of laws relating to sexual images of children in fact be the effective eradication of the notion of child sexuality from the popular discourse, culture and the minds of the citizenry?

And what else is there in our society that could act as a witness to the existence of child sexuality? To quote from my own “18 common misconceptions about paedophiles & paedophilia

“Who in our society has knowledge and experience of child sexuality? Parents (who too often teach their children ‘shame’ so that by the age of 5 or 6 most children are fully aware that ‘sex’ is a taboo subject about which their parents are not willing to be open)? Teachers, police, doctors, psychologists, social workers? Which of these could a child be sufficiently at ease with to express their sexuality towards? The answer is, of course, ‘none of these’.

The fact is that in our society it’s only the ‘paedophile’ who accepts child sexuality; who, when a child displays sexual behaviour, doesn’t react negatively, doesn’t shame the child, doesn’t make her feel that her sexuality is ‘bad’. Even celibate paedophiles often have the experience of being the object of a child’s sensual or sexual interest.

Society and the Law, by criminalising the means by which such knowledge could be gathered, have, a priori, defined any evidence which disagrees with the orthodoxy as ‘inadmissible’ – thus depriving society, sociology, psychology and the law of the possibility of insights into the important subject of child sexuality, and hereby maintaining the belief that children are not sexual or interested in sex.”

Are Paedophiles feared and reviled because it’s not possible for society to openly fear its own children? Does society instead deny the existence of child sexuality and transfer its hatred onto those who, against the tide of society, would accept, encourage and reveal its existence? Maybe society’s hatred of paedophilia is a case of ‘shooting the messenger’ because society doesn’t like what he might report.

If those descriptions I’ve read of films showing children happily, ‘joyfully’ even, enjoying intimacy with other children or adults are accurate, then such experiences and imagery would seem to furnish a strong and persuasive witness to the existence of child sexuality.

Furnish a strong and persuasive witness to the existence of child sexuality‘ – how strange to find myself writing those words! As if ‘Child Sexuality’ were some vanishingly improbable or rumoured-to-be-extinct phenomenon!

As if Freud had never written his “Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality” over a century ago! As if no mother or father has ever had to brush away their toddler’s hands from their genitals and distract the child’s attention from the feelings they were evidently experiencing there!

As if each and every one of us hasn’t at some time been a child who’s felt love and desire for another child, or an adult, maybe even pleasure at their touch and attention! As if the majority of pre-industrial cultures and societies have not been accepting, encouraging even, of childhood sexuality (if you don’t believe this have a browse through the ‘Growing Up Sexually‘ atlas)!

As if this fear of child sexuality were not a very recent phenomenon in our Western societies!

In living memory children’s sexuality was accepted and part of our culture and even considered as something to value and nurture: during the 70s French philosophers, writers, politicians and artists such as Alain Robbe-Grillet, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Daniel Cohn-Bendit called for the decriminalisation of child-adult sexual interactions, in the UK P.I.E. could actively and openly campaign for reforms to the Age of Consent laws, in 1978 Louis Malle made the film ‘Pretty Baby’ &c &c

If this is the true reason why imagery depicting child sexuality is illegal then the next question is why are our WEIRD societies so suddenly determined to eradicate child sexuality?

I have suggested one possible nexus of reasons in the essay “Towards the Aetiology of Paedophobia“: that the nuclear family, and other cultural phenomena of late capitalism, isolate children in relationships that can only thrive if those children are considered as asexual. But I suspect that this is not the whole story. The search will continue…

In the second part of this essay I will examine more closely some of the ethical problems and difficulties posed by child pornography.

28 thoughts on “The Sexual Child – The Ultimate Obscenity? Part 1

  1. Endless flawed references to child sexual repression in ‘Society’ or more specifically in ‘Western Society’ in so called Web debates (mastur-debates?). All totally fail to note that the prime negative force infecting all others Worldwide since their rabid Right wing 19Hateys Fascist Market has been and still is (NOT ‘Society’) but JUST the fascist phoney Anglophone UK/US/CA/OZ/NZ/IE.

    The prime example of first infection by control freak Anglos was 1980s mainland modern-EU then with no fascist Anglo-style media inciting extreme negative child sex laws, yet rightly named by all leading agencies as ‘World Best For Child Wellbeing’.

    For nearly four fine decades from the post-WW2 1950s until the mid-1980s (when TWO UK Tory Right wing Anglo fascists psycho-lonialized/mentally infected Europe with new child body-guilt) the benignly liberal mainland modern-EU with their post-WW2 children rightly raised to know that Holocaust childrens’ bodies were ‘obscene to view’ but that healthy bodies are to be celebrated.

    E.G. A late-1970s Amsterdam routinely armed young policeman was asked by a typically mock-Puritan shocked UK tourist about any complaints received concerning Child Nude & Child Sex magazines in thronged Red Light District hard porn shop front windows clearly seen by all, including families with young children. Including unaccompanied Dutch children merely strolling in their own land.

    Came the sensible Dutch police reply in perfect English, “We receive no complaints for there are only happy children with no tears nor blood in our porn shop photos, and if we have complaints of any coercion we act fast and we act strong. Please tell me do you not have porn shops in England?”

    Shocked Brit: “Er, yes, but the windows are painted over to obscure the images from the street, and womens’ genitals are airbrushed over, while male erections or ejaculations are illegal to show, as are any images of Homosexuality, or Under 21s, or any Childsex Acts !”

    Dutch Cop: “Windows obscured? No female genitals, No erections, No ejaculations, No homosexuals, No Under 21s, No Childsex – well why bother to have Porn Shops – or any porn at all? Good Day to you, please enjoy your stay in Holland.”


  2. Christian and Lesman, are you two very smart people (and others who comment here too), and have much reason in many ways, but you both have to understand one thing about my religion stance…

    I think the adultophilia is a condition or an “engram” [] that comes from animals, and that makes us wicked and makes us physical harm and spiritual, and pedophilia [and hebephilia] is the medicine that cures it, believe me I’m honest in this, it’s not any hatred or “emotional punch”, I assure you that is true, now go for level 2 of my treatment I am more healthy and happy and, simply the adultophilia is not for us humans, it’s just that, not is about hate.

    So when I discovered it was a pedophile was as if some higher power had saved me, like when someone survives an accident, some believe that it was God who saved them, yes… I know they do not have any sense, but sometimes makes us happy believe we are part of something bigger, you two do not have that need, but others need it.

    And therefor I look for ways to get a vehicle to achieve my goals, such as religion, you see? but I understand that maybe is not the best via to get, for example, all the religious gibberish divert attention from children, and I do not believe in that crap they say the religious, and I [ago] try to (unsuccessfully) to reason with them in Christian Boylover Forum and as I debated them that garbage about “pie-in-the-sky” or “fry-in-the-hell” and other follies, later they were closed in band, they don’t like anyone who want to try to remove their 2,000 years old dogma, they prefer to life in uncertainty… it is ridiculous!

    They said to me “… and where is life after death in your religion? you does not believe in it?”

    You know I told them? “You know if there’s life there in the sky, really? or not? remember that no refunds after you die if those “preachers” rip you off!

    Sincerelly [almost] all religions are a just a bunch of losers and pedophobics self-hatings zealots eternally trapped themselves in their religions of the Stone Age based in “hocus pocus” and superstition, not strange to me this credulous people [catholics, pagans, raelians, christians, fundamentalists, klansmans, satanists, etc.] believe that the pedophilia is a disease … sure, hail god!

    Maybe I should try something more like Dianetics or alternative medicines that the religion itself, and also have this spiritual stuff about souls that I like, the job is never lost!


  3. “But individual Nazis would not have seen it that way – our emotions may be determined by deep factors but we rationalise them on the shallowest levels, we embody them in the feelings, we personalise the effect History has on us.”

    “All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.” Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.

    The big lie pedlled by the Nazis was anti-semitism. Currently, we have at least two colossal untruths: all paedophiles are child-abusers, and children cannot consent.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. First of all, when reading this, I found it odd of you to try with “kids can be yucky, huh?” as a response to her reaction. That’s a minor detail, however.

    To me, it makes sense that a lack of the good paedophile as a possibility affects her view of the image. Or, maybe rather images of children in general, ’cause the concealment of a part of the face of the child and the lack of a happy or relaxed face makes for a negative interpretation of it. What if she had been smiling without a mask?

    Whether you may find the comparison appropriate or not, what if we compare to a picture involving or alluding to a rape of an adult woman. After all, that’s sort of what your colleague thought of. Will some men be uncomfortable if the image is to some degree arousing or just if they can identify with the hypothetical rapist?

    Thinking back, I can’t quite remember how shocked I would be by violent pictures as a child, so it may be unfair to compare to how I would be impressed by sexual images. I do think sexual images (body parts I hadn’t seen before, e.g.) could make a big impression on me, sometimes shake me, as a kid, more so than images of violence.

    “[…] the public imagination has got it 180° wrong: that which they imagine paedophiles to be is exactly what they are not, exactly what they can not be.”

    I don’t understand how they can not be bad people, just as they can be good people. I don’t see how it can not be the case that a person who is predominantly or considerably sexually attracted to kids could be selfish and abusive. (I’m not saying paedophiles generally hold such traits.)

    About your ideas about the causes of paedo(philo)phobia, they may explain some things, but I don’t think a denial of child sexuality describes well, what goes on in people’s minds. There are people who’ll have no problem with kids being sexual with each other, yet will have a problem with an adult wanting to be sexual with kids.


    1. Thanks for your comment, Justaref.

      >“I don’t understand how they can not be bad people, just as they can be good people. I don’t see how it can not be the case that a person who is predominantly or considerably sexually attracted to kids could be selfish and abusive. (I’m not saying paedophiles generally hold such traits.)”

      I just think that children are more delicate and sensitive and aware of their vulnerability than are adults. A paedophile who is insensitive, rough and selfish is not going to be a successful one: such behaviour will generally make kids uneasy and scare them off. However these are qualities which I have witnessed in a lot of successful (and by that I mean ‘promiscuous’) teleiophiles. Of course, as always there are exceptions – but, from what I’ve observed, the qualities required to be liked by children are the ones listed in the article.

      >“About your ideas about the causes of paedo(philo)phobia, they may explain some things, but I don’t think a denial of child sexuality describes well, what goes on in people’s minds.”

      Honestly, I don’t think what ‘goes on in people’s minds’ is a great guide to why people think and feel something. If you’d asked a Nazi why they hated Jews it would have been unlikely that they would have talked about the effects of the Treaty of Versailles and its long-term effects on the German economy. Generally we don’t really know why we feel our strongest emotions and the reasons we give are rationalisations – trying our best to give the best spin to something we don’t really understand.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Lensman, if a Nazi tells you he hates the Jews by the Treaty of Versailles it is that a Rudolf Hess – level asshole. The Nazis hate the Jews for his (alleged) parasitic condition, ie the Jew is always looking to do damage, so that the treaty is only the result of his condition, not the action that triggers the hatred for them. So for example the white supremacist despise the blacks, they really don’t care if the black is dressed in jacket and is an entrepreneur, he is (always) a black, will always be a savage, for that is his (alleged) condition, that of being a good black submissive and collect the cotton… they know very well who hate, and this is not a hot-headed hate, is a very calculated hatred.

        The same goes for the pedophile, his condition is be a depraved and always will be a depraved, the rape of a child is the (supposed) cause of this condition, not the cause of hatred of pedophiles, for that reason they can not conceive to a pedophile who is good, and again the hate is calculated, because the impetuous and irrational hatred leaves as fast as it comes, but hate calculated always be there, they know very well why they hate us. Really the emotions are rational, we know why we love and hate, just do not admit it is convenient for us.


        1. Yes, but wouldn’t you agree that the real cause for the antisemitism of the Nazis were not the reasons a typical Nazi would have expressed?

          The real causes did lie in economics and history and politics.

          But individual Nazis would not have seen it that way – our emotions may be determined by deep factors but we rationalise them on the shallowest levels, we embody them in the feelings, we personalise the effect History has on us.

          So the reasons paedophobes give for hating paedophiles are as useful for determining the true causes of paedophobia as is the explanation a gun-dog might give for enjoying chasing a stick – an explanation which would (presumably) be all about the enjoyment it gets from doings so, and nothing about how certain characteristics useful to hunters have been brought out in its ancestors through the selective breeding by humans.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. I’d also like to add to my previous reply that such social phenomena are not defined by 100% conformity – even in the dark ages, or under under Sharia-fascism, when it appears that the only available ideology is religion, there are people who are atheists, even under Fascist regimes there were people who did not hold with the regime’s ideology.

      ‘Reason’ even under the most unfavourable circumstances, will seep through here and there – so, yes, even in a society in the grips of a child-sexuality witch-hunt there will be individuals who don’t 100% conform to the hegemony.

      ‘Deviance is normal’ – there will always be exceptions and outliers in any large sample of people. Whilst such exceptions may be admirable and comforting their existence doesn’t disprove the over-all hypothesis that society as a whole is bent on making child sexuality disappear from our culture.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You seem a bit angry with religion… you do not know that atheism is the enemy number of pedophilia? Those who are talking about pedophile priests? Muslim rapists of girls? cults who abuse children?

        Actually feminism has not been our only enemy, it has also been atheism, they hate children, so seek that people do not want to have (and love) children, they hate spirituality, that is why they hate the boylove and girlove, a two high form of love, they prefer only sex between adults like animals do.

        It sounds something to you that the rise of atheism coincides with feminism and Pedophobia?

        And it’s true what you mention about the natural dissidence of man, in a world where the only ideology is atheism will always be people who will believe and create religions, even if the people call us crazy, insane and scammers, because that all religions have something of truth and this truth it’s really are the feelings of those who follow, yes, even in a society that has been proposed eradicate religion and spirituality. We are two dissidents.


        1. >“You seem a bit angry with religion… you do not know that atheism is the enemy number of pedophilia? Those who are talking about pedophile priests? Muslim rapists of girls? cults who abuse children?”

          I’m not in favour of priests using their authority, and lies about there being a god, to coerce children into sex, I’m against the islamic conception of children as being the chattels of men, to be traded, used and abused, much as meat-eaters trade and use animals. I’m for a society that empowers children, makes them masters of their love and their sexuality. The major religions have never done that – subjugating them first to that cosmic threat named ‘god’ and then subjugating them to that god’s institutions and demands (which usually coincide with the needs of those either in power or seeking power).

          The only question that matters re religion is whether the claims it makes are true – does god exist and if he does so which god are we talking about? Jehovah, allah, Thor, Jupiter, Buddha, Ganesh &c &c?

          >”it has also been atheism, they hate children, so seek that people do not want to have (and love) children, they hate spirituality, that is why they hate the boylove and girlove, a two high form of love, they prefer only sex between adults like animals do.”

          Many other paedophiles I know, and know of, are atheists.

          Reason and Evidence are our best weapons. If reason and evidence don’t support our claims then I will not turn to religion to salvage them – the aim of the game is NOT to legitimise child-adult relationships at all costs, but to create a better society and world for our children. If in such a world child-adult relationships are (as I believe they would be) licit, then that is good for us, if not then I will accept that – me getting my paedo-rocks off is not the ultimate goal of my existence. If it were then I can think of no better way of justifying that to myself than to pretend that god wanted me to do so.

          Reason, science and humanism are the reasons why we are no longer living in the dark ages, a period where religion held sway. When we look at islamo-fascism we see an ‘ideology’ dreaming of a return to those dark ages – an ideology rotten with superstition and the brutality and cruelty that superstition so easily legitimises. I’d rather children wore chastity belts than that they be treated as sexual slaves as the islamo-fascists of Daesh and Boko-haram treat them.

          >” in a world where the only ideology is atheism”

          ‘Atheism’ is no more an ‘ideology’ than ‘not believing the world to be flat’, or ‘not believing 2+2=5’ or ‘the discovery that the Sun doesn’t orbit the Earth’ are ideologies. The pointing out of an error in someone else’s thinking doesn’t amount to an ideology.

          >“will always be people who will believe and create religions”

          But surely religions can’t be ‘created’ – any true religion is eternal, as are its ‘gods’.

          >“because that all religions have something of truth”

          A stopped clock is right twice a day.


          1. I meant their pedo-hysteria about them, like the hysteria of satanic abuse, you understand? and first to clarify, I am not a native English, so if you see that something is not right, tell me, no problem. By the way, you say “meat-eaters” you’re a vegetarian? I’m one, ask out of curiosity.

            Have you seen my last post in my blog? there I clarify the difference between spirituality and superstition, and also clarify that Christianity and monotheism in general are the worst thing that happened to us, so it’s true, I am opposed to the savages who enslave children and use fear to gain power, yes… in that no one takes away your right in that.

            But…Why do you say that all religion is to believe in gods?

            I repeat, religion is the expression of the soul and feelings, if you don’t like the word “religion” call it what you want, no problem, but do not deny that the soul exists as thoughts and ideas exists, or is that also you can see it? that I explain in my post, so it is useless to explain more in detail it again.

            And humanism? what a joke! humanity is the worst thing there is, I would be anything but humanistic, and… it is curious that in contrast feminism is bad for pedophiles?

            Atheism could not disprove the existence of religion, no matter how hard you try you, you can not stop having religious beliefs. We are nothing compared to the incredible cosmos.

            And finally, those gods are as real as your “love” for children, show me a picture of your “love” or you can not? you tell me “I have a feeling for children” and I say “false, I do not see, it does not exist! It’s all in your head!”, you see, our pedophilia is as real as Thor.


            1. To say that “love” and “religion” are both the same thing because both are invisible is a bit like saying that a dog and a table are the same thing because they both have four legs: that two phenomena share a common characteristic is not sufficient to establish that they are the same thing.

              But, TNSO – I think we may have to agree to differ on the question of religion (however one defines it).

              We both share a common cause and love. The paedophila/MAP movement if it is to become intellectually strong needs to be one in which there are is a diversity of standpoints and positions – we can not all agree on everything.

              And with that I’ll get over to your blog and have a read through your latest post (you say “I am not a native English, so if you see that something is not right, tell me” – just thought I’d let you know that ‘possible’ needs two ‘s’s – you’ve only got one in your title).

              >“you’re a vegetarian?

              Yes, I am. Good to read I’m not the only one!


        2. I am an atheist, I became so as a young adult, because I felt the priests to be against my freedom and Jesus to be of no help. The worst pedophobes are not the atheists, but the right-wingers, especially the US religious right.
          Pedophobia arose in the US in the late 70’s in conjunction with a revival of Protestant fundamentalism, it was first expresssed in the homophobic campaign “Save our children” led by Anita Bryant. It swelled in the US and the UK under the right-wing governments of Reagan and Thatcher and it was in particular expressed in the “satanic ritual abuse” panic, a revival of a typical Christian cultural artefact, the witchhunt of the 15th to 17th centuries.
          On the other hand the atheist Richard Dawkins, in his book “The God Delusion”, tells that as a kid, once a teacher put his hand in his pants, but it was not a big deal, and he would never have imagined these acts to be one day conflated with the worst crimes; then he clearly states that the worst child abuse by priests is not sexual, but that they put into their minds terrors of sin and hellfire; he quotes a woman who said that as a little girl, once a priest touched her sexually, but that it was far from the worst, namely that when one of her non-Catholic childhood friends died, a priest told her that as a miscreant she would burn forever in hell, and she experienced nights of anguish and terror thinking about that.
          People who call muslim girl-rapists are not atheists, but islamophobes. And the “catholic clergy boy sexual abuse” fad arose in the USA, a country plagued by fundamentalist Protestantism, for which both Catholicism and homosexuality are the devil on earth (and the US is also the country where one can devise the most devious ways of grabbing money). Of course some atheists have fun raising the issue of “pedophile priests” as if it was something particular and significant, but I call that the “anticlericalism of the fools”, like when foolish self-styled “socialists” raise the topic of “Jewish finance” as something significant.
          You put on your blog an article on establishing a pedophilic religion. I think that atheism is not opposed to true spirituality, and we don’t need religions with their dogmas and high priests to be spiritual. Also a spiritual relation between generations does not need religious dogmas.

          Liked by 1 person

  5. “… I’d still rather be a paedo than anything else.” Yes, I agree – it is a wonderful gift to be able to appreciate the full 360° beauty of children, but there are so many minor-attracted people out there who hate themselves because society keeps on telling them to hate themselves. This is discrimination at its worst and totally unforgivable.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Hi Charlie, sorry to have been off Twitter for such a long time. This blog really has become the focus of my attention – those 2000+ word essays take a hell of a lot of time to write!

    I guess that I’m also a little disillusioned with Twitter – the 140-character thing means that there’s really no possibility of anything more than a confrontational approach with those who disagree with us – it ends up as little more than name calling, since it’s so awkward to develop any meaningful arguments in such short phrases.

    But I miss our chats. I’ll get over to Twitter and see if you’re there.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. >”As a minor-attracted person, this collateral damage is palpable and has unfortunately taken a a huge toll of me.”

    Sorry to read that – it’s a huge challenge being a MAP/paedophile in this society – I sometimes find myself wondering what my life would have been if I’d been born more ‘average’.

    I think young paedos face terrible challenges growing up in a society where they are stigmatised. But I think older paedos (like myself) face challenges – loneliness, lack of contact with children, the pain of remembering long-past love and happiness.

    Part of our battle is to find a way to be happy and live well, and to be seen to do so if possible. It’s something I hope to think and write about eventually.

    Maybe the best revenge we can take on the haters is to reject their vision of us and our love, and to believe in, and strive for, happiness and fulfillment. Maybe that’s easier said than done… but I’d still rather be a paedo than anything else.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Just a small correction Lensman – it was Dissident’s essay I quoted from; it is not his blog. The author of the blog remained pretty much anonymous from memory.

    “Our society doesn’t even LIKE children any more.” Umm, I would say that in paedophobia-ridden societies, most adults (particularly men) dare not show KINDness towards a non-relative child, for fear of being thought of (by third party onlookers) as someone who is most likely sexually attracted to children, and thus a danger to that child. This is the highly toxic radioactive collateral damage created by the sexual abuse industry that we now have to live with daily, damage as you rightly say, that: imprisons children within the ‘safety’ of their own homes and denies them the opportunity of acquiring natural independence, fractures the cohesion necessary for properly functioning healthy communities, and effectively prevents the adult male from having any contact with any children in society as most paedophiles are, of course, men. As a minor-attracted person, this collateral damage is palpable and has unfortunately taken a a huge toll of me.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Yes, I agree, the whole sex abuse industry is built on such a distorted view of reality that even if its workers are sincere in their concerns and efforts (as I don’t doubt most of them are) it’s bound to have nefarious, counterproductive effects.

    It’s like when a medical ‘problem’ is badly misdiagnosed, the ‘cure’ is worse than the disease itself, since not only is it ineffective in treating the actual disease, it actually adds its own effects: think of all patients weakened to the point of dying by undergoing blood-letting.

    This is what is happening with the current witch-hunt mentality. It strikes me that the pre-Thatcher attitude to all this was much healthier – it could be caricatured as ‘brush it under the carpet’ – but it meant that those kids who were willing participants in child-adult relationships had more of a chance of being left unmolested by parents and police, and those that had been abused would not have their futures defined by that abuse, and children in general, for want of a paranoid zeitgeist, were freer, and the community enriched by their participation and presence. Moreover society could at least acknowledged that children were sexual – nowadays to suggest children are sexual is, in the ordinary discourse, tantamount to being an apologist for paedophilia.

    What we have at the moment is society which has not so much mis-diagnosed the problem as, unknowingly, created it. It is tilting at a windmill that hardly exist and, since an imaginary problem won’t go away (think of how hard getting rid of god is proving to be!) the only way for the powers-that-be to go is to clamp down ever harder on the manifestations of that problem.

    This is, I suspect, remarkably like what happens in Witch panics. Of course Witches don’t exist – but if the society is determined to believe they exist then history shows us the dreadful consequences.

    Of course the parallel isn’t entirely accurate – paedophiles DO exist, both consensual and non-consensual child-adult relationships exist, and non-consensual relationships are a problem from whichever perspective one considers them.

    However Society’s response and vision is grotesquely out of proportion to the reality. If society were really bothered about child abuse they’d be looking more closely at parents than teachers, priests, strangers. And the real problem isn’t sexual interactions but emotional neglect and physical abuse.

    That is the REAL problem. The nuclearisation of the family and the death of the Community means that parents hold their children in a, opaque box where anything can happen. In terms of real child welfare things are worse than in the 60s – our society doesn’t even LIKE children any more – we don’t want them on our streets or in our parks. A child’s place is in the home – preferably sat in front of some kind of screen with a packet of pringles near to hand.

    Thanks for making me aware of Dissident’s blog – as would be expected from Dissident, and despite the last post being from 4 or 5 years ago, it looks very interesting.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Most accurately, Lensman, that particular essay of mine that Feinmanno quoted in this thread (which I thank him for! “He” is a “he,” right?) was one of my many articles composed for Newgon’s wiki. CPexplosion – a Non-kind but sympathetic person who used to visit GC, and opposed the CP hysteria on the basis of its exponential erosion of civil rights legislation – read it and asked me if he could cross-post it on his/her blog, since it was relevant to the blog’s topic. I’m pleased to find that yet another of my essays continues to exist on another location in cyberspace since Newgon went down (not for legal reasons, I should make clear). It’s regrettable that CPexplosion hasn’t updated his/her blog in a while, and I hope he/she is doing well, but I’m at least glad to hear the blog’s archives are still up.

      One other little correction to make that I think you will find interesting for relevant reasons: witches actually do exist, and are part of the various traditions making up the Wiccan religion, which is a modern day Pagan faith system. I’m a proud member of one of those traditions 🙂

      The thing is, though, that the specific negative imagery of the “gothic” witch who worships Satan, sacrifices innocent infants or virgins to the Devil, and is involved in numerous vile actions to harm others is more or less a totally hysterical, Judeo-Christian demonization of the followers of ancient Pagan nature-worshiping religions. In contrast, Wiccans do not even believe in the conception of the Devil, revere nature, the notions of people living in peace and harmony with both each other and the rest of the natural world, and live and abide by one commandment known as the Wiccan Rede, “an it harm none, do what thou wilt” – which translates into modern English lingo, “you are free to do as you wish as long as what you’re doing isn’t demonstrably hurting anyone else.” You are very correct, however, in saying that the bastardized conception of witches that were “hunted” during the Inquisition, and which inspired the political term “witch-hunting,” have likely never actually existed.

      Of course, because Wiccans are not Christian, do not worship a single male conception of Deity but place equal reverence on a Goddess and God, and are quite sex-positive, the Christian fundamentalists who grew in political power at the same time Wicca was on the rise lambasted and demonized Wiccans, and this had a profound effect on the religion from the 1980s onwards. This, regrettably, made the great majority of Wiccans feel pressured from the ’80s to the present into abandoning and repudiating the positive attitudes regarding child sexuality they had during the pre-Thatcher and pre-Reagan era of the late 20th century, and to align themselves with mainstream liberal sensibilities on the issue, which focuses its “sex-positivity” on embracing vanilla homosexuality and transexuality, while swinging conservative on child sexuality. During the previous decade, the online Pagan community even had their equivalent of the “pedo police” who monitored the online activities of the Pagan community for any sign of pro-choice statements regarding youth sexuality, and brutally attacked any site or blog where such statements were found. This was sad and disappointing, but par for the course when it came to any type of liberal institution attempting to continue to exist in the climate of the past 30 years. This general liberal repudiation phenomenon (not including how it affected the Pagan population, though) was discussed by Judith Levine in Harmful to Minors.

      It’s interesting, though, that the “dark” imagery attributed to Wiccans has also been placed on pedophiles and hebephiles during the exact same time period, something I will be discussing at length in my next essay, which should soon be appearing as a (possibly 2-part) guest blog on Heretic TOC.


      1. Hi Dissident and thanks for your comment.

        I fully accept what you say about witches. When I talk about witches I meant it in the negative malign sense – as embodied by the conception of witches in Salem in the 1690s, or that held by some people in some parts of Africa that albino children are evil spirits. I also recognise how labelling a religion as ‘witchcraft’, and loading it with all kinds of dark ideas and imaginings, was a very effective way for a conqueror to destroy autochthonous religious beliefs and replace it with their own

        It’s interesting, and now I think of it, not wholly surprising, to learn that Wiccans had a positive idea of child sexuality. Maybe the idea that witches performed sacrifices of children or offered them to the devil was a distortion of this – much as christians have been accused of cannibalism because of the eucharist. How sad that such a beautiful religion has been corrupted by anti-child-sexuality hegemony.

        I look forwards to you essay on Heretic TOC!


  10. The sexual abuse industry is pretty much the most corrupt and loathsome entity I can possibly envision on this planet. As far as the UK’s sexual abuse industry is concerned, elements such as child protection agencies, crown prosecution services, the police, hate-inciting media, have all contributed to the hideously over-inflated monster that it has become. And much of this inflation is due to the likes of the NSPCC, who have taken the techniques previously employed by Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda to a whole new level. The satanic ritual abuse myth perpetrated by the mendacious fear-mongering ‘child protection agencies’, not just the NSPCC, had nothing to do with children protection but everything to with increasing their membership and thus funding. The truly scandalous thing about all of this is that as so much public money, tax-payers money, effort and energy is being diverted to demonise and punish minor-attracted individuals – the ‘New Jews’ – that police forces no longer have the resources to undertake their normal work; consequently the taxpayer faces a very real dilution of the protection he pays for.

    As Dissident puts it so eloquently on the cpexplosion blog: Stateside … “The hefty paychecks enjoyed by the officers who comprise the various task forces of the law enforcement agencies (LEAs) that are dedicated to combating what the system refers to as crimes of ‘vice’ depend upon the continuation of public hysteria and exaggerated moral ‘concern’ about certain activities going on in our society. Hence, the LEAs have to convince the public and the media that the ‘problem’ they are paid so handsomely to combat is one of such extremely high magnitude to the safety of our children and society in general that the common rules of democracy must be dispensed with to deal with them effectively. In other words, the highly lucrative career opportunities for law enforcement officers that can potentially arise via the generous flow of government funds are seen as extremely important by LEAs to maintain. These heavily valued career opportunities include the creation of future task forces and promotions within them, and they require a steady stream of arrests to build the reputations of the officers involved and to justify the steep government (read: taxpayer) expenditures required to keep the cash flowing from Congress. This is why the officers who comprise these particular LEAs try to assure a constant supply of arrests by going after the easiest targets, such as those who download, possess, or simply view the banned imagery online rather than conducting the more sensible and less draconian action of tracking down and arresting the alleged plethora of people producing this new child pornography, and rescuing the supposed legion of kidnapped and horribly abused kids whom these officers claim are forced into making this product by the producers for profit.”


  11. The Foundation knows that a child dies every week in Britain by their parents? that every 10 seconds a child dies in Africa thanks to its adultophiles parents? the thousands of girls who are abandoned in China by adultophile scum? the millions of unborn children killed and dismembered by scum follower of Dr. Mengele? the beatings and psychological abuse suffered by children at the hands of beasts called “fathers”? Videos of murders and torture of children in social networks? the harassment of teenagers pedophiles?

    Where you are, Foundation of indecent sons of bitches?

    The adultophiles are the illness of humanity, i hate them forever.


  12. “One can, if one chooses, look at photographs and films of decayed and damaged cadavers, accidents and injuries, one can watch people being executed or murdered, one can watch violent closed-circuit camera recordings of crimes, or cruelty to both humans and animals, one can look at deformed new-borns destined to live only a few hours, or maybe even snuff pornography (if indeed it even exists).

    A Google search for the phrase “illegal imagery” brings up only results concerned with the depiction of children and/or their sexuality. You will find no mention of any of the types of imagery listed in the above paragraph. Indeed even ‘snuff porn’ seems to be a grey area and may be only illegal to make and distribute, not possess.”

    Indeed. In addition, I read recently that the Internet Watch Foundation, an anti-abuse organization, has started sharing a list of images depicting child abuse as identified through unique”hash” codes. Hash codes are unique tags the Foundation uses to give the indecent pictures of children digital fingerprints. Google, Facebook and Twitter can then use these “fingerprints” to keep tabs on flagged images so they can’t be uploaded to their sites, preventing sharing and accidental discovery by users online. In doing so, they are helping the Foundation in curbing the activities of paedophiles and fighting for the welfare of children everywhere.

    I would like to know what criteria are being used to classify an image as decent or indecent? Is the selfie of a naked sixteen-year-old teen if taken in Germany decent, but indecent if it was taken in North Carolina? How do Internet Watch Foundation obtain these images? How come Internet Watch Foundation staff are above the law regarding the possession and distribution of child pornography?

    So many questions and doubtless many confused and contradictory answers.


  13. >”Lensman, I like your blog, and look forward to Part 2.”

    Thanks for that, feinmann0!

    >”I therefore find it difficult to see the difference between the legality of a minor-attracted person enjoying the sight of an ‘in-the-flesh’ naked child in broad daylight, and the illegality of a minor-attracted person enjoying the sight of a naked child in the privacy of his own home via whatever medium”

    Yes, it really doesn’t make sense does it.

    One of my dystopian fantasies is of a society so diseased that parents aren’t allowed to see their own children naked, a series of products – lockable body suits, child bathing machines, and professionals (such as doctors) having ‘inspection certificates’ which allow them visual access to the child’s body in special circumstances…

    The case of the 17 year old US teen is indeed ridiculous. Some papers picked up on the möbius strip thinking involved in this prosecution – but I didn’t see much sign of anyone really questioning the equally twisted ideology underlying much of the law concerning images relating to children and sexuality.

    >”I have reached the point now where I adopt zero-tolerance to paedophobic attitudes and comments.”

    When people make paedophobic comments I usually have to bite my tongue. I find this frustrating – I know that if I were to confront them ‘gloves off’ I’d be able to absolutely wipe the floor (and clean round the back of the toilet) with them since the average paedophobe has never had to argue against a well-informed paedophile they are just not prepared for the arguments, evidence and reasoning that I have well-rehearsed and at my finger-tips.

    >”Youtube’s policy to my mind verges on racism.”

    Yes, I’ve noticed this too. It also seems to depend a lot on country and language. I can’t read Japanese but there are certain Japanese words which, if copy-pasted into the search field, get you a cornucopia of naked children. It seems that their policy about child nudity is maybe based on what is reported and complained about – presumably the Japanese, being significantly more sane on this issue than the Anglosphere, don’t fire off barrages of complaints every time a child’s buttock hoves into view.


  14. You cite Youtube as a resource that enables viewing of crimes committed. It is interesting to note that Youtube makes available for public viewing videos that show black-child nudity in ‘primitive’ tribal communities, but seems very quick off the mark to ban imagery of white-child nudity in ‘civilised’ country settings. Youtube’s policy to my mind verges on racism.

    As an aside, and related more to your promised Part 2, maybe, I find it strange that one can legally be nude with others on a public naturist beach, including wonderfully naked children as God intended, and yet risk prosecution for being found to have images of naked children in one’s possession. I therefore find it difficult to see the difference between the legality of a minor-attracted person enjoying the sight of an ‘in-the-flesh’ naked child in broad daylight, and the illegality of a minor-attracted person enjoying the sight of a naked child in the privacy of his own home via whatever medium.

    To underline the extreme depths to which the child sexuality paranoia has now plumbed, within the past week a 17-year-old US teen has been charged with several counts of sexual exploitation for taking and possessing sexually explicit photos of a minor – the minor here refers to himself, as the images were selfies taken on his cell-phone when he was 16. He was named both the victim and the perpetrator of the crime. He had to plea bargain to escape prison and sex offender status.

    The reaction of your colleague: I have reached the point now where I adopt zero-tolerance to paedophobic attitudes and comments. During the 60s and 70s, particularly at school, I suffered homophobic attitudes and comments from individuals mistakenly judging me as gay when in reality I was minor-attracted to pre-pubescent boys, It made me fearful back then as I was given a hard time. The current climate is no different; just the name of the phobia has changed and the target of the hate is a far smaller group of individuals, which I guess makes it even easier for the bully.

    Lensman, I like your blog, and look forward to Part 2.


........................... 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: Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s