I guess that as a paedophile who believes there is nothing intrinsically wrong with adults and children sharing sensual intimacy I’m as far out of kilter with society and conventional norms as one can be. When you find yourself in such a position you have to do some hard thinking to keep yourself balanced and sane. You have to assemble for yourself an emotional and intellectual survival kit. Sometimes things get really bad and you have to know how to build yourself a metaphoric life-raft.

The more I understand society’s mechanisms of stigmatisation and misinformation the less effect they have on me (humour also has the same salutary effect): the hysterical mob, the therapists, the victimology industry, the dishonest media, with all their untruths, misrepresentations, stigma and ‘no-debating’ strategies, become as rats in a maze whose observation and study – predicting their behaviour, understanding their functioning – I can almost take pleasure in. I have, if you like, mastered them in my mind, neutralised their venom.

Moreover I have an advantage over them: I understand them, whereas everything they think about me and my fellows is mistaken, and often the inverse of the truth.

These are a few ideas which, I suspect, had I not been a paedophile, I would never have stumbled upon, or been much interested in if I had. They form part of my ‘survival kit’.

Regression to the mean

A few years ago I came out as a paedophile to a trusted, open-minded, intelligent long-time friend who was visiting from abroad. We had some long talks in which I was able to share my experiences and feelings as a paedophile and discuss the politics and true nature of paedophilia.

One day my friend looked me in the eyes and said “Leonard, I think I’m with you on this. It appears that society has got it wrong on paedophilia. But please don’t tell anyone that I think this way”. Understandably worried about his safety and security he also asked me not to bring up the topic with him other than in person.

Anyone who is a paedophile can imagine, I’m sure, what his support and understanding meant to me.

Then, a year or so later, I sensed from our email correspondence that he’d grown to be uncertain about my stance and appeared to no longer be supportive of my love.

I felt that it would be wrong for me to push things and insist on addressing doubts he clearly wasn’t keen on exploring with me. To try to badger him into agreement risked giving the impression that I considered his earlier agreement as a ‘ticked box’, a ‘trophy’, that I considered him as a ‘convert’ – someone ‘signed-up’ and ‘committed for life’, that I had a right to his opinions on this matter…

In short, I decided that his friendship was more important than his agreement on this issue, and decided to avoid the topic unless he himself brought it up…

My friend’s drift towards a more conventional, ‘normal’, stance after having held a ‘deviant’ opinion is an example of the statistical phenomenon of ‘Regression to the Mean’.

Three Golfers Who Hit a Hole-in-One at the Last Hole and Who are in the Process of ‘Regressing to the Mean’

An abstract statement of this is that if a variable deviates greatly from the average on one measurement, it will tend to be closer to the average on the next measurement.

This is a phenomenon clearly illustrated in sports such as athletics and golf: a sprinter who breaks the world record will probably run closer to his average time the next race; a golfer who sinks a hole-in-one is unlikely to do so on the next hole.

Of course opinions are more complex than the outcomes of sports and are certainly harder to measure. But an extreme or unconventional opinion takes more effort to arrive at and maintain than does a commonplace or popular one. The chances of a non-paedophile being exposed to pro-paedophile ideas are vanishingly low – and for him to be able to think at all clearly about the issues he first must set aside his gut-reactions, and a life-time’s-worth of conditioning and unquestioned assumptions.

Once my friend had returned home his sole source for the pro-paedophile case (because he was unhappy about discussing this topic over the internet) was his – presumably fading – memory of our discussions. His gut-instincts about childhood innocence, nurtured in him since his own childhood, and his own lack of sexual interest in children would mean that whenever he saw children he would be seeing them through the emotional lens of a society hell-bent on eliminating childhood sexuality. The anti-paedophile case, and the concepts and vocabulary that bolster and support it (assumptions about the social status of children, the nature of the nuclear family, the ideal of childhood innocence &c), would be ever-present in the media, the public discourse, and the general spirit of our times.

Given this imbalance of information and influence it is not surprising that my friend has started to have doubts. He’s not actually said that he’s rejected the ideas and evidence that emerged from our discussions – merely that he’s confused on the matter.

I have several non-paedophile friends who know I am a paedophile – a few are militantly supportive, but most are critical of my stance. Whether they are ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ I realise that I am quite lucky in having such friends, for even those who are ‘anti’ refuse to see me as the monster which society would paint me as, and acknowledge that my being a paedophile doesn’t annul the friendship, affection and trust we share.

Deviance is normal

Jesus, when he said “for ye have the poor always with you,” could have also added “and the deviants too”: in a very basic sense, ‘deviance’ must always be present wherever a phenomenon exhibits variability.

If one were to take a large, random sample of people, measure their IQs and plot the results onto a graph one would get a ‘Bell-Curve’ distribution:

A Bell-Shaped Curve Showing How Intelligence Is Distributed.

The significant majority of people (just under 70%) will fall within 15 points of the average (which is an IQ of 100). These are the ‘Normal’. However a tiny percentage of people will be found at the extreme ends of the curve, at its feet – the geniuses at one end and those with severe cognitive disability at the other end. Both these outliers, the genius and the cognitively disabled, are in a sense ‘deviants’ because they are defined by their small number and their distance from the norm. Any large population, when measured for a variable characteristic, must have those individuals who find themselves furthest from the norm.

When what is being measured is as value-laden and emotive as sexuality these outliers, become stigmatised as ‘deviants’, ‘perverts’ and ‘freaks’.

Emile Durkheim

The sociologist Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) claimed that deviance was in fact a normal and necessary part of social organization. He stated four important functions of deviance.

  1. Deviance affirms cultural values and norms. Any definition of virtue rests on an opposing idea of vice: There can be no good without evil and no justice without crime.
  2. Deviance defines moral boundaries, people learn right from wrong by defining people as deviant.
  3. A serious form of deviance forces people to come together and react in the same way against it.
  4. Deviance pushes society’s moral boundaries which, in turn leads to social change.

I think that Durkheim’s analysis is pretty spot on, although it’s unfortunate when you happen to be the group that society currently wants to most vigorously define its morality against, especially when that morality is an erroneous one.

Durkheim’s last function can maybe offer us some hope: he acknowledges that as societies change people, behaviours and ideas once considered as deviant can contribute to the creation of a new morality.

An example of this is how, when Western Capitalist society changed from being based on manufacturing and heavy industry to service and consumption, a concomitant change in values was demanded of the workforce. The job market no longer required men to be physically strong, have great endurance and not too much education, but instead required of both men and women enhanced interpersonal skills, adaptability and caring.

The homosexual, till recently vilified for subverting the manly virtues required for heavy industrial labour, came to embody many of the ideals of a society in which gender demarcation in the job market was increasingly disappearing. It is no coincidence that the successful campaign for the acceptance of homosexuality occurred in societies whose economic structures were changing from industrial capitalism to consumer capitalism.

This change in the economic structure of society was aided by there being an existing (but previously rejected) set of values ready to be adopted – values more appropriate to that new economic order. What had previously been considered deviant “pushed society’s moral boundaries” and facilitated the transition to that new economic order.

This (the role of economics in morality) is something I intend to return to and write about in greater depth.

The frequency which a phenomenon is reported in the media is no guide to the frequency of that phenomenon

What with Westminster Paedophile Rings, Celebrity Paedophiles, Paedophile Priests and a constant stream of arrests and court cases for child porn or child abuse offenses, the Man on the Clapham Omnibus could hardly be blamed for thinking that paedophilia was a phenomenon invented in the 1970s, whose incidence has since grown to epidemic proportions.

The truth is more likely to be that since the 1970s, children in the West have been increasingly isolated within the nuclear family, and the surveillance of children has increased; add to these factors the immense stigma associated with child-adult intimacy and the draconian penalties for those who engage in such intimacy (legal penalties for the adult, social and psychological ones for the child) it seems likely that in no society, nor during any period of history, has there been a lower incidence of child-adult sexual intimacy than in contemporary Western societies.

So how is it that we so often don’t just come to a ‘wrong’ conclusion, but we come to the conclusion which is the very opposite of that which the facts and reason dictate? we get it upside-down, mirror-image, black-for-white and white-for-black, 180°, back-to-front and inside-out wrong?

It is in the nature of the media, and especially the news media, to be interested in events which are unusual or exceptional and to ignore commonplace and unremarkable ones.

For example  – ask yourself how often a car crash is reported in the national news media and how often a plane crash is reported. A car crash will probably not get far beyond the second or third page of a local newspaper, whereas a plane crash, irrespective of where it occurs in the world, is likely to make the front page of national or international news.

The World Health Organisation estimates that

“an estimated 1.2 million people are killed in road crashes each year and as many as 50 million are injured.”

In 2013, according to the International Air Transport Association (Iata) there were eighty-one accidents in total. Sixteen of these resulted in a total of two-hundred and ten fatalities worldwide.

Of course if the national and international news reported every car crash, as they do every plane crash, there would be room for no other news, even on a 24-hour news channel. So someone who based their ideas concerning the relative frequency of plane crashes and car crashes on the frequency each was reported in the media couldn’t be blamed for thinking planes crashed more frequently than cars.

Probably the most troubling example of this phenomenon is the impression the media creates of the relative frequency of sexually motivated child murders committed by strangers as compared to non-sexual ones committed by a child’s parents.

In the UK there is roughly one sexually motivated murder of a child by a stranger every ten years. However every seven days a child dies at the hands of its parents (p9 http://www.dewar4research.org/docs/chom.pdf). The former will remain in the news for years. The latter might make the regional or national news (if it was particularly horrific or committed by the mother) but be forgotten after a couple of days. The former enters the national consciousness, becomes part of the fears of parents, whilst the latter is like water off a duck’s back – society is impervious to the idea that parents are the number one danger to their children’s lives.

Readers from the UK will remember the sad case of April Jones who in 2012 was the victim of a sexually-motivated murder. But who now remembers Mary Shipstone, shot dead by her father, or Ayesha Ali, killed by her mother and her mother’s lesbian lover? The media long ago lost interest in the latter cases. There was no sexual motive in their murders.

However, in the case of the murder of children the inverse relationship between the frequency of the events concerned and the attention the media gives them is only part of the story – a lot also depends on the differing values and meanings Society ascribes to parenthood and stranger-hood, and to good old plain simple murder and sexual acts with children.

I hope eventually to write in greater depth about this issue.

10 thoughts on “Three Things That Being a Paedophile Has Taught Me

  1. From my perspective, ‘the only thing you get is shallow clichés and nonsense’ seems to sum up very accurately, what one gets from society concerning the topic of paedophilia. The blame for the demonisation of anomalous, abnormal things lies squarely at society’s door, and this includes the birth of the paedosexual hate paradigm.

    The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures, gives a clear indication of how easily human beings kow tow to the dominant narrative even when it is contrary to their conscience. The prime example in this century is the free reign given to the totally-out-of-control authority figures that comprise the sexual abuse industry. This single entity has successfully managed to: create monsters of adults who happen to be attracted to children, have all but extinguished the right of children to be sexual, have created a social stigma that forbids communication between man and child,

    On this last topic, it was so refreshing to travel round Morocco a few years back, and be able to chat to the younger generation; in the UK, any attempt to do the same thing would result in: “What the fuck d’ya think ya doing, you filthy pervert?” being yelled at you by some third party – a fully paid-up member of the sexual abuse industry – from across the way.

    So, I have some difficulty in seeing how one can derive truthful answers when attempting to interrogate society, if, as you say, this could be done in practice.


  2. >”I will take a look at Erving Goffman’s book. Thanks.”

    It can be quite a tough read at times, but is very interesting. It focuses narrowly on the experiences of those who are stigmatized (‘the discredited’) or those in danger of being stigmatized (‘the discreditable’) – and goes into fine detail about their experiences, their condition, their coping mechanisms. It’s only 170 pages long, but I’ve found that I’ve had to reread many sentences twice – not because Goffman’s a bad writer but that sometimes one has to refocus one’s mind to the level of subtlety of what he’s communicating.

    It’s not an essential paedo-read – I haven’t come across any mention of paedophilia, and only one mention of ‘child molesting’ – he deals mostly with mental patients, the blind, the dear [edit: ‘deaf’], ex-convicts, people with colostomies, homosexuals (these seem to reflect our current situation most closely) – but it’s one of those reads that, though slightly tangential, is really enriching my understanding of a phenomenon associated with paedophilia.

    Indeed I think ‘stigma’ is one of the two or three concepts key to any understanding of paedophilia, and its place in society. I find that just about everything to do with paedophilia – from the condition of those first becoming aware of their love, to the eager capitulation to the mainstream narrative of groups like VirPed, to the decontaminatory treatment of children who’ve been lovers of paedophiles, to the way society treats paedophilia and child sexuality – all these become more comprehensible when Stigma is factored in.

    However it hasn’t so far looked at those who stigmatize nor has it touched on why society stigmatises certain people and groups of people – nor, as a good observer, does he give any moral evaluation of the conditions of the stigmatized and the stigmatizers.

    >“Society exists only as a mental concept; in the real world there are only individuals.”

    I could agree with this statement if one were to remove the ‘only’ from the first phrase.

    I’ve got a thick streak of the Sociologist running through me – in fact, when it comes to phenomena such as paedophilia I find Society a lot more interesting than the individual – ask an individual why they think paedophilia is wrong and you’re likely to get shallow clichés and nonsense, interrogate Society’ (a much harder thing to do, granted) and the answers you get will a lot closer to the root of the matter.


  3. “One friend I’ve come out to recently is a very intelligent free-thinking sort of person – who is always ready to ‘boldly go where none one has gone before’ in his exploration of ideas and science. He is as pro-paed as I am and seems exhilarated at having a real life paedo as a friend.”

    You are so, so lucky dude! Such a friend is as rare as a hen’s tooth in my experience. You mentioned in the About Me section of your blog: “LSM spends much of his spare time thinking about Paedophilia, child sexuality and other related issues.” It must be great to have someone else to discuss such thoughts with. I hope he remains loyal to you.

    I have been seeking the type of ‘soul-mate’ you mention since my early teens; someone to open up to about my numero uno passion.

    When I was much younger I knew my desires were forbidden and taboo, and although very much bi (I have eventually come to realise), spending much of my time within a single-sex school environment – boy-world – gave me an asymmetric focus, and whilst there, I tended to fall in love easily with the young beauties around me. I recall one occasion in the school library, being transfixed by an image of a full-on naked pre-pubescent goatherd boy in an Africa savannah setting centrefold in the National Geographic. What I had not sensed was that one of my peers had crept up behind me, and said one word before walking away: “Queer!” That simple sound crucified me – homosexuals back then were treated like lepers. And so I grew up living in a world where my very particular desire was totally unacceptable because society told me so. It is really only now that I have within me sufficient confidence to challenge the leper view, but linking up with fellow outliers has remained virtually impossible, let alone at a social level.

    Yes, you are right Lensman, the process of paedophilic stigmatisation effectively renders a person beneath contempt in the eyes of society, and boy, don’t they just relish never, ever letting you forget your pariah status. I will take a look at Erving Goffman’s book. Thanks.

    Oscar … a few on-topic quotes: “We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.” “By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, journalism keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community.” “Society exists only as a mental concept; in the real world there are only individuals.”


  4. Thanks for a very interesting blog.

    While I was aware that “regression to the mean” happens a lot, I must admit I had never looked for it or noticed it in people’s attitudes and opinions. Our good host Leonard Sisyphus Mann has brilliantly homed in on one example that is of great importance to us.

    I had thought of it only in terms of phenomena to which statistics are commonly attached, or where there are fairly easy assessment standards.

    For instance, I was writing recently about David Beckham, and his son Romeo appearing as a football mascot. I said the youngster looked the part, as though he could easily become a top footballer, like his dad. Lots of people will find that easy to believe, too, because success in sport and other fields of endeavour does tend to run in families, either through good genes or being brought up with the expectation of success, along with having access to top-class coaching, etc.

    However, the chances of Romeo or his siblings being as spectacularly good at football as their father are very slim. The best of them could well be good, or very good; but it is unlikely there will be an international superstar among them. Regression to the mean suggests otherwise.

    I liked Feinmann’s comment too: aggression from the mean. Absolutely!


    1. I’ve only quite recently become aware of ‘regression to the mean’ – and in the excitement of this discovery, have been seeing it everywhere – I mean it even happened to me when for a period of a couple of decades I lost interest in the radical philosophy of paedophilia and slowly drifted back to the default position (the ‘virtuous’ position) on child-adult sensual intimacy. It wasn’t that I’d been convinced by that position, but just that maintaining a radical position in the face of the Culture’s constant pressure to the contrary required more mental effort than I was willing to give it.

      It was that I’d stopped thinking about the issues or stopped being a paedophile – but I had stopped thinking deeply enough to be able to see beyond the wall of propaganda put out by society. Counter-cultural positions are harder work to maintain than Conformist ones – indeed it can happen that one’s very life is the price of maintaining some counter-cultural opinions.


  5. Regression To The Mean

    Lensman, you are very brave to come out to other people, and I suspect you are an exception to the unwritten rule that says: ‘if you are a member of a hated minority group then it is wise to stay very, very quiet.’ From a gay blog: “Staying in the closet forever is a bad thing, but sometimes it’s a necessary evil. Being in the closet involves lying, by omission or by practice, about who you are and what your desires are. It will injure your relationships with both friends and partners, and it will keep you in a constant state of concern of being found out.” I can appreciate that one of the very few solaces to the majority of paedophiles is anonymous and on-topic forums located within the dark web.

    I have come out to several ‘best friends’, only for them to subsequently turn against me, one spectacularly so who spread the word amongst the community where I live – the net result: I have to watch my back. In another place and at an earlier time, I was on the receiving end of verbal abuse in public (whilst on bail); the negative impact this had on me was massive, and precipitated a visit to my doctor who arranged a chat with the local state mental health care clinic. Here, I was promptly rated a suicide risk. It was at the clinic where for the very first time in my life, I ‘fessed-up my paedosexuality. Despite my suicide status, in a subsequent interview, I was told by the clinic that based on what I had told them, they considered me to be a risk to society and had thus reported me to the police. On that same day, I attempted suicide.

    In my case, I have utterly failed to neutralise the venom as I keep getting bitten. The only people I feel I can really trust are people like me: minor-attracted people, fellow outliers. Perhaps a more accurate phrase might be aggression from the mean.

    Deviance Is Normal

    “The homosexual, till recently vilified for subverting the manly virtues required for heavy industrial labour, came to embody many of the ideals of a society in which gender demarcation in the job market was increasingly disappearing. It is no coincidence that the successful campaign for the acceptance of homosexuality occurred in societies whose economic structures were changing from industrial capitalism to consumer capitalism.”

    Isn’t it ironic that as the homosexual monster lost his monstrosity and a vacuum appeared in the societal hate paradigm, the paedosexual monster became a natural replacement? I find it difficult to envisage a world where there are no more paedosexual monsters, other than one which values community and neighbourly love above everything else. Of course, Observer’s piece is another route, but I hardly feel we are sufficiently well-organised to overturn the hate directed towards us in the near future.

    The Frequency Which A Phenomenon Is Reported In The Media Is No Guide To The Frequency Of That Phenomenon

    “It is in the nature of the media, and especially the news media, to be interested in events which are unusual or exceptional and to ignore commonplace and unremarkable ones.”

    Well yes, but the pernicious and toxic dynamic prevails where an accuser, who is able to bathe in total anonymity with zero accountability, can make outrageous claims of sexual crimes committed forty years ago by dead people or live people who they have never met – see, for example jimcannotfixthis.co.uk Nothing sells newspapers more than sensational sex crimes, and it is irrelevant whether the stories are true or false – road deaths are just so passé.


    1. Hello feinmann0 – I’m very sorry to read that your experiences of ‘coming out’ have been so bad – I understand how suicide, in the circumstances you describe, could seem, at the time, the rational route to take. I hope your troubles have since become less acute.

      I think the circumstances of my ‘comings out’ were significantly different, not least that, in a sense, most of the friends who know I’m a paedo discovered the fact at pretty much the same time and rate as I did i.e. these are friends that date back to my early adolescence before a certain blonde-haired little girl smiled at me… Moreover this happened at a time when the stigma and hysteria was significantly less than it has been over the past 20 or 30 years.

      One friend I’ve come out to recently is a very intelligent free-thinking sort of person – who is always ready to ‘boldly go where none one has gone before’ in his exploration of ideas and science. He is as pro-paed as I am and seems exhilarated at having a real life paedo as a friend. He has a very robust intellect, and if he disagreed with anything I said would not be shy of entering into a protracted debate and fighting it out till all doubt was resolved.

      The friend I mention in this post is someone whose intelligence puts mine in the shade, but this intelligence is not of the robust sort which relishes controversy, an intellectual punch-up and who takes on all received ideas as a matter of course. Whilst the friend mentioned in the previous paragraph could be described as an ‘intellectual boxer’ the latter friend is more of a ‘craftsman’. I think that his reluctance to enter into such debates is maybe part of the problem – it’s better to hammer these sorts of things out than to leave them to simmer.

      I think an important factor is that my friends ‘loyalty’ has never been ‘tested’ by my paedophilia being made in any way public, having so far (touch wood) managed to avoid any entanglement with the Law.

      I can imagine how my being arrested for some kind of child sexuality offense might put my friends ‘who know’ in a corner – firstly by confronting them with the possibility that I may have acted on desires most of them disapprove of and which they assumed I’d never acted on, secondly by the publicity involved in such cases leaving them in a position where they are seen to be friends with a highly stigmatised person (I’m currently reading Erving Goffman’s classic study of ‘Stigma’ so ideas of stigma-by-association are very fresh in my mind). I can imagine how, in such circumstances, betraying the accused friend may seem the only way of avoiding being contaminated by the terrible stigma associated with paedophilia. This, of course, doesn’t exonerate them if they do – betrayal is still a betrayal.

      >“aggression from the mean”

      – very good, Oscar 🙂


  6. I once read (from Marxists) that Hegel originated the idea that progress in society is due to evil, in both senses that progressive principles are labelled “evil” by conservatives, and that many changes are motivated by bad desires such as laziness, greed, lust, etc.
    Concerning child deaths, I quote from Baurmann’s 1983 study (portions translated on the IPCE site):

    “In order to arrive at a realistic appraisal of the mortal dangers children face that is useful for purposes of prevention, it may be helpful to compare the risk of children being killed as the result of various kinds of events. For example, in West Germany, in 1982, the breakdown was as follows:

    5 as a result of sexual victimization
    112 by premeditated murder
    727 in traffic accidents
    There were 34,708 children who were injured to some degree from traffic accidents.”

    When I was a young father, with my wife we had a kind of moral panic about parents who do not fasten the seatbelt of their kids in their car. I was then shocked by reeading in the news of the death of a little girl, her mother was driving and had a crash, the girl was not attached and was thrown into the windscreen; her last words before dying was “Mom, I have pain”. A few years ago, I heard that still now a non-negligible proportion of parents fail to check that their children are fastened in the family car. We were probably saner than today’s sex panicker.
    In France we had this year a little girl raped and murdered, but the media insisted that the murderer was a Polish multi-recidivist, and politicians made their show asking why he had been allowed to stay in France, and demanding the expulsion of offending foreigners. We also have shocking scandals about parents torturing and killing their kids. As for the paedophile scare, media are mainly interested in cases about teachers downloading kiddie porn or raping pupils.
    On another day I will criticize you “turn to consumer capitalism” assertion.


    1. Those German statistics are very striking – ask most parents what their presiding fear is for their children a significant proportion would undoubtedly say ‘sexual abuse (presumably by strangers, not by them)’ – though granted many sensible parents would identify road accidents.
      Can one assume those premeditated murders were largely committed by parents and close family – not least because these are generally the only adults with close, and private, access to their children?

      I agree with you about child seat-belts. There is a similar problem in my country – and some parents will still insist that putting a belt on their children is a ‘civil liberties’ issue! And it’s funny how it seems to be aggressive, over-confident drivers who don’t bother to fasten in their children – those who’ve learnt how to drive from playing video games…

      >”On another day I will criticize you “turn to consumer capitalism” assertion.”

      I look forwards to that! (ーー;)

      you may want to hold your fire though as eventually I hope to present this thesis in more depth.


  7. Interesting exposition, as always. In my case for being a pedophile (or hebephile) has taught me three things:
    – Adultophilia is a disease.
    – Adultophilia is a disease.
    – Adultophilia is a disease.

    Pedophilia (and hebephilia) was created as a chemical reaction (as a medication) to the ancient mental aberration of the adultophilia, and that’s where it should stay. It is nothing more than a medicine. Nothing more and nothing less. Until you all will comprehend this issue or will never be free.

    Pedophilia and hebephilia is a not a product of our ancestors, it is not a product of neoteny, is not a product of “social deviation”, is not the product of a trauma, is a medicine, such as antibodies, and is prohibited by that society and governments do not want us to cure of that aberration.

    >>>In the UK there is roughly one sexually motivated murder of a child by a stranger every ten years. However every seven days a child dies at the hands of its parents<<<

    Pedophilia is a medicine. And like all medicines must be prescribed and monitored by a qualified physician, is why [non-monitored] pedophiles kill and rape children as like the adultophiles non-sexually kill children too, the pedophilia that are defending all of you [in BC, GC, Virped, Nambla etc.] is just as dangerous like adultophilia, this will makes clear.

    Think what you want.


........................... 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 )

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