(the first part of this essay can be found here)

Virpeds’ stance on the morality of child-adult intimacy is indistinguishable from the populist and tabloid stance: all and any such intimacy is not only wrong, but it is intrinsically and unquestionably wrong.

This stance has had a significant beneficial effect for Virpeds. It has allowed them to have a voice outside of the hermetic world of the ‘paedosphere’. They have become the go-to group whenever mainstream media needs a paedophile voice, a voice that is not going to create waves or question the hegemonic beliefs of society.

The Price of Virtue

The price to pay for this is that the paedophile whose voice is being made public has to adhere to certain script: he has to present his desire as exclusively a problem; he must express no pleasure or joy in his love; he must be seeking a cure or visibly taking preventative measures; he has to repeatedly assert that the has no intention of ‘offending’; he must not be a father; he must not work, or have contact, with children; he must never go into detail about what he finds attractive in children; he must present himself as an object of pity; he must give the impression of suffering, of being filled with self-loathing; he preferably will give some evidence of having been ‘abused’ himself as a child (for the lumpen ‘paedophobiat’ this can slightly reduce the culpability of a paedophile); there must be no question that children could consent to intimacy; no examples of or assertions of the existence of, child sexuality; no hint that children might enjoy intimacy; no references to cultures with different attitudes to the contemporary West &c &c

In short they have to embody the nightmare of a paedophobe who wakes up one morning to find themselves attracted to their six-year old neighbour: an equivalent nightmare to that of a slavery-era racist in the Southern States who wakes up one morning to find themselves black.

The public face of Virpeds is, in effect, the paedophobe in blackface.

This is arguably a price worth paying. As previously noted, in a climate murderous with the hatred of paedophiles and the denial of child sexuality, Virpeds have been successful in presenting a vision of the paedophile that the more enlightened in our society can, if not ‘accept’, can at least acknowledge, tolerate and feel pity for.

The consequences of Virtue

What does this do for young paedophiles who come under their influence?

Credit where credit’s due: they could do a lot worse. They could remain culturally isolated and adopt the tabloid identity of the paedophile, which is almost certainly the first one they will encounter, it being ubiquitous in the media, in the culture and in the community.

It paints the paedophile as a monster, someone who is incapable of restraining his lust, someone with both great powers of guile and deception, yet also a low-functioning, anti-social creep. His desires emerge from feelings of inadequacy and manifest themselves in a need to dominate something weak and vulnerable. He uses manipulation and coercion, often physical, to enact adult lust on child victims. His will to dominate can spill over into sadism and even murder. He probably dislikes or feels contempt for his victims and enjoys their distress.

From discussions on certain paedophile forums I get the impression that ‘hurtcore’ child pornography sites are worryingly popular, and many of the comments left on Youtube videos featuring children and, apparently, on child pornography sites have a tone which is sadistic and disrespectful of children. I suspect that this may be a phenomenon arising from people adopting the tabloid the paedophile as ‘Monster’ persona.

The Virtuous Pedophile persona is, or course, a great improvement on the ‘Paedo as Monster’. Virpeds do present a considered and humane vision of what it is to be a paedophile. But it has all the inherent problems of an identity emerging from a group which accepts the premise of its own stigmatisation. There are similarities between Virpeds and those church groups who ‘pray away the gay’: such groups may indeed be very welcoming of gay members, and be effective in making gay members feel themselves part of a community, but only on the condition that they accept their desires as inherently ‘wrong’.

It may be the biased demands of the media I’ve outlined in the previous section which makes so many of the public pronouncements of Virpeds appear to be self-hating misery-fests but I also suspect that believing one’s feelings of love and desire to be inherently wrong can not be conducive to being at ease with oneself. Self-loathing, or loathing of an integral part of who you are, is not a good basis on which to build self-control. It can lead to mental problems, depression, and feelings of worthlessness – all of which devalue life and consequently can lead to increased risk-taking. With a person for whom paedophilia is the central ‘problem’ that risk-taking is likely to be directed at children.

Moreover the efforts of Virped are all dedicated to promoting tolerance for paedophiles. This is akin to those Roman writers (such as Cicero and Seneca) who thought themselves as endowed with ‘humanitas’ and ‘virtus’ for demanding that owners treat their slaves well, whilst never questioning the institution of slavery itself.

A third persona is available to the young paedophile: that of the the pro-choice paedophile.This position radically questions the received and mandatory position of society concerning childhood, child sexuality and the nature of love between an adult and a child. It believes that there is no ineluctable mechanism of harm intrinsic to sensual interactions between children and adults, and that the harm is caused by society’s response to such relationships.

Here we see why the routes by which different philosophies arrive at the same conclusion can really matter: if you refrain from engaging in intimacy with a child because you feel your desires are evil, dirty and wrong, you expose yourself to the psycho-social problems mentioned above; if you refrain because you love children too much to risk them becoming exposed to stigma society shackles onto such intimacy, you are less likely to suffer from problems associated with self-loathing: your celibacy comes out of self-respect, and any anger is directed not at yourself or your love but at the ignorance of society.

To which a Virped could quite rightly object “The universe doesn’t owe us self-justification. What if those desires are wrong?  What if 21st Century Western Society is right about the ineluctable and intrinsic harmfulness of all sensual intimacy between adults and children? Should one adopt false beliefs merely because they might make you feel better about yourself?”

To which the answer is, of course, ‘no’. But one cannot determine whether a belief is true or false unless one enters the fray, has that belief tested, unless one risks being offended and having your belief shown to be wrong.

In many ways the Virtuous Paedophile is the easiest position for a paedophile to adopt as it requires the least intellectual and emotional adjustment – one doesn’t have to question society’s values, or the values you were brought up on. Virpeds’ dogged refusal to defend their position either on their site and forum, or on the wider Internet, suggests that they are less interested in the validity of their position than in maintaining the pragmatic and politic convenience of their rapprochement with the mainstream narrative. They seem to fear that simply to engage in a defense of their position might be taken by the media and lumpen public (from whom they are seeking tolerance) as an acknowledgment of radical pro-choice ideas and be seen as a contamination of the purity of their stance.

Conclusion

Virtuous Pedophiles have undoubtedly had some success in educating sections of the general public by means of presenting a version of paedophilia that is closer to the truth that the tabloid Monster myth, and I think that it is better that young paedophiles fall into the hands of Virpeds than be left to construct an identity out of the only persona which the media and popular culture make available: the ‘Monster’.

But the price they’ve had to pay for this is considerable: they foster an image of the paedophile as either being a self-loathing, troubled celibate or a tabloid Monster; their position is intellectually weak, being based on statements of authority derived from popular culture and a refusal to engage in ideas critical of their position (see my comment to Ethan’s blog post Pedophilic Attraction For Squeamish Dummies. His response illustrates Virpeds’ blanket refusal to publicly engage with ideas critical of their position); they consistently minimise the role society plays in the trauma experienced by those who had sensual intimacy with an adult when children; theirs is a narrow and stubborn ethnocentrism which extrapolates the attitudes of a very WEIRD and entirely abnormal 21st century society to all societies and cultures everywhere and at all periods of history; they have little interest in the nature of childhood; they have unquestioningly adopted language of the oppressor and, not surprisingly, have ended up thinking like them.

Despite all of the above, and despite an awareness that for many virpeds paedos like myself (especially now I’ve written this blog!) are pretty much beyond the pale, I don’t personally have any profound bad-feelings towards virpeds and I undoubtedly have more respect for individual members of virpeds than they do for me.

For all my criticisms I’m glad that Virpeds exists. If I believed that this essay could harm them I wouldn’t have published it.

What I regret is the isolation of virpeds. I have discussed and argued with some virpeds in private and I must confess that the experience has always been rewarding*.

Pro-choice paedophiles lack worth opponents – the haters have never felt a need to marshal their evidence and arguments so, for all their bloviation and certainty, they generally make for unprepared and weak opponents in serious arguments; with fellow pro-choicers any points of disagreement tend to be details rather than principals. Virpeds are generally well informed and have thought about the condition of paedophiles more than the hater. This means that when I’ve engaged in a discussion with a virped I have had to really work to defend my position.

This is a good thing – we approach the Truth and Understanding not through a process of protecting our beliefs but through exposing them and having them tested and criticised. The ‘paedosphere‘ should be alive with debate, disagreement, exchange of ideas and polite, but open, criticism. I hope that one day these debates, disagreements and exchanges of ideas will include non-paedophiles. The day that paedophobes dare to challenge our ideas in honest debate will be the day that the world starts to change.

So the beliefs of virpeds should be part of a range of ideas around paedophilia all of which are engaged in a dialectic – much as, say, the political left consists of Socialists, communists, anarchists, ecologists, civil rights movements, organised labour, social democrats, historians, economists, artists, novelists &c &c  – all of which bring their perspectives and interests to the table.

This is why I regret the isolationist stance of Virtuous Paedophiles.


*One of the Virtuous Pedophiles with whom I have had very stimulating and challenging exchanges has been Ethan Edwards, one of the founders of Virpeds.

Despite being aware of my critical pro-choice stance he has been very helpful, friendly and cooperative in helping me write this essay. I’m sure that he disagrees with most of what I’ve written here but I hope he doesn’t feel I’ve been unfair or vindictive. He kindly offered to proof-read a draft of this essay and I appreciate the time and attention he gave to it – predictably this led to a very interesting exchange of ideas – I only wish that virpeds would defend their positions as vigorously and courteously in public as Ethan did in private.

My only disappointment is that Ethan didn’t feel it right to post a link to the first part of this essay on the Virped forum. I’d have welcomed comments and criticisms from the members there.

24 thoughts on “The Good, the Bad and the Virtuous – Part 2

  1. Great two-part article, Leonard. Reading your work leaves me inspired and hopeful. I’ve followed a journey from virped (before it existed per se) to fostering a passion for further liberation and empowerment of all people who seek erotic connections. …especially children 😉 Ok, so maybe i play a gentle version of the aguafiestas (partypooper/wet blanket) if the particular child in question is directing their interest toward me!

    The word ‘Kind’ as a label to wear proudly is a new one on me. (Thanks Dissident.) I don’t use MAP except once in each written piece for public consumption or once in each conversation as a frame of reference for my conversant to carry forward because it just seems less powerful than the very real possibility of reclaiming ‘pedo’ and ‘paedo’ as broad terms. All that’s needed for this is to define it slightly narrower than the common usage. (I.e. requiring only the removal of the part of the common usage that applies these words to people who often prove to be primary teleiophiles accused or convicted of sexual conduct with minors.)

    Though i see no intrinsic flaw, MAP occurs to me a doomed acronym because of the visibility of the VirPed position reinforcing the stigma and the concurrent public education that is happening as major media outlets pick up this story, realising they can capitalise all over again on the public fascination with this most-mentioned of all taboos. Way too many self-denigrating Kinder use ‘MAP’ in a way that invites the fence-sitting public to close the box again with the same old mythical profile warning placard. “Yeah, so that’s code for creepy pedo person who talks out of both sides of their mouth and now wants pity and a new name.” HazMat. Psycho. Sociopath. Clearly unstable. To the degree that my previously loathing myself upset my emotional equilibrium and primed me to react to life negatively, i can certainly understand people being wary and closed toward self-professed VirPeds or MAP’s who aren’t ok with being mixed bags of prosocial and antisocial tendencies just like all other humans.

    I am dead certain the general public will not adopt three or more new-to-them greek amalgams, and i suspect some other hebephiles will not adopt ‘pedo’ or ‘paedo’ ever, even following a sea change in social attitudes toward all of us. So, i guess ‘Kind’ works so well for me because of its German, English, and global connotations. After all, even here in Latin America there are chocolate bon bons called ‘Kinder’…

    And besides, i put a lot of work into being kind.

    Heath, Hebephile, Kind, MAP, paedo, GLer, whatever.

    Like

      1. I think Tom O’Carroll puts it well in the article – https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2015/09/15/after-the-ball-and-after-the-fall/:

        >”homos are gay; paedos are kind

        >“I would have quite liked [to be labelled as] ‘kindly’ because ‘kindly’ . . . relates to the Dutch and German kinder — children. So yes, being intimate, but also being nice with it. I would say that if someone had sexual relations which were in the realm of what I called earlier the ‘kindly’ sort then that would not be abusive.”

        >”So, I like kindly. But kind is better, I must admit: a very straightforward monosyllable, easily seen as analogous with gay.”

        I like ‘kind’ too – but don’t use it consistently, tending to use ‘paedophile’.

        Maybe I should – I guess I need to have some style policy on that one…

        Like

          1. They will adopt. Though i rather think ‘kind’ will be a little difficult because of the terminal consonant sounds, i haven’t seen a better one yet.

            Oddly enough, in Mexican Spanish the word ‘pedo’ denotes ‘fart’ but is used in slang to mean ‘situation’ ‘problem’, ‘issue’, ‘big deal’ and an array of other things. That’s one point in favour of British (Greek) spelling convention when shortening paedophilia/-phile to ‘paedo’.

            Like

  2. One of my old friends tells a story. He and another pedo or hebephile are in Prague, maybe twenty years ago, and after a few hours at the baths they end up in a gay bar where they drink (they were both habitual drinkers) and talk, engaging an older fellow who at the time had been in Prague for many years, successfully doing what comes naturally. So the old salt gets annoyed at the endless blather about this boy and that boy from hither and yon, and says to my friend: “Well, fellas, do ye want to talk or do ye want to fuck?” Which, of course, is what I’d like to ask Ethan and all these other Virtuous blatherers. In any case, I’ve made my choice.

    Like

  3. Speaking of virtuous, you have to return, Twitter is full of virtuous, almost not there pro-contact pll there, seriously pal, they are killing me, I know I have said horrible things (“horrible” is putting it mildly…) here and in BC / GC of pedophiles, but now I need all of you, I need those comments about “playing” with children and other dirty things, I cannot handle virpeds and anti-contact ppl more time!!

    Like

  4. If you find yourself in the situation that Mr. Pedo-Man describes, you could, of course, simply avoid throwing the pro-choice position into the group’s face and do what B4U-ACT does: make all of the points that Virped might make without using negative language like “abuse” or “molesters,” and without getting into any of the moral issues regarding contact. In fact, B4U-ACT has been doing that successfully for many years longer than Virped has been doing what it’s been doing.

    For example, “There is a lot of scientific research suggesting that most pedophiles do not have sociopathic tendencies that result in violent or manipulative behavior; they do not choose their attraction, and the great majority are fully capable of living productive lives without breaking the laws.” You will likely get some dismissive voices in the group, but you may also get a response or two like, “Seriously? I never know that. Why haven’t I read that anywhere?” Then you can respond, “Because these studies are often censored and people who post them in the comments section of blogs, or on Twitter, are often banned, due to all the hatred and misconceptions that result from it.” You can then go on to cite some of the relevant objective literature, or you can refer them to B4U-ACT’s website instead of Virped’s. It will often not be necessary to throw the anti-contact position at them in order to assuage them, as Virped would do. Based on my own research, the founding members of Virped only broke away from B4U-ACT due to anger over their refusing to push the anti-contact position, which they have proven is not necessary to win the hearts and minds of people. In fact, B4U-ACT welcomes kind people of all ideologies into their ranks, thus not making the Faustian “deal” that Virped does.

    This is why you will not hear me say, “I guess I can sort of understand why Virped does what they do.” In many cases, it’s not necessary. There is a reasonable “mid-point.”

    Like

  5. I was thinking about the position of the ‘Vir-ped’ only yesterday; I could just imagine in my Judo changing room, One guy commenting on say child molestation, With a reasonable sounding response from me with something like….There must be many who resist their urges, and to imagine what they go through when they hear that their sexuality is subhuman, Yet they have done nothing to deserve this vitriol: But on the other hand, To make the case for my position (pro-choice) is tantamount to a lynching, Despite one on one to strong for most of them — One is a dad who brings his 13yo son, So when you apply the personal climate on the ground, I kind of understand why Vir-peds do what they do…BTW…I posted your posts on Twitter:-)

    Like

    1. Yes, the few times when I’ve felt it appropriate to challenge people on the matter I’ve always spoken from a kind of Virtuous position. It’s the only (reasonably) safe basis on which one can make people reflect without risking having the proverbial kicked out of you or having a large mob at your door.

      Oh, and thanks for posting my blogs on twitter. The foamers may get us banned – but they can’t silence us.

      Like

    1. Yes, it is a bit over the top, isn’t it.

      I saw an article about breast-feeding in a women’s journal today and the thought occurred to me ‘what is the age at which a mother’s breast feeding goes from being a nurturing act to prosecutable child sexual abuse?’

      Presumably if woman allows a seven year old to suck her tit it’s considered as a sexual act and she’s breaking the law, but not if it’s a two year old’s. I don’t know why but that seemed somehow wrong.

      Like

  6. Imagine living in a world of beings who believe they only have one arm.
    In order to maintain this belief, they purposefully tie their other arm behind their backs.
    Imagine you are a person who knows that they have two functioning arms.
    Now imagine tying one arm behind your back in order to fit in with the rest of the world.
    This is what VirPed is asking you to do.

    Like

    1. This reminds me of a story by H.G. Wells called ‘The Country of the Blind’ which explores the old saying that ‘in the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king’.

      Wells’s story shows however that in the country of the blind the one eyed-man is unlikely to end up a king and more likely to be thought of as a lunatic and freak, exhibiting strange, disturbing and puzzling behaviour, all of which seems to be caused by an abnormal over-development of twin organs in the front of the face which are withered and vestigial in the population of the ‘country of the blind’ .

      The sighted man in Wells’s story ends up (if I remember correctly) consenting to having these troublesome growths forcibly removed for his own good. However, he changes his mind at the last moment and manages to escape. I suspect that if he had had them removed his behaviour would have ended up conforming more closely to the other inhabitants of the country of the blind.

      Like

      1. I wonder, as blind see that the other is one-eyed? They can not see, two options, just can touch him, or the one-eyed at the end tells the blind the whole truth.

        You just caught the concept? which is similar to the “underage sex is rape” two options, or have experienced it themselves or someone has told them this before … then who has said he is “abuse”? There’s the joke of it …

        Like

        1. I can’t remember how the blind realised Nunez (that’s his name) is sighted. I need to reread the story.

          But I think that Nunez when he stumbles upon this lost, isolated tribe, thinks that his sight will give him some kind of power and advantage over these people. They accept him with hospitality I think and he tells them about sight and does things that can only be done by the sighted but the people interpret this as a kind of witch-craft. His explanations make no sense to them – I mean, how do you explain the colour blue to someone who’s been blind all their life? how do you explain receding perspective? or light and dark to that person?

          I think that the idea that Wells’s story hinges on is that the blind have no concept of ‘sight’ or what it means to see so that nothing a seeing person can say or explain to them makes sense. I think the moral of Wells’s story is how dangerous it is when your knowledge and vision are so far beyond Society’s that they simply don’t have the mental tools to grasp what you’re saying.

          In the end Nunez, because he’s fallen in love with a woman there, almost accepts being blinded in order that he can live happily and peacefully with this woman and in this rather idyllic society.

          This, I feel, is a little bit like what the Virpeds do – they work to suppress what is a gift, and the socially-dangerous knowledge that that gift entails, in order to have an easier, more conformist and comfortable life.

          Maybe that works? Maybe it’s a price worth paying?

          I have my doubts though – I think the challenges of living in harmony with one’s desires are healthier than living in fear of one’s desires – especially if those desires are not wrong or intrinsically harmful, but just out-of-kilter with society.

          Like

  7. This is a very good post (both parts), and I commend you for it! It’s better than anything I could have done myself. My experience with just a few matters have been different, and I will mention them here while striving to maintain your admirable degree of courtesy in expressing your disagreements with the virpeds. Personally, I feel much the same as you regarding them. I will also state my opinions about other matters, such as the “hurtcore” business.

    In the case of some virpeds, most certainly Todd Nickerson, whom you mentioned, they most definitely show a degree of self-loathing and depression as a result of their feelings, especially when you consider that Todd was once pro-choice, but came to the “anti-contact” position after a series of situations that played out quite publicly on GC, where he has posted for many years. He and I were friends and I greatly supported his activism, but that friendship became strained and often lead to serious battles due not simply to his change of position, but what I seriously believe are the reasons for it. I don’t want to drub him here, despite how badly he attacked members of GC in his Salon articles (something he was always keen to do). Needless to say, I sincerely do not believe his change of position was, and periodic waffling back and forth between being pro-choice, agnostic, and anti-contact depending on his prevailing state of mind, were not simply based on earnest thinking on his part. He would disagree, but I’m letting the evidence stand on its own.

    For what it’s worth, I never had the slightest indication that the attitude towards his own attraction base led Todd to “act out” negatively towards children, but he has certainly acted out in this fashion towards members of his own community, as noted above. Despite being accepted and defended by many pro-choicers at GC due to his years of being a part of that community, he publicly insists that he and others who participate there were “harangued” entirely because of having an anti-contact position. I say from years of personal experience that his behavior, and the fact that certain other anti-contacters frequently want to debate the issues there, had much more to do with any “haranguing” than anything else. Not all virpeds feel that way, of course, and I have met some who genuinely want to be part of the larger MAP/kind community without aggressively proselytizing the anti-contact view to the near-exclusion of discussing anything else about GL culture.

    Now, here is where my experience differs from your own. I appreciate that you have built a respectful exchange with Ethan. I have had more than my share of arguments with him on GC about the issues you describe here, so there are actually places where virpeds can go to debate their mainstream ideas regarding the issue of contact (and I will give Ethan his due: his views on matters such as the production of virtual CP, the simple viewing or possession of any type of CP, and regarding many aspects of sex offender laws in the U.S. are not aligned with mainstream thinking). But I have yet to engage any virped, including Ethan, who has ever brought up challenging ideas that significantly deviate from the commonplace assumptions, anti-democratic caveats, petty moralizing, and a combination of condescending and coddling attitude towards children (and oftentimes adolescents) that the non-MAP majority routinely spews at us. These pontifications of theirs also sometimes take a disturbing turn towards a similar coddling and condescension of women and a misandrist demonization of men (particularly pronounced in Nickerson’s case, I’m sorry to say), the latter of which I’ve often opined to be at the core of AoC laws. I ask everyone reading here not to take my word for this, but to go over to GC and see the routine number of times Ethan has been taken apart with relative ease in arguments of this nature; not because he isn’t a highly educated and intelligent man (he is), and not because he lacks debating skills (his skills in this area are more than adequate); but because his arguments are almost invariably the same set of contrivances of the typical media pundit, including the utter disregard for any scientific study that wasn’t penned by the small number of very controversial scientists who have endorsed Virped. I can’t say the discussions you had in private, with either Ethan or other virpeds, didn’t challenge your debate skills, as I didn’t read them myself, but if so then I wish they would cease hiding these cogent and original challenging points when debating on public MAP (a.k.a., Kind) forums.

    As for the disturbing trend of “hurtcore,” it’s not limited by any means to younger people, but I do agree with you that it does seem to be a cultural reproduction of what the media pedophile is believed to be like, as if certain individuals with certain “extreme” desires are adopting this synthetic identity. There are many references to it, yet outside of the ever-mysterious “darknet,” you see no good examples of it anywhere near any outlets designed for public consumption. This makes me wonder if its degree of proliferation and popularity is exaggerated, as has been the case with claims of a vast international market of snuff and torture films featuring children, not to mention the Satanic ritual abuse fad of a few decades ago, neither of which has ever had the slightest bit of evidence despite the strong belief behind them.. I think it’s much more popular to talk about the alleged existence of such a market than to actually produce any real evidence, and the police task forces seem determined not to allow objective journalists to examine the inventory to determine if it’s anything like what we’re expected to take law enforcement’s word for, especially when these same law enforcement officers frequently make libelous statements alleging that public MAP boards like GC and BC routinely feature “advice” on how to abuse kids and evade the law while doing so.

    I further suspect that the huge degree of “horrific” things reportedly available on the darknet turn out to have been greatly exaggerated in the future, when you consider the air of mystery and conspiratorial claims surrounding it. This leads to a further suspicion of mine that if actual “hurtcore” sites do proliferate there, they are filled with actors rather than true victims.

    As for the many disturbing and disrespectful comments aimed at children that you see on YouTube channels, I believe these are very likely posted by Internet trolls rather than actual MAPs, “sadistic” or otherwise, since trolls are infamous for stirring every conceivable pot just for the fun of it, and to gain negative attention. There is hardly any place on the Web with a comments section that doesn’t attract these trolls like moths to a light.

    The “sadistic” type of MAP appears to be quite rare, and has never been accepted by the pro-choice community at large, since we insist that respect for consent and the full personhood of younger people is the all-important line that must never be crossed. This is not to begrudge anyone simple fantasies, but I highly doubt there are a sufficient number of truly evil pedophiles to support a thriving multi-million dollar international “hurtcore” market that has earned sufficient resources to kidnap and subject large numbers of real underragers to on-camera torture, and then cover up whatever is done to them afterwards, with none of them actually being identified. As I’ve written before, people need to consider the actual logistics of such claims, including the truly outrageous allegation that MAPs with “extreme” interests are any more likely to bring them to fruition in the real world than non-Kind adults would with their own “extreme” interests.

    Keep up the good work, I’ll be following and supporting! 🙂

    Like

    1. Thank you for your thought-provoking comment, Dissident.

      I was aware of Todd at GC back then and used to often read his posts. But I wasn’t quite a regular enough member to pick up on his change of position.

      But I can imagine that the mixing of Virpeds and pro-choicers presents any forum with some challenges as, I guess, when you adopt an anti-choice position it’s bound to become something central to one’s philosophy and thus hard to avoid in discussions – I guess it’s like a committed member of a church becoming an atheist but wanting to still participate in the discussion groups – the atheist either has to shut up, tread gingerly, otherwise all discussions he participates in become about the existence of god.

      I can appreciate how having militant virpeds at GC would present challenges, despite the best intentions of all involved – just as having militant pro-choicers in the virped forum would cause similar problems. But I suppose the difference is that the virped forum is explicitly ‘anti-contact’ whereas GC is, at least in theory, more catholic – embracing all respectful paedophilia.

      I don’t know what the answer is – I think that pro-choicers and anti-choicers should be able to mix, debate and exchange ideas – no one should sit in their secret lairs coveting their ‘truths’ in private – all ideas need to be tested by worthy opponents. But unfortunately maybe there is an inbuilt tendency for forums to polarize and secede.

      Your thoughts on Hurtcore are very interesting. My knowledge of it is entirely second and third hand – as is my knowledge of vampires – so it is very possible that I have grossly over-estimated the phenomenon, and that indeed, as with vampires, it may be entirely fictional.

      Certainly I know that it is rare out there. But whenever the media talks of child pornography the impression they give of it are of unwillign kids being manhandled, coerced and worse.

      Occasionally an article or report on child pornography will print a printable still or broadcast a broadcastable clip to illustrate what they are saying and, yes, it’s always of some child being treated horribly.

      What I do know is that in doing this they are choosing a highly unrepresentative form of child pornography to represent what child pornography is.

      So your man in the street comes away thinking that child pornography is all about cruelty and coercion.

      Another problem is that this phenomenon is largely unresearchable – only the police and the courts have legitimate access to child pornography (I’m not sure whether academic researchers can get permission to access it for research purposes) and we’re not getting the straight story from them.

      >”As for the many disturbing and disrespectful comments aimed at children that you see on YouTube channels, I believe these are very likely posted by Internet trolls rather than actual MAPs,”

      I’ve been thinking about this a bit – I actually am internet-friends with a few paedophiles who consider themselves as ‘trolls’.

      I kind of understand a little bit why they do this – I think that such comments are 1/ an assertion of identity, a way of saying ‘we paedos exist, we find children sexy and I’m going to proudly say so’, and also a provocation through the telling of a taboo truth – they are stating the simple fact that a little girl or boy in a video is beautiful, attractive and sexy and if people get up-tight about that then so be it.

      >”The “sadistic” type of MAP appears to be quite rare […] including the truly outrageous allegation that MAPs with “extreme” interests are any more likely to bring them to fruition in the real world than non-Kind adults would with their own “extreme” interests.”

      Very true.

      Like

      1. Thank you for the thoughtful reply, Leonard.

        In my experience, I think there are two basic types of anti-choicer.

        One belongs to a category who seriously want to be a part of the greater MAP/kind community, and though they are often firmly committed to their anti-contact ideology, they sincerely do not want it to get in the way of building allegiances with fellow MAPs based on what we do have in common. In other words, their ideology is punctuated with a further ideology that says, “I know we think differently, and quite differently at that, about some of the major issues, but we’re still all in this together.” So their behavior is often different on multi-purpose MAP forums than the second category of anti-choicer; they do not hide their anti-choice opinions, but they do not go out of their way to make an issue out of it, and make several efforts to participate in discussions outside of the more controversial issues, which are plentiful on such all-purpose boards dedicated to BL or GL: discussions of the cultural influence of girls/boys, cute moments we may have witnessed or experienced in real life involving a girl/boy, literature and art related to BL/GL, or simply providing each other support.

        The second category of anti-choicer, however, do not simply disagree with the pro-choice ideology; they dislike it with a passion they cannot conceal even if they actually try, and consider pro-choicers a major impediment to “acceptance” (their definition of it, that is) by greater society, so they feel it’s their mission to constantly knock heads with us. They make no attempt to build bridges with all-purpose MAP forums that are known to be predominantly pro-choice, but seem to find it difficult to engage in, or initiate, any discussion that is not spreading anti-choice propaganda, or to make comments about girls/boys that pro-choicers are obviously going to find insulting. A number of them (certainly not all) actually believe pro-choicers are just a group of “wannabe child molesters” who only obey the laws because they are too “afraid” to break them and suffer the legal consequences, which is precisely what Todd said to me during our most recent falling out when he left GC in a huff (the latter for the umpteenth time, I might add). He may have said this in anger, since our last discussion got quite heated, but there you go; it’s still out there, and it’s not going to go away.

        One thing this second category of anti-choicers seem to fail to understand (or choose not to) is that there are few outlets where pro-choicers can go to commiserate with each other; display the type of minority pride that pro-choicers tend to share; provide links to the many scientific and scholarly articles that support our contentions without being censored and/or banned from participation on the spot; and basically provide a public forum where people willing to do objective research on the subject outside the dubious realms of forensic and clinical studies can come to see (and even engage in) a side of the issue that they are rarely able to gain exposure to anywhere else. Anti-choicers of the first category seem to fully understand this, and have no interest in disrupting these little “green zones” we’ve established because their main desire is to be a part of the larger community and give and receive support. They are always welcome, and one of them was even a respected member of the GC administration and one of my closest friends there who visited me in person during a trip to my native country.

        Members of the second category, however, interact with us on forums like BC or GC more or less solely to challenge us on the contact and youth liberation issues, while only rarely expressing interest in discussing anything else, including matters of mutual support. Some of the more dystonic members (which include Todd) delight in insulting us and making all sorts of strange and dubious misinterpretations of our statements that someone who is emotionally overwrought and biased at the same time are bound to make (e.g., saying we have a “cult-like mentality,” making misandrist statements while accusing the majority of us of being rabid misogynists, etc.). Any bad egg who may appear, and who is generally not accepted by the pro-choicers as a whole, are singled out as representative of the entire forum. The same regarding the periodically stupid or poorly worded statements that certain pro-choicers are prone to make. These things are overlooked and even defended by some members of the community who like Todd (he did earn respect there), but others, like myself admittedly, are less able to just overlook these types of insults. Some anti-choicers of this category do not display ego-dystonic tendencies, but they make insults and nasty insinuations via the use of subtlety and other forms of familiar rhetorical double talk, which provoke many of the pro-choicers who read them; these particular anti-choicers will then often cry “foul” when they end up challenged in a heated fashion, and at times when some members see them as simply a deliberately disruptive element who make no attempt to add anything to the community beyond that.

        We know they aren’t fools, and they are clearly well aware that they have a huge advantage over us in terms of getting their ideology out there without the same concerns for censorship. To pretend otherwise is obviously very insulting and flat out intellectually disingenuous to pro-choicers, yet they often try to present their ideology on the all-purpose MAP forums as an “alternative” view, instead of what it actually is: the mainstream view. That type of intellectual dishonesty, which seemingly presumes that most MAPs have no lives outside of the all-purpose forums, implies that there is a powerful need to get the anti-choice view “out there,” as if that particular view is the one that is on the defensive. Or, perhaps more honestly, they fear that this will eventually become the case if they do not relentlessly “push” the popular ideology everywhere and anywhere, even though almost everyone else is already doing that, as if to reassure the public that “obedient” MAPs are there and “have their back” against the heretical pro-choicers. Moreover, anti-choice MAPs are well aware that they have the option of picking forums where only their ideology is allowed expression, or to simply read any number of articles in the mainstream media, including several submitted by them. . Yet some of them even present themselves as “victims” (like Todd did) by making it seem that anti-choicers are persecuted minorities within a persecuted minority, when they can increasingly receive pity and a form of cautious, quasi-acceptance by loudly expressing their ideology. But instead they insist their only victimizers are the pro-choicers in their community; in actuality, we are considerably more convenient for them to vent their frustrations on than the mainstream forms of ignorance and duplicity.

        For those MAPs who want support only, and inclusiveness regardless of ideology where the more controversial issues are not addressed; or Non-MAPs who want to do research without any built-in ideological bias thrown into the mix – they have the choice of B4U-ACT.

        >”As for the many disturbing and disrespectful comments aimed at children that you see on YouTube channels, I believe these are very likely posted by Internet trolls rather than actual MAPs,”

        I’ve been thinking about this a bit – I actually am internet-friends with a few paedophiles who consider themselves as ‘trolls’.

        I kind of understand a little bit why they do this – I think that such comments are 1/ an assertion of identity, a way of saying ‘we paedos exist, we find children sexy and I’m going to proudly say so’, and also a provocation through the telling of a taboo truth – they are stating the simple fact that a little girl or boy in a video is beautiful, attractive and sexy and if people get up-tight about that then so be it.

        Personally, I think there is a differentiation between MAPs expressing their attraction proudly and without reservation, and individuals who simply make crude, provocative statements that are designed to get a “rise” out of the mainstream thinkers by exploiting a common conception.

        The former can, if done correctly, make a statement that some thoughtful people will listen to and consider; the latter, however, can only piss people off and serve to bolster the stereotypes and misconceptions.

        An example of a statement comment is this: “I think that girl is marvelous, funny, adorable, and very hot… and she knows it!” An example of a trollish comment that does less than no favors for our community (complete with typical horrid grammar and misspellings replete with individuals who don’t care what anyone thinks about what are saying) would be: “Look att that sexy lil bitcch, I would so like 2 do her woo hoo, I wonder if she has a lil sister would lik to do her tu!!!”

        I like to think that the differences between a pro-girl pedo statement and a crude troll comment are as glaring as the difference between chalk and cheese!

        Like

        1. Only one thing to Dissident and Leonard, is that I personally do not like the word “pro-choice”, for obvious reasons, when you put it in any translator is translated into “in favor of abortion”, by the same token, we could call “pro-life” for that sex and sexuality are part of life, but it sounds absurd, no?

          I personally find objectionable euphemisms such as pro-choice, anti-contact, or even girlover or boylover (in the sense of an euphemism of pedophile, not the word for attraction to a gender, like “I’m bl I like boys”) MAP, Minor attracted? I do not like really, that speaks of a backward and outdated concept, as calling the sun, God, just that.

          Besides hebephilia is completely different to pedophilia, is as heterosexuality and homosexuality, there are certainly pedohebephiles (like bisexuals) but the attraction itself, the causes of attraction and conception of sex is completely different, as an pratically exclusive hebephile, I can testify that.

          But I understand this “Minor Attracted Person” is like something imitating “LGBT people”, but would not work for me because my strictest ideas about sexuality, but I guess for you (who have no strictest ideas about sexuality) the concept works well.

          Like

  8. I really despise Virped, not because they are virtuous “pedophiles” but also virtuous “hebephiles”, these people are sick in the head, they do not understand that pubescent are not children? sex at puberty is natural? Why not stop a damn time of mixing pedophilia and hebephilia?

    I really am not opposed to pedophilia completely, I repeat, is not my field of operations, I only know of hebephilia and teleiophilia, so I’m more or less neutral in that respect, but do not buy that crap “is-all -bad “as the ignorant society says.

    I have already said many times here, and GC, BC and in other places, these people are a destructive cult, not figuratively, is literal, is a CULT, and I know what I’m talking about I have studied many, there is only to see sectarian ignorant comments like “underage sex is rape”, “sex with minors is never good”, i dont understand as we allow this, we should not allow their stupidities at level of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    And why they are not also “virtuous adultophiles” like me? I consider sex with adults harmful and dangerous, you remember the number of killings by parents? venereal diseases? Ethan (and Todd, and in general most of them) is a bad person, throws a right to have sex with an adult woman, but deny me mine to have sex with a girl of 13 years, and all based on that It is “dangerous”? when recently, having sex with a girl (or boy) of 13 or even 12 was legal? just because feminists and other adult atracted degenerate hates nature, and all that is not about fornicate an adult?

    They are deceived by society, they are just a bunch of ideological adult attracted, you know what is I hate most of them? they want to be accepted by society, I HATE society, I HATE laws, I HATE people, they even kill children! my God, who cares if pedophilia or minor attraction is “harmful” if they kill children, society is garbage, hell, I’d rather be considered even a “pedophile”, that someone who join this garbage society of murderers and selfish slaves.

    Virped: Stop talking about hebephilia, for good or bad, speak of pedophilia (in your own deformed shape), and leave us alone, to me, to the millions of adults and pubertal girls and boys who have enjoyed his love and go along with nature, and not with a society of criminals and murderers.

    And a damn will be sex with minors, and less still with pubertal, “harmful”, go to China to see all the girls abandoned by adult attracted people like you, Ethan. I will not allow an adult attracted and fornicator insult my intelligence, I will not allow it.

    Like

  9. I firmly believe VirPed to be an aberration, for a number of reasons.

    First, the paedosexuality that I have been born with is no less valid than any other. Why I should suffer excoriation at the hands of those who consider my sexuality to be invalid, and who revel in discriminating against me on the basis of my sexuality? Why should I become obsequious in the face of such despicable bullying, as Virped appear to be?

    Second, WEIRD societies have been instrumental in giving birth to the nuclear family, where selfishness reigns supreme, where anyone approaching the nucleus constitutes a threat (stranger danger), and where the topic of sex is taboo so that children are brought up in fear and ignorance by being denied their natural right to realize their full sexual potential. VirPed are noticeably silent when discussing child sexuality and associated desires, the elephant in the room in my view. This dumb stance mirrors the taboo nature of sex within the nuclear family. I can only infer that VirPed believe that a child is asexual, and has no right to feeling sexual until he or she is 18 (in some US states) or 14 if he or she happens to live in Germany, for example.

    Third, as Fredrick Nietzsche suggested in Morality as Anti-Nature: Our morals prevent us from indulging in passions under the pretense of an artificially created threat; it is through these grounds out of which Christianity grew. “There are similarities between Virpeds and those church groups who ‘pray away the gay’: such groups may indeed be very welcoming of gay members, and be effective in making gay members feel themselves part of a community, but only on the condition that they accept their desires as inherently ‘wrong’.” I could not have put it better myself, Lensman. The equivalence is truly remarkable.

    VirPed are dogmatic, anti-sexual, anti-nature, paranoid, discriminatory, and corrosive. They are emblematic of everything WEIRD.

    Like

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

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s