My recent reflections on the phenomenon of Virtuous Paedophiles (Part 1 and Part 2 here) left me wondering how it is that, despite definitely not being ‘Virtuous’, I’ve managed to reach the depths of middle age without having as yet ‘offended’.

The reasons which Virpeds promote, and the one that general population would feel most comfortable with, would be that I’ve led a paedo-celibate life because I perceived my desires as ‘wrong’ and from a fear of breaking the law.

However I have come to realise that this is not the case.

Near Misses

Over the years, especially during the earlier decades of my life (when I had a ‘six-pack’ rather than a ‘beer-barrel’, and a ‘fine head of hair’ rather than a ‘fine head of skin’), I’ve had a lot of children who either wanted, or seemed to want, to engage in some kind of physical intimacy with me.

I use the phrase ‘physical intimacy’ rather than ‘sex’ advisedly . Undoubtedly the great majority of these children were not seeking ‘sex’ with me, if one takes that word as it is commonly used: as a synonym for ‘fucking’, or some other activity whose goal is the orgasm. Too often the teleiophilic mind translates a phrase like ‘paedophiles want to have sex with children’ as ‘paedophiles want to fuck children’ – which is a very long way from the truth.

No, what these children were generally seeking wasn’t ‘sex’ but simply a progression in our intimacy, a step forwards of a span no greater than they were comfortable taking, something that would have fallen well short of ‘sex’ or even ‘foreplay’ but which still could have landed me in trouble with parents and the law, and exposed the child to the weight of society’s stigma.

I remember a boy who early one morning came into my bedroom, took off his pyjamas, revealing his excited state, and tried to cuddle up against me in bed; I remember the little girl who, when sat in my lap, would sometimes grab my penis through my trousers; I remember another little girl who, in her play-fighting with me, would use every strategy and trick to get her crotch pressed hard against my hand or face…

There were also encounters with more experienced children: a girl of eleven sprawled in my lap at a youth club campfire, who, while telling me how she and her 30 year-old boyfriend enjoyed having sex together, looked me deep in the eyes and told me how she wanted a new boyfriend; I remember the little boy of about 10 whose teacher had informed me that that his behaviour towards adults could be ‘inappropriate’ because he’d been ‘sexually abused’, who tried to give me a love bite on my neck; I remember the knowing little girls of a certain far-eastern hill tribe whose flirtations the village elders egged on and found highly amusing…

A digression for the Offended

I hesitated long about including the previous two paragraphs.

In no other blogs written by paedophiles have I come across anything that broaches quite so frankly a paedophile’s experience of child sexuality.

My fear is that to do so may be a straw too many for WordPress (who are normally very robust regarding ‘Freedom of Speech’). Or that it may draw the attention of trolls, vigilantes and law enforcement agents, for any acknowledgment of the existence of child sexuality or description of it (especially if it is directed towards an adult) qualifies in the minds of some as ‘child pornography’.

There are indeed those who think that merely being a recipient of a child’s sensual or sexual interest makes one an ‘abuser’; who think that I should have made clear to these children, at some much earlier point in our interaction, that such behaviour was not acceptable, or that I should have reported the child’s behaviour to a responsible authority

Or they may think that if a child and an adult form a relationship of such a nature that the child could feel trusting and close enough to express a wish for intimacy, then that adult must have been in some way ‘grooming’ the child.

I can also imagine a mob-minded journalist reading this and writing:

“Even paedos who are genuinely celibate or virtuous, who never offend or so much as lay  a finger on a child, will have a poisonous effect: the way they interact with children teaches them not to feel ashamed of their bodies, and can lure the child into feeling relaxed and open about their sexuality.

The simple presence of a paedophile can have a devastating effect on a child: as author and abuse victim Margaux Fragoso attests in her autobiography ‘Tiger, Tiger’:

“…time with a pedophile can be like a drug high. There was this girl who said it’s as if the pedophile lives in a fantastic kind of reality, and that fantasticness infects everything. Kind of like they’re children themselves, only full of the knowledge that children don’t have. Their imaginations are stronger than kids’ and they can build realities that small kids would never be able to dream up. They can make the child’s world… ecstatic somehow…”

Should children be so over-stimulated? Isn’t the job of children, since time immemorial, to go to school, learn the skills required by the job market, watch television, get themselves bought the latest toys and video games at the mall, and enjoy a MacDonalds with mom and pops, and become a normal adult? Children who have experienced such a vivid ‘fantastic kind of reality‘ risk growing into adults who reject the consumer satisfactions our society so readily provides. Surely ‘ecstasy’ is not a healthy state for a child to exist in.”

Most adults ‘tune out’ children’s expressions of sensuality; and through their embarrassment and disapproval teach children to hide and repress such feelings and behaviour. However for me to stay silent about my experiences would be to be complicit in the suppression of data – data which Society doesn’t want made known. Paedophiles in a sense, are the last witnesses to child sexuality: the only adults who can witness the phenomenon without condemning it, ignoring it, suppressing it or or rationalising it into non-existence.

So to the righteous and offended assembling at the castle gates, lighting up your flambeaux and sharpening your pitchforks I say ‘read on: your fury may soon be quenched’.

[End of digression for the Offended]

So where am I going with this?

The truth is that, though I’ve had many opportunities, I have never taken advantage of these opportunities but instead ‘defused’ them as gently as possible, not wanting the child to feel condemned or scolded for their attempts at intimacy.

These are the kinds of incidents that I’m sure happen regularly to parents and people whose lives are involved with children, but which get overlooked, ignored or reprimanded out of existence. But maybe they happen more often to paedophiles because paedophiles are probably more alert observers of such behaviour, nor do paedophiles generally act in a way which discourages this kind of expression from children.

Bolder paedophiles who have acted on their love may spend sleepless nights worrying that in their former love’s mind the memories of the love and pleasure they shared could curdle (‘recontextualisation‘ as Susan Clancy calls it ) and bring trauma into their loved-child’s life and the law into their own.

I can sleep sound on that count. However, instead I see out the long, dark hours thinking of the love that I’ve refused and will never have a chance at again.

Indeed, I often regret rebuffing these children. After all I have denied them love they wished for and maybe needed, and which was in me to give. Who’s to say that little girl, whose father had disappeared out her life, didn’t need some healing intimacy to compensate for the neglect she’d experienced from her father? Who’s to say that she didn’t need a man to let her know that she was beautiful, desirable and worthy of love?

I do not wish to overly defend the celibate position in what I am writing here. It is merely the position that I have found myself in, despite myself. While I acknowledge that in our society there are serious ethical problems with engaging children in heavily stigmatised and illegal activities I also know that Love, Tenderness and Desire, if experienced mutually, write their own rules and reasons. And I look at bolder paedophiles who have engaged in physical intimacy with the child they love, and think ‘There but for the grace of god go I’.

And I damn god and his grace for having left me lonely and unfulfilled .

The list

What follows is a list of reasons why I (and I suspect most paedophiles) generally keep to the ‘easy’ side of the law.

The reasons are much more mundane and commonsense than those proposed by Virpeds and mob-minded popular culture. Many are identical to those that prevent most teleiophiles from raping indiscriminately, or seeking to have sex with every adult member they encounter of their preferred gender.

Though in any interaction many of these factors may come into play, generally it only requires one or two to prevent the interaction from progressing beyond a point where the intimacy becomes socially or legally problematic. I’ve tried to place first those factors that, in my opinion, are most ‘decisive’.

– the adult is happy with, and grateful for, the relationship as it is and doesn’t feel a need to complicate or change it through it becoming more intimate.

– the child isn’t interested in intimacy with the adult.

It may surprise those whose only knowledge about paedophilia comes from the mass media and popular culture that a lack of interest on the part of the child would discourage a paedophile. But paedophiles are no different to most teleiophiles: we care deeply about what a child thinks about us. Rejection by a child hurts as badly as it presumably does for teleiophiles when a man is rejected by a woman he loves (or vice versa).

A consolation is that even when the child rejects intimacy, that child may still love the adult just as much and the relationship may still flourish.

– the adult isn’t attracted to the child.

Likewise, mass media and popular culture portray paedophiles as existing in a permanent state of desperate arousal triggered off by the sight of any and all children. This is simply wrong. We are as picky as teleiophiles. The same mechanisms of attraction operate for paedophiles as do with teleiophiles, for example a paedophile can come to fall in love, because of her personality, with a child whom he didn’t find particularly attractive at first sight, and can come to find unattractive a child who, at first sight, he found very beautiful.

– the adult does not wish to introduce secrecy into the child’s life.

– the adult does not wish the child they love to grow up and be exposed to, and damaged by, the stigma propagated by Society and the Child Abuse Industry.

– the child’s parents are friends of the adult, or people whom the adult cares for and respects, and to allow intimacy with the child to develop would be a betrayal of their trust and friendship.

– if the adult has gotten to know the child in a professional capacity, the adult does not wish to abuse that professional position.

– the adult does not allow the intimacy to progress out of fear of being found out and of revealed as paedophiles to friends, family members and colleagues.

– the adult does not allow the intimacy to progress out of fear of being found out and the law becoming involved – both with regards to themself, and also for the child, knowing that the law will happily sacrifice the well-being of a child in order to ‘protect’ it.

– the child expresses her wish for intimacy in circumstances when it would be impossible to respond, either because other people are present or the encounter is too fleeting and/or a one-off.

– the moments when child expresses a wish for intimacy don’t coincide with the moments the adult wishes for it.

– the adult is not sufficiently sure about the child’s signals and intentions and only afterwards may come to realise that she was seeking further intimacy.

Society enforces ignorance about sex and sensuality in its children through lack of openness, the punishment and disapproval of displays of sexuality, and through depriving children of essential concepts and vocabulary (how many little girls can name their clitoris? ). This means that children’s expressions of sexuality can often be confused, inarticulate and easily overlooked.

– the adult is taken by surprise by the child’s behaviour and the adult reflexively acts to return the situation to a safe neutrality.

Final Thoughts

Having read through the above list I can see how someone determined to see only bad in paedophiles might read this as not so much a list of reasons why paedophiles don’t ‘offend’ but more as check-list of obstacles to circumvent and preempt in seeking the (imagined) goal of seducing a child.

I think such a reading would be profoundly wrong. My goal has been to show that it is not ‘fear’ or ‘guilt’ that prevents paedophiles from ‘offending’, but rather ‘respect’: most importantly respect for the child’s will and wishes, but also for the child’s family and entourage, for the community and (often) for their role, job, profession, employers and/or colleagues.

Let me restate for the sake of any law enforcement agents reading this, or for those who are here to seek offense, or any members of the mob who’ve managed to still their swiveling eyes and spittle-foamed jaws long enough to read this far:

I do not advocate, and have not advocated in this essay or elsewhere, that paedophiles should engage in illegal intimacy with children.

But neither do I advocate that society heap stigma onto consensual and tender relationships, nor do I advocate that society deny children the right to choose with whom they express and share their sensuality and sexuality; I do not advocate the ignorance which society imposes on its children and dares to call ‘innocence’, nor do I advocate the censorship of all evidence of the existence of child sexuality, and the draconian punishments meted out to those who dare access such evidence, or who dare respond to a child’s need for affection, love and pleasure.

 

26 thoughts on “Reflections and Regrets of a Virtue-Free Celibate

  1. I found it incredible how you described a little of your life and experiences with us! 🙂
    Congratulations also for the courage to write!

    What a coincidence, you quote in your text the biography of Margaux Fragoso, “tiger, tiger”, I bought this book and it arrived today, have you read it? And if so, what do you think?

    Like

    1. >”Congratulations also for the courage to write!”

      Thanks, Rique. I was a bit worried about sharing some of those experiences but it seemed that to keep them secret would be to hide evidence that children do seek out intimacy with adults of their own free will.

      >”What a coincidence, you quote in your text the biography of Margaux Fragoso, “tiger, tiger”, I bought this book and it arrived today, have you read it? And if so, what do you think?”

      Yes, I’ve read ‘Tiger, Tiger’ – it’s a good book, very thought-provoking. It doesn’t amount to a defense of paedophilia (things go wrong) but nor is it an attack on paedophilia.

      I need to re-read the book. My memory is now a little vague – but I’ve got the impression that the central relationship between little Margaux and Peter only starts to become ‘difficult’ once she reaches adolescence – and that its early years are quite delightful. But I’m entirely open to being corrected on that.

      Tom O’Carroll did an excellent blog on the book here – Love is confoundedly complicated!

      Have you seen this photo of Margaux as a little girl?

      little Margaux

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I understand … I will read soon!
        Thanks for recommending me this post from Tom, I did not know!
        Wooon, I had not seen this photo yet, how cute!

        Like

  2. Why is it that “breaking the trust of the parents” is relevant? Are children objects owned by them? Would you consult with an adult’s parents before having sex with him or her?

    I think you may be just too scared to be intimate with a child because of the possible punishment and later rationalize this with excuses like “it would break the parents’ trust” because if you recognized that fear of punishment was the only reason you don’t do it, then you might start turning towards attempting to do it.

    That, or you consider children to not deserve respect as persons.

    Like

  3. Further, on the topic of nanny WEIRD societies and states knowing what is best for us and what is moral and what is true, the following from Douglas Fry in the opening chapter of War, Peace and Human Nature (2013):

    ‘”We generally assume that we know … what is universally human. But a little scrutiny will show that some conclusions are based only on experience with one culture, our own. We assume that what is familiar, unless obviously shaped by special conditions, is universal” (Burrows, 1963). Specifically, when it comes to human nature, war, and peace, Burrows’ warning should be written in red ink, perhaps surrounded with a few flashing lights because: Western cultural tradition has been broadcasting a most dubious answer to questions of war, peace and human nature for two millennia. I wish to highlight how a great deal of contemporary thinking about war, peace, and human nature falls markedly short of objective science. In the halls of academia, unfortunately, bias is alive and well. As scientists and scholars, we could use more self-reflection and vigilance. Are deeply ingrained cultural beliefs about human nature currently affecting our research on peace and war? Disturbing as it may be, I suggest that the answer is “yes”’.

    I would add that Fry’s term ‘human nature’ should surely include human sexuality. In any case, objective science has been seriously lacking and bias has been alive and well concerning the mental disorders of homosexuality and paedosexuality, and their respective treatments and cures.

    Like

  4. – Likewise, mass media and popular culture portray paedophiles as existing in a permanent state of desperate arousal triggered off by the sight of any and all children. This is simply wrong. We are as picky as teleiophiles.

    A teleiophile that isn’t in much contact with women of his AOA can feel that a great majority of the women he sees are attractive. I wonder if pedophiles are more likely to have an unhealthily distanced relationship with their objects of attraction (I know that that is different than arousal), what with the denouncement of their attraction and all.

    Like

    1. That’s an interesting point, SierraWhiskey. I suspect that there are four different levels of interaction with the objects of desire, and each one has an impact on the nature of the desire:

      1: (prolonged) non-contact – which will create an abstract, generalised desire, fuelled by fantasy – this is the state you allude to in your comment.

      2: superficial or group contact – such as that experienced by, say, a teacher – where the adult observes the superficial manifestations of a child’s selfhood – their way of playing with peers, academic qualities, ‘behaviour’. This will tend to reinforce an normative social ideas of children since they are constrained by an environment and rules defined by those social norms (i.e. a school)

      3: individual contact: At this level the adult/child distinction start to matter less – the individual qualities of the child start to take precedence over socially constructed ideas of ‘the child’ which operate at the more superficial level. The roles are still socially defined but the interactions are of a complexity and density which allows the child’s selfhood to play a great part in the interactions. This would cover parents – the ‘social construct’ of childhood would still operate but would admit of exceptions.

      4/ intimate and personal contact: this could include various forms of friendship – including friendshps and relatinships between chldren and (ethical) paedophiles. The relationship is less and less based on social norms and expectations. The friendship becomes an original creation of the two people involved. The two people see each other as whole persons rather than as representatives of socially defined groups.

      I would argue that this fourth type of relationship is essential to the proper socialisation of children – sadly it is one that is quite lacking in WEIRD societies – the best being roles played by uncles and aunts.

      Like

      1. Okay, we may be talking past each other, though I’m not sure.

        I’m talking about how guys that don’t have much to do with women, and don’t have any success with his objects of attraction. This’ll probably make him more awkward and make him experience women without much understanding of how they experience life. He may also have an easier time being attracted to many of the women he sees.
        My wonder was then about whether pedophiles are more prone to having this be the case.

        Regarding your list, it almost sounds as if you’re saying that uncles and aunts play the number 4 role, which involves intimacy (or?). And how about peer friends, they seem to fit into the number 4 category.

        Like

        1. >”Okay, we may be talking past each other, though I’m not sure.”

          I think that you are right – I went off on a bit of a tangent – though the scenario you’re referring to is proper to the first of my typologies. And I agree that there will be that effect of finding a greater proportion of his preferred ‘objects of desire’ desirable – simply because their desirability is less tested by ‘reality’ and more of a projection of his fantasy.

          So, I’d agree that paedophiles who have little to do with children probably are more promiscuous in their desires.

          My own experience is that when I’ve had a prolonged period of non-contact with children I tend to find nearly every little girl intriguing, but when I’ve been working with children a lot my interest tends to settle on one or two who may have particularly intriguing personalities or who seem to want to be close to me.

          >”Regarding your list, it almost sounds as if you’re saying that uncles and aunts play the number 4 role, which involves intimacy (or?). And how about peer friends, they seem to fit into the number 4 category.”

          Yes, peer friends would be category 4. And I think a good uncle or aunt can have a lot of that quality of a genuine friend who happens to be an adult.

          Like

  5. “Cultures are notoriously introspective – and it is possible to go through life assuming that the culture we are born into is somehow ‘right’ in an absolute sense.”

    Very perceptive of you LSM. I shall look forward to the promised piece that touches on anthropology. I would add that the culture that I grew up with has long-since been subsumed by the puritanical cancer mentioned in my previous comment. I have come to loathe this monolithic evil with a singular passion, as its sole purpose is clearly to eliminate cultural diversity throughout the globe.

    I think Orwell’s 1984, written in 1949, and Huxley’s Brave New World, written in 1931, were both right to some degree in prophesying what the future might hold:
    • Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information via censorship, so that the truth would be concealed from us; we would thus become a captive culture controlled by inflicting pain.
    • Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism and that the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance; we would thus become a trivial culture controlled by inflicting pleasure.

    This link: philosophymatters.org/2013/03/weird-culture-and-psychology/ is interesting in that it quotes research that demonstrates WEIRD societies are in the minority when it comes to decision making:
    • “Americans don’t mind chalking up a loss in order to punish those who have wronged them in their own minds” whereas “other societies exist where people never turn down free money” and “where it was the norm to offer a large gift to strangers but refuse outside assistance themselves.”
    • “We may have underestimated the impact of culture because the very ideas of being subject to the will of larger historical currents and of unconsciously mimicking the cognition of those around us challenges our Western conception of the self as independent and self-determined. The historical missteps of Western researchers, in other words, have been the predictable consequences of the WEIRD mind doing the thinking.”

    Like

  6. “I remember the knowing little girls of a certain far-eastern hill tribe whose flirtations the village elders egged on and found highly amusing …” … “I hesitated long about including the previous two paragraphs.”

    But these are near misses, where you acquiesced to the whims of the child and where you simply took on the role of observer. Why let society trigger feelings of guilt about innocent, enjoyable encounters such as these? Worse, why should you feel obliged to react in a hostile way to these naturally loving advances, and thus make the child feel confused, afraid and rejected? Rhetorical questions.

    I recall a trip to Myanmar, just across the bridge from the border with Thailand, where a Myanmarese guide took me to see his dream project: a building that was to house a school for local children. He introduced me to a small community of families who lived under the same roof next door – a wooden shack on stilts with a pig sty beneath – in extreme poverty and squalor. A group slowly formed as we talked, all ages. I vividly recall a 20s something girl with a young boy on her lap (mother/son; I know not), having taken a space opposite me. The little boy was naked from the waist down, and she proceeded to placate him by masturbating him gently. This appeared to be perfectly normal behaviour, as the rest of the group paid not the slightest bit of notice.

    “Among the Australian aboriginies, whose society is one of the most primitive known to us … the physical relations between men and women are spoken of freely, without embarrassment and with obvious pleasure, even in front of children. From an early age, native children are familiar with copulation. Sex is considered a normal, natural, and most important factor in human life. There is no attempt to keep anything secret from young persons. Children are allowed to indulge in sexual desires without criticism. They may be invited by another, older brother or sister, or some other person to have sexual intercourse with an adult or a child of the same age standing nearby. Their sexual organs may be played with or their sexual potentialities discussed at length in detail in their hearing by older persons. At an early age they learn of the sexual act by direct observation, and they imitate adult sexual activities among themselves, publicly when they are very young and somewhat more privately when they become older and more self-conscious.” Bettelheim, B., Symbolic Wounds: Puberty Rites and the Envious Male, 1962, 64.

    Doubtless, since this book was written, the Australian government, aided and abetted by feminazis and a paedophobic society (and of course the over-arching cancer that is the puritanical US of A), have covered up the genitalia of these savages, and imposed an age of consent of 16 for all sexual interactions in an effort to civilise them, purify them, and to align them more to the image of the white man’s God.

    Like

    1. In your comment, feinmann0, you touch on something that I think is so important – how asphyxiatingly narrow, even amongst we paedophiles, our cultural frame of reference tends to be. I mean – there are people who think that watching television, sending children to school and driving a car is ‘normal’!

      I’m hoping to write about this very question soon, and touch on what anthropology can teach us and show us. Everyone should look to different cultures, if only to realise that our own culture is just one of an infinite number of ways communities have adapted to the conditions they live in. Cultures are notoriously introspective – and it is possible to go through life assuming that the culture we are born into is somehow ‘right’ in an absolute sense.

      >”But these are near misses, where you acquiesced to the whims of the child and where you simply took on the role of observer. Why let society trigger feelings of guilt about innocent, enjoyable encounters such as these? Worse, why should you feel obliged to react in a hostile way to these naturally loving advances, and thus make the child feel confused, afraid and rejected? Rhetorical questions.”

      Hand on heart – if, when I encountered those little far-eastern beauties, I hadn’t been there in a (kind of) professional capacity, and I hadn’t been with other Westerners, I would have yielded to the temptation. As it was, for me to do so would have brought down on me the oppropbrium of my colleagues and brought the project we were working on into disrepute.

      Like

      1. In your comment, feinmann0, you touch on something that I think is so important – how asphyxiatingly narrow, even amongst we paedophiles, our cultural frame of reference tends to be. I mean – there are people who think that watching television, sending children to school and driving a car is ‘normal’!

        This is the rub right there, of course. Too many people in our modern culture – and possibly many other cultures during their heyday? – are conditioned to equate “commonplace” with “normal.” This is the case if the commonplace behaviors in question often cause large amounts of demonstrable harm… note the “normality” in modern WEIRD societies of openly profiting off of other people’s miseries in numerous ways – privatized prisons, bank auctioning of foreclosed homes & vehicles, privatized healthcare in the USA, war profiteering via the munitions industries, corporate law on many levels – or even the commonly practiced economic activity of denying huge numbers of people access to food and water, or heat and shelter, if they are unable to pay for these absolute necessities despite the vast amount of resources that modern productive capacity allows. The average person, let alone the average politician or media pundit, would fall all over themselves to come up with rationalizations to continue allowing all of the above, and in even sputtering outright popular lies in some cases to defend their continued practice (e.g., “We have a shortage of food!”), while offering equally vehement rationalizations to continue focusing most of our societal “concerns” on preventing the “evil” of child sexual expression.

        In the USA at least, you would be derided as a “socialist” (a moniker I proudly adhere to), a “left-wing nut,” a “radical,” or non-pragmatic for even questioning any of the above problems too much. You can openly rant about how bad poverty is, and suggest any number of remedial “solutions” to the problem within the context of the existing system (e.g., donating blankets and food to homeless people during the holiday seasons, or arguing for the continuation of meager food stamps programs), but you don’t dare question why poverty exists in the first place; if you do, then you go from being a “reasonably concerned citizen” to a “commie” or a “radical” in the eyes of mainstream, officially approved (read: “normal”) thinking.

        People too often tend not to think, but simply to react in concert with popular thought and the doctrines and dogmas cultivated by those who make the laws, control the (ample) resources, and write all the textbooks for the prevailing “education” system (read: involuntary and authoritarian school system).

        And btw, “asphyxiatingly” was a cool word! 🙂

        Like

        1. Yes, I’m afraid that once a system is as profoundly entrenched as ours is all solutions to problems are ‘welcome’ provided they change nothing.

          This is why I’m not optimistic for the COP 21 conference currently going on in Paris – so long as no one dares send the ‘elephant’ of growth-based economics out of the room then all measures are going to be delaying tactics at best, cosmetic at worst.

          Like

  7. When a grown man finds himself willing and able to explore his sexual desires, and given plenty of opportunity for fulfilling a favorite daydream come true, only then to mysteriously refrain from ever crossing the line, for many years on end, this usually happens as a direct result of harboring real genuine respect for girlhood. Ultimately all of this is merely just due reward for exhibition incredible skill patience successfully attaining to honesty within his own self.

    Like

  8. I’m sad because I use sexualities as ideologies and weapons, but I’m also sad that there are people who tell me that does not care about abused children, do not know about you, but some people are truly evil, or maybe everything is relative? I understand you and your friend the guy who hates me, but also understand the victims, I don’t lie I hate them too, because them is opposed to my feelings and goals, but I understand their rage, in the bottom, this “war of sex” is just a game of who is more heinous and heartless, who can take “revenge” of those who have made suffer and who can get what they want most.

    Because when you feel anger because society do not let you express your feelings or your sexual desires, there is another who feels anger because their feelings were hurt or desecrated their sexuality.
    Because millions of people feel bitterness if pornography disappeared, millions also are bitter because pornography exist, in the past or in the present.
    For millions of children and people who feel bitterness because society don’t allow them to love each other, millions of children and people feel bitterness about the abuses they suffered.

    Sometimes I wish that sex and the attraction does not exist, so much pain just for that? because to hate something that you yourself feel makes you be as I am, another victim or an monster?

    Like

  9. I just reached my limit “to the next time I’m going to shoot me in the head” I can not keep more, so this is my final conclusion, at least because your text deserves it.

    >>> “a girl of eleven sprawled in my lap at a youth club campfire, who, while telling me how she and her 30 year-old boyfriend enjoyed having sex together” ” I remember the little boy of about 10″

    Useless. It’s useless. After having said more than 500 (literal) times at puberty are not children, but of course, you want sex with 11 years as they are already developing hormones and (delicious) secondary sexual organs, but the worst is “little boy ” with 9 years? I will not lie, it is quite young, and more if it’s a boy, but far from being a” little boy “, and is that if a girl of 11 wants to be with an adult do not have nothing of “child” or “pedophilia”, much less, nor even remotely.

    In fact it makes me angry that, and much, people do not distinguish a damn among children and youth, and between pedophilia and hebephilia, which is not just about people aged 13, 10 as well counts, which is biology, not by politics.

    Everything else is simply more of the same, I will not repeat what I said a thousand times, but will summarize, definitively.. pedophilia is not a sexuality is a scam, it is not a sexuality, a sexuality is something that you can develop to live a full life, really worth it for just a “preliminary” or some sex play? ie remove 90% of what you could do with a pubescent.

    A type of sexuality which is basically frustration? even without persecution, is basically a continuous nest of frustration and insecurity, dammit, that every year I thought was pedophile (I’m an asshole) were the worst of my life, God, and no wonder, hence that pedophiles are fond of anything that smacks of child or how to satisfy their pedophilia (from a book or movie where they appear children), and it is normal, because that is a child, which is the opposite of what you’d expect to have a relationship.

    And that shows why most pedophiles are also active teleiophiles, they have to make up what they can not do with a child (90%) with an adult, which comes in confict with my opinion against teleiophilia.

    Pedophilia as a video game, one mediocre, bad graphics, bad gameplay and to play it is also illegal everywhere.

    Instead of that, hebephilia is a next-generation video game, HD graphics, good gameplay and is illegal only depending on where you live.

    Finally, as I said earlier, pedophilia is something of the past, like teleiophilia, like many things, is something wrong? Well, it depends on your point of view, I do not will miss this, because my feelings are negative. I’m just a “mind-fucked” hebephile and discriminator with a strange obsession with “penetrate” nasty girls with breasts (antithesis of beauty), in short, a complete idiot, but a thousand times better than when I was a “pedophile”.

    Like

    1. >”Pedophilia as a video game, one mediocre, bad graphics, bad gameplay and to play it is also illegal everywhere.”

      Thanks tnso – that’s a very witty metaphor. You made me laugh – though, of course, I disagree with what it implies.

      But,hey, I’m a paedophile and that’s not going to change. It’s not something I can change, nor do I want to change.

      To be honest, tnso, I think paedophilila is the best form of love. If ‘Love’ is about generosity of spirit, gentleness, sensitivity, attentiveness, restraint, responsiveness, selflessness and serenity – then no form of desire demands those qualities more than paedophilia.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Well done, that’s what you have to do, stand up for what you are and you think, is for that why I respect you. People who do not defend what they are, are worthless. I prefer you that an idiot slave.

        Like

  10. Hi LSM, in case I lose my ‘Feinmann0’ name for a second time, and, I should add, I am not a hactivist, perish the thought, Anonymous commenting above was me. Thanks for your reply.

    Like

    1. I guessed it was you, Feinmann0 – I recognised your own inimitable style! Unfortunately my comments dashboard doesn’t give me the capacity to attribute your identity to the comment – it’ll have to remain anonymous – like the great medieval cathedral sculptors and the author of Beouwulf 😉

      Like

      1. Less of the style and more of the inimitable please ;o)

        Well Anglo-Saxon is certainly true, and I think I would be good at fashioning hideous gurning gargoyles sufficient to scare the living daylights out of the faithful and bring them to their knees. So yes, maybe I should be content with Anonymous. We shall see what the rebellious WordPress plugins do with this comment.

        The story of child contact experiences with your 6-7-8-9 year young girl, helped tease out a memory of mine. I was on a month-long course in west London in the late 1960s, and I stayed as lodger at the residence of a Mrs Clay, who must have celebrated her one hundred and eleventy-first birthday by now. She was occasionally saddled with looking after a 10 year-old grandson whose blond-hazel-haired/doe-brown-eyed looks were utterly sublime to this cl, and what’s more whose ambition was to become a ballet dancer. I recall he took a shine to me, and had to be physically persuaded to leave my room come lights out time as he was showing off his ballons and bravuras, all the while wearing a T-shirt with the word Arsenal written across it. Tell you what, getting to sleep after such a hypnotic performances proved quite a struggle!

        Like

  11. “I do not advocate, and have not advocated in this essay or elsewhere, that paedophiles should engage in illegal intimacy with children.”

    So it seems we are stuck with legal intimacy with children then. Can you help me understand what such activity between a paedophile and a child might comprise? Thanks in advance LSM.

    “But neither do I advocate that society heap stigma onto consensual and tender relationships, nor do I advocate that society deny children the right to choose with whom they expess and share their sensuality and sexuality; I do not advocate the ignorance which society imposes on its children and dares to call ‘innocence’, nor do I advocate the censorship of all evidence of the existence of child sexuality, nor the draconian punishment of anyone who dares to access such evidence, or who dares to respond to a child’s need for affection, love and pleasure.”

    In the US, the UK, and a baker’s dozen of other fuckwit countries, the law on behalf of society, explicitly and implicitly forbids all of the above. The sum total of this egregious and loathsome prohibition/denial -of-knowledge thwarts any communication between minor-attracted adult and child, and has successfully turned us both into negatively-charged electrons.

    Incidentally, Mr Mann, I envy you your delicious experiences! And, I think kids latch on to what comes from within you (Kindness if you will), not what you look like on the outside. Society has made me feel so utterly fearful and guilt-ridden of my minor-attracted nature, that I could never summon up sufficient courage to go any where near a child; even looking at one I find difficult, in case someone screams out: “Wot the f*** are you looking at you filthy pervert!”. Society has managed to consume and spit out much of the Kindness that was once contained within this particular paedophile.

    Like

    1. >”So it seems we are stuck with legal intimacy with children then. Can you help me understand what such activity between a paedophile and a child might comprise?”

      That’s a great question and maybe something that would require an essay to go into.

      I guess that I can broach it a little by saying that the most profound and satisfying relationship of my life started when I walked into a room and first met a six year-old little girl hiding beneath a table, afraid of meeting the new lodger. For four years we were best friends, soul-mates, equal partners – she was a little sister, a daughter and a best friend all rolled into one. What she never was was my lover. She showed no real sensual interest in me – so our intimacy never progressed beyond hugs and kisses. I was happy with that.

      However I’m aware that the closeness we shared, the love and devotion I could offer her, my desire to make her world ecstatic and vivid, and for her to know she was loved and beautiful, could only have come about because of my being a paedophile. For me she was such a rich, wonderful, fascinating, beautiful person – I was happy to devote myself to her. She never abused my devotion – she was never demanding, selfish or spoilt.

      Yes, all being equal I’d have liked us to share some kind of intimacy – but I’d have felt like a shit about it as her family were good people.

      So, if we can’t share sensual intimacy with a child we love and who loves us back, we can still share our love, with all that entails.

      >”Incidentally, Mr Mann, I envy you your delicious experiences! And, I think kids latch on to what comes from within you (Kindness if you will), not what you look like on the outside.”

      Yes, despite being celibate I realise I’ve been lucky. But unfortunately luck runs out.

      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