ConsentingAdultsHumans has received a lot of visits this week from our friends over at – a ‘chan’ devoted to little girls, mixing discussion with images – nothing illegal (I think) – though some images are quite, err.., ‘stimulating’.

Someone there suggested that they should:

“…compile […] any pro-pedo blogs, stories, studies or links, that we could use to defend our selves when engaging antis and skeptics”

and another poster, ‘Mitch’, did me the honour of including my blog  alongside that flagship of radical paedophilia, HereticTOC,  and the vast and erudite Growing Up Sexually Corpus.

The post on CAH that best answers to the above brief would be my inaugural one: 18 common misconceptions about paedophiles & paedophilia: an overview of rebutalls and refutations I have found effective when up against erroneous ideas concerning paedophilia.

But unfortunately the way this blog’s homepage is set up means that only the twelve most recent posts are listed, and that older posts drop out of visibility. The menu in the top right corner goes back a bit further; but doesn’t include all my posts, right back to the first.

So this being, to a certain extent at least, a campaigning and polemical blog I have decided to repost ’18 common misconceptions about paedophiles & paedophilia’ every few months, so that it will always be present on my blog’s homepage, and so that those wanting a ‘crash course’ in pro-paedophile thinking and arguments will always have it to hand.

It’ll also oblige me to regularly update it, and also give me the occasional and much needed ‘wee cough’ from researching and writing original essays from scratch.


Our society’s ideas concerning paedophilia and the paedophile are wrong in almost every respect. What follows addresses some of these misconceptions. The author wishes to make it clear that whilst he supports reform of the law and changes in attitudes, he neither recommends, or wishes to incite, violations of any existing laws.

Introductory remarks
1. Paedophiles are not like normal people.
2. Someone who rapes a child or manipulates one into having sex is a paedophile.
3. Paedophiles are unable to control their urges, and shouldn’t be allowed to work, or have contact, with children.
4. Paedophiles wish to impose ‘adult sexuality’ on the children.
5. Paedophiles seek to have power over children.
6. Paedophiles don’t love children but just want them for sex.
7. Being a paedophile is a matter of choice.
8. Paedophiles can’t manage it with women & choose children as an easy option.
9. Paedophiles ‘groom’ children.
10. Children don’t like paedophiles.
11. A sexual relationship with an adult is invariably harmful to the child.
12. An intimate relationship with an adult must bring ‘the worst’ out of a child.
13. Paedophiles have below average IQ and are uneducated.
14. Paedophiles will end the relationship once adolescence is reached.
15. Paedophilia is wrong because a child cannot consent to sex.
16. Paedophilia is wrong because a child cannot give informed consent|informed consent to sex.
17. Children cannot be interested in sex or intimacy with an adult.
18. Paedophiles are ‘immoral’.

Let me first consider how the popular discourse has come to be so far adrift from reality on an issue that so preoccupies it.

It is not unusual for a community to be grossly mistaken about an issue with which it is intensely preoccupied. Examples are the Nazi’s understanding of Jews, McCarthyite America’s ideas about communists, the ‘Satanic Ritual Abuse’ scandals of the 1980s, and Puritan New England’s ideas about ‘witches’.

Common to all of these examples is that the threat of stigma, ostracism, violence and death, and the collateral suffering of their family and friends, renders the groups that are the focus of fear invisible, and unable to speak out when something inaccurate is said about them. This threat also extends to anyone who is not a member of the stigmatised group but who dares to defend them or advocate more humane attitudes towards them.

Once there are no longer any voices that can correct mistaken ideas, the public imagination becomes over-heated : assumption trumps knowledge; rumour, conjecture and fantasy (generally drawing on the worst that can be imagined) become ‘facts’; the worst actions of individual members of the persecuted group become seen as ‘typical’ behaviour for the whole group; the language used around the issue no longer fits what it purports to describe, becomes dishonest, hysterical, and twisted out of shape (see n° 2 on the use of the word ‘rape’). A positive feed-back loop is established : as the public’s ideas concerning the hated group become more and more monstrous, it becomes less and less possible for anyone to say anything that could correct or moderate those ideas.

This is the situation in which the average paedophile finds him/herself today. They do not recognise the libidinous, violent, manipulative monster that society tells them they are. But they are unable to speak out and correct this disparity between what is said about them and what they know to be true. And so the myths remain unchallenged.

Surprisingly little scientific research has been done on the subject of paedophiles. Nearly all studies are based on people found guilty of some crime against children, usually prisoners. Such studies don’t discriminate between ‘paedophiles’ and ‘non-paedophiles who’ve offended against children’ (see n° 2). Such research can tell us nothing about ‘paedophiles’.

The experiences and viewpoints of non-convicted paedophiles rarely reach popular discourse and debate as it is impossible, given the climate of fear, to access a large enough random sample of non-convicted paedophiles for any research to be reliable. It is also very hard for academics to find funding for research which explicitly (or even ‘implicitly’) questions the common assumptions surrounding paedophilia or which doesn’t have an a priori condemnatory agenda.

It is with this in mind that I have compiled this list addressing some of the more common misconceptions concerning paedophiles and paedophilia.

Where does this information come from? Some comes from research (I’ve tried to acknowledge the sources), much from my own experience, and much from conversations and exchanges on various help and support networks found on the web.

N.B. the word ‘paedophilia’ is often confounded with ‘hebephilia’ (attraction to early adolescents) and ‘ephebophilia’ (attraction to mid-to-late adolescents). The following comments concerned ‘paedophilia’ in its strictest sense (i.e. an attraction to prepubescents), though many comments also apply to hebephilia and ephebophilia.

1. Paedophiles are not like ‘normal’ people

Paedophiles are men, women, and young people of both sexes who one day find themselves sexually attracted to children. This is the only thing that sets paedophiles apart from ‘normal’ people. Otherwise they are essentially no different from any cross-section of the citizenship: they enjoy friendships with their peers, have interests that have nothing to do with their sexuality, love their families, do normal jobs, have normal ambitions, pursue their education, listen to music, watch films, do sport… Nor is this ‘normality’ a ‘front’ they use to ‘blend into society in order to perpetrate their crimes’.

For most people the idea of the “paedophile” automatically evokes words such as ‘sick’, ‘predator’, ‘child abuse’ and ‘manipulation’. Undoubtedly there are paedophiles who abuse and manipulate children sexually, who prey on them. They are as small a minority amongst the general paedophile population as are rapists amongst heterosexual teleiophiles (someone sexually attracted to adults).

What follows is an argumentum ab optimo i.e. an argument based on a best-case scenario. I am unapologetic about this because the popular discourse has been exclusively conducted as an argumentum a pessimo i.e. an argument based on the worst aspects and instances that can be found and imagined. If one were to imagine a scale between the ‘worst’ and the ‘best’ vision of paedophilia the evidence seems to be that the typical paedophile hopes for and aspires to something approaching ‘the best’ rather than ‘the worst’. Moreover to remind you of the worst would be to merely reproduce the misconceptions and distortions which are the only narrative available in popular discourse.

2. Someone who rapes a child or manipulates one into having sex is a paedophile.

Most rapes on children are committed by i/ non-paedophiles who find themselves depressed, intoxicated, tired or otherwise disoriented, and are ‘surprised’ by an unfamiliar desire which they have not previously had to learn to control (see n° 3), or ii/ ‘opportunistic’ offenders who direct their adult sexuality at whatever target is available. The exercise of power that is the essence of rape goes against the mindset of the typical paedophile, whose interest is in a relationship in which the child enjoys the intimacy and has equal agency and power (see n° 5).

This explains why it has been estimated that only 2 – 10% of child sexual abuse perpetrators meet the regular criteria for paedophilia (Kinsey-Report, Lautmann, Brongersma, Groth). To the normal paedophile the idea of causing a child distress, pain or to be afraid is absolute anathema.

The water is further muddied by an increasing tendency of the law, the popular imagination and the media to label any sexual, or even just ‘sensual’, interaction between a child and an adult as ‘rape’ or ‘statutory rape’, even if the interaction only consists of light, consensual touching. This is one of many examples of how the language used around this issue has broken down, no longer fitting what it purports to describe (see introductory comments).

see also:

3. Paedophiles are unable to control their urges, and shouldn’t be allowed to work, or have contact, with children.

Most paedophiles are celibate and remain celibate, satisfying their love through non-contact means or with adult partners. However, for obvious reasons, one never hears about non-offending celibate paedophiles – the general public only ever hears about that minority of paedophiles who have offended or have been accused.

This is like determining the nature of people who like jewellery by exclusively studying convicted jewel thieves.

The punishments and repercussions that the slightest loss of self-control could entail are so great that, to survive in contemporary western society, the paedophile must control his desires to a much greater degree than do teleiophiles.

However, ‘fear’ actually plays only a minor role – more significant are the same social, inter-personal and ethical factors that indeed also regulate teleiophilic desire.

Many paedophiles who enjoy a close friendship with a child will choose not to allow that relationship to become sexual, out of an awareness of the trauma and stigma the child would experience if the sexual activities were discovered. And out of an awareness that the child, once adult, because of the strong condemnation and stigma society directs at child/adult intimacy, may re-interpret such activities, though happily and consensually engaged in at the time, as having been ‘abuse’ (see n° 11, and n°s 15 and 16 regarding ‘consent’).

Consequently the great majority of paedophiles pose no actual threat to children they work with. Moreover paedophiles often make the best youth workers, teachers, coaches etc. because their sexuality offers them a deeper interest in, understanding of and sympathy with children than is generally found amongst non-paedophiles.

see also:

4. Paedophiles wish to impose ‘adult sexuality’ on the children.

Though most paedophile-child relationships are chaste there is a significant proportion in which the child wishes for, and consents to, intimacy.

One of the fallacious uses of language common in the popular discourse round this issue is to talk about paedophiles wanting, or having, ‘Sex’ with children. To most non-paedophiles ‘sex’ means ‘intercourse’ and so by a leap of logic the public thinks of paedophiles as wanting to have intercourse with children. This is wrong. What the typical paedophiles think of as ‘sex’ differs from what adult teleiophiles consider as ‘sex’.

The most important difference is that any form of penetration cannot have the same place it has in adult-adult relationships: the typical paedophile would not wish to do anything that the child would not enjoy, be hurt by or that would betray the trust and friendship shared by the adult and child.

Rather than the adult imposing his desires on the child it is very much about allowing the child to determine what takes place and responding to the child’s interest, – much as an adult playing football with a 7-year old adapts his mode of play to ensure that the experience is enjoyable and constructive for the child so does a caring paedophile.

Essentially what most ‘turns on’ a paedophile is a happy, relaxed child who is herself turned-on and enjoying herself – forcing or manipulating a child would be repugnant to the normal paedophile.

‘Sexual’ activities, if they occur at all, range from playful sensuality (tickling, kissing and stroking…) to acts that would be classed as ‘foreplay’ in the context of adult-adult sex.

see also:

5. Paedophiles seek to have power over children.

The child/paedophile relationship is one of the very few in which the adult and the child are equals. Unlike a child’s relationship with her parents, teachers, policemen, social workers etc. it is a relationship that a child chooses and which she can opt out of. She can even reveal it to her parents or other authorities, if she is not happy. The paedophile will care deeply about the child’s opinion of him and about the child’s needs, feelings and opinions. Paedophiles generally aspire to, and find a deep satisfaction and happiness in having, an equal relationship with their child friends.

6. Paedophiles don’t love children but just want them for sex.

Paedophiles will fall as deeply in love with a child as adults do with other adults. Even non-paedophiles will acknowledge that a child can be beautiful, sweet, charming, delightful and have an engaging personality. Even non-paedophiles will have memories of being in love with a child from when they themselves were children. Is it really so ridiculous to find oneself, as an adult, thoroughly enchanted by a child?

The fact that society finds it so hard to imagine that an adult could experience an intense, non-parental love for a child indicates the low esteem and value that society places on children as humans with distinct self-hoods. Children are as much ‘people’ as adults, and as such it shouldn’t be thought ridiculous that someone could appreciate and love them for their individual qualities and character.

7. Being a paedophile is a matter of choice.

Given the all-pervasive misunderstanding and misrepresentation in the media and public discourse, given the stigma, the hatred, the risk of violence, prison and even death, why would anyone actually choose to be a paedophile?

Generally being a paedophile either entails a life of fear at having one’s love detected if one is in a relationship, or a life of celibacy, restraint and frustration. Many paedophiles, because of this, try to become ‘normal : most succeed in leading a ‘normal’ life, but few, if any, manage to change the nature of their desires.

Paedophilia is as much a ‘sexual orientation’ as homosexuality or heterosexuality.

see also:

8. Paedophiles can’t manage it with women & choose children as an easy option.

Most paedophiles are not exclusive in their sexuality, being also attracted to women and/or men. Many marry and have families.

Nor is a relationship with a child an ‘easy option’: over and above all the pressures and dangers imposed by society and the law (see n° 7), any parent or teacher will tell you that children can be very demanding, tiring and challenging.

For what it’s worth, and speaking purely for myself, the secondary sexual characteristics of an adult woman (breasts, full hips, pubic hair…) provoke a stronger sexual response in me than does a naked little girl. The feelings that a little girl arouse in me are rather ones of tenderness, nurturing, delight, love and affection. There is little of any, strictly speaking, sexual element in these feelings.

The reader may then ask what distinguishes me from any ‘normal’ male with strong nurturing feelings towards children? The answer is that I believe and feel that there can be some sensual, or even sexual, element in the expression of those nurturing feelings, and that there is no intrinsic harm in this, provided that the child wishes it and the interaction is consensual (see n° 4 and n°s 15 and 16 regarding ‘consent’).

9. Paedophiles ‘groom’ children.

“Grooming is a word in search of a meaning, an essentially empty propaganda concept. It is just a way of talking about a pleasant thing – spending time with a child you like and finding they enjoy your company too, with a growing bond of mutual affection and trust – and making it sound nasty, reducing it to a cynically exploitative exercise.”

Tom O’Carroll – Street grooming: a nut to be cracked?

Granted that a small minority of paedophiles may treat children nicely with the intent of seducing them. But the great majority act this way for the same reason as most non-paedophiles do : simply because they like or love the child. Moreover much of what is described as ‘grooming’ in the popular press amounts not to ‘spoiling’ and ‘indulging’ the child – but treating the child with a level of respect and esteem which children are not accustomed to receive from adults. This fact leads on to the following point:

10. Children don’t like paedophiles.

Even ‘child protection’ literature repeats that it’s often the person who is good with children, whom children love, who is the ‘paedophile’, whom parents should ‘watch out for’. Children, like all other humans, like and are attracted to people whom they feel loved, liked and appreciated by.

see also:

11. A sexual relationship with an adult is invariably harmful to the child.

Outside the context of our particular society and its hang-ups, trans-generational intimacy, sensuality and sex is not of itself harmful, and is probably beneficial.

In the context of our society it is however often harmful : if the relationship isn’t discovered there’s the secrecy and possible guilt; if it is discovered then there are the distraught parents acting treating the child as if she has been ‘damaged’, the anxious relatives, the vilification of the girl’s lover, the police interrogations, the doctors’ physical examinations, the court case, the psychologists etc.; then the gradual learning over the years that ‘society’ now considers her as a ‘victim’, as having had her innocence and ‘soul’ stolen, that she is now some kind of freak.

This reaction happens whether the child was brutally raped, or whether some favourite uncle had just once gave her a little tickle between her legs when she was sat on his lap.

However, many good and caring relationships are not discovered (and it’s generally the consensual and equal relationships, which both partners have a lot of interest in maintaining, that manage this) and flourish, despite the adverse context.

see also:

12. An intimate relationship with an adult must bring ‘the worst’ out of a child.

As n° 8 mentions above : children can sometimes be demanding, tiring and challenging. However, as any teacher or psychologist will confirm, children treated with respect, who feel liked and appreciated, behave better and more maturely than those who feel disliked and are treated with disrespect. The friendship is a true partnership of equals (see n° 5 above). paedophiles love and admire their little friends, and treat them with a respect that children are unaccustomed to receive from adults. Children engaged in a friendship with a paedophile will often flourish, regardless of whether the relationship has a sexual element or not.

13. Paedophiles have below average IQ and are uneducated.

Some studies seem to indicate this (see the work of James Cantor). But these studies are based on prisoners or offenders, who on average have lower IQs than the general population anyway, nor do these studies take into account the effects of stigma and ostracism, and the mental health problems they cause, on the developing brains of adolescents (the period when people generally realise they are paedophiles).

Some well-known figures who would, according to the current popular definition of the word, be defined as ‘paedophiles’ include : Lewis Carroll, Edgar Allan Poe, Alexander the Great, Caravaggio, Leonardo da Vinci, Allen Ginsberg, Michael Jackson, Mohammed, Gandhi, John Ruskin, J.M Barrie, Benjamin Britten, Arthur C. Clarke, Mark Twain, Richard Hughes, Francis Kilvert, Eric Gill, L.S. Lowry, T.H. White, William van Gloeden, Ernest Dowson, John Cowper Powys, T.E. Lawrence, Wilfred Owen.

see also:

14. Paedophiles will end the relationship once adolescence is reached.

Most paedophiles are non-exclusive in their sexual preferences (see n° 8) and will not lose interest in their partner at the onset of adolescence. What can happen is that the child in the relationship loses interest in the adult and, as so often happens at puberty, becomes focused on people of her own age. In these cases any sexual element in the relationship usually stops, though the friendship and closeness often remains.

15. Paedophilia is wrong because a child cannot consent to sex.

‘Consent’ in sex is not a one-off preliminary agreement but a process: something that is renewed or withheld at every stage of the interaction : adults don’t break off from kissing to ask “do you consent to progress to light foreplay?” – no, the consent is signaled through enjoyment of the activity and an eagerness to progress. A show of unwillingness or lack of enjoyment signals withdrawal of consent, and the activity stops.

Children are very good at knowing what they want and don’t want, like and don’t like. If you’ve ever tried to persuade a reluctant child to eat its sprouts, or offered a child an ice-lolly on a hot summer’s day you will see how capable children are of consenting. Likewise with intimacy and sensuality : a child can make it perfectly clear, either verbally or with body-language, whether or not she is enjoying and feeling comfortable with what she is doing. An ethical paedophile, like any good lover, will be alert to such signals and respond appropriately.

Ironically it seems that the paedophile-child relationship is maybe the only adult-child relationship where consent is crucial and central to the success and continuation of the relationship. Think of the relationships between children and parents, teachers, social workers, police &c: in none of these relationships is the child’s ‘consent’ required or taken seriously. This is one of several factors in the paedophile-child relationship that leads to an equality of power that is not found in other adult-child relationships. (see n° 5)

see also:

16. Paedophilia is wrong because a child cannot give informed consent to sex.

A child may not know much about sex and intimacy but if they engage willingly and enthusiastically in an intimate relationship with an adult they are certainly showing an eagerness to become ‘informed’.

Society normally encourages a progression from ‘ignorance’ to ‘knowledge’, this ‘eagerness to become informed’, calling it ‘learning’ and ‘education’.

Some children are quite well informed about sex, either from being brought up in a context open about sex or from having previous experiences either with other children and/or adults.

However when it comes to ‘sex and sensuality’ society does all it can to maintain children in a condition of ignorance, of being ‘uninformed’. It then raises the idea that they are ‘uninformed’ as an objection to them satisfying their natural curiosity and desires.

It is also a useful exercise to consider exactly what information it is that is required for ‘informed consent’ to be valid. Clearly it has to be commensurate with the activity to which the child is required to give consent – you don’t need to have an in-depth knowledge of STDs or genetics to give consent to having your bottom tickled.

If children were naturally asexual and innocent society would not have to put so much work into maintaining them in that state. One does not need to put a fence around a field of turnips to stop the lions from eating them.

see also:

17. Children cannot be interested in sex or intimacy with an adult.

More than 100 years after Freud published “Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality”, and after a wealth of anthropological studies conducted amongst Trobriand Islanders, Inuit, Namibian Bushmen, after explorers’ reports from the Marquesas and Tahiti – all of which describe societies in which displays of child sexuality and intergenerational sexual relations were common and accepted – western society is still desperately trying to persuade itself that children are not sexual beings.

But why is that we have to go to far away societies from another time to find admissible evidence of child sexuality? Where is the evidence that children can be attracted to adults in contemporary western societies? The evidence exists, but its expression and communication has been ‘silenced’.

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

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

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

see also:

18. Paedophiles are ‘immoral’.

Can one only be truly ‘moral’ if one has never had to think about, struggle with and reflect deeply about one’s own capacity to do right or wrong? Someone who has never found them self at odds with the moral orthodoxy is someone who has never had to think deeply about what constitutes ethical living.

Most paedophiles go through a great deal of agonizing and soul-searching – and the evidence for this can be clearly seen by listening-in to the ethical conversations, debates and arguments that are a principal feature of clearnet paedophile support forums: GirlChat, BoyChat.

42 thoughts on “18 Common Misconceptions About Paedophiles & Paedophilia: Update & Reblog

  1. I have tried to put this in a debate about “good and bad feminism” in the last post of Heretic TOC, but for some reason I can’t do it, since you are vegetarian and you can understand me tell me what you think of my text:

    Veganism has also become a pit of filth, that radical anti-discriminatory idea created by a british man called Donald Watson it’s now mostly a feminism front (well, Sean and Tom, from that not “real” feminism), full of authoritarian leftists and antipedo LGTBers discriminators of the worst kind, these new “feminist vegans” scoundrels who know nothing about pedophilia, but who use it for a good cause (to stop animal exploitation) in an immoral and despicable way.

    Here the animal exploitation abolitionist Gary Francione, talking about the poor pedophile activist who had his book eliminated by that Nazis from Amazon:

    It’s embarrassing, it’s just again and again plain stupid uninformed antipedo narrative! I feel ashamed as a animal exploitation abolitionist vegan (de facto, because for them I can’t be a vegan if I support pedophilia).

    However, he (Gary Francione) is right in one thing. Defending an abusive act with “compassion” is immoral. But that’s not the point of pedophile activism or the defense of consensual and respectful relationships with children and youngsters. There is no humanitarian or compassionate type of child abuse, but pedophile activism is humanitarian and compassionate in itself.

    Morrissey stated that he believed there is “no difference between eating animals and paedophilia. They are both rape, violence, murder.”

    This is another one who has no idea what the hell he’s talking about, even though I admit for a while I have said worse things, because there’s nothing else that those animal exploiters hate that compares them to pedophilia, but it’s still morally repugnant, and then they’ll have the insolence to talk against “homophobia”, that’s moral garbage!

    Then there is the immoral Peter Singer, who is not even vegan directly, and support killing and eating animals if you do “little” and with “compassion”, his book “Animal Liberation” is not about animal liberation, but “humane” exploitation. So since Singer per example is an immoral utilitarian, he can would defend sex with a child if he gave pleasure to the pedophile, I am sure he would fit very well with many “pro-choice” pedophiles, perhaps, although these “pro-choice” pedophiles does not defend that out of immorality (or so I want to think) as Singer can would, but a moral desire for equality and respect for rights and needs towards the child and the adult attracted to children.

    Once a vegan guy told me that he was “anti-vegan vegan,” because veganism now was nothing more than a front of misandric feminism, and with those people who would become vegan? now I think like him, these fascistic left-wing “animal feminists,” they are some of the culprits of animals being exploited.

    Maybe I’m an anti-pedophile pedophile. People who talk about loving children and then make apology for and eating their ration of meat, milk and eggs every day, because of course plants have feelings and animals are just flesh with tissues and that moral aberrations.

    You can’t be a pedophile activist and make apology for and participate in animal explotation. (animals which are physically and mentally equivalent to children).
    You can’t be vegan (don’t discriminate against other species) and discriminate against pedophiles.

    Feminists are right about a thing: the struggle has to be intersectional, to eradicate all exploitation and oppression, or it’s just another discriminatory movement.

    So I am disgusted and disappointed with the pedophile and vegan movement, both of which I consider for now rotten and immoral.


    1. You raise a lot of interesting points, newsexualistorder. Your anger and expectation of consistency and coherence, both does you credit, and also shows that you are not yet completely disillusioned with humanity.

      Yes, you’d hope for some coherence between concepts of animal rights and children’s rights.

      But that is too much to expect – we each exist within a semi-opaque cloud of our own preoccupations, interests and concerns – and we see other people’s clouds only dimly, diffused through the mist of our own cloud. And this is why coherence between differing positions can be quite rare.

      My children’s rights preoccupation is that children should have proper positive sexual rights – that their consent should be respected (other than where it is against their interest) and where they can’t consent, they should be protected.

      Nothing controversial there for any ethical paedophile.

      However, my other preoccupation, one that has over the past couple of years, surpassed my ‘paedophile rights’ campaigning, is with FGM – a procedure where millions of little girls are having their genitals damaged with the express purpose of hobbling their sexuality.

      You’d think that ethical, respected paedophiles out there would have no qualms about condemning this practice – and considering it as deserving of the same zero tolerance, that child sacrifice would, or if the plucking out of a child’s eyeball were a religious practice.

      But there are those who can’t find it in themselves to condemn this practice. Or who do condemn it with words which amount to nothing more than ‘live and let live’, or ‘let’s ignore this issue’, or ‘let’s not get the people who do this angry, or ‘it’s not for us Westerners to judge the practices of non-Westerners’.

      It feels like a betrayal when one encounters this kind of craven moral muddling and relativism from paedophiles who in other contexts are vocal and rigorous about children’s sexual rights – but ethical coherence has to overcome too many hurdles for us to expect it, even in the best minds out there. The challenge is to find a way of not throwing the baby out with the bath-water – keeping the ‘good’ that these people have to offer, and quarantining their errors – it’s not always easy, especially since they view me with a reciprocal anger and disgust – as having betrayed something they hold dear.

      But don’t be disillusioned with animal rights, vegetarianism, veganism etc — just because some bad, confused, frightened or insincere people advocate it. If a position is right, it is right regardless of who holds and advocates it, or what other errors they make.

      Truth edges forwards in baby steps, and each baby step has to be fought hard for. It is more than enough to be on the side of truth.


      1. You’re right. An idea is correct regardless of who says it and we must defend it. But the world is so ridiculous and hateful that one loses hope more than one would wish.

        In Heretic TOC (not Tom but other commentators) and elsewhere I have already had negative and totally unpleasant encounters with pedophiles and MAPs that mock animal rights, and I have cursed pedophilia as well as veganism by reading those vegans.

        But that’s not right. Thanks to you, to your denounciation of FGM and child abuse, I have improved as a person and I have understood that others (including my “objects” of desire) deserve as many rights as I do. Before that, I criticized you for your FGM denouncement and gave the same selfish arguments as those who now show contempt for my defense of animals. In fact, I used to be a bit of a horrible person and I only dedicated myself to hindering people who didn’t want to hurt me. I was not in my right mind at that time.

        It doesn’t matter what they say. You’re the one who should represent pedophiles. You dignify and embody ethical pedophilia. Because being a pedophile doesn’t make anyone ethical. Your defense of the rights of little girls despite the indifference and contempt for other pedophiles, and your ethic of putting the rights of the child before your sexual impulses is admirable.

        For people like you it is worth the unrewarded and often unpleasant work of fighting for the rights of pedophiles.

        The fact that it is they, and not you, who are the face of paedophilia, is one of the embarrassments of the pedophile movement, if there is such a movement.


        1. I really appreciate what you write, both because it’s good to see you engaging critically with, not just the World, but with yourself. And it’s also good because your generous words really have hit home and have given me some much-needed encouragement.

          Even before I stopped blogging on the Consenting Humans site – I felt that the Radical Paedophile movement was only shallowly interested in the question of how to live ethically as a paedophile in the society we find ourselves in. We can build castles in the air as to how our ideal world will be, but it’s more important to work out how to live well in the society we are stuck in and the in the only life we get. it is an arrogance to presume to repair the world, when we can’t even get our own bedroom in order.

          Though I disagree with much of what they think, I will give this much credit to the Virpeds: they don’t let themselves off the ethical hook as readily as Radpeds do, and they are concerned with what it means to be a paedophile in the here and now. I find their thinking is over-simplistic, but at least their thinking turns around the needs of children, not their own.

          Witnessing the reaction of so much of the Radped community to my bringing up the question of FGM was the last straw – I felt, like you do with animal rights, that in the face of such inconsistency (I am too diplomatic to use the word ‘hypocrisy’) there was little point in my continuing – I fell ‘out of love’ with a community I had, yes, kind of fallen in love with.

          This past couple of years I’ve been working hard on a project concerned with FGM. I’m starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel on that. And once this out of the way I will return to blogging. However, I will return angry, more to fustigate the inconsistency, weakness and self-servingness that has disgusted me in the Radped movement. I’ll try to do this subtly and not to let my anger show, but nevertheless I don’t doubt that I will blot my copy book with a lot of former readers. If that happens, so be it.

          All the best with your campaign for animal rights – I agree that it is inconsistent to respect the rights of children but not respect those of non-human animals. And societies and communities that treat animals with respect tend to be communities where humans treat each other with respect.


  2. Hi,

    I really enjoyed the reading of your article and encourage you to carry on.
    I am french and i would like to translate your text to help french people to understand the paedophilia issue.
    Can I have you agreement ?

    Thanks a lot for you contribution to bring the truth about paedophilia !


  3. Sex and relationships are exclusively for mature and adult people. Until 21 they are children, they are not adults and cannot make their own decisions without a guardian. So let’s leave the kids alone and enjoy free sex with consenting adults, not innmature young children.


  4. This is one of the most significant posts on paedophilia I have yet encountered.
    My hope is that this post becomes widespread on the internet, so that the average non can start seeing childlove as it really is.


    1. thanks Jonathan -I’m not sure how widespread it is, but it does rate highly in the stats – and it’s the most visited page so far this year. It might need a bit of an update – there so many misconceptions out there about paedophiles that it’s hard to know where to start!


  5. Funny how you say you’re against illegal activity, isn’t pedo sexuality considered illeagal? How does a child who’s brain hasn’t fully been developed and still doesn’t know how to make decisions like an adult be subject to this? No child should ever have to suffer like this. This is sick and twisted. And who ever ingages in pedo sexuality will be found and reported to the police.


    1. thank you for your comment Derek

      >“Funny how you say you’re against illegal activity, isn’t pedo sexuality considered illeagal?”

      You are wrong: The law punishes acts not feelings or thoughts – ‘acts’ might include looking at illegal pornography or sharing illegal intimacy, ‘feelings and thoughts’ might be seeing a little boy and thinking he’s beautiful or attractive.

      here’s a parallel: there are no laws against finding expensive jewelery beautiful and wishing you could afford it – however there are laws against stealing that jewelery.


  6. I may have been in the wrong world for a long time, but I’ve never seen any person support people who have sex with children, nor I understand why we should do it.

    I doubt that being a man means being a pedophile and prey 14-years-old kids, they are still in their childhood, as a man I find it horrifying to even think about it. I’m not even attracted to women under 23 or 24, I like a mature woman who knows how to talk about something smart and have a stable relationship, not that she spend the day playing the xbox and talk about kid’s things.

    Which I think would be quite sensible a age of consent of 21, I do not think that a child under 21 is able to have a relationship, even with a peer, much less with a grown man, is demonstrated by psychology that brains do not develop until 23 or even 25, so they are unable to understand their long-term actions. There you see girls of only 18/19 in magazines like Playboy or Penthouse and then regretting to have done it, the worst are the men who are not even horrified by it. I personally denounce it.

    I’m not a pedophile and IMHO sex with a child of 16 is abuse and all civilized society thinks same and I’m glad that this is being taken seriously, I dislike that some old relatives tell me that before there were men who dating girls as young as 13 and nobody do anything to avoid it. Only muslim do that.

    I repeat, I am a grown man and I like grown women that is normal and natural, not underage children, if there are laws against sex with minors it’s just because it is understood that before 18 kids are vulnerable to perverts, nothing more.


  7. I have fallen in love with some 10 year old girls, I would like some girl to be my girlfriend, just love someone, do no harm, what do you think about that?


    1. Make sure that you act towards her/them with consideration and respect. Earn her respect through the respect and devotion you show her. If you are friends with her make sure that everything you do is for her happiness and well-being, not yours. Forget about your sexual desires and focus on the love you can legitimately give her. Be her mentor – help her in her school work, teach her to appreciate the good things in life, nature, art, sport and friendship, and develop what is best in her. Don’t break the law, even if she wants you to – no good will come of that either for yourself or the girl. Society will do its best to turn even the most gentle caring and consensual intimacy into something harmful and poisonous.

      Give her the best of yourself without demanding anything from her.


  8. While I am as anti-islamists as anyone and am ready to be objectively reasonable, I cannot support relaxing laws stopping adults from sexually being with pre pubescent children. Whether pedophilia is biological or not. If a 25 year old man came sniffing around my 7 year old son or daughter, it wouldn’t end well for him. Now if my 17 year old daughter was seeing a guy who was 25, I wouldn’t mind, if I didn’t like the guy, it wouldn’t be solely because he’s over 18.

    I think the subject of pedophilia is one that should be left alone. I mean, most guys in right-wing are willing to be reasonable more or less and have a rational discussion when you’re talking about 16 or 17 year old girls, but pre school age children will make you look like perverts. Non practicing pedophiles should be left alone. I think that’s reasonable. Especially if it’s biological.

    As far as mid to late teen girls are concerned, I think most men are attracted to them, it’s just not socially acceptable to say so out loud. I once worked at a factory and a co worker of mine had a picture on his phone that he showed us. The picture was sent to him by a 16 year old girl he knew of her in bra and panties. Even after finding out she was 16, every guy except 1, admitted that they’d have sex with her. Of course I know that, in front of the right audience, they probably would deny it and join in the lynch mob of a guy who would. I think calling fully developed teen girls “children” is a fundamentally dishonest tactic, it’s also the logical fallacy of weasel wording and emotive language. What sounds worse, “16 year old young lady” or “16 year old child”?

    The word “child” and “pedophile” stir up strong emotions in people and feminists know that. So if you call a 16 or 17 year old girl a “child” and call a 26 year old man interested in her a “pedophile”, it will stir strong emotions in people. The word “child” invokes images of 4 year old Suzie innocently frolicking about on the playground, while pedophile invokes images of a fat, hairy 55 year old man wearing a urine stained trench coat trying to lure children into his lair with candy. That’s why those words are purposely distorted.

    I remember one day, me and 2 of my friends were driving around and stopped at a gas station and there was a group of girls standing at the bus stop. It was the end of summer 2012 and my friend was in the passenger seat I was in the back. So he called one of the girls to the car. The girl was wearing a tube top and daisy duke shorts and the flip flops females wear in the summer. This particular girl was shaped like a perfect hourglass with d cup breasts. So when she came over to the car and talked to my friend, it turns out she was 17. He was 26 at the time. She gave him her number and from what he told me, he had sex with her later.

    The fact is, most men would’ve had sex with her and she probably had men trying to hit on her all the time. However, feminists would insists she’s a child and that my friend is a pedophile. They’d also insists that he traumatized her, even if she doesn’t know it and would be willing to brand him as a child rapist. If she sent him a naked pic, he could be prosecuted for possessing “child porn”. Yikes!!! There was nothing childlike about that girl in the slightest. By the way, pedophilia is linked with homosexuality, and homosexuality leads us to the end of traditional family and values, and therefore the civilization.


    1. “If a 25 year old man came sniffing around my 7 year old son or daughter, it wouldn’t end well for him”

      I understand and appreciate that you would feel that way in the above scenario. And what if that 25 year old someone the seven year old really liked and admired? Someone who made her happy? Someone you yourself would like and respect if you didn’t suspect he or she were a paedo? What if you knew he was a paedo but also knew he’d never cross any lines or do anything you disapproved of?

      What if that seven year old was not the child of loving, caring parents but was neglected, abused, unloved, lonely and needed someone, some adult, who could give him or her the devotion, love and tenderness that they so need?

      The scenario you are imagining – some stranger sniffing round a child- is, in a sense, the worst scenario. Most paedophiles, paedophiles like myself who are celibate, will often form very close friendships with children, friendships that are very positive for the child. I have a friend, an educated and wise person, a professor at a prestigious university – she knows that I am a paedophile, yet she encourages the friendship between myself and her daughter – she sees that I have been and am a positive thing in her daughter’s life, and she trusts me with her daughter – I could never betray that trust.

      The paedophile in a child’s life is very rarely some strange man sniffing around a child – but someone you know, respect and like, and whom the child likes, loves with a passion even. It would be very very wrong for a paedophile in that situation to betray the trust of their friends. In the example I give above the little girl, especially when she was younger, frequently sought a more intimate level of interaction with me but I never, and as gently as possible, let that happen. But I was still a paedophile, still found her beautiful, charming, magical and alluring.

      (I have written more on this subject here)

      On my blog you’ll find that I advocate nowhere that paedophiles break the law.

      This is not an imposture to make myself appear more acceptable: I believe consensual and caring intimacy between a child and an adult (note I use the word ‘intimacy’ rather than ‘sex’ – it is the more fitting word – most true paedophiles have no wish to penetrate children, and, most importantly, most prepubescents don’t want to be penetrated – and most adults in prison for intimacy with children are there for acts as insignificant a stroking a child’s bottom) is in itself harmless, and probably beneficial; but if it happens in a context where it will draw onto the child the heaviest and most virulent stigma, as it does in contemporary western society, it is likely to have very harmful results. The analogy is with teaching a child evolution and atheism – it’s fine if the context is a society which accepts atheism, but it can be life-threatening for the child if you do it in Saudi Arabia or ISIS-occupied territories.

      In contemporary consumer societies children have never been so locked into the nuclear family. Everything a child does happens either in the family or at school. Not so long ago, when I was a child as young as seven, children had a lot more freedom, during the holidays me and my friends used to go off roaming, exploring, playing and having adventures – only ever coming home for meals and bed time. We were seen as beings to some extent independent of the family, we weren’t defined by our relationship with our parents as children are today – often knocking on doors of strangers if we needed a drink, this was seen as normal and we even made friends with some adults – they may have been paedos, but they never crossed any lines.

      Nowadays children are very much conceptualised as entirely dependent possessions of their parents – not as free individuals – this, of course, makes parents over-anxious and over-protective of their children – leaving them little freedom and independence, giving them very little space to build their own world (helicopter parenting).

      If you’ve got the time and the inclination I cover the sociological aspects of childhood and paedophilia in this essay –

      I agree with pretty much everything you say in the rest of your comment – it is ridiculous to confuse ‘paedophilia’ with ‘ephebophilia’ – I think people simply think that intimacy with anyone below the age of consent means you are a ‘paedo’.

      “By the way, pedophilia is linked with homosexuality, and homosexuality leads us to the end of traditional family and values, and therefore the civilization.”

      You’ll have to explain how paedophilia is linked to homosexuality – I don’t see it myself.

      I disagree that homosexuality leads to the end of civilisation – it seems to me that those countries that are most accepting of homosexuality and sexual diversity are, for all their faults, the most civilised. The most homophobic ideologies and systems are the ones that want to reverse the achievements of civilisation and return us to Theocracies and the dark ages – viz islam.


      1. Could you provide some data backing up your assertion that “true” MAPs do not want to have sex with prepubescent children? I see you making that point from time-to-time, yet you’ve never cited any source for that conviction. Fact is, a good many of us would love to have sex, and belief that under certain circumstances that it could be preformed safely.


        1. thank you for your comment michaelkennedylozano,

          I’ll assume that by ‘sex’ you mean ‘penetration’ rather than ‘sexual activity’ or ‘physical intimacy’.

          I don’t quite assert that true MAPs don’t want to have sex with prepubescent children – that’s too simplistic a way of putting it.

          What I claim is that most MAPs don’t want sex with prepubescent children.

          Or rather that most MAPs don’t want sex with prepubescent children so much that it forms a particularly compelling part of their repertoire of desires.

          I don’t have particularly strong evidence for this – what evidence I have are my own feelings, and the feelings of other MAPs I know. Plus there’s the commonly-cited criminological evidence (which is a way of saying that I don’t have this evidence to hand, though I think it’s Seto’s research which has found this) that those convicted of penetration of prepubescents are generally situational offenders (i.e. not paedophiles), rather than dispositional paedophiles. Paedophiles offenders are generally convicted of non-penetrative offenses (touching, looking, stroking, kissing &c)


          1. Penetration necessitates physical contact or intimacy, so it’s not an either or scenario, although I know you meant to distinguish between the two.

            Lack solid evidence, I would ask that you refrain from making over-generalizations about the sexual nature of minor-attracted people from your own anecdotal experience. It irks me whenever I read people graphing their own personal experiences onto all MAPs, being minor-attracted myself. Fact is, many would—myself included—love to have sex, not just the equivalent of foreplay.


            1. hi michaelkennedylozano

              The question you raise is an interesting one – this morning after approving your comment – I made some notes for an essay, as I think it might be interesting to explore in depth the whole thing about penetration and paedophilia – ‘to fuck or not to fuck’ or ‘fucking paedophiles’.

              >”Penetration necessitates physical contact or intimacy, so it’s not an either or scenario, although I know you meant to distinguish between the two.”

              I’m not clear what point you’re making here. Are you saying that conceptually, ethically, or practically there is no distinction between ‘non-penetrative intimacy’ and ‘penetration’? The fact that two things are not either/or does not elimimante the distinctions between them.

              >”Lack solid evidence, I would ask that you refrain from making over-generalizations about the sexual nature of minor-attracted people from your own anecdotal experience.”

              Well, let me punt the ball back into your half of the court – what non-anecdotal evidence have you for your position? That “many would—myself included—love to have sex, not just the equivalent of foreplay”? Can you supply evidence that your ‘many’ is not actually a mere ‘some’?

              I’ll dig out the Seto research – and post a link to it here. And likewise I invite you post the evidence and research that supports your position.

              >”It irks me whenever I read people graphing their own personal experiences onto all MAPs, being minor-attracted myself. Fact is, many would—myself included—love to have sex, not just the equivalent of foreplay.”

              I say: most paedophiles are not that fixated on penetration’? You say: many are.

              How is your ‘many’ not you graphing your personal experiences onto MAPs too? If you’d have said ‘some’ I would have argument with you. But’many’ implies ‘a lot’. You might be right – but is your assertion any more evidence-based than mine?

              Plus ‘desiring’ something is just too vague. In any day I might desire another packet of crisps, I might desire some little girl I see on youtube, I might desire a 12-inch penis, I might desire to walk on Neptune, I might desire that I hadn’t trodden in that dog shit on the way to a job interview. Having a desire is one thing – but there’s the question of how closely that desire matches both reality and its potential for fulfillment.

              Is your desire to fuck a child something that you experience at its strongest when fantasising? or looking at porn? or when you’re looking after your 1 year old niece? or when you’re with a flirtatious, sexually experienced 12 year old?

              I’ve had fantasies about fucking a six year old boy. But I had that desire was I was alone in the safety of my imagination where the boy could have a phenomenally accommodating asshole and a voracious sexual need. In the morning, when this little boy was showing me his Power Rangers, and felt so small and trusting, my desire to fuck him up the ass seemed completely wrong. As it happens this little boy was very physical and sensual with me – but even then, if I were to fantasise about him realistically (something that I could imagine happening with the real life him in front of me) it would be about his next step into intimacy, and not any final goal of mine.

              Desire exists on a continuum from ‘abstract’ (I have fantasised about doing things I’d almost certainly hate to actually have happen) to ‘concrete’ – but ultimately, if we’re talking about practical and ethical questions it has to be measured against reality and real-life interactions. Some desires don’t survive a confrontation with reality (as my fantasy to fuck the six year old boy). Under what conditions does your desire to fuck a child flourish?


            2. You completely missed the point.

              I’m sure most pedophiles may fantasize about that level of intimacy, but the fact is that the size difference with a very young child means that it’s impossible to do without either hurting her or gradually conditioning her body to be able to accommodate something of that size, neither of which sound particularly consensual (except maybe the latter in some special cases). If you tried to squeeze your shaft into a 5 year old you would essentially be crushing her pelvic region in order to get off. Who the fuck wants to do something like that?

              Older girls (thinking tween-age or teenage) whose hormones have already started kicking in, who want to do it and find it pleasurable – that’s another story. In which case that would be “age-appropriate”. Or perhaps a younger girl with plenty of prior experience may be willing to try it, but I don’t expect it usually leads to actual intercourse as typically imagined by the average teleiophile.

              And that is the point here. For most adult males the hard intercourse is essentially the goal of the thing. But with a few sickly exceptions nobody is going to coerce a child into doing something they’re not yet “into”. Sexual development is a long process, and she deserves your ample respect in allowing her, the less experienced party, to explore things and come to enjoy them at her own pace. Otherwise you’re violating that relationship of equal treatment that was hopefully the foundation of your relationship to begin with. So the goal as far as the pedophile male is concerned should simply be to have a mutually fulfilling time doing whatever it is she’s physically, cognitively, and emotionally prepared to do.

              This is an important point to educate people about, because otherwise they will absolutely be schizoid enough to think we all want to violently penetrate crying children.

              Kapeesh? 🙂


  9. Pedophilia was created by some decadent and degenerated Gays as a tool of oppression, in the late Greek era, and it should be treated accordingly. It is like handcuffs to the mind and spirit and is nothing but destructive to mankind. In fact I don’t really see Pedophilia as a sexuality. It is more like a spiritual plague, a mass psychosis, and it should first and foremost be treated as a problem to be solved by the medical science. Pedophilia is a diagnosis. It’s like Islam and the other Abrahamic religions, a HIV/AIDS of the spirit and mind.


    1. Varg, you give the impression that you’ve navigated to this page – read just as much as it takes to grasp its general tenor (i.e. that it is not rabidly anti-paedophile, that it questions the general assumptions on paedophilia) then without reading further, gone directly to the comment box to register your disapproval.

      If, in your comment, you’d shown the slightest sign of having read the contents of this page then I’d accord you some scraps of integrity and respect.

      Do not conflate paedophilia with islam.

      I agree with you that the latter is a cancer – an ideology that is fueled by superstition, grievance, an assumption of superiority, arrogance, hate, deceit and violence.

      Paedophilia is not an ideology, it is the way that some people express, give and receive love – if you go only by what the media report on it then it is not surprising that you think what you think – but there are many adults and children out there that love each other. Of course the media never report such love in a positive light – can you imagine the reaction of people like you if they did!? But there are many, many accounts from adults who, as children, loved and were loved by an adult, and who say it was the best thing that happened to them

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Hi all, I’d just like to share my story as a victim of sexual abuse and the struggles it resulted to.

    I think I was 6 years old at the time. I was attending Sunday school. One time, I was left under the care of the assistant while my parents were away for the hour. He (assistant) took me to a restroom, locked the door, and took advantage of my innocence as a child to show me his penis and convince me to show him mine. To keep it short, let’s just say we “did things” with each other. Because he was a close friend of my parents, I was left under his care on multiple occasions. Because I was left under his care many times during that period, I ended up thinking this was normal.

    Fast forward to my job as a volunteer at a VBS, I realized the abuse led me to get turned on by little boys. I thought nothing of it until one time I saw a little boy, using the urinal at a restroom next to me. I got curious, took a discreet peek at his thing, and realized I really am abnormally sexually attracted to boys.

    I’m glad I’m not alone struggle an abnormal disorder… I feel relieved having shared my story.


  11. Is this blog like your journal? You do not seem like you are willing to make any real change. Most MAPs just seem to stay anon and not actually do anything. Is that the case?


    1. That’s a very odd, cryptic comment, Curious. I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying or asking.

      >”Is this blog like your journal?”

      Depends on what you mean by ‘journal’? I guess I’m quite well-read, I’ve got some experience of life and culture, and am a bit of an armchair philosopher, with a respectable academic background – and this means that what comes naturally to me and what I can do best for the paedo-cause is what I do in my blog – which is just trying to think as honestly and deeply as I can about paedophilia and related issues.

      So, if by ‘Journal’ you mean a sort of record and motivator of thinking and research, then ‘yes’ this is a kind of journal.

      I’m aware that what I do is not to everyone’s taste – I don’t doubt I come across to some as engaged in mental masturbation – weaving blankets out of belly-button fluff – but, hey, if they don’t like what I’m doing they can always ask for a refund…

      >”You do not seem like you are willing to make any real change.”

      Do you think I, alone, could change anything? If you do then I would sincerely be grateful if you could tell me how (without it at the same time destroying my life and destroying the lives of those about me whom I love and care about).

      >”Most MAPs just seem to stay anon and not actually do anything. Is that the case?”

      Yes, this is the case. And there are very good reasons for that – coming out as a MAP is not ‘risky’, it’s one step from suicide.

      There are two exceptions of out-and-public MAPs I can think of – Tom O’Carroll and Todd Nickerson. They are very different – Tom is radical and combative, Todd is a Virtuous Pedophile and has a philosophy which tries to be as congruent to the public narrative as possible.

      How and why both have survived is interesting, but too long a subject for this comment. But I’d like to write a blog-post on ‘coming out and not coming out’ – it’s a huge subject that all paedophiles have had to confront – but not as a choice, but as a burden of secrecy and alienation from one’s loved-ones, and society, that one has to learn to live with.

      I’ll repeat the request I made above – if you have any ideas or suggestions as to how I can change things then I would be grateful to read them.


      1. I’m just curious, I’ve been doing personal research on MAPS and their allies. Mainly comparing it to other movements in the US. I guess I fail to understand if any MAPS want to make changes in society or laws why not come out?

        If this is about children’s rights then why not risk your lives for them? Civil rights involves grave risks, if it is extremely essential to you why not come out?

        Your writing skills and intellectual dialogue is astounding. I imagine MLK-like speaker giving life to your words in front of a large crowd.

        Even if, let’s say, 30% came out, the public would see good examples of MAPs. All disadvantaged groups had to change the negative, dangerous, inferior images by showing examples of this. That our loved ones, teachers, doctors, etc are MAPs. I used to believe the worst and said hateful comments that I am ashamed of. I also denied what my own range of attractions.

        I actually would love to support MAPs but I cannot if they hide. I might, like others, be more honest, to ourselves, about our own attractions. I would be liar to say if all teens were unattractive to me.

        You and other MAPS have a right to your privacy but I dream of posting videos of MAPS speaking about themselves and having my friends and family like the posts. Or wearing a “MAP ally” t-shirt around campus. Attending MAP pride event. One can dream no?

        Sorry if this response came off attacking or unclear I have had to limit my time researching my personal interests.


        1. You make some very good and interesting points there, Curious. I think to do justice to them will require a proper blog.

          I think you’re possibly right about the effectivness of a mass ‘coming out’ – it certainly worked for homosexuals.

          But there are fundamental differences in the nature of homo- and paedo- sexualities which make it much more difficult for paedos to organise and have the solidarity necessary for such mass action. Homosexuality, by its very nature, is a sexuality that will tend to create links and communities -gays need to meet other gays to practice their sexuality or socialise with their objects of desire. Paedophilia doesn’t in any way predispose us to meet or have anything to do with other paedophiles. Any paedophile group based on actually practising sex would also be very likely to go against the ethical principals of the great majority of paedophies as that would imply ‘sharing’ children. A homosexual group that practised promiscuity would not have the same inherent ethical problems.

          Another thing is that I suspect that a lot depends on whether, when young, you were able to come out to your family. Both Tom O’Carroll and Todd Nickerson did, and I suspect that this made it easier to come out in public. If I came out now, with my parents quite old, after all these years, it would break their hearts. I couldn’t do that.

          >”Your writing skills and intellectual dialogue is astounding. I imagine MLK-like speaker giving life to your words in front of a large crowd.”

          Wow. Thanks. It’s very encouraging to read that. Funny though, I always think of myself as a bit of an absent-minded duffer.

          >”I actually would love to support MAPs but I cannot if they hide. I might, like others, be more honest, to ourselves, about our own attractions. I would be liar to say if all teens were unattractive to me.”

          Don’t underestimate how much it means to have a non-MAP like yourself expressing their support and allegiance. You validate our ideas in a way that the assent of a fellow-paedo does not – you have no self-interest or biased outlook to cloud your judgment. You show us that we are not entirely self-deluding, as some would say we are.

          Let MAPs know you support them, when you can do so safely – and let them know you’re not a MAP yourself – MAPs can not progress until non-MAPs to join us, even if only secretly at first.

          >”You and other MAPS have a right to your privacy but I dream of posting videos of MAPS speaking about themselves and having my friends and family like the posts. Or wearing a “MAP ally” t-shirt around campus. Attending MAP pride event. One can dream no?”

          Those are wonderful dreams – nor are they unreasonable ones. We need to be patient: it is not in the hands of any single one of us to change things – we need to work away steadily and patiently,at the moment we can only fight for the ‘truth’, not concrete improvements. But we should also be ready and prepared to make the most of opportunities when they arise.


      1. Well, Leonard, I would like to go there to tell to hebes that please stop to mix with pedos and adultophilics, but with these sexual images of children, I lost my desire to go to this reich of pedos. No trolling. 😡


      2. With such a description (and since MAP discussion sites seem few), I think it would have been nice, if you had included that in your posts, so people not familiar with ‘chans’ are, would know that before they click on it, if they so choose.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. That’s an important issue you raise feinmann0. In my re-edit of the ’18’ I hesitated as to whether to include that passage about my attraction to adult women…

    I’m already thinking about the next edit of the ’18’ and I’ll try to address this in that version.


  13. #8: “Most paedophiles are not exclusive in their sexuality, being also attracted to women and/or men. Many marry and have families. … For what it’s worth, and speaking purely for myself, the secondary sexual characteristics of an adult woman (breasts, full hips, pubic hair…) provoke a stronger sexual response in me than does a naked little girl. The feelings that a little girl arouse in me are rather ones of tenderness, nurturing, delight, love and affection. There is little of any, strictly speaking, sexual element in these feelings.”

    I think it is worth pointing out for balance that many paedophiles are solely attracted, or have a strong preference to being attracted to a child, and that many of these individuals find themselves located between the devil and the deep blue sea when it comes to facing a life with no companion or soul mate to share it with. For these closeted people, particularly the older generation of MAPs, pressure from the family or from society leaves them little choice but to conform to the socially acceptable stereotype of an adult partnership. Unless the MAP is incredibly fortunate and finds a partner willing to accept his or her minor-attractedness, the dynamic of the relationship will always be skewed, and for the MAP, not just unfulfilled sexually but, given the zero opportunity to confide his innermost desires with the partner, lacking in trust and peppered with lies. One might argue that for boy-lovers, a relationship with an understanding adult may be harder to secure than that for a girl-lover.


  14. Thanks for those suggestions Christian.

    I’ll experiment with making it into a page and see how that works. But I also like the idea of regularly revisiting and revising it – since I first wrote ’18…’ I’ve occasionally read something and thought – ‘oh – I wish I’d included that!’ but because, in my mind, the list was something done, dusted and finished I was never systematic about including such insights and so they were lost.

    I think that knowing that every 3 or 4 months I will be reposting it might encourage me to be more disciplined about this.


  15. You would facilitate search for older posts by including “Categories” and “Tags” among the widgets listed at the bottom. You can also make this post into a page (like About) that could be clickable from the menu.


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

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s