Question: Who do you think would win in a fight between a tiger and a tiger’s weight worth of shrews?


The essence of the political problem paedophiles face is one which is common to all who are subject to witch-hunts: the stigmatised group, for whatever reasons and by whatever processes, is deprived of the power to define and assert its true identity.

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 […] 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. 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.”
(from ‘18 Common Misconceptions About Paedophiles & Paedophilia‘)

Under such conditions the development of knowledge and the communication of experience (both within the stigmatised group and between the stigmatised group and the wider Society) is severely hampered. Evidence and research can even be suppressed (e.g. The Rind controversy) and the identity of the stigmatised group is effectively no longer tested against reality and becomes a free-floating concept.

Some members of the stigmatised group, because it is the only one available, will adopt the dominant narrative’s stigmatising identity, despite its distastefulness, giving rise to a self-fulfilling prophecy: the dominant narrative uses as proof of its own validity evidence which it has itself created: many of those accused of witchcraft in the Salem trials actually believed that they were ‘witches’, and acted in accordance to the commonly held ideas of how a witch should act.

Shrews and tigers

A fully grown tiger can weigh up to about 390 kilograms. The smallest species of shrew (the Etruscan Shrew) can weigh as little as 1.8 grams. In the fight proposed in the above scenario, the tiger would be facing about 216,700 shrews.

If all those shrews (reputedly the fiercest of mammals pound-for-pound) acted together in a coördinated, simultaneous attack, the tiger would certainly lose. Granted that there would be many dead and injured shrews – mainly crushed by the tiger’s body-weight as it rolled around in pain – but I reckon that once enough shrews had sunk their teeth into its skin, the tiger would tap out.

Though no soricine ethologist, I know that the shrew is not a pack animal. Unlike, say, wolves they do not act in concert towards a common goal, taking individual risks for the greater good of the pack. The natural reaction of any individual shrew when faced with such a huge foe would be to flee and hide, regardless of the number of its companions.

In short – the fight is unlikely to happen.

This scenario embodies the opportunities and risks that paedophiles face regarding concerted political action such as a mass ‘coming out’. The tiger represents Society, particularly those aspects of society that generate and sustain paedophobic attitudes; and the paedophile is, of course, the shrew: a small, crush-able creature , solitary by nature, not predisposed to collective action. And, unlike the shrew, the paedophile is not known for his or her ferocity. Quite the contrary: to love a child requires qualities of gentleness and restraint.

Coming out

In his contribution to the December blog-post ‘Road-Maps to a Kinder World – Part Two‘ Aethanic wrote:

The fear of real-life retribution keeps us from coming out and getting together to try to set things right.

It is, I think, the only way forward. Coming out, whether singly or in large or small groups, and standing up for what is true. And never ever making concessions […]

Being brave in the face of overwhelming oppositions is the only way forward.

It is the only way. Only one of us can start things rolling.”

‘Coming out’ is a way of resisting the mechanism of the witch-hunt. Whether the ‘coming out’ is public (as exemplified by Todd Nickerson and Tom O’Carroll) or whether it is private, it is an act that asserts the paedophile as a human being, it presents a counter-narrative, creates a nexus for discussion and debate, and undermines the stigmatising construct of the ‘monster’.

Estimates vary as to what percentage of the population are paedophiles but it’s a very seductive thought that even if the lowest estimates were correct (1 to 2%), if a large enough proportion of us were to ‘come out’ the society would not be able to sustain the stigmatising narratives it currently believes about paedophiles: there would be a critical mass of likeable, respected and decent people, enough people of integrity and talent, , friends and family, and, yes, quite a few National Treasure-rated celebs for the simplistic caricatures about paedophiles to decisively undermined.

The popular narrative around paedophilia has drifted so far from reality, that, despite its ubiquity, it is inherently fragile and very vulnerable to being tested and found to be false.

Consumer Capitalism is generally very accomplished at assimilating and defanging subversive narratives: think of how commerce tamed Punk , how the face of Che Guevara has become a style icon, how the market has bought-off people’s ecological anxieties through ‘green’ consumerism and how overt homosexuality is now accepted in the media.

Most controversial issues are at least ‘debatable’ – but paedophilia and child sexuality seem to undermine concepts and attitudes which are keystones to the current economic and social system. Paedophilia can’t be ‘assimilated’ or ‘defanged’ hence all the strategies Society uses to suppress evidence and prevent a debate from occurring at all.

I suspect that this may be one of the reasons why the popular narrative is defended with so much savagery and by such dishonest means.

This is why, when someone’s status as a paedophile becomes public Society will act to ‘heal the breach’ which having a living, breathing human representative of ‘paedophilia’ creates.

Society will do this by so reducing the status of the person ‘sub-human’ and ‘criminal’ that anything he represents or says is automatically discredited.

Usually this is very easy since most paedophiles who become known to the public don’t ‘come out’ but are ‘outed’ – by either law enforcement agencies or vigilantes. In such cases it is generally not in the victim’s interest to be seen to counter the false narratives around paedophilia – and the media can easily deprive him of his humanity and defuse any threat he could pose to the ubiquitous, fragile narrative.

This makes the paedophile who outs himself a special problem. ‘Coming out’ implies a pride at a condition that had previously assumed to be entirely shameful; it implies the presence of oppression and injustice; it implies a coherent ideology which runs counter to cultural assumptions; it implies that there are more individuals, as yet invisible, who do not buy into the cultural assumptions of the mainstream.

And the fact that ‘coming out’ is voluntary, that it is not linked to the commission of a crime and that the person is articulate and ‘normal’ makes it harder for the media and the public to dismiss the person as simply subhuman and criminal.


doors – locked and unlocked

The effectiveness of the gay movement’s mass coming out is a tantalising and tempting dream for many paedophiles.

However, I think we should not be too readily seduced by this apparent success.

There are differences between the condition of paedophiles today and that of gays in the period before ‘coming out’ became an option, and these differences make me less optimistic as to whether paedophiles could reproduce the success of the gay movement’s coming out.

I strongly suspect that the success of the gay movement is less a result of strategic choices than down to a question of timing.

The oppression and stigmatisation of homosexuals has existed for centuries – why did they wait until the 1960s before systematically combating it? Advances in communication technologies may have allowed larger and more dispersed populations to act in concert, but (to revisit ideas I explore in detail in ‘Unthinkable Thoughts and the Mechanism of Hatred‘) the social, and especially economic, structure of Western societies changed in the 60s in such a way that meant that the ‘straight’ population could harbour pro-homosexual sentiments. The homosexual community, who for centuries had been effectively locked in the closet, suddenly found that the closet door was unlocked and all they had to do was to push at it. ‘Coming out’ was one of the strategies by which they pushed at this door, but the door was an ‘open’ one.

Paedophiles do not face an ‘open door’ today– far from it I fear: the economic and social forces that create paedophobia are intensifying rather than diminishing (I have touched on this here).

Paedophiles are not pack animals

Another reason that is likely to make a mass coming out of paedophiles less effective is a that paedophilic desire is not inherently community-forming, whereas homosexual desire is: homosexuals need other homosexuals to fulfill their identity and sexuality; paedophiles don’t.

Homosexuals have a need to physically interact and form their strongest relationships with each other. This means that homosexuals will tend to be part of very wide social networks in which all the social bonds are strong, and (nominally) equal and reciprocal. The structure of the homosexual community resembles the diamond – a structure that makes diamond the hardest naturally occurring substance.

The paedophile’s interests are focused on the child, whose own social circle (especially in WEIRD societies) will tend to be narrow, and strictly patrolled.

Consisting almost exclusively of peers and family, the child’s social circle is unlikely to include other paedophiles. Even if it did the element 81767176aof competition between paedophiles would counter-balance feelings of solidarity. The structure of the paedophile community is more like a cloud of Carbon monoxide: the bond between the carbon and oxygen atom, within the molecule, is strong but the bonds between molecules are weak (hence its gaseous state).

This means that when a homosexual comes out of the closet he generally comes out into a real-life community and/or identity. This makes coming out much easier and provides him with a kind of safety net.

The paedophile will rarely have a real life community to receive him and support him. Many paedophiles take part in on-line communities – but for all their many virtues they can not offer the same sense of support and community that real-life paedophile friends would down at the local ‘Paedo Pub’ (complete with indoor climbing frame and paddling pool and, behind the bar, ice-cream available all year round…) after a hard day absorbing the hatred and abuse of a paedophobic society.

Camp &c

Before decriminalisation and destigmatisation, homosexuals developed systems of signs and symbols by which they could identify one another, most notably ‘Camp’.

Camp meant that someone, through the way they moved, dressed, talked, or by their cultural tastes, could identify themselves, and be identified by others, as ‘gay’ reasonably safely. The camp identity allowed homosexuals to form real-life communities and gave them a not-wholly negative presence in the ‘straight’ culture.

Today, characters such Julian & Sandy from ‘Round the Horne’, and Mr Humphries from ‘Are you being Served?’ may come across to us as a caricatures, but I suspect the existence and popularity of such characters represented a significant step forwards in the acceptance of homosexuality by the general public. The laughter they provoke is ultimately sympathetic, admiring even, when compared to the laughter that shows such as ‘To catch a predator’ are designed to provoke.

‘Camp’ also provided for the homosexual a kind of half-way house to coming out: a gay youth, by consciously or subconsciously adopting camp mannerisms, could identify himself  (or ‘herself’ – ‘butch’ I suppose, being the equivalent in the case of lesbians) to other homosexuals and also the wider straight community. His simple presence became a form of ‘coming out’.

A homosexual considering coming out to (for example) his parents can hold out the hope that they might turn out to be understanding and accepting of their sexuality. Indeed it is often the case that the parents suspected, or were actually aware of, their child’s sexuality a long time before their child actually came out to them – generally making for an easier and more positive coming out.

Given the hatred and stigmatisation and the ubiquity of false narratives around child sexuality, few paedophiles coming out today can have such a hopes.

I’m not sure whether the camp identity was originally used by the dominant narrative to stigmatise homosexuals – its overtones of effeminacy suggest that this may have been the case – but one has to admire the chutzpah and creativity with which the gay community appropriated, ‘hijacked’ even, this tool of oppression and turned it into a tool of liberation.thebfgheader

But it’s hard to imagine how, in the absence of an intrinsic need for real-life interactions, a paedophile equivalent of ‘camp’ could evolve. Could the ‘Monster’ or ‘Predator’ libels directed against paedophiles be appropriated and turned into something positive? Into an identity that even non-paedophiles might warm to? Maybe it could… after all our culture is awash with lovable monsters (Monsters, inc. Jack Skellington, Shrek, King Kong, the BFG…)

Another factor which militates against the formation of community and identity amongst paedophiles is that the objects of a paedophile’s desires (children) are sufficiently distinct physically and behaviourally for there to be no need of ‘identifiers’ to distinguish them from the wider population (of course, how a paedophile identifies his object of desire is only half the story – there remains the much more interesting question of how a child who is keen to engage in intimacy with an adult identifies or recognises one that is willing  – in other words a ‘paedophile’…)


There will be many who might think that ‘lemmings’ and ‘cliffs’ might make for a more apt metaphor for a mass coming out of paedophiles than ‘tigers’ and ‘shrews’. And rereading and proof-reading I’m aware this essay that I’ve arrived at its end without really coming off the fence and proposing any coherent position on ‘coming out’. Like Humbert(x2) I’ve just been “winking happy thoughts into a little tiddle cup” and, at approaching 2,700 words “My little cup’ certainly ‘brims with tiddles.”

I think that this is because ultimately I have no position on ‘coming out’.

I have ‘come out’ quite often myself – with mixed results. I’d originally intended, like a proud old soldier, to display my ‘battle-scars’ in this essay but somehow found I had other things to say.

Clearly ‘coming out’ can work: activists and bloggers such as Tom O’Carroll and, more recently, Todd Nickerson, by associating a human identity to their ideas, have achieved much more than a blogger hiding behind the safety of anonymity could do. Whether one agrees with everything they say or do (I, personally, have a very different take on things to Todd Nickerson) we should feel grateful and admire those who have the courage and integrity to fight for their beliefs publicly and openly.

But the risks and costs of a public coming out are enormous.

We are on safer grounds with trusted friends and family members, with whom we can control the spread of one’s revelation.

Of course you have to know that they will ‘stick around’ after the revelation, and be open enough, despite their probably shocked and confused state, to undergo a process of ‘re-education’ where many things they took for granted, and concerning which they have strong gut-reactions, will be questioned, analysed and turned on their head.

This re-education means that even a ‘personal’ coming out, if succesful, is likely to have a ‘political’ impact, in that it will, in the minds of those one comes out to, alter the identities and concepts which legitimise the social oppression of paedophiles.

A last question: eventually there may come a time when paedophiles will be able to fruitfully engage in a mass coming out. But how will we know when this time has come?


35 thoughts on “The Toybox: Coming Out & Staying In

  1. I’ve come out to friends a few times and it has generally felt like punching myself in the face.

    What’s made it worthwhile is:

    – I no longer live in fear of ‘somebody’ discovering my shameful secret.
    – I’ve had massive warmth, acceptance and support from some of my friends. (Often the very last people I expected to understand.)
    – I’ve become much more comfortable discussing my orientation with people I think have a right to know, namely the parents of little friends. That too has gone better than I could ever have dreamed. I also feel comfortable discussing paedophilia with therapists, which has helped me with various issues related to my own experience of childhood (physical and emotional) abuse.

    One thing I have to say is that I have a high level of respect for the values of the people who have lent me their trust, even if my own values are different. Also, I respect their anxieties about sexual abuse and I don’t take offense when they monitor my conduct. I’m committed to an ethic of restraint and mindfulness and I think my becoming less isolated by and ashamed has made this ethic much easier.

    I really love my little girl friends and I’d walk into a burning building for any of them. I’ve spent hours teaching them new skills, entertaining them, encouraging them. I have nothing to be ashamed of, and the amazing thing is that the more aware people are of my orientation, they more they seem to validate my self belief.

    I’ve had some tough times as a result of coming out, including losing friendships, being banished homes, forbidden contact with beloved children and outed against my wishes to third parties

    So I don’t recommend it for everyone, but I don’t regret doing it myself. It’s been life changing.


    1. Thanks Sean,

      I’ve come out to friends a few times too – I have to say that it has only ever once unquestionably improved a friendship, and that time was right at the start of a friendship and the person I came out to was also a paedo.

      I’m now particularly cautious about coming out to long-standing friends and relatives because they will have to make huge amount of readjustment in their idea of you, and there will be years, decades even, of a shared past that they will have to re-evaluate and reimagine (that time in the park where you hugged that child who had fallen down and was crying, those times when you babysat his little neice, that time you over-hastily shut down your computer when he walked into the room…).

      Generally I’ve found coming out to a friend harms the relationship, though not usually irreparably. But on the other hand, though your relationship will have been harmed, it is also very likely that their idea of what paedophilia and paedophiles are will have been improved – because someone they respect, like and trust turns out to be one, and if you manage to have a good conversation you will have ‘educated’ them.

      >”One thing I have to say is that I have a high level of respect for the values of the people who have lent me their trust, even if my own values are different.”

      Those friends who I’ve come out to and have stuck with me are friends who have proved themselves loyal, trusting and endowed with many exceptional qualities. Of course I regret that our friendship may have also been affected by my coming out – but they are still my friends – and I suspect that my coming out to them was more traumatic for them than it was for myself – after all it was I who was essentially in control of the situation and of the flow of information and they were the helpless receivers of it.

      With that in mind I think that if one does come out to someone one has been close to for a long time one should think of oneself as doing them a kind of injury, and that it might take some time afterwards for them to recover, and that you should treat them gently, not rub their faces in it (which I confess I may have done) and give them time to readjust and learn that you are still the same person as you were before coming out.

      In retrospect I think one should give as little information as possible – e.g. “I’m a paedophile – I like little girls, but also like women, I’ve never broken the law” – then answer any questions they have, but avoid making the experience too intense for them by going into too much detail. I came out to one friend on a long car journey. He had been doing fine – asking questions and saying that it was kind of exhilarating hearing such a counter-cultural perspective for the first time.

      I was thinking ‘wow, this is going well!’. Then we stopped at some traffic lights in a town and a beautiful little girl of about 7 crossed the road in front of us. I said something like “look at that girl – do you see why someone could be intensely attracted to someone like that?” and he responded with shock and disgust: “please don’t ever say anything like that again”.

      I’d taken him too far into the reality of being a paedophile – he wasn’t ready for it – he could cope with it in the abstract, but not in the concrete.

      >”It’s been life changing.”

      It certainly is.


  2. An interesting read. I would argue that publicly exiting the toybox for now amounts to painting yourself as a target for the processes of healing the breach, as you termed it. From Tom O’Carroll to Lindsay Ashford to Todd Nickerson, all have for the most part been construed in the media and public discourse as the same kind of sub-human and criminal as the villains on the 6oclock news. Their narratives are widely disregarded and they are generally framed as confirming whatever pre-existing biases the audience may project upon them. Clearly I don’t hold the same optimism as you do, but that’s because I’m yet to feel confident of a seismic shift in how we are portrayed and accommodated in the popular media, as triggered by a handful of notable self-disclosures. They can however provide a mirror or role model for those of us who need someone like ourselves to identify with, which is an admirable undertaking.

    The comparison you make with the gay community is a useful analogy for contrasting our situations. But I suggest, based on how you characterise the inherent structures of the gay and MAP communities, that there might be another model worthy of analysis which offers further insight – that of transgender people. Like MAPs, they don’t need others of their status in order to fulfill their identities and sexuality(/gender identity), but unlike us they have been able to establish real-world networks, build alliances, organise socially and politically, challenge the unflattering dominant narratives, and gain some successes. When trans people come out, they often have supports around them and communities they can join if they’re not a part of them already. Echoing camp, trans people may be unable to “pass”, forcing them to publicly identify as such, which puts them at risk of harm and abuse, but also establishes that presence and signalling to potential allies and the wider LGBT+ community.

    For better or worse, we don”t really have a way of implicit signalling outside of public displays of affection with children, which are obviously laden with potential dangers. The fact is that we are an invisible demographic and what researchers refer to as a “hard to reach” population – one which is marginalised, the size and boundaries of the group are uncertain, members are unlikely to identify with as membership entails fear of hate and persecution, and members are distrusting of outsiders and generally avoid revealing their identities because of this. Public coming out by a few individuals may not resolve any of these issues. A mass revelation might only breach the uncertainty problem, but subject the newly public MAPs to intolerable scrutiny and generalisation like what already exists, but on an industrial scale.

    For now, I think I agree that the personal coming outs might be the way to go. We are much more likely to have an impact on the personal level with those who already know us, rather than with a stranger who can effortlessly disregard everything else about us as soon as they jump to the conclusion we’re the stereotype they’re happy to heap abuse upon. It’s much harder to write off someone who you’re invested in and who has invested in you, and who you know well enough to question whether this new detail really changes everything (it doesn’t).


  3. Here’s the MadHagMag-trashed Beeb DG ‘alas’ Alasdair Milne, sad tale.;_ylt=A7x9UnXjlkhX2x8AS4aPAwx.;_ylc=X1MDMjExNDcxNjU1OQRfcgMyBGZyA3locy1DTkQtMDAyBGdwcmlkAzVtbjRMbmFLUUxlbkpkLnVVRVljUUEEbl9yc2x0AzAEbl9zdWdnAzAEb3JpZ2luA2ZyLnNlYXJjaC55YWhvby5jb20EcG9zAzAEcHFzdHIDBHBxc3RybAMEcXN0cmwDMTYEcXVlcnkDQWxhc2RhaXIlMjBNaWxuZQR0X3N0bXADMTQ2NDM3NTAyNw–?p=Alasdair+Milne&

    RealMeanwhile, once more heartily concurring with Leonard’s so sound sensibilities & sentiments.

    Anglocentrics here & elsewhere (but not Anglos in the 500 Million population mainland modern EU), seem to think that the 400 Million small minority BIG GOB anti social adversarial phoney Fascist Anglophone is the only game on Planet Earth?

    Well…SeXentric, eight great years ongoing in pro social NON-adversarial modern mentality mainland EU can state from BOTH sides – that it AIN’T!

    Any & all Anglos R welcum here anytime (e-mail via mine host?) where pro social SeXentric will pleasantly SHOCK them with. How far pro social modern mentality mainland EU is WAY ahead of backward anti social adversarial Spiv/Thug Fascist phoney Anglophonia having already caused the THREE-BIGGEST Global crises of our time – or any time?

    1) The divisive anti-social phoney Anglophone-made mid East BIG mess 1948 ongoing unchecked. Now a HUGE migrant crisis of MILLIONS including desperate families with lil kids rightly fleeing to mainland modern EU coping far better than MadDogMurdoch mind-RAPED whinin’ lil Brits – with just a few thousand at Calais.

    2) The phoney fascist Anglophone Fraud Market World Financial crisis 2008-ongoing unchecked, adding insult to injury by blaming VICTIMS like the modern-EU & Euro for being VICTIMS -WTF?!

    3) De facto STRONGLY resisted or LARGELY IGNORED in modern mentality mainland EU – the mass Child aBusing phoney Anglophone World KidSeX irrational panic. Rabid Right wrong-uns anti social fascist phoney Anglophone made 19Hateys ongoing unchecked. While a LONG PROVEN vast 96% of Serious Child Abuses are NON-SeX Serious Child Abuses with MILLIONS of Child VICTIMS about whom the Mass Child aBusing KidSeX craZed anti social fascist phoney Anglophone doesn’t give a damn! Fair Judge SeXentric’s aMusing case verdict & sentence already given here & elsewhere with telling last line, “Bring on the next Mass Child aBusing phoney Fascist Anglophone KidSeX craZed (nut)cases please.”

    Closing ReferenDumbed Down note. For MadDogMurdoch mind-RAPED backward lil Brits in the anti social so called ‘Democracy’ de facto ‘Murdochracy’ and Punk-Farage Garage band – high on anti social insular shit:

    ” UKIP if U want to. We’re staying WIDE AWAKE!! ”


  4. I think that a potential paedophile liberation movement will have a chance to act effectively quite soon, and should not miss the opportunity. The reason for my optimism? The visible crumbling of a “respectable”, “mainstream” worldview in all possible areas, and growing popularity of nearly anything “radical” or “fringe”.

    Just ask yourself a question: can you, a decade or two ago, imagine these two anti-establishment types, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, being highly popular and massively supported presidental candidates? Can you predict a rise of anarchist thought and practice – not just pacifist, but also a militant, black-block-style one? Can you imagine a trust in media and goverment falling so low that the level of support of mainsrtream political discourse is the worst since probably the 1960s – 1970s upheavals?

    Even academia has lost its trustworhiness in the eyes of the public: proclamations of “expert consensus” do not persuade many people anymore, as seen in ever more heated debates about anthropogenic global warming, efficiacy and safety of vaccines, etc. Like it or not, adore it or curse it, accept it or condemn it, but everything is open for questioning now,

    It is in this atmosphere – end of faith in any possible authority, from govermental to academic one – that a movement defending the idea that, as for now, are viewed by the majority as twisted, deranged, revulsive, insane, inadmissible and impermissible – the idea of sex between child and adult can be harmless and consensual – will have the chance (a very little one, but not a zero-level one) to win minds if it will start a full-blown campaign accompanied by massive coming out…

    As for now, we best this not-yet-existing movement should organise itself into the existence, as fast as possible. An opportunity provided by blast-like liberation and diversification of culture, which usually accompanies social destructuralisation and unrest, should not be lost.


    1. Thanks for your comment, Explorer.

      I share your optimism, Explorer, but only to a certain extent.

      In the end I’d rather live in a peaceful, ordered world where child-adult intimacy is illegal than in a chaotic, conflict-ridden one where it’s not… I guess that actually practising my sexuality is a dead dream for me now. This may be because it’s vanishingly rare nowadays, due to lack of contact with children (and my behaving myself on the internet) that I feel any intense paedophilic desire.

      Maybe if there were a soft-eyed little seven year old with her pixie ears sticking out of her long, lank dark hair as a next door neighbour and who insisted on my being her special friend I’d feel differently…

      But, for sure, we do ‘live in interesting times’ – as the wise old Chinese curse puts it.


  5. Heartily concurring with Leonard’s, as ever, so sound sentiments and deep thoughts.

    SeXentric’s next ask would be to other academic scientific worthies like Ivory Tower Tom far from the metaphorical backstreet/skoolyard rough & tumble. And more importantly far from the very real unelected alien rabid Right wrong-un Rupe’s ‘Grubstreet’. Where sadly real lowbrow AngloVILES RULE phoney Anglophonia – NOT OK.

    Once more quote worthy AngloFINE Paxman recently noting, paraphrased, “Since the last balanced Director General Alisdiar Milne was summarily sacked by Thatcher in 1987. The increasingly shallow, Murdoch-cowed BBC is run with the knee-jerk mentality of a bullied 13 year old.” (Back to Ye Olde Bullying Brit Skoolyard?)

    So, re-phrase Paxo’s truism, “It’s in their post-reformation DNA. The adversarial Anglos like Fighting far more than Thinking,”

    And then ask all true academic intellectual scientific worthies:

    If the adversarial Fascist Anglos’ close cuntry cousins the 1930s adversarial Fascist NAZIS had been shown IRREFUTABLE SCIENTIFIC PROOF by intellectual academic worthies that Jews were NOT sub-human, but that in fact all adversarial Fascists & Tyrants ARE SUB-HUMAN! Would that change ANYTHING in the lowbrow skoolyards, backstreets & Grubstreets where REAL Fascists & Tyrants fear only their own kind of take-the Mick lowbrow language – which AIN’T EVER intelleckshul or acadeMick?

    Answer(s) per-leeze in HARD-on H4Skin pencil neatly on best selling Brit rag, Family Friendly ‘Innocent’ lil kids’ BIG role-model/wank-fodder BIG Tits/Tite Knix Page-Free. Of a speshul collector’s lowbrow SUN, dateline, Sat 11 Apr Nawty ’92, ” It’s the SUN Wot Won It ! ”

    BIG Bonus little Johnny BAD joke for Century 21.

    Brit Dad to little Johnny, “Where’s my bleedin’ SUN my son, and WIVOUT Page-2 & Free STUCK together after U’ve bin at it !?”

    Little Johnny, “Lil sis has it in her room doin’ her Page-Free/selfie-SeX poses for Loli-lovers online!”

    Dad, “Dats OK then, at least she ain’t out wiv Ur SUN/Page-Free lovin slag mates tryin’ to get backstreet shagged – agin!”


  6. Leonard, like Tom.

    Have you or your family suffered any serious negatives in your ‘coming out’?

    SeXentric’s ‘coming out’ since the Swingin 60s was always personal with friends and family inclusing many Adultos finding no problems, until FORCED OUT!

    By, U guessed it, all the usual unsound suspects. Callous fascist AngloVILE fraud market bent-Brit Cops/Media for careers/ratings/profit crudely masked by Mass Deception as so called ‘Child Protection’.

    All the usual AngloVILE suspects who couldn’t then and STILL can’t answer SeXentric’s BIG asks forcing THEM out!

    About TRUE Child Protection from a long proven vast 96% NON-SeX Serious Child Abuses (NSPCC’s own stats) with millions of UK NON-SEX Child VICTIMS about whom the Mass Child aBusing KidSeX craZed callous fascist AngloVILES don’t give a damn!

    Judge SeXentric’s verdict:

    “Case proven. Take them ALL down (not knickers), and on for VERY longterm treatment in VERY Secure Units for cUnits. Bring on the next KidSeX craZed callous fascist AngloVILE (nut)cases please.”


    1. I’m out to a few friends and one member of my immediate family (a sibling) – but I’m certainly not ‘out’ publicly à la Tom O’Carroll or Todd Nickerson. I think one of the preconditions of coming out publicly is that one should have, from an early age, have been open about one’s sexuality with one’s parents. I get the impression that this is the case with Tom and Todd.

      To come out late in life to one’s parents seems cruel in so many ways – I can imagine all their questions ‘why did he not trust us for all those decades?’, ‘is everything I thought I knew about my son an illusion?’… to impose on old parents nearing the ends of their lives all the doubts and questions and fears and reevaluations which a young parent would struggle with…

      Sorry to read that you were outed by the AngloVILEs SeXentric. I agree with you that it is insane the way the media and NSPCC focus on ‘sexual abuse’ whilst the real abuse, much more common, much more damaging, of emotional abuse, physical abuse and neglect go pretty much completely ignored. In the media ‘child abuse’ has become synonymous with ‘child sexual abuse’.

      And when parents murder their children there is nary a ripple in the press and in the public consciousness – it’s just ‘business as usual’ – just a ‘normal crime’. It’s only if there’s sex involved that people take the trouble to care.


  7. Recalling a Nawty 90s now Olde Tyme tarty Hi-Tec ad fer early cellphones, “The Future’s Bright – The Future’s Orange’

    This prophetic lil paraphile preDICKts.

    The future of today’s all-SeXting/Selfie-SeX/SeX-craZed/Under-Age/All-The-Rage “Generation SeX” soon to CUM-of-age wiv SeX-keen Lolis & Shotas of their own.

    Will be a mid-Century 21 UNSTOPPABLE: “SeX for All – And We Mean ALL!” Bar NONE – My SUN!!

    Kids can say “NO!” or “I dunno?” or “YES PLEASE!!”

    Power To The Peoples’ Web Above Which – NO ONE Stands!


  8. Should MAPs come out? Not publicly. In my opinion that’d be striking before the iron gets hot. Privately is something to be decided based on individual judgements on the effect it’ll have. I’m still in the Toybox because I’d lose too much and gain precious little. However, this won’t always be the case,

    I’m optimistic about our future. If, as you suggest, economic change leads to change in societal attitudes, then we’re in luck. With the rise of the internet comes change to the way people make money. Services like kickstarter take power away from banks and spread it out among the people, and Patreon similarly affects business owners. The invention of BitCoin is amazing as well, showing it’s possible to have currency without the government. I personally like Capitalism, when tempered with Civil Liberties and Social Securities. It’s done well in creating motivation for innovation, which drives WEIRD countries to such high quality of life. As the economy switches from consumer driven and corporate directed to consumer driven and directed, we’ll see changes in many aspects of life. A big one is a strong push against restrictions to free expression, and rational discourse being preferred over appeals to emotion. Or at least, that’s what I have seen so far.

    And in this time of changing attitudes, where will I be? Making videos, writing books, commenting everywhere, and hopefully changing minds.


    1. >”Should MAPs come out? Not publicly. In my opinion that’d be striking before the iron gets hot. Privately is something to be decided based on individual judgements on the effect it’ll have. I’m still in the Toybox because I’d lose too much and gain precious little. However, this won’t always be the case,”

      The essay has gone through several mutations. It started out as beiing about ‘personal’ experiences of coming out – but during its writing it kept drifting into the more sociological and political aspects of coming out. I’d intended to preface the original essay with some kind of disclaimer to the effect of

      ‘this essay should in no way be taken as a recommendation or encouragement to coming out. If in doubt DON’T!!!’

      But the final version seemed sufficiently abstract to not justify such a disclaimer.

      But as you say, public coming out would be dangerously premature at the moment – Tom O’Carroll has shown that it can be done, and done well, without compromising one’s principals one iota. But I doubt that anyone coming out today could quite carry it off as Tom does.

      Todd has done well, though I think he’s been somewhat ‘done over’ in his last offering ( )- if I were Todd I’d be very pissed off with Janet Upadhye – the apparent editor of the story and probably the editor of the video.

      I agree with your approach – the community needs to work anonymously for the time-being – but we need to work hard and prepare ourselves to take advantage of whatever the future brings – we need to build our knowledge and our community, and deepen our understanding of the condition of children and paedophiles in our society.


  9. An excellent essay, but it misses the obvious ways that a single shrew, or preferably a handful if they can coordinate, can kill a tiger.

    A shrew notices a pit – perhaps a dug trap with sharpened spikes, perhaps a natural occurrence – near a tiger path. When an opportunity arises and the tiger is walking near by, the shrew either startles the tiger or leads the tiger into the pit.

    A shrew keeps a watch on the tiger, knowing the tiger is an ambush predator, and every time he sees the tiger set up an ambush he startles the tiger into giving his position away at an inopportune moment, or warns the intended prey directly. Eventually the tiger starves.

    A shrew can spook a tiger into seeming to attack a large animal that the tiger cannot win against – the shrew might make it seem like the tiger is threatening a newborn elephant, or a buffalo, and let the adults of those species finish off the tiger on the shrew’s behalf.

    There are so many ways for a shrew to kill a tiger, when the tiger is unaware of the shrew’s plans.

    * * * * *

    On another note, when it comes to awakening the pedophile masses – you made some good points about where they might be hiding, but I can think of one more: the pedophilic women who don’t believe they are pedophiles because they love sensuality, not sexuality – who love the sights, smells, sounds, and touch of children, who delight in children’s company, but don’t see it as sexual and despise all men who do.

    Unfortunately, such women are not merely reluctant to be our allies, many have devoted themselves to our destruction.


  10. Part of the reason I expect that there are so few blogs or other forms of content being published is simply a result of the lack of MAP community. I’m sure many people have the feelings but they never encounter another MAP or even have any idea that there might be MAP communities on or offline. This feeling of isolation, being surrounded by people and a media that makes it very clear that MAPs are bad and will be punished just forces those MAPs to hide their feelings and deny all knowledge. The idea of publishing something would be totally alien, it would be like living in an extremely repressive anti-gay society and advertising your sexuality as gay.

    I agree that if sufficient people started to come out then it would destroy the stereotype while giving us a human face that people could start to understand. The trouble we have today is that coming out WILL have a major impact on your life and with so few people coming out, few people want to be the ones to take the pain that early pioneers face. I have considered coming out so many times, its like a pendulum that swings this way then that. Sometimes I feel I simply must come out, I want to tell people that I’m a MAP and I know other MAPs and this is what it means and I am still a good person. I want to shout out and tell the world, educate them and be free of this fear once and for all but then I start to think about what that would really mean, the impact on me and my family and I then find myself deciding once more that the cost isn’t work the small benefit. I tell myself that if I was single, didn’t have family then I would do it, I would come out but if I was in that situation for real I don’t know if I would.

    I think there can be benefit from arguing our cause without coming out. For instance, I do speak out in support of paedophiles without identifying myself as a paedophile. If I was out then people would immediately say that I had a vested interest, that as a paedophile my mind is clouded, anything I say can be discounted but as a normal, happily married family man with a good education, career and standing in society I’m talking from the position of reason and belief. Is this making an excuse to not come out? Maybe, and some day I expect that inner voice that wants to be free will force me out of the toy box, for good or for worse.


    1. >”Part of the reason I expect that there are so few blogs or other forms of content being published is simply a result of the lack of MAP community… The idea of publishing something would be totally alien, it would be like living in an extremely repressive anti-gay society and advertising your sexuality as gay.

      Yes, I think you’re right. I first became aware of the ideas of radical paedophilia from reading Tom O’Carroll’s book – and I occasionally wonder what on earth I must have understood of my sexuality before that. I think I had a very nebulous idea about it, wasn’t sure if it was ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ (these were pre-hysteria days) – I was kind of a skating on the thin conceptual ice that society made available to me.

      On most matters we live in a kind haze of acceptance of whatever state we find ourselves in. We take most things for granted, until we start to strive to take control of them – only then does our ignorance start to take a shape. I imagine most paedophiles – the ones that aren’t led into questioning their ‘condition’ or the attitude of society will simply accept the narrative that society provides and suffer the inevitable fear, guilt and confusion, self-loathing and denial.

      How do we bring such people into ‘the community’? (and by community I would include virpeds – I think that, despite disagreeing with much of their stance, they do offer a raised awareness and consciousness that can only be good for an otherwise lost paedophile)

      I think that someone like Tom O’Carroll and his blog are very important – I know that after his TV appearance last year, and despite the programme (60 minutes) being really bad and wrong in so many ways, his blog had a large surge in visits.

      Also podcasts like Cartograph’s and the Juice Box give paedophiles a human face (or should that be ‘voice’). Even myself, when I listen to those, feel a kind of surprised joy at hearing paedophiles talking intelligently and in a civilised and likeable manner – I can only imagine the shock that a ‘normie’ listening in must experience to find that these paedophiles don’t all talk like Golum.

      And Virpeds and Todd Nickerson have also mobilised paedophiles significantly – a kind of paedophilia-lite – but still, I think better than being alone and afraid and 100% accepting all the untruths society puts out.

      >” I tell myself that if I was single, didn’t have family then I would do it, I would come out but if I was in that situation for real I don’t know if I would.”

      I have the same thoughts.

      >”I think there can be benefit from arguing our cause without coming out.”

      I think this is a good middle option – that of a kind of ‘anonymous’ coming out.

      There’s also being out to friends whom you trust and who you know will be open-minded and curious enough to accept you.

      I’m out to a few friends. All are either tolerant or supportive – even the ones who are merely ‘tolerant’ (which means they don’t approve of my desires but accept them as part of who I am) know more about radical paedophilia than 99.99% of the general population. One of my ‘tolerant’ friends is a teacher. One of his colleagues was arrested for having child porn a few years ago – I was proud of my friend, and filled with admiration for him, because of all the staff at his school he was the only one who didn’t reject his colleague, who called round to see how he was, despite being berated by some of the staff members for doing this.


    2. There are few blogs discussing paedophilia from a sympathetic point of view, but… there are, both on WordPreess and on Tumblr, many “eye candy” blogs showing hundreds of pictures of little girls, taken from fashion advertizing, from Russian photo sites, or from “non-nude child modeling” commercial websites (the girl in underwear taking erotic poses, you have a preview but you must pay a subscription to see more). They often reblog “posts” from each other; some are short-lived, especially the most daring ones. In some sense, these bloggers form a “community”.
      For the courage of “coming out”, rather than Todd N., I would rather commend François Lemonnier who defends the romantic and sexual competences of little girls on Facebook, see his homepage and his two topical pages “Amours enfantines” and “Sexual life of child girls” ; he has also made an anthology of childhood love stories and posts many beautiful paintings.


  11. I am not so enthusiastic about the courage of the VPs. I think that they are probably becoming fashionable for PolCor liberals and reformists who do not want to be seen as haters while they deny as vehemently as others the sexual rights and competences of youth.
    The VP concept could be integrated within liberal identity politics; for instance liberals approve young underage teenagers coming out as gays and having a gay identity without being stigmatized; this does not mean that these liberals will challenge age of consent laws and admit that these gay teens express their sexual identity through sex acts. Similarly, VPs could say that they have a sexual identity but do not break law, they even support whatever age of consent laws exist, even when this age is raised.
    A VP could also appeal to current victim ideology: “I suffer from an attraction that I have not chosen, I fight every day against it.”
    The real courage is saying loud that there are no bad sexualities, only bad social relations arising from bad social organizations. It is time to remind people of two sentences by Charles Fourier in Le Nouveau Monde Amoureux:
    “Il n’y a point de passions vicieuses, il n’y a que de vicieux développements.”
    “L’amour doit multiplier à l’infini les liens sociaux..”


    1. >”I am not so enthusiastic about the courage of the VPs. I think that they are probably becoming fashionable for PolCor liberals and reformists who do not want to be seen as haters while they deny as vehemently as others the sexual rights and competences of youth.”

      Well, I’m not that enthusiastic myself – but it’s a ‘glass half full’ kind of thing – the reason you give for your lack of enthusiasm is the identical reason I would give for my luke-warm enthusiasm: they have managed to shift attitudes a little amongst those in the normie population most open and willing to have their attitudes shifted.

      I will always support someone like Todd Nickerson against the ignorance of the antis – when I boil it down I agree with 80% of what he says whilst I probably agree with 0% of what the antis say – we are on the same side. I understand his emotions and feelings when faced with a little girl, I understand what repression he has suffered in a way no anti ever could do, I would like to see him and people like him happier and more respected in society: the things that separate virpeds from radical paedophiles are significant, but I don’t feel that they separate us on a basic human level – Todd has never called for radical paedophiles to be castrated or killed or treated in any way inhumanely.

      >”The real courage is saying loud that there are no bad sexualities, only bad social relations arising from bad social organizations.”

      I agree. But it comes down to Realpolitik – isn’t Compromise that slightly works better than Integrity that changes nothing?

      I think that Virpeds have proved themselves ‘useful’ – and we should encourage and support the inroads they are making, but – and this is a big butt 🙂 – the more radical (and clear-minded) amongst us should never abandon the rigour of our ideological position in order to curry favour. Ultimately the strength of radical paedophilia lies in the consistency and integrity of its ideas, and the evidence that supports them.

      All (?) social movements have needed a ‘soft’ wing (Martin Luther King, Stonewall) and a ‘hard’ wing (Black Panthers, Gay Liberation Front). Though the soft and the hard may disagree with each other and view each other with contempt and suspicion – they ultimately work together because they serve different functions and constituencies.


      1. “All (?) social movements have needed a ‘soft’ wing (Martin Luther King,”

        Common misconception Dr.King was seen as a terrorist, thrown in jail and assassinate hardly soft wing. Rather the others you mentioned were more radical than Dr.King but both were seen as radical. The actual difference was actually violence vs non violence. Trust me i know people who worked with him and lived through civil rights…he was seen as a terrorist which is why the FBI him.


        1. Maybe – but Martin Luther King was someone who had an appeal to both white and black, whereas the Black Panthers generally alienated whites.


          Yes, but then again even your rabid paedo-hater would be as keen to murder a self-loathing, celibate virpeds as he would a radical paedophile – he would not be interested in the distinction between the two – they would both just be ‘paedos’.


      2. Advocacy of male genocide is considered humane these days?

        Nickerson has called GC members in general, not only the ‘radicals’, misogynists. He has also claimed to ‘know’ they are only interested in
        one thing, having sex with kids, which is the only possible reason why they’d advance the rights of children in any way. In yet another of his ‘last’ posts to GC, he outright accused members of being child molesters.

        As evidenced by his attacks even on one of the gentlest members, whose ‘radical’ opinion was a genuine love for follow pedophiles and support for all people, Nickerson does not care about pedophiles.

        What he does care is presenting himself as ‘good’, using what intelligence and education (journalism) he does have to craft a carefully manipulated message. Adding spice, he claims to be a ‘victim’ of abuse, on which he blames the orientation. Presumably, it’s a good excuse for the obvious misandry, even advocacy of genocide, and anti-BL sentiment.

        I’d urge not to take my words, somewhat longwinded, as evidence but to check GC and BC yourself. I know one contributor here is a moderator, who can access the ‘last’ GC post.


        1. Thanks for your comment, Smith.

          I wasn’t a member of GC when Nickerson left it – but from what I have read I understand that the process of him falling out was quite fractious, with a lot of heated debate and bad feeling on both sides. I know that when ‘debate’ degenerates into ‘dispute’ feelings can run high, positions become polarised and people end up making statements that in the cool light of day they would not stand by.

          On this basis I’m inclined to not give too much weight to whatever exchanges happened on GC at a time when bad feeling was rife.

          Also add to this that people can and do change their opinions and moderate their positions – there are many things I said in various places and to various people years ago that I would absolutely reject today.

          If I defend him it is because he has had the courage to come out and defend paedophiles (albeit virtuous paedophiles – but going by his blog he does acknowledge many of the strengths of the radical paedophiles’ position) – he is certainly braver than myself, who am, and will remain, anonymous.

          He has also achieved an advance in public attitudes through his Salon articles and radio appearances. No, he hasn’t turned water into wine and turned all the paedophobes into repentant adherents of ‘hug-a-paedo’, but if that’s what we’re hoping for from anyone then we’ll have a long wait – what he has achieved is a step on a journey.

          >”Adding spice, he claims to be a ‘victim’ of abuse, on which he blames the orientation.”

          This was been brought up in one of the radio shows – my memory is that he was quite explicit in pointing out that the little incident with the family friend in the garden neither distressed him, and that he thinks it had no effect on his sexuality…

          [edit – just watched his video at – in this he does seem to suggest that the ‘abuse’ he experienced may have contributed to his sexuality]

          I can’t speak for Nickerson and, as should be plain to anyone who reads my blogs, I disagree with the Virped position and much of what he writes – but I certainly don’t see him as the ‘enemy’.

          His position on the paedophilia may be ‘wrong’ but it is a hell of a lot ‘righter’ than the general narrative, and our situation as paedophiles is shitty enough, we are so isolated, that we have no other sensible option than to consider that ‘my enemy’s enemy is my ally’. If Nickerson has managed to make inroads into the hate and ignorance we should be at least acknowledge that and be minimally grateful.


  12. First. While exclusive paedophilia is rare, non-exclusive one is frequent. About 18% of heterosexual men are equally aroused by little girls, teen girls and adult women; then a further 15% are equally aroused by teen girls and adult women. But most of them will not “come out”.
    Second. I think that the main reason for the acceptance of homosexuality is the tendency towards gender equality. In the past, there were always men’s jobs and women’s jobs, and in feudal times a man did the same job as his father. The modern capitalist market needs a “free” mobile workforce, going from one branch of industry to another whenever required, and women have been integrated into labour. Now labour becomes abstract, from a capitalist point of view, a worker is just producing some quantity of value per unit of time, and requires a quantity of goods per unit of time to sustain himself and his family. Since people become identified to equivalents of value (and money), social differentiation according to gender tends to vanish. Now if the difference between men and women becomes a purely private matter, so hetero or homosexual orientation becomes a private affair, it does not threaten social roles.
    On the other hand, the social differentiation between adults and children has been reinforced. Children are excluded from labour and subjected to compulsory schooling. The age of consent moved up according to the increase of the minimum age for labour and the maximum age of compulsory schooling (all three around 15 or 16 in Europe).
    Third. There is no comparison between acceptance of gays and lesbians and acceptance of kinds. Homosexuals want to practice their way of life and love with other similar people. But kinds are attracted to a category of people whose sexuality is denied. You can’t change attitudes towards kinds without changing attitudes towards minors and their capacities. I would rather compare youth liberation with women’s liberation. In the past, women were incapacitated, deemed unable to participate in legislative decisions, considered asexual, and subjected to male authority, exactly the same now for children with respect to adults.


    1. >”First. While exclusive paedophilia is rare, non-exclusive one is frequent. About 18% of heterosexual men are equally aroused by little girls, teen girls and adult women; then a further 15% are equally aroused by teen girls and adult women. But most of them will not “come out”.”

      Yes – the statistics are startling when we take into account ‘non-exclusivity’. It seems that the paedophile movement faces the same basic problem that all ‘political’ movements face – that of mobilising consciousness of its potential constituency – why is only a tiny proportion (or so it seems) of that 18% (or 32%!) even aware that there are alternative narratives around paedophilia?

      >”Second. I think that the main reason for the acceptance of homosexuality is the tendency towards gender equality. In the past, there were always men’s jobs and women’s jobs…”

      I agree – as so often economic factors determine, in the long term, what populations think and feel.


  13. I think there are reasons to be optimistic about our future liberation.

    Inequality is growing across the west, and with it a sense that the establishment is not on the side of the people – and especially the young. Artificial intelligence is starting to make serious inroads into automating skilled labour, and along with a population that globally just keeps increasing, this means that the owners of capital (i.e. the rich) will take an ever bigger slice of the economic pie.

    This could set the stage for a mass anti-establishment, anti-authority movement, perhaps similar in some ways to what I hear happened in the sixties and seventies.


  14. Yes, very difficult to know how to push back against all the insanity. One group that is suffering collateral damage from Paedophobia is the British Naturism federation, not least in having to avoid ‘distributing’ web content that might be interpreted as child pornography. In more enlightened times images that included naked children were contained within advertising campaigns aimed at increasing family naturist membership. The federation claim that “the government is saying that Naturism is so dangerous that freedom of speech, one of the most fundamental rights in a democracy, can be denied to us.” A small flicker of light perhaps here:, where an 11-year-old boy, Daniel, takes part in a Valentine’s Day Nude-In Body-Freedom march along the streets of San Francisco holding a placard saying: Mind Your Own Wiener. This march successfully applied to the city authorities and received a permit to march as nature intended. San Francisco has banned public nudity. Other posters at the march included: “My Bush Does Not Wage War”, “Body Freedom”, “Body Acceptance”, etc.

    LSM, you mention that at least one percent of the population might be paedophilic. That is a huge number of people, if true! One might think that more individuals would be participating in blogs such as this, or in ToC’s, or in the on-topic YouTube Channels such as Cart o’Graph, but that is simply not the case. Contributions are minimal. Certainly enough individuals exist numerically to start a riot and to turn round to law enforcement agencies and say enough is enough; legality must not dictate morality. The gay community simply did not have the means to communicate and network back in the 1960s prior to the turning point precipitated by the Stonewall riots, as we do today, and yet there exists no single Kind movement as far as I am aware. The only public march, again as far as I am aware, was that of NAMBLA who tagged on to gay pride marches in the 1970s before being blocked from doing so by blossoming LGBT rights groups. Rather ironic don’t you think, when it has been suggested by one sympathiser that our sexual minority group should adopt and adapt the same winning strategies employed by LGBT activists to increase societal acceptance of us and to have enshrined our right to love those who want to love us.

    Young Daniel was so amazingly brave to do what he did on Valentine’s Day in San Francisco a few months back. Kind of puts all of us MAPs to shame I think.


    1. >”LSM, you mention that at least one percent of the population might be paedophilic. That is a huge number of people, if true! One might think that more individuals would be participating in blogs such as this, or in ToC’s, or in the on-topic YouTube Channels such as Cart o’Graph, but that is simply not the case.”

      This is a very interesting point – why does so small a percentage of the paedophile population seem to be ‘politically’ or ideologically mobilised?

      I can think of several possible hypotheses: they are in denial about their sexuality; too scared to become part of the on-line community; they have completely internalised the dominant narrative and are not willing to question it; the ARE part of the online community but focused on pornography; just as in the field of real politics, most people don’t give a shit, don’t want to engage in ideology or questioning the status quo or changing the world; they simply haven’t been exposed to the idea that there is an alternative ideology and so their consciousness hasn’t been ‘raised’…

      Are we, as, I guess, people of more intellectual and political leanings, just assuming that if you have paedophilic feelings you will give a damn about investigating an ideology which explains and justifies those feelings?

      It’s a huge question really. I guess political parties of the left must ask themselves the same question: “95% of my country’s population is exploited by the richest 5% – but only a tiny proportion of that 95% cares enough to engage in the worker’s struggle in any serious way – Why?”

      One answer is that Capitalism and/or the status quo ‘buys off’ our political consciousness. I’ve just finished a thought-provoking book called ‘Consumed’ by Benjamin R. Barber ( ) which posits the hypothesis that capitalism infantilises adults and adultifies children. A part of that infantilisation is the replacement of the social (and political) engagement of the ‘citizen’ with the narcissism of the ‘consumer’ – politics becoming defined by one’s consumer choices rather by one’s vote and one’s engagement in civic action.

      If this is the mindset of most ‘citizens’ under consumer capitalism, if most people are unable to assert their political identity other by through their roles as consumers, then it is understandable that radical paedophilia will not be understood as an option for them – since it has no incarnation as a commodity (Child porn? well, it’s so highly illegal that one could never say that the market in it is ‘free’ – and, from what I read, no-one ever pays for it anyway).

      It would be interesting to see what you and other members of the community think about this question of ‘mobilisation’.

      >”Young Daniel was so amazingly brave to do what he did on Valentine’s Day in San Francisco a few months back. Kind of puts all of us MAPs to shame I think.”

      Very true – but when you’ve got a cute little bottom like he has public nude protesting becomes almost a duty 🙂


      1. “Meanwhile, the grown-ups have become so focused on the private ‘me’ sphere, they’ve withdrawn from the public ‘we’.”

        In Pamela Paul’s review of Barber’s book, I think the above observation has a lot of truth in it – it certainly chimes with the selfish nature of the so-called nuclear family where offspring are treated as the property of adults. The long-gone strong sense of community has for the most part been replaced by fear, envy, greed, aggression and an overwhelming loss of trust all round. This environment may well create a feeling of isolation that in turn inhibits individuals from seeking out comradeship and fraternity, not least because the basic set of skills employed to communicate socially with others has been lost.


      2. “Very true – but when you’ve got a cute little bottom like he has public nude protesting becomes almost a duty.”

        Ha! Yes, a real cutie in every sense of the word :p I would love to have been part of that march, but then I am a real sucker for long-haired boys of a certain age.


  15. Sound sentiments, peachy pics, great GIF bro.

    But, KindPeds all defensive detailed rationales cut no ice with all-AngloVILE lowbrow Murdochized Fascist oppressors. It just eggs on their BIG misinformed egos – like the skoolyard bully-cowards that they are.

    Indeed, still-infantile humanity’s whole World (‘cept for cultured but WAY too modest VICTIM mainland modern-EU) is just a BIG skoolyard, with KindPeds and other minorities seen by sadist Fascists as geek-nerd pervs. Cowering in corners or hiding in the bogs away from the sadist Fascist oppressors.

    Long known in all conflicts and false-binary ‘Games’ (and by ex-criminalized Gays) indeed by all VICTIMS, the only language that fascist Bully-Coward oppressors understand is their own.

    ATTACK the Fascist oppressors’ BIG weaknesses!

    Tho, some ineffectual intellectuals still fail to see that we DO have the BIG tanks – to ATTACK!

    Long stated since the SeXy 70s by this lil paraphile, in real Life, to the tabloids, on tabloid-TV, and Rant radio, and now on YT, is that the small minority 400 Million population/BIG GOB Media ALL-Anglophone Fascist oppressors, PERVERTED-ly self-styled ‘Best’ are damned by leading agencies (UNICEF, York Uni, et al) as ‘Among The Worst In Modern West For Child Wellbeing & Welfare’.

    While coincidentally with NO AngloVILE lowbrow Murdochized media, NO Fascist Registers, NO Extreme SeX Laws, NO Notifications, NO Monitorings, NO Taggings, the 500 Million population WAY too modest mainland MODERN-EU is named – ‘World Best For Child Wellbeing & Welfare’.

    It’s no damned coincidence!

    1st Rule of conflict, “Know Thine Enemy” i.e. phoney-Anglophonia.

    Quote ex-bent Beeb longtime straightman Paxman authored ‘The English’, 2007, paraphrased, “After years researching and writing my magnum opus. The sad conclusion is that the naturally adversarial Anglos like ‘Fighting’ above all other activities – and certainly above ‘Thinking’!”'The+English

    (SeXentric elsewhere still awaits the Grim-moderator?)


    1. >”Long stated since the SeXy 70s by this lil paraphile, in real Life, to the tabloids, on tabloid-TV, and Rant radio, and now on YT, is that the small minority 400 Million population/BIG GOB Media ALL-Anglophone Fascist oppressors, PERVERTED-ly self-styled ‘Best’ are damned by leading agencies (UNICEF, York Uni, et al) as ‘Among The Worst In Modern West For Child Wellbeing & Welfare’.

      While coincidentally with NO AngloVILE lowbrow Murdochized media, NO Fascist Registers, NO Extreme SeX Laws, NO Notifications, NO Monitorings, NO Taggings, the 500 Million population WAY too modest mainland MODERN-EU is named – ‘World Best For Child Wellbeing & Welfare’.”

      Yes, the differences between countries such a Denmark and the UK are very striking – though even the enlightened European countries are a long way from being accepting of paedophilia – however they don’t quite lapse into the same hysteria when the subject comes up.

      You’re right – we need to undermine the peddlers of hysteria in the anglophone countries by repeatedly reminding them what shitty lives they are giving their children – I believe that both the paedophobia and the bad childhoods are down to extreme consumer capitalism – in effect those countries and the parents have sold their children to the market.

      I intend to write more about this presently.


........................... 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