What follows are my current opinions and thoughts on questions relating to paedophilia and child sexuality. This is very much to be taken as a ‘snapshot’. My opinions and thoughts are in a constant, if slow, flux.

This is because Radical Paedophilia is a pioneer subject. And pioneer subjects change and develop rapidly. Paedophiles themselves, the grassroots, are the ones who are breaking the new ground in the comments section of blogs and forums such as HereticTOC. The thinking and discussion to be found in such place is original and often surprising. On the other hand, the scientists and the ‘professionals’, are too beholden to the dominant narrative to dare to stray too far from the errors which they earn their living perpetuating.

There are several reasons why I have decided to make this my first serious post of the 2017 season:

– as a revision exercise for myself after six months off;

– as a reference point for visitors to this blog wanting to get an idea of the blog’s stance, both generally and on specific points;

– as a provocation: I don’t expect there will be any reader who agrees with me on every question and I hope that this might lead to some interesting discussions and debates in the comments sections, and maybe eventually in the actual blog-posts themselves.

Part 1

  • child sexuality
  • paedophilic desire
  • What I defend and what I don’t defend
  • ‘Sex’ vs ‘sensual intimacy’
  • Stigma
  • ‘Moral Panics’ and ‘Witch-Hunts’
  • The Trauma Myth
  • acting on one’s desires
  • The origins of paedophilia
  • The origins of paedophobia
  • Feminazis, the Religious Right, the Child Abuse Industry &c

Part 2

  • Deep Consent
  • Informed and Simple Consent
  • child pornography
  • paedophile identity
  • virtuous pedophiles
  • contemporary childhood
  • toxic sexuality
  • children’s sexual rights
  • to a kinder world
  • a society that loves its children
  • culture and community under stigma
  • ethics
  • Islam and paedophilia
child sexuality

Children are sexual. On a physiological level they experience the same sensations in their erogenous zones as do adults. They also experience and express attraction and desire for other humans, including adults.

Child sexuality should be understood as more nuanced than adult sexuality. Children ‘learn’ sexuality in the same way as they learn all other social and cultural aspects of their development (talking, walking, toilet training, reading, social skills etc) – gradually, erratically, playfully. Sexuality is not something that appears out of nowhere fully developed at the start of adolescence.

Walking, talking, toilet training etc all start with basic physiological impulses whose desired expression are encultured through the encouragement, and discouragement, of their parents, the community and their society. Likewise with sexuality.

Sexual enculturation starts at birth. The baby experiences pleasure suckling, defecating, urinating, and in the touch of its parents. The baby and the growing child will gradually learn what behaviour, thoughts and feelings are approved and disapproved of from its parents responses to its body and its sexuality and change its behaviour and world-view accordingly.

learning to walk
learning to walk

In our society a child will receive nothing but encouragement in its attempts to walk, talk and read.

Its efforts to develop its sexuality will receive nothing but discouragement. Whilst a parent will participate actively and eagerly in a child’s linguistic development, no adult is allowed to participate in a like manner in a child’s sexual play and exploration.

In addition children are actively deprived of the conceptual tools necessary for making sense of their sexuality: how many little girls know what the word ‘clitoris’ refers to?

I touch on the nature of child sexuality in our culture in the section ‘toxic sexuality’ further down.

paedophilic desire

I believe that, given a ‘normal’ psychology, those we love teach us how best to love them, especially if that love is consistent and repeated – an ‘orientation’.

If we love our spouses in a different way to our new-born babies it is because they reward expressions of love which harmonise with their needs and desires, and punish those discordant with their needs and desires. The intensity of our love determines our responsiveness to their needs.

A similar process also works with sexual fantasy. Fantasy is where, unless you are exceptionally lucky, most of one’s sexual experience and development occurs. Fantasy and real-life experience establish a dialectic whereby one gradually learns how best to act towards the love-object. Fantasy hypothesises, reality provides data and corrects our hypotheses. The accumulation of this learning is what society calls ‘Romance’.

This process applies as much to paedophiles as to teleiophiles, though we have to struggle through the worst possible circumstances within which to develop our sexual identity.

This mechanism which harmonises the desires of the lover with the needs of the loved-one means that the desires and dreams of paedophiles will tend to be ‘child-centered’ – mirroring the child’s stage of sexual play and learning.

The oft-repeated mantra of the ignorant – that ‘paedophiles want to fuck children’ is almost certainly not true of paedophiles stricto sensu (as opposed to hebephiles and ephebophiles, whose loved-ones might want and enjoy penetration). Most paedophiles are not focused on penetrative sex simply because they know that a prepubescent child whom they love would be hurt and scared by penetration. The paedophile’s greatest reward is winning the love of the child, and making it happy and giving it pleasure and any action that militates against this is not pleasurable to imagine.

An illustration of this is the difference between the situational child sex offender and the true paedophile. The great majority of those convicted for the rape of prepubescents are situational offenders: men who don’t normally have paedophilic feelings, but whose act was either opportunistic or provoked by intoxication or mental problems. These men, because they have not spent a life-time thinking and fantasising about how to win and keep the love of a child, simply apply their unmodified teleiophilic sexual habits to the child. And the goal of teleiophilic sexuality is penetration.

A paedophile would be unlikely to rape a child, since they have spent years, decades, learning, thinking and fantasising around the nature of children, and what is likely to make children happiest and most loving.

what I defend and what I don’t defend

I am a pro-choice paedophile. I believe that caring, playful sensual intimacy between a consenting adult and a consenting child, far from being inherently harmful, is salutary.

Of course, social attitudes can be very effective at turning such interactions harmful: heap enough stigma onto anything and it will become toxic. Conditions that are inherently harmless, such as albinism, will become toxic and deadly in the context a society that stigmatises, demonises, and misunderstands that condition.

I defend a child-centered approach to intimacy. The child’s well-being, pleasure and happiness should be the adult’s ultimate priority.

I condemn child-adult intimacy which has been brought about by coercion, manipulation, the use of authority, or which is not informed with ‘deep consent’ (see section on ‘consent’ below for explanation of what I mean by this).

Such interactions should still be considered as criminal under any reformed laws. Nor should reformed consent laws permit an adult to penetrate a prepubescent child – an act that is unlikely to pass the criteria of ‘deep consent’ and is primarily motivated by the adult’s quest for his own pleasure.

See: ‘Consent’ Without ‘The Age of Consent’]

‘sex’ vs ‘sensual intimacy’

When writing about paedophilia and child sexuality I find the phrase ‘sensual intimacy’ more accurate than ‘sex’. The word ‘sex’ is too strongly associated with teleiophilia, with businesslike seduction, penetration, conquest, the quest for orgasm.

I suspect that most consensual erotic activity between adults and prepubescents is light and playful – looking, touching, stroking, kissing, tickling – ‘foreplay’ without the goal implied by the ‘fore-‘.

Using the word ‘sex’, especially in a discussion with someone ignorant of the true nature of paedophilia, is to invite one’s interlocutor to maintain, in their imagination, the idea of a ‘man wanting to fuck a child’. Something which, even in a world where children were allowed to choose their sexual partners should, arguably, not be legal.


Stigma defines how paedophilia and child sexuality exist within the social sphere.

A person who is stigmatized is a person whose identity calls into question his or her full humanity – the person is devalued, spoiled, or flawed in the eyes of others.

Experience of stigma can be extremely distressing and damaging, especially as stigma is generally chronic and difficult to escape. Stigma has been shown to predispose the sufferer to mental illness, reduced IQ, social isolation, criminality and suicide.

Nor does the experience of stigma depend on being discovered. Paedophilia is a ‘hidden’ stigma because its identifying features can be concealed (as is not the case with deformity or race).

In a society awash with hateful images of paedophiles, a paedophile who has never offended and never ‘come out’ is akin to that of someone sheltering in the middle of a battle-field, of whose existence the enemy is not aware. The bombs, bullets and mortar fire pass around him and overhead, and mows down his friends and comrades. He knows that if he in anyway betrays his existence that this flack and fire will be turned on himself.

I will be writing about stigma in greater depth in the coming months.

‘moral panics’ and ‘witch-hunts’

A Moral Panic is a feeling of fear spread among a population that some evil threatens the well-being of society. A crucial defining element is that the fear is grossly disproportionate to the reality of the threat.

A Witch-Hunt is the collective measures and acts perpetrated by those in the grip of a moral panic against the Folk Devils or scapegoats who are the focus of the panic.

Moral panics can be long-lasting and include periods of relative dormancy. Witch-Hunts are explosive episodes of intense moral panic e.g the McMartin preschool episode.

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 the moral-panic/witch-hunt unable to speak out when something inaccurate is said about them. This means that moral panics tend to be self-perpetuating because they shut down those voices that would correct errors and moderate the hysteria.

With these voices silenced the public imagination becomes over-heated: 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 becomes hysterical and no longer fits what it purports to describe.

A positive feed-back loop is established: as the public’s ideas concerning the hated group become more and more monstrous, it becomes more and more dangerous for anyone to say anything that could correct or moderate those ideas.

the trauma myth

The only permissible narrative around any sensual or sexual interaction between a child and an adult – no matter how consensual, light and playful – is that it is inevitably damaging to the child, the ‘victim’.

And indeed there are many men and women who feel their lives have been blighted by such interactions during their childhood – the experience being likened to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Why would the memory of an interaction that was desired, incited and enjoyed when a person was, say, 9, turn so toxic and damaging when that same person is 19?

This question is convincingly and comprehensively answered in Susan Clancy’s book “The Trauma Myth”. Clancy found that when the sexual interaction was consensual the adults remember it as having been pleasurable and/or confusing at the time.

If the relationship was discovered, the would find itself at the epicentre of hysterical family and neighbours, with subsequent intimate examinations by doctors and interviews by investigators, a court case and the punishment of her erstwhile lover – all of which is likely to be highly traumatic in itself.

But even if the relationship was not discovered, when the younger partner eventually became aware of the intensity and nature of the stigma associated with what they’d done, and the dire predictions associated with child-adult intimacy, symptoms of Trauma would kick in.

In other words the PTSD kicked off when the individual became subject to the stigma that surrounds child-adult intimacy.

This would be exacerbated by the fact that the memory of the relationship does not fit with the dominant narrative around ‘child sexual abuse’. This says that the child is a passive, reluctant, suffering victim of an uncaring abuser – but they remember that they maybe had initiated the sexual activity, had enjoyed it, had felt love for their an ‘abuser’ who had treated them with tenderness and love.

This disjuncture between what their memory of what happened and what the dominant narrative asserts of all child-adult sensuality leaves the person confused and ashamed – believing that must have been freaky, abnormal, dirty as a child. Thinking that they were to ‘blame’ for what happened, because they remember themselves as maybe the instigator, or enthusiastic participant.

This explains why many ‘victims’ take so long to admit to what happened, and feel shame about it. The dominant narrative paints them, inadvertently, as having been dirty, freaky children.

The phenomenon of ‘recovered memory’ also confirms Clancy’s theory. One of the symptoms of trauma is that the sufferer is unable to forget or escape the memory that triggered the trauma – the event is too disruptive and disturbing to be forgotten.

When a memory of childhood sexual activity is recovered it has not, in fact, been ‘repressed’, but has simply been forgotten because it was not significant enough at the time to be remembered.

But the adult remembering such a childhood interaction ‘recontextualises’ the memory and imposes onto it the stigma the dominant narrative associates with such interactions. What causes the trauma is the experience of stigma, not the childhood sexual experience itself.

acting on one’s desires

Given the intense stigma that Society currently imposes on all child-adult intimacy I believe that adults should not engage with a child in illegal intimacy – no matter how consensual and desired by the child.

However I have no negative feelings towards those who do engage in loving, consensual intimacy with a child. Love writes its own laws, and a child’s need for affection, love and pleasure can so fill the couple’s hearts that there is no room left for the law, for stigma, or even for the child’s future self. A child is not ‘an adult in the making’ but an entire being with needs, loves and desires in the present which too easily drown-out the hypothetical needs of the adult that they will eventually become.

Some groups counsel paedophiles to avoid all contact and friendships with children. But such advice forgets that ‘sex’ is only a part of ‘love’. A paedophile can express love without there being a sexual element.

Resisting temptation is no harder for paedophiles than for any other sexuality – it might even be easier, since we have lower expectations and are more resigned to celibacy, and have greater incentives for maintaining celibacy. With this in mind I think that paedophiles can love their little friends through their affection and respect, and be role-models, confidants, and a door into a more mature way of existing

I’d also add that a host of factors more banal that than ‘illegality’ or ‘the risk of future stigma’ serve to keep the paedophile on the easy side of the law. These are same factors that prevent teleiophiles going on sexual rampages i.e the adult’s desire not being reciprocated by the child, the paedophile not finding a particular child sexually attractive, the paedophile not wanting to abuse the trust and friendship of the child’s parent, or a professional position…

see: Reflections and Regrets of a Virtue-Free Celibate

The origins of paedophilia

Why are some people paedophiles?

A hypothesis that interests me is that childhood experiences of childhood sexuality – either one’s own or that of other children – will predispose one to having paedophilic desires in adulthood. The knowledge that children are sexual beings, gained from personal experience, will challenge Society’s ‘innocent child’ narrative, and make the child a more acceptable recipient of sexual desire.

Another theory, one put forward by the neuroscientist James Cantor is that paedophilia results from a kind of ‘crossed wiring’ in the brain established whilst the fetus is still developing in the mother’s womb.

There are serious flaws in this research which may invalidate his conclusions. I will be posting an analysis of this research, and its flaws, in the coming months.

See: Sexy Kids: could this be the real cause of Paedophilia?

The origins of paedophobia

I believe that paedophobia (the fear of paedophilia) occurs in societies where the nuclear family dominates. There is no possible sexual interaction within the nuclear family, other than between the parents, that does not violate the incest taboo.

This means that in such societies the legitimacy and stability of the family depends on the ‘the child’ being conceived of as ‘innocent’. Paedophobia seems to have increased since the start of the industrial revolution because families have become more isolated and intense, and because the counter-force of the community plays an ever-reducing role in the lives of children.

With the onset of consumerism another factor has introduced itself to trigger the hyper-paedophobia the West has experienced since the 1980s. This is because society is confronted with two conflicting archetypes of ‘the child’: the Innocent Child and the Consumer Child.

Marketers started marketing directly to children in the second half of the last century. Previously products for children were marketed to their parents. Marketers aim to make children into consumers who desire goods independently of their parents, and this is sets children and parents against each other. ‘Cool culture’ is part of this – a realm of values shared conspiratorially between the marketers and children, defined in opposition to the tastes and values of ‘adults’ and where children are empowered and adults pompous or infantilised.

Sexuality is a powerful marketing tool, especially with little girls. If a child can be taught that they are attractive and popular in proportion to how much they have done to themselves and how much they spend they will establish an intense consumer paradigm in that child’s mind that will serve the market well for the rest of that child’s life.

This has created a situation where parents feel alienated from their children. This situation is compounded with a perception that their children are being sexualised against their (the parents) will. Parents want to think of their children as ‘innocent’ but are no longer able to.

Consumer culture is not readily identified as the culprit for these anxieties. This is because an economic system is something too abstract to shoulder blame for a moral problem. And because adults are deeply entrenched within consumer culture, deriving both pleasure and their identity from it. To blame consumer culture would be to take a share in consumerism’s culpability – which, of course, they are reluctant to do.

The anxieties of parents are instead directed towards the paedophile. The paedophile embodies most closely parents’ anxieties about their children being taken from them through the co-option of their sexuality.

see: Towards the aetiology of paedophobia

Feminazis, the Religious Right, the Child Abuse Industry &c

These groups are often held responsible for paedophobia. As the previous section should make clear, I do not agree with this position.

Such groups have jumped onto a bandwagon not of their making, and to blame these groups is to make the error of stopping one’s search at the first groups capable of shouldering the blame – and, of course, it is easier to blame people than systems.

We naturally assume that those who persecute us are the instigators of the persecution – for paedophiles to blame feminazis &c is like a cow blaming the abattoir operative for its death, rather than the consumers who fuel and finance the meat industry.

Yes, these groups undoubtedly profit from paedophobia, and therefore fan its flames, seeking to intensify and perpetuate it – but the fire itself comes from other sources.

7 thoughts on “What I Think – Part 1

  1. I really enjoyed your thoughts!
    When you talked about sex / sensual intimacy and penetrative sex I remembered some points tackled by Tony Duvert in his book ‘Le Bon Sexe illustré’. (Do you know Tony Duvert? He was a great writer from France and was a pedophile, had many good ideas about children / sex education / infanitl sexuality etc …)

    Tony Duvert coined the term “orthodox sex” to refer to how people viewed sex, he argued that people have limited vision, an ‘orthodox’ view of sex, and that’s one reason they’re terrified When people think of “sex” they already think of something completely formed, regulated, an ‘orthodoxy’ that most people in society are conditioned, for This is so difficult for them to imagine a child-adult contact, since this contact is much more vast, there are many possibilities and different ways of interacting …

    Anyway, what I find interesting is this idea of “orthodox sex”, I really see it … Many people live in a “bubble” and would not be different in the sexual field, these people could not – and can not – imagine how it can There is a sexual / sensual intimacy between child-adult, since her own sexual reality is completely different, often something gross etc …


    1. Thanks for mentioning Tony Duvert. I must admit that I’d never hear of him! Shame on me!

      Would you recommend his ‘Le Bon Sexe illustré’ as an introduction to him?

      The French have produced some very good paedophile writers in the 20th Century – I’ve a couple of Matznaeff’s books waiting to be read on my shelves, and there’s Henry de Montherlant, and Robbe-Grillet… so many books to read, so little time… 😦

      Liked by 1 person

      1. > “Would you recommend his ‘Le Bon Sexe illustré’ as an introduction to him?”

        Yes, it’s a good book for introduction into Duvert’s thought!

        I know Matzneff but unfortunately there is no book of his in my language, and Henry de Montherlant there is only one book of him translated, I will buy soon!
        I did not know Robbe-Grillet, there are some of his books on my tongue, I’ll look for more! Thanks for quote it 🙂

        > “so many books to read, so little time…”

        Oooh, I understand this … 😦


  2. Your final points here echo something i’ve said repeatedly to my more questioning/curious/courageous friends (outside the pedosphere). I have thought for some time that the moral panic directed at us as scapegoats has been spreading to the remotest places i’ve been on earth because there is a global ecologic disaster-in-the-making. Out of an existential crisis in our species comes a terror and out of terror come hasty decisions. We, Kind people though we are, get ‘cut-off’ which is the literal, etymological meaning of decision.

    As Wade Davis of the National Geographic points-out, the worst-case scenarios among biologists predicting species extinction are dwarfed by the best-case scenarios among linguists and anthropologists: The biosphere is at dire risk, yet the ethnosphere is already dying rapidly.

    In such a context it is natural for human actors to look for human causes, and for immature actors to look for causes outside themselves.

    I found in myself an attachment to Food, so i worked on giving that up. I still eat, and probably need to eat, and what i’ve been liberated from is any sort of mental fiction around it. If i don’t eat for a few days, no harm done. I feel how i feel, and ‘clean’, ‘vibrant’, ‘peaceful’, ‘calm’ are more accurate words than ‘hungry’ for me in those times.

    I found in myself an attachment to Money, and i’m working on it now by not asking for any, and only spending what is freely given me in return for freely rendered service. Do i ‘need money to live’? No. Does it seem necessary for things like airplanes and global commerce? Yes, it seems so right now. And yes, i like what comes via those things, i just make no demands and reserve no right to stay upset if i don’t benefit from access to such things.

    My attitude, my choices, my perspective and wisdom touches people. They are impressed, surprised,

    And then they go about making the same patterns of choices they were before.

    I will die with my gift intact, if i do not live it inside an Erotic connection with a lover primed for a perspective on such things. Primed, as the young girls i love are primed for a perspective, and the only one most of them are offered is the consumer story.

    The world needs my gift, but apparently it doesn’t need me. If anyone knows the world’s mailing address, let me know and i’ll drop my gift in the mail so i can go shoot myself. Some people say that integrity includes, on one level, doing what is expected of us. Well, that is what is expected of me, though some people put it more euphamistically, like, “Get Help.”

    Oh, no mailing address? Sorry, then! Not gonna happen. As long as i’m carrying this gift, i’m gonna just keep swimming. It may be one of the few antivenoms ever invented against the serpent’s temptation to imagine humans as masters over life’s laws. That’s too damb precious to give-up.

    Out of my cold dead fingers, pedophobes.


  3. ” Conditions that are inherently harmless, such as albinism, will become toxic and deadly in the context a society that stigmatises, demonises, and misunderstands that condition”….Funny you should mention that: There was a good BBC documentary about this condition a few weeks ago. In parts of Africa some are forced into closed ghettos due to the stigma, and also widely held superstition that their body parts can heel ailments.

    As for penetration, A chat on H-TOC convinced me that twelve is about right, If not generous when it comes to penetration. As for boys — Yes I like them too, Because of the stigma associated with being penetrated (being the weak feminine taker), It would be better to make sure that they are indeed young homosexuals, Not that all homos enjoy it though. With that said, If they’re still happy to try…why not.


  4. I would add that “reverse penetration” is sometimes pleasurable for the child, if it’s a boy. It often ends in a sort of practice ejaculation and, it seems, that same “peaceful, easy feeling” that an adult might have after a nice, loving orgasm. I also agree that some older boys might like to be penetrated once in a while – as long as it’s part of a caring relationship (and they get to reciprocate!).

    What I really agree with is that “society” really does get hung up with the penetration angle, so views any relationship as abusive and one-sided, when real-life experience often is the opposite.

    I note that you don’t dwell on non-penetrative satisfaction for the adult. Often the prepubescent child – and I can only speak about boys here – is real happy to have been part of this exciting event, and, just as in healthy same-age relationships, long hugs ensue.


    1. The whole thing about penetration is seems to me to be a fascinating mine-field – I’ve been more categorical in my condemnation of penetration here than I would have been if I had had more space to explore my thinking on the question.

      I can certainly imagine a prepubescent child wanting to try being penetrated, and it being done in such a way that the child has constant complete control over what happens – and is able to withdraw consent at any moment he or she chooses. Ethnographic observations seem to suggest that prepubescent girls (I can’t remember reading any evidence concerning prepubescent boys) can enjoy vaginal intercourse with a man.

      Maybe I should ponder this issue at greater length…

      re – ‘reverse penetration’… it’s one of my boy fantasies – triggered when I overheard a little boy of six telling his big brother, that he wanted to ‘marry him (me) up the bum’.

      I thought that that would be very nice.

      Liked by 2 people

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

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s