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
deep consent

I don’t like the phrase but I think it points the way to a useful concept.

The legalistic idea of consent is flawed. We are familiar with criminal cases where the argument turns around the question of whether someone consented to ‘sex’ or not. This implies that ‘consent’ is something exterior to the sexual activity in question, generally happening before it starts.

In reality this is only the case when the sex is part of a financial transaction.

Most sexual consent occurs through a process of on-going negotiated micro-consent – intimacy between two people happens as a kind of improvised dialogue – conducted by means of body-language rather than words – in which one person proposes a slight development or change, and the other person accepts, declines or modifies this proposal.

At no point, in normal intimacy, does one partner ask the other something like ‘do you consent to my tweaking your nipples?’ Consent to such an act is given when the tweakee either expresses pleasure or displeasure at the tweaking. The tweakee has faith that the tweaker will be sufficiently sensitive to pick up on their micro-consent decision and to respond accordingly.

Even when no new activity is being proposed consent is being signalled back and forth – ‘carry on doing what you are doing’ being as much a form of consent as ‘yes/no/stop/start’.

What this means is that ‘consent’ is something that is constantly being communicated on a micro level during a sexual or sensual interaction. And that ‘sex’ is the overall narrative that results from the accumulation of these consent decisions. Consent is integral to every moment of the activity itself.

informed and simple consent

Consent can be ‘simple’ or ‘informed’.

Simple consent is the consent we give in most situations – in non-verbal sexual interactions it is ideally takes the form of the ‘deep consent’ mentioned in the previous section.

For Simple Consent to be valid:

  • the situation is comprehensible for the person,
  • the participants must awareness that acts may have consequences beyond the act itself,
  • the participants must realise that pleasure (or lack of pain) is not a sufficient justification in itself for consenting to an act,
  • the participants must be aware of their own capacity to consent, or withhold or withdraw consent, to acts, or indeed a whole relationship.

Informed consent is required when:

  • what is being consented to removes or diminishes the capacity to give, maintain, or withdraw consent,
  • making a consent decision requires special knowledge,
  • when the activity has, or is likely to have, serious repercussions beyond the duration of the activity itself.

Sexual activities that might result in pregnancy, STDS or injury therefore require Informed Consent.

When talking or writing about Informed Consent one should always be specific about what information is in question. When this is left vague it is usually because the idea of ‘informed consent’ is being used as a stand-in for ‘being an adult’.

Granted that a significant amount of information is required for someone to be able to give valid consent to penetration. But how much special information does a child need to be able decide whether to allow someone she loves and trusts to stroke her lower back and bottom? And what if it is the child who is asking the adult to do this, not the adult asking the child?

In a stigma-free context Simple consent would be sufficient for the kind of sensual intimacy that generally occurs between paedophiles and children since light, playful, non-penetrative intimacy requires no special knowledge, has no repercussions outside the duration of the activity itself and the such activities do not interfere with the participants’ capacity to make and communicate consent decisions.

However, we must not ignore the deus ex machina of Stigma.

The Stigma society heaps upon child-adult intimacy is a ‘repercussion that extends beyond the duration of the activity itself’. It is unlikely that a child could be sufficiently aware of the extent and toxicity of the stigma they will be exposed to when they grown up and/or if the relationship is discovered, for them to make a valid consent decision.

This is why an ethical paedophile should refrain from engaging with a child in stigmatised activities, despite that child eagerly consenting to such activity.

The staircase has not one step but many
Does a child need a full understanding of Gravitational Theory before jumping on a trampoline?
‘Consent’ Without ‘The Age of Consent’

child pornography

This is a tough one. I find the ethics of child pornography much more thorny and tangled than the ethics of actual sensual/sexual contact with children, and I’m aware that my various thoughts around child porn do not coalesce into a consistent position.

I can half-imagine a society where a visual recording of a child’s early expression of sexuality would be no more controversial than a recording of a child’s first steps, or of a child learning to cycle. But we are very, very far from existing in such a society (and I’m not even convinced that such a society would be a desirable).

I suspect that much of the virulence with which child porn viewing and distribution is prosecuted is down to a wish to expunge what is a powerful and convincing witness to the fact that children are sexual, and can enjoy sex and eagerly seek it out from adults.

The argument is often made that child porn allows paedophiles a source of relief, and may  reduce actual ‘offending’ with children.

Moreover the idea that children’s bodies are obscene, should be hidden away seems profoundly wrong. Much ‘child porn’ consists merely of the depiction of naked children, and sometimes the footage is made the child by itself, the child engaging in enjoying its own body and sexuality, or that of another child – meaning that no illegal sexual acts are depicted.

However, whilst I believe that a child can consent to the sexual or sensual activities that child porn depicts and, to a certain extent, they can consent to that activity being recorded, I do not think that any consent they might give to the material being published and distributed is meaningful.

As outlined in the above section, informed consent is required for such a decision, since the repercussions of the act being consented to extend far beyond the time-span of the act itself. I doubt whether a child would have the capacity to fully envisage these repercussions.

Moreover – whilst the intimacy depicted can be motivated by love for the child, and the recording of it too (if its purpose is a personal and private record of their intimacy), I do not see how publishing and sharing that intimacy with strangers can be an act of love towards the child.

My own experience of legal porn is that frequent (and vigorous) use can distort one’s perception and expectations of those depicted – something especially likely to happen when it becomes the principal source of experience of children, replacing real-life interactions with children.

In a society which enforces a generational apartheid it is likely that many child porn users will have little contact with actual children – predisposing them to harbouring dangerous expectations based on unrealistically sexualised ideas of ‘the child’.

The Sexual Child – The Ultimate Obscenity? Part 1
The Sexual Child – The Ultimate Obscenity? Part 2

paedophile identity

I propose that, in the context of Western WEIRD society there are three broad categories of paedophile identity: Acculturated, Radical and Virtuous.

The Acculturated pedophile accepts the dominant narrative and integrates its tropes into his or her identity. This can lead to individuals adopting the ‘monster’ or ‘predator’ identity that the media inevitably pegs onto ‘the paedophile’. this can, in turn, can lead to an increased likelihood of psycho-social problems, and illegal and/or unethical actions.

The Radical paedophile engages in a critique of the dominant narrative, questions its assumptions and refuses the paedophile identity it promotes.

The Virtuous pedophile is a half-way house between the two – opting to modify and mollify the dominant narrative rather than radically critique or undermine it.

virtuous pedophiles

I have been critical of the group Virtuous Pedophiles on this blog. I think that this is a case of one being more critical of one’s family members than of strangers. My attitude towards VP may have mellowed a little due to the good and courageous work of certain members, such as Todd Nickerson and Gary Gibson.

Virpeds are a ‘paedo-lite’ – ending their philosophical reflections at the point at which these reflections start to throw doubt on the dominant narrative round paedophilia. This compromise with the dominant narrative has allowed them to achieve things which radical pro-choice paedophiles like myself simply can’t in the present climate: they have been able to introduce new ideas to an otherwise impermeable audience, they allow enough truth through to dilute the public’s ignorance a little, but not wash it away completely.

Whilst, ideally, young paedophiles would encounter the ideas of radical, pro-choice paedophilia before those of Virpeds – combativeness being a healthier attitude to oppression than submissiveness – engaging with the latter is by far preferable to being stranded in society with only the ‘monster’ and ‘predator’ narratives from which to build an identity and ideology.

Ultimately both the Virpeds and myself agree that adults should not engage with children in sexual activity. But, unlike Virpeds, I limit this interdiction to those social contexts where such intimacy is illegal and stigmatised. Nor do I think paedophiles should avoid contact with children or refrain from expressing their love and devotion in legally acceptable ways – prohibitions often recommended by Virpeds.

I believe that Virpeds and Radical paedophiles should maintain a dialogue wherever this is possible – broad and inclusive forums and boards (such as, for girl-lovers, Visions of Alice) enable respectful and supportive exchanges between the Virtuous and the Radical and build some much-needed solidarity and understanding between two groups with a tendency to bicker.

The Good, the Bad and the Virtuous – Part 1
The Good, the Bad and the Virtuous – Part 2

contemporary childhood

Contemporary consumer capitalist society gets childhood badly wrong. It is not for nothing that there is an epidemic of depression, ADHD and suicide amongst children in consumer societies. We are putting our children through toxic childhoods.

Every aspect of childhood has been adversely affected by the commodification of childhood: children’s diet, their physical development and health, their sleep, their presence in the community, their education, their relationships with their parents, their sexuality, their capacity to communicate verbally, their emotional security, the quality of play, the stability of family relationships etc

Marketing and consumerism seek to set children and adults, particularly parents, at odds with one-another. This is most clearly manifest in how everything to do with ‘parents’ is presented to children as being ‘uncool’, and the most ‘cool’ things are the products and life-styles being offered to children by the Marketers.

This creates a sense of anxiety around children and young people, which ultimately fuels paedophobia.

I will be writing about this in the coming weeks.

Where Have All The Children Gone?
The Consumer Child – Part 1

toxic sexuality

Sexuality is one of the basic, inescapable drives whose cultural expression the Marketing industry seeks to exploit. We are aware of some of the less subtle ways the marketing industry uses sex to make us adults into more docile and eager consumers. But since the 1960s the same marketing industry has cashed-in to the huge potential of co-opting children’s sexuality.

One of its earliest strokes of genius was the creation of the ‘teenager’. Next came the ‘Tween’. Both are defined by ideas of the ‘Cool’ which forever change according to the products needing to be marketed.

Girls are particularly vulnerable because their identity is more explicitly defined by their eventual reproductive role than as with little boys. The marketing industry teaches little girls that they are attractive in proportion to how much they spend on themselves and how much they have done to themselves.

pageantgirl1One way of thinking about this is to consider two archetypes of the ‘sexual child’ – there is the ‘Consumer Child’, perhaps best embodied in the ‘Toddler-in-tiaras’ phenomenon and there is her opposite – the ‘Wild Child’ or ‘Nature Child’.

The Consumer Child’s sexuality is defined by what she wears, by her make up, her hair-styling, by accessories and by pop culture in general – it apes the consumption patterns of adult women and is a sexuality of display and performance rather than of intimacy and relationships.

This commodified and narcissistic conception of the self and the human body is an inexhaustible gold mine for the marketing industry and consumer capitalism, since the attitudes learnt in childhood will certainly be carried over into adulthood.

Dirty Jessie (1985) by Sally Mann

Examples of the ‘Wild Child’ are the children of the photographer Sally Mann. In Mann’s photos her children are  often naked, therefore free from any product or sign of marketing. The children are depicted playing in and exploring the natural world. Their play is independent of adults and of consumer goods, they are often dirty, their nails broken from climbing trees rather than manicured and varnished, and they are at ease with their bodies. One gets a strong sense that these children are sexual but their sexuality is not expressed by the signifiers of pop or consumer culture but through their interactions with the viewer, with others in the photographs, and with their environment.

I suspect that few paedophiles will find the ‘Toddlers-in-Tiaras’ style more appealing or attractive than the ‘Wild Child’.

children’s sexual rights

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child‘ (1989) is an undoubtedly fine and laudable document which has played a valuable role in promoting the well-being of children round the world.

However its every use of the word ‘sex’ (other than when it uses the word as a synonym for ‘gender’) is negative. A search yields one instance each of ‘sexual exploitation’, ‘unlawful sexual activity’, unlawful sexual practices’, and two instances of ‘sexual abuse’.

I entirely agree that sexual abuse is a bad thing that should be eliminated, but I certainly don’t make the assumption that all ‘child-adult sensual intimacy’ is necessarily ‘sexual abuse’ or ‘sexual exploitation’. And whilst I believe in the rule of law (in democratic societies, at least), I don’t believe that everything that is illegal should be illegal.

Children, as sexual beings, should have positive sexual rights as well as negative ones. I suggest that children have the following rights:

– to have their sexuality considered as valuable in itself and not just as some preparation for sexual maturity and adulthood,

– to a sexual education which acknowledges the primacy of desire and pleasure, because pleasure is the first thing a child knows and experiences about sex, with desire following on soon after,

– to a sexual education which furnishes children with the vocabulary and concepts which will enable them to think about, make sense of and communicate sexual feelings and thoughts,

– to a lived sexual education as well as a theoretical one. Children should learn about sexuality in the same way as they learn about all other things: through observation, discussion, play and performance, with their peers and trusted adults, at home and in the community,

– to enjoy sexual pleasure and to agency over their bodies,

– to be listened to and to receive honest answers,

– to privacy,

– that no part of their bodies be mutilated, excised or altered in order to discourage, change or control their sexuality,

– that their ‘no’ be respected, and that manipulation, coercion, or persistence should not be used to by-pass or override that withholding of consent,

– to say ‘Yes’ as well as to say ‘No’,

– to choose with whom they express their sexuality.

to a kinder world
the Overton Window

Can one bring about a society that recognises children’s sexual rights?

I’m not optimistic. I think we are very far from being in a situation where paedophiles themselves can effect such a change. We are still firmly lodged at the ‘unthinkable’ extreme of the Overton Window.

I don’t think things can change simply by our arguing our case – the attitudes that underly paedophobia have their roots in societies economic and familial structure (see ‘The origins of paedophobia section above) and nothing can change unless that economic structure changes too.

However, radical and militant paedophiles need to keep active and campaigning: firstly, because truth need to be asserted against error, even if those propagating the errors don’t listen; secondly, because having a radical understanding of paedophilia and being part of a community promotes the well-being and safety of paedophiles living in paedophobic societies; and, thirdly, by continuing to deepen our understanding of paedophilia, child sexuality and related phenomena we prepare and fore-arm ourselves for those occasions when putting our case clearly and convincingly will make a difference – knowledge is power.

a society that loves its children

Can we imagine a society that is free from those factors that contribute to paedophobia?  What would such a society look like?

There have already existed many non-industrial societies, including western societies from before the Industrial Revolution, that were remarkable for their lack of neurosis around child sexuality and tolerance for child-adult sensual intimacy (I recommend browsing through the ‘Growing Up Sexually‘ – A world atlas and encyclopedia of cross-cultural practices in the sexual enculturation of children).

But looking to the past only gets us so far – we have to envisage a future society which integrates all the previous technological and social achievments.

Such a society would be one in which the nuclear family would play less of a role in children’s lives than the community; it would be a society in which children and adults were not segregated, in which education was not the preserve of the young and work not the preserve of adults; it would be a society where public spaces were safe for children to inhabit free of parental supervision – i.e. free from cars; where green spaces and nature were not estimated at their financial worth; a society in which the quality of our relationships with fellow humans and Nature served as the index of happiness and well-being rather than wealth, consumption and possessions.

This is a ‘Deep Green’ vision of society: a society that has shaken off capitalism’s growth imperative; a society that recognises that the only meaningful benefit of mechanisation is that it should free humans from soul-destroying work. It is a society whose wealth is found in learning, creativity, in leisure and in the building of communities and relationships.

Such a society, with its increase in leisure and creativity, its rebuilding of geographical communities and its liberation of the human mind from the shackles of consumerism would break-down age-apartheid and the open up of the nuclear family. And this, in turn, would permit the conception of the child as a sexual being, whose sexuality could be legitimately expressed across age boundaries.

The future is green, and liberating for children

culture and community under stigma

I am interested in the idea of a culture of paedophilia that would consist of novels, music, films, painting, sculptures, photographs, dances, songs, poems, jokes, scientific and technological discoveries, histories, philosophy &c that directly or indirectly touch on paedophilia and child sexuality.

I would add to this an awareness of the identity and lives of creative or historical figures who either were paedophiles, or who were sympathetic to, or interested in, child sexuality and/or paedophilia.

The exploration and sharing of such a culture would be a source of comfort, solidarity and self-respect for individual paedophiles and the paedophile community.



I think it is essential that we develop a robust ethics of pro-choice paedophilia. Being a paedophile in a hostile society is undoubtedly a mine-field and an ethical framework would guide us in our interactions with children, with families and with the community.

Hopefully, at some point in the future, the fact that we can demonstrate to society that we are ethical people trying to live ethically may contribute to the progress of our cause. Virtuous Pedophiles have already, to some extent, shown the efficacy of this approach.

Finally, a robust, well-worked out system of ethics will ensure that we will be able to present the case for pro-choice paedophilia as powerfully and clearly as possible.

Islam and paedophilia

It pains me to have to mention islam here. Knowing the paper-thin sensibilities of moslems and islamozombie kufrs, who consider islam should be the one ideology exempt from criticism, I expect this section to draw onto me more flack than all the other sections combined.

I mention islam for two reasons – 1/ its association with a debased form paedophilia – both in the deeds of mohammed, the religion’s inventor, and those of his followers, 2/ islam’s unsurpassed barbarity towards little girls

There should be no need in the 21st Century to have to argue that it is an abomination to slice the clitorises of little girls in order to reduce their capacity to experience sexual pleasure; or to have to argue that the practice of selling of girls, sometimes still in infancy, into marriage is wrong; there should be no need to argue against the practice of infibulating the labia of little girls so that their virginity is guaranteed, and so that only the ‘husband’ who has purchased her can have access to her vagina. It should not be dismissed as ‘islamophobic’ to point out that sharia law does not recognise marital rape, so that once a little girl has been ‘married’ she has no rights over her own body, and can be penetrated at will.

But unfortunately a reluctance to criticise any aspect of islam means that such practices are still wide-spread in the islamic world, and that a polite silence or even approval is maintained concerning them by too many Westerners who should know better.

It’s probably common knowledge that mohammed ‘married’ a little girl called Aisha when she was 6, and ‘consummated’ the ‘marriage’ three years later when she was nine. There is no evidence in the koran or hadith that Aisha’s consent or opinion was at any point sought – indeed she suspected that she’d been married off to someone before she had any idea to whom.

The way mohammed treated Aisha is the negation of any ethical principles a loving and thoughtful paedophile should instinctively advocate. mohammed beat Aisha. When ‘thighing’ Aisha he would place a cloth against her vagina in order that she experience no pleasure. As well as having her labia infibulated it is likely that Aisha’s clitoris would have been cut off. Clearly mohammed considered it fine for himself to derive pleasure from what he was doing to Aisha, but not for Aisha to derive any pleasure from him.

Islam having a ‘Paedophile Prophet’ might predispose some paedophiles to see it as a religion friendly to paedophiles.

But it is not a religion friendly to children, especially little girls. And any paedophile who sees islam as a friend or a model is throwing the very children they purport to love under the bus in order that their desires be fulfilled at whatever cost. They confirm as correct the haters who claim that ‘paedophiles just want to rape children’.

Mohammed’s treatment of Aisha has served as the exemplar for the childhoods of little girls throughout the history of islam. I consider the Western interdiction of child sexuality and child-adult intimacy as infinitely preferable to islamic so-called paedophilia, especially when it comes to the welfare of little girls.

Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: a statistical overview and exploration of the dynamics of change
Child marriage

53 thoughts on “What I Think – Part 2

  1. I also have a great interest in a ‘culture of pedophilia’
    I think the issue of representativeness is very important, the lack of representation is something that bothers me personally, I believe that all of us actually …

    Films, books, poems, etc. that deal with the child-adult relationship / pedophilia – even implicitly – are always very pleasing, I like them very much!
    (Lawn dogs for example, it’s a movie I like a lot! I saw it on another post of yours that you’ve already watched ^ _ ^)

    Have you ever thought about creating a post to share movies, books, poems, songs, etc. that deal with child-adult relationship / pedophilia? Or even people in history who have been pedophiles, anyway, representative things!

    It does not have to be anything complex, in-depth, just quote these things, and each of us in the comments could collaborate by citing new things we know that approach the subject!

    Anyway, I think it would be very good and interesting! I do not know if there is anything like this …


    1. I like your suggestion. I do occasionally touch on books, poems, films and art that deal with paedophile relationships, but maybe not as much as I should. There are some web-sites out there that do a good job promoting paedophile culture (such as and

      I’m interested in historical paedophiles – I did a couple of posts on the diarist Francis Kilvert last year. And I hope to eventually get round to doing something on John Ruskin – a real hero of mine, not just because he seemed pretty fond of little girls – but because he had such a great mind, and was such a wonderful writer.


      1. I’ve known Pigtails in paint for a long time, it’s really good! I met Agapeta a short time ago, it’s really a very quality site, but it’s a bit difficult for me since most of the content is poems, and when I translate poems they come out a little bit from their context (it’s difficult to translate Poems) But I still enjoy some!

        > “I’m interested in historical paedophiles – I did a couple of posts on the diarist Francis Kilvert last year. And I hope to eventually get round to doing something on John Ruskin”

        I did not know ‘Francis Kilvert’, I’ll read your posts about him! And I also did not know ‘John Ruskin’, I saw that there are some of his books in my language, I will search more! 🙂


  2. A link to ‘child’ marriage in unicef website.


    >>>>>”I’ll also give UNICEF the credit of having the interests of children at heart. Even when it comes to child sexuality – they may be wrong in their stance, but I have little doubt as to their motives.”

    I said a lot of bullshit in this blog, but that statement absolves me of everything.

    While millions of children around the world still live in poverty, and thousands die every day from famine, disease and war, your feminist mandated unicef (they not deserve even the uppercase) is to jet around the world organizing conferences to wipe out the scourge of 17 year old ‘children’ choosing to what do they want with their bodies.

    Thanks to scumcef for declaring that any individual under 18 is a child.
    Thanks to scumcef for campaing to ban marriage to minors below 18. (Today Germany, Tomorrow The World)
    Thanks to scumcef for campaing to ban any sexual contact to persons under 18.
    Thanks to scumcef for making illegal the most inocuous erotic image of a person under 18.
    Thanks to scumcef for campaing to ban any exposure of sexuality to minors under 18.
    Thanks to scumcef for campaing to ban any artistic representation of a ‘child’ under 18.
    Thanks to scumcef for campaing to ban erotic cartoons from under the age of 18.
    Thanks to scumcef for campaing to ban to write texts about relationships with children under 18.

    Thanks scumcef, Rape the Children and National Center for Explotation of Children to protect 17-years old ‘children’ of the scourge of child marriage.

    They do it with the best intention.



    1. OK, there’s a lot to unpack here and I agree that UNICEF have got a lot wrong on children’s sexual rights.

      But that is besides the question: the issue here is FGM.

      UNICEF have been active and effective in campaigning against FGM and, on that issue, I am 100% behind UNICEF.


        1. >”Do you think you are breivik in the crusade against Islam?”

          That’s just silly.

          Since when does daring to criticise a political ideology make one the same thing as a crazed, psychopathic mass-killer?

          It seems that any criticism of islam is now profoundly taboo…


    2. I’ll also add that not all cases where an age of consent is introduced where one previously didn’t exist represent a diminution in the rights and well-being of girls (and boys).

      There are several states (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Pakistan – note the common factor) where there is no age of consent. Instead there is the stipulation that all sex must happen within marriage, but that a child can be married off at any age. Once married the husband decides at what age the child is ready to have sex.

      These are countries where girl children are effectively the property of their parents, to be sold for a dowry, or bartered. Their virginity and chastity has to be preserved, so there is no culture or system of sex education. The younger the girl the more likely they are to be sold into marriages with adult men without being consulted (the koran requires the consent of the father, not the child – see accounts of mohammed’s marriage to Aisha in both the sahih Hadith).

      Add to this that four witnesses are required by sharia law for a rape prosecution to be instituted – this means that little girls under this system can, and often are, be sold into child sexual slavery, without any consultation and without any preparation for what awaits them.

      And under such a system if a little girl and a man were to have intimate relationships outside of marriage, both would, under Sharia law, be liable to death by stoning. So the lack of the age of consent does not open the door for legitimate, consent-based and loving relationships between girls and men.

      In such countries – I would suggest that the passage to an ‘age of consent’ system actually represents a major step forward for little girls and adolescent girls – at least granting them protection from having sexual domesticity imposed on them against their wills. It also guarantees that girls, once they’ve reached the age of consent have a legal right to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to intimacy, both within any marriage or outside of marriage.


      1. I agree whole-heartedly with this sentiment. ^^

        Is there no AoC in Yemen? I thought in their statutory legal system marriageable age was set at a particular figure, (generally ignored in practice) although Wikipedia says that’s no longer the case since 1999.
        The AoC thing is so complex. I have looked at it for years and have yet to find a reliable website to return to on a regular basis. They all have errors or old info. There oughtta be a non-profit.

        Sometimes these sites can really throw me for a loop like here:
        Mexico: bright green 18. Huh? Is there something rotten i don’t know about recent legislative shenanigans?
        Clicking on their own link to their own subpage for Mexico they pretty convincingly say 17, and lots of the state-by-state figures don’t match what i have actually read in Mexican state laws. So internal consistency is definitely off, but is my info on the individual states out-of-date like my info on Yemen was?

        To add to your point, it’s mildly annoying to me when people pine for the ‘good ole days’ before ages of consent, unless they’re talking about prehistory. Because any time since the agricultural revolution life has been pretty much slavery for most kids, and marriage and sex in childhood or adolescence weren’t often the wonderful relationships we would like to have in pedotopia.

        Frankly i think we should settle the whole debate (among pedokind) about what the AoC ‘should’ be…
        “I’m a hebe- so i think it should be by Tanner stage (because we’re obsessed with those)”
        “I’m a real pedo, so i think it should be 3 and a half, but only for my partner(s)”
        “I’m a VirPed, so i think it should be 75”
        “I’m a nepi- so i will keep quiet and watch the debate wondering what the hell is the big deal with these people who like to fight and argue so much” etc.


  3. herewith the accompanying blather! You especially gotta love the translation of number six!

    ”Il quadro sta provocando polemiche nelle reti sociali:
    La prima immagine si riferisce alle società controllate di pedofilia in Vaticano.
    La seconda immagine si riferisce alla pedofilia in Tourism Authority of Thailand.
    La terza immagine si riferisce alla guerra nel paese della Siria.
    La quarta immagine si riferisce al traffico di organi sul mercato nero, dove le prime vittime sono i bambini dei paesi più poveri.
    La quinta immagine si riferisce alle armi libere negli Stati Uniti
    E infine la sesta immagine si riferisce ad obesità che hanno causato grandi aziende di fast food nei bambini “.


    L’opera si intitola Los Intocables, realizzata da Erik Ravelo.

    ‘ ‘ the picture is causing controversy in social networks:
    The first image refers to the subsidiaries of paedophilia in the Vatican.
    The second image refers to the paedophilia in the tourism authority of Thailand.
    The third image refers to the war in the country of Syria.
    The fourth image refers to the trafficking of organs on the black market, where the first victims are the children of the poorest countries.
    The fifth image refers to arms free in the United States
    And finally the sixth image refers to obesity that caused great fast food companies in children “.


    The work is called Los Intocables, made by Erik Ravelo Municipality.


    1. thanks Warbles,

      There are obviously some causes here that need to be addressed – the last especially – the marketing not just of food to children, but marketing in general to children – something that I find obscene and incredibly damaging.

      But this seems to be a rather shallow art-work – it’s not even good Art in my opinion – it trips up on its own imagery – why use the symbolism of crucifixion? yes, it works visually but it is too strong and complex a motif to simply be used for compositional reasons – moreover neither does ‘paedophilia in the Vatican’, nor ‘sex-tourism’, generally result in the deaths of the children involved, so the symbolism of crucifixion seems dishonest and bombastic.

      Other than that, it looks like the artists hasn’t been sufficiently critical of his own work: there’s something that doesn’t work about the children – they are merely filling a space. If I was working with this student (I mean ‘artist’) I’d suggest he tries several other ways of representing the children – dolls, mannequins, making figures out of pillow-cases, paper cut-outs, projections etc and see if he gets any insights from that. Using actual children is eye-catching, but fails to engage sympathy – they just look like kids ‘borrowed’ from friends or the local school.

      This is the kind of thing second year art students would do – it’s ‘pick-an-issue Art’ with very little real depth or emotion – “this week we’ll do child abuse, next week we’ll do world hunger and for your end of term project we’ll do climate change…”. You can put twenty issues into a hat and get a classfull of students to pick out an issue at random to address and this is the kind of thing that results.

      And if the artist was concerned with child deaths and abuse – why did he not include the category that is responsible for the HUGE majority of murdered and abused children? parents and step-parents.

      Maybe because that would be too complex, and doesn’t press easy buttons in viewers.


      1. Lol¡


        Like i do when violent movies invade my personal space, i simply didn’t look at the piece described so artfully above. Thanks for obviating any necessity i may have felt!

        And thanks for the laughs. I get real belly laughs more often in the past few years than i did since i was quite small, and reading your work usually gives me a few such.

        P.S. Using a different platform i forgot to identify myself in the comment i just posted above on the branch of this comment tree following Christian’s comments. But i’m sure even if you didn’t recognise my patronising tone in that comment the style could give me away so i may as well own-up to it.


  4. Thankyou LSM, for that reassurance. And may I commend you while I’m at it for your discipline. Alas, it seems I am not so nobly-endowed! Meanwhile, you probably should not miss this latest excrescence currently making more than a few incursions via social media the accompanying Italian needs no translation’… I have perhaps put in peril a barely fledged relationship with the most beautiful Florentian creature by expressing my disgust without hesitation following her posting of it on FB. Please advise if the link worketh not…


    1. hi warbles

      I’m getting the image only but no text or context – I’d be interested to know what it’s about.
      Interestingly the one group of adults that is currently engaging in mass crucifixion does not appear to be represented – the closest is the fifth figure, but he seems to represent more the lone-wolf high-school killer.
      I’m guessing that the second ‘man’ is meant to be a sex tourist…


    2. Warning!! highly un-PC statements here:
      That’s not new, I saw this years ago, that’s something of atheist leftist feminists, aka SJW, aka imbeciles who hate men, more if they are white or heterosexual, you realize that half are girls, but that there is no woman ‘oppressing’ children?

      If you are starting a relationship with an adult woman, forget it for the better, she will end up denouncing you to the police if she discovers something about your attraction or even just your simpathy to pedos, even after marriage will most women not hesitate for a moment to denounce you and take any child you have. Yes, most are exploiters and abusers of man, thanks to the masculinists (even if most are Anti-MAP freaks) I opened my eyes, after almost 9 years. I advise you dating adolescent girls who are of legal age because they are less contaminated by the feminist system and are the true real women. (Although it is morally legitimate to break that absurd and evil laws of statutory rape, it is not a good idea to do so because it makes us vulnerable to the murderous feminist state).

      I see feminists saying they should stop being exploited, cheated and assaulted by men, I think we men, we should stop being exploited, cheated and denounced by women, no problem they all can be lesbians and we all minor-attrated adults.


    1. sorry Warbles, no you haven’t killed the conversation. It’s just that ‘MORE Cuttings From my Scrapbook’ has taken pretty much all my attention this past week or so, with several other deadlines pressing hot at my heels. I’ll get a response to your last comment in the next day or two.


  5. Might I apologize for what I am sure, in advance, some will find to be my unwieldy syntax in the previous comment. That is a personal matter so complex and vexed to me the more I try to rectify heem the more he complexifies. It is as simplex as that (oh god, it seems I’m now channeling C S Lewis in his whole essay on the word ‘simple!’)

    But here I’d just like to clarify if i can what I’m really after. I just read the piece on Dr Cantor’s work and I am astounded at how hopelessly mired it is in the cage of CogSci orthodoxy. Or in other words, in the assumption that the proper root of all dynamics and ceaseless vicissitudes of desire may be found somehow within the operations of a single brain, considered in isolation from all other brain-bearing – but really sign-bearing – entities…..

    I submit that our desire, or *appetite mediated by its appearance on the scene of (collective) re-presentation*, is what really rules the roost/roast. The cerebral apparatus is but the (haplessly implicated) visceral sponsor of all that goes on.

    Any researcher not taking the reality of our mimetic interdividuality from the word-go into full consideration is thus the very definition a *hopeless romantic*, who expects to find the holy grail of desire somehow secreted there right within the cardinal folds of his own feeling engine…..


    1. hi Warbles

      I’ll give your comment a bit of attention – I have to confess that my somewhat brain, always prone to dimness and feebleness, has been struggling somewhat with your ‘unwieldy syntax’.

      Am I right in summarising your position as:

      ‘desire is not something that exists in individual brains, but is rather a product of culture and society.’

      If that is what you’re saying I very much agree with you – in fact I’ve half a blog post written-up addressing that very point. I think that the sexual drive is innate, biological, but its expression is very much socially mediated.

      What society overlooks is that we are educated into our sexualities. And that this education doesn’t start at adolescence – though Society likes to think that it does start then – but it starts in infancy – such as when a baby observes its parents’ attitudes towards its own and their bodies. Or their attitude towards handling its genitals.

      The essay I’ve been working on is actually about the effects of consumer culture on childhood. And it takes as its starting point the phrase ‘the sexualisation of children’. Our culture uses this phrase in a misleading way – we sexualise children whatever we do – ‘sexualise’ in the sense of ‘teaching them sexuality’. Children are cued to learn about these things – and ‘sexualisation’ happens whether the child grows up in a liberated environment or in a straight-laced puritannical environment. But they learn different lessons.

      So, yes, sexuality is innate – but its expressions are cultural – indeed I suspect that paedophilia is a product of our culture, or rather – the paedophilic drive is innate (at least in some of us) but we understand it through our culture.


  6. Pedophilia is an emotional disease, with a genesis involving susceptibility and environment. Pedophilia is essentially infantile behaviour – control and self-absorption are appropriate in infants. The pedophile sufferer (believe me, they suffer) has been unable to mature into embracing and enjoying the natural social reciprocity of the adult community. We, the generally healthy, need compassion, not condemnation, when we recognize this emotional illness, and professionals need to seek ways to end this suffering.


    1. Thank you for your comment Dave.

      I’m going to assume that you’re not a paedophile (“We, the generally healthy, need compassion…”) and that the fact that you feel compassion rather than condemnation for a group of people as universally and relentlessly stigmatised as paedophiles does you credit. Most ‘generally healthy’ people take pride in the pathological violence they would inflict on even completely celibate and chaste paedophiles.

      However there are things in your comment I disagree with – I don’t think that paedophilia is an emotional disease, though that entirely depends on how one defines ‘disease’.

      Nor do I think that paedophilia is about ‘control and self-absorption’ – other than in a few pathological cases. Anyone who has been a teacher, or established a deep friendship with a child will know that if there’s one thing children don’t respond to it’s self-absorption. Caring for, nurturing or loving a child is all about being sensitive to the child – adapting your behaviour, your speech to the child’s needs and developmental stage – something that demands the opposite of self-absorption.

      As to ‘control’ – again I must disagree with you. I have been lucky enough to have had one or two close friendships with children – and those friendships were marked by their profoundly egalitarian nature – and the idea of having ‘control’ of a child is distasteful to me.

      >“The pedophile sufferer (believe me, they suffer)”

      I know a lot of very happy paedophiles.

      And then there are certain factions of paedophiles (‘Virtuous Pedophiles’ most notably) who, like mediaeval flagellants, like to make a display of suffering and self-loathing for ideological and propaganda purposes… I guess it depends whence you derive your impressions and ideas of ‘the paedophile’…

      Yes, many of us do suffer, but the suffering is not from our desires, or not being able to act on one’s desires, so much as the intense and ubiquitous stigmatisation, misrepresentation, violence and discrimination we endure.

      >“enable to mature into embracing and enjoying the natural social reciprocity of the adult community”

      I have many very good adult friends (indeed I consider myself particularly blessed as far as friends are concerned). But this doesn’t exclude the possibility that a reciprocal friendship with a child can be equally wonderful – I’m sure that many parents, uncles and aunts will have experienced a friendship with an offspring, niece or nephew that was wonderful, and reciprocal and egalitarian.


  7. Thankyou very much for your response there, LSM. May i say first-of-all, that I am thoroughly pleased and stimulated by the current discussion above, as i am by the quality of almost everything that appears here.

    It seems in all though we are at times inhabiting somewhat different spheres, if you will. For while I identify most fully and unreservedly with the “romantic” conception of things as well, as espoused so splendidly hereupon, your fear of breaking the law seems to have prevented you from discovering that there are also thousands of fellows (and indeed, some women too) for whom paedosexual can be the only realistic term of designation. In fact, pure horndoggery is not far from it at all. These are they who populate the darkweb’s ‘onionsphere’, where chat-rooms bristle twenty four hours a day with countless posted images (aka ‘shares’), and where very little is ever spoken of romance. There is hyper net-aware intelligence abounding, but virtually nothing by way of self-examination of any kind in the intense heat of reprographic certification, and in the unity that cometh uniquely at the convergence of long-distance fapping and porn. Participation is urged constantly by admin, and if one neither shares (pictures) nor makes periodic comments, one is automatically logged out and must log back in again for a new session.

    Sometimes, I swear to you, it is as if the Russian Saint Nick himself is up there, pouring out an inexhaustible Christmas sack of endless gifts right into the Lap of the Pervs. I trust I do not contravene any standard you expect in the realm of taste here by saying that many of the images are quite staggeringly wonderful, and seize you by every ichor of your erotical personhood, blood and being. And about ninety percent of them do indeed proceed from out of the Motherland.

    Then there are the forums; these feature permanent image libraries, testimonies, help guides, handbooks for paedos, THE LOT. The community spirit, respect and devotion to the cause here runs really, really high. And the professionalism, attention to every speck of detail, user security, and web-savvy scrupulousness in general is second to absolutely none.

    And I have learned a LOT therein. Leonard, do you recall that incredibly extended exchange you had three years ago on Spiked Online with the omnipresent (hehe..) Carl Barjer? I ask because that was enormously absorbing for me, as you two grappled away and worked it all out there below the piece by Furedi on NSPCC and PIE (“what they have in common”). I cannot help but wonder if, in the intervening period, you have not inevitably edged closer to a kind of Platonism where chastity takes on a sort of transcendent power in itself, where the pure idea grows more prepossessing, luminous and large every day, and where, despite your full acknowledgement of desirability and ultimate hope of contact, you are effectively closer to Team Virped than you are to the gleefully brazen, massively self-celebratory online ‘paedohordes’ whereof I speak?

    My feeling however is that you have failed to readily engage me in your response on that profound part played in all this by the interdiction. I must attend elsewhere right now, but here is that unimpeachable and indispensable paper by Amy Adler, in which the role played by law in creating the horrid society-wide situation we know today is revealed in its entirety

    all best,


  8. On FGM/C and MGM/C, the hypocrisy and double standrds of the USA/UNO, you should read the works of Brian Earp, in particular:
    Boys and girls alike
    An un-consenting child, an unnecessary, invasive surgery: is there any moral difference between male and female circumcision?
    by Brian D Earp
    Aeon Magazine
    Between moral relativism and moral hypocrisy: Reframing the debate on “FGM”
    Brian D. Earp
    University of Cambridge, Department of History and Philosophy of Science
    Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal – in press
    Earp, B. D. (in press).
    In defence of genital autonomy for children. Journal of Medical Ethics,
    in press.
    Earp, B. D. (2014).
    Female genital mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision: Should there be a separate ethical discourse? Practical Ethics. University of Oxford.
    DOI: 10.13140/2.1.3530.4967.
    Female genital mutilation and male circumcision: toward an autonomy-based ethical framework
    Brian D Earp
    Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
    Medicolegal and Bioethics, 3 October 2015 Volume 2015:5 Pages 89–104

    Lessons from reading Earp… There are different degrees of both MGM and FGM:
    M: circumcision, subincision.
    F: labioplasty, clitoridectomy, both combined, infubilation.
    For both genders, the operation implies significant health risks (also for medically performed male circumcision in the US), especially when performed in a non-medical framework (i.e., tribal circumciser), and it impairs sexuality proportionally to the gravity of the mutilation. FGM exists only in conjunction with MGM, there is no country with FGM but without MGM.
    The UNO ignores MGM and posits GM as a gender issue because it is submitted to the USA which claims that MGM is beneficial and healthy. It is rather a youth issue.
    The West has double standards: if a Western woman (who has seen “smooth” Barbie dolls and US porn stars) says she want a labioplasty because she feels her vulva is “ugly”, one says that it is her right; if an African woman says she wants a circumcision because in her tribe one says that it is necessary to be a “nice woman”, one says that it is a gross violation of women’s rights.

    NB. The UNO map of FGM countries you linked to coincides mostly with “tropical Africa”. It does not coincide with Islam, as you claim: it includes Ethiopia, a Christian country since old, and it excludes many Muslim regions, the Maghreb, Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, Bosnia, Albania, etc. FGM and MGM are extremely old practices, anterior to conversion by Muslim or Christian missionaries.


    1. Suddenly it has become controversial to condemn FGM.

      Has islamophilia so made you lose your moral compass that you can make excuses for razors being taken to the genitals of unaesthetised unconsenting little girls in order to neuter their sexuality and mark and literally seal them as the possession of their future husband?

      If sutee had been a moslem custom rather than a hindu one I’m sure that there would useful idiots springing to its defence and urging the rights of women to be pressured into throwing themselves (or ‘being thrown’) onto the pyres of their dead husbands. That ‘a woman’s right to sutee’ was a feminist issue.

      >“The West has double standards: if a Western woman (who has seen “smooth” Barbie dolls and US porn stars) says she want a labioplasty because she feels her vulva is “ugly”, one says that it is her right; if an African woman says she wants a circumcision because in her tribe one says that it is necessary to be a “nice woman”, one says that it is a gross violation of women’s rights.”

      Generally its not ‘african women’ asking to be FGMed. It’s moslem women FGMing their little daughters and grandaughters.

      FGM takes place in conditions that don’t allow the little girls a free choice – they come under pressure from their culture, communities and families to undergo it, they are lied to (“we’re going to see uncle mohammed in Indonesia and he’ll make you into a real woman”), they are probably too young to understand what is going on, what is going to happen to them, if they refuse it they are held down and it is done anyway, and they are not exposed to those facts, information, alternative narratives and options that are necessary for the making of a free choice.

      Compare this with a adult western woman having a labioplasty.

      >“The UNO map of FGM countries you linked to coincides mostly with “tropical Africa”. It does not coincide with Islam, as you claim: it includes Ethiopia, a Christian country since old, and it excludes many Muslim regions, the Maghreb, Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, Bosnia, Albania, etc. FGM and MGM are extremely old practices, anterior to conversion by Muslim or Christian”

      Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, Indonesia and Malaysia refused to provide data for the UNICEF study – but other evidence suggest high FGM rates: Malaysia (93% – and Indonesia (97.5% –, Oman (90%).

      I recommend you having a browse through the wikipedia page on FGM, many moslem countries do not compile statistics on FGM – .

      Re Ethiopia ‘The prevalence also varies with religion in Ethiopia; FGM is prevalent in 92% of Muslim women and with lower prevalence in other religions: 65.8% Protestants, 58.2% Catholics and 55% Traditional Religions.’ ( Clearly in Ethiopia islam is much less effective or eager to wipe out this evil than other, more advanced religions.

      There are the four instances in the koran and hadith where mohammed either approves of, or fails to disapprove of, FGM (I’d be very interested if you can point me to another religion that justifies FGM in its core texts):

      “Abu Hurayrah said: I heard the Prophet (p̶e̶a̶c̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶b̶l̶e̶s̶s̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶A̶l̶l̶a̶a̶h̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶u̶p̶o̶n̶ ̶h̶i̶m̶) say: “The fitrah is five things – or five things are part of the fitrah – circumcision, shaving the pubes, trimming the moustache, cutting the nails and plucking the armpit hairs.” Bukhari 5891; Muslim 527

      “Abu al- Malih ibn `Usama’s father relates that the Prophet said: “Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women.” Ahmad Ibn Hanbal 5:75; Abu Dawud, Adab 167.

      “Narrated Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (p̶e̶a̶c̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶b̶l̶e̶s̶s̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶A̶l̶l̶a̶a̶h̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶u̶p̶o̶n̶ ̶h̶i̶m̶) said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.” Sunan Abu Dawud 41:5251

      “Abu Musa reported: There cropped up a difference of opinion between a group of Muhajirs (Emigrants and a group of Ansar (Helpers) (and the point of dispute was) that the Ansar said: The bath (because of sexual intercourse) becomes obligatory only-when the semen spurts out or ejaculates. But the Muhajirs said: When a man has sexual intercourse (with the woman), a bath becomes obligatory (no matter whether or not there is seminal emission or ejaculation). Abu Musa said: Well, I satisfy you on this (issue). He (Abu Musa, the narrator) said: I got up (and went) to ‘A’isha and sought her permission and it was granted, and I said to her: 0 Mother, or Mother of the Faithful, I want to ask you about a matter on which I feel shy. She said: Don’t feel shy of asking me about a thing which you can ask your mother, who gave you birth, for I am too your mother. Upon this I said: What makes a bath obligatory for a person? She replied: You have come across one well informed! The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When anyone sits amidst four parts (of the woman) and the circumcised parts touch each other a bath becomes obligatory.” Sahih Muslim 3:684


      1. Stop pontificating (as you usually do on this subject).
        You should read Earp instead of attributing him (or me?) ideas that he did not express (and I did not too). You can start with his Eon article, it is a short summary.
        Earp does not try to make condemning FGM controversial, His controversy is that one condemns FGM at the same time as one condones MGM. And yes, there are adult African women who requested GC and where denied it, while there were Western women for whom this was accepted.
        And yes, there are several feminists who have said that male infant circumcision is a feminist issue (just Google about it).


        1. thank you for the Earp articles – I will read them, but when I am preparing an article on FGM and MGM.

          >”And yes, there are adult African women who requested GC and where denied it, while there were Western women for whom this was accepted.”

          That is hardly the problem that I am concerned with, Christian.

          My concern with FGM is not whether adult women can or cannot choose to have it done to themselves, but of little girls being ‘cut’ under cultural or religious duress, under the threat of bringing shame on their families and communities, under the threat of hell-fire and eternal damnation.

          Adult women, exercising free choice is another issue entirely.


      2. And I add that your sentence against me:
        “Has islamophilia so made you lose your moral compass that you can make excuses for razors being taken to the genitals of unaesthetised unconsenting little girls in order to neuter their sexuality and mark and literally seal them as the possession of their future husband?”
        is simply libel. I have said nothing to condone anything like GM on non-consenting people, especially children. And I am not a “-phile” of any religion. Full stop.


        1. >”And I am not a “-phile” of any religion.”

          Really!? When the criticism of something as unquestionably barbaric as “the practice of infibulating the labia of little girls” (the words I use in the above article – so the introduction of ‘women’ into the discussion is a diversion) has you springing to isislam’s defence?

          A thought experiment:

          If instead of criticising “the practice of infibulating the labia of little girls” I had criticised the islamic MGM..?

          Your response, I think we can both agree, would have been to point out that MGM is also practised by Jews and is widespread in the USA – thus attempting to dilute and deflect criticism away from islam.

          If I had condemned secular MGM in the USA, I think we can both agree that you would not have called me to account for failing to mention islamic-MGM.

          What I think we can both also agree on is that you would in neither case have brought up the issue of FGM – since to do so would be to shine a light on an near-exclusively islamic barbaric practice.

          You see, whatever I write on FGM or MGM the prevailing wind of your response would have always been to minimise and conceal isislam’s relevance to the question.

          A second thought re Ethiopia – Ethiopia is probably an example of creeping Sharia – where non-moslems find themselves pressurised, by various means, into adopting islamic practice.

          An analogous phenomenon is that of eating halal meat in the UK – if one were to use ‘eating halal meat’ as a criteria for being a moslem then the UK’s non-moslem population would be roughly equal to its population of vegetarians and vegans.

          Most non-moslem carnivores regularly eat halal-slaughtered meat because of the mechanisms of creeping sharia. Halal slaughter is another 7th century barbaric practice that islamists and kufr-islamophiles are working hard to spread.

          What have you to say about the rates of FGM in Malaysia and Indonesia? The last time I looked at my atlas they were quite a long way from tropical Africa…


          1. “A thought experiment” … useless, my thoughts definitely escape your narrow-minded framework.
            I brought up the question of FGM/MGM because you use as reference the UNICEF, a branch of the UNO, which propagates the US-imposed double standard “FGM is harmful, MGM is beneficial.” Otherwise you repeat undocumented hearsay or refer to Wikipedia, where anyone can say anything fashionable by referring to any source, or 8th century gossip (called “Hadith”). Thus I proposed Brian Earp, a true scholar who really enlightened me about the topic, in particular the US/UN double standard and influences of tribal/ethnic identity.
            “I think we can both agree … I think we can both agree … I think we can both also agree” … no, we don’t agree on anything, except tiny details. Basically you support Western imperialism, their UNO (the thieves’ kitchen), the French police State and its state of emergency; I am opposed to all.
            I am not a “phile” of any religion, but at the same time I am opposed to phobia and prejudice against any ethnic or religious group, such as Roma and Muslims, even if I don’t share their lifestyle. Yes, I know people from Maghreb (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, …), countries with a Muslim culture and religious origin, where FGM is NOT practised. BTW, in France if you said “Isislam” to denote Islam, you could be brought to court for incitement to hatred.
            One last interesting link about true feminism opposed to fake USA/UNO one:
            This is my last comment, I don’t want to discuss with a monomaniac who distorts what others say and brings defaming accusations.


            1. >”This is my last comment”

              This is probably a wise thing – I’d don’t think we’re going to see eye-to-eye on this one.

              But I’ll still address the points you made in your comment. But it bothers me that someone who I normally respect should be so angry at me for criticising islamic FGM: can’t you see that I am not the problem, Christian; the problem is those who commit FGM and those who excuse it or cover for it.

              Shouldn’t you expend more energy writing and campaigning against FGM rather than trying to silence my expressions of concern about it?


              What proportion of females, in what countries, undergo FGM – This is a statistical question – If you have better, more reliable, sources of statistics, then I would be grateful if you could point me towards them.

              >”Wikipedia, where anyone can say anything fashionable by referring to any source”

              Condemning FGM has become ‘fashionable’ now? Do we both hope that it stays in fashion long enough for this practice to be stamped out? Can we at least agree on this?

              “Wikipedia” – do you have any grounds for doubting the statistics on wikipedia’s FGM page? other than that they paint a picture you don’t like?

              >”8th century gossip (called “Hadith”)”

              Are they any less ‘gossip’ (or ‘fiction’) than the koran? They are as much ‘gossip’ as are the gospels, or any other historical record from that period.

              And even if they are ‘gossip’, it’s not me whom you should be persuading of that fact, but rather the billion or more moslems who turn to the hadith as justifiction for hacking at their children’s genitals (whether boy or girls) and for countless other barbaric practices.

              >”I am opposed to phobia and prejudice against any ethnic or religious group”

              ‘Criticism’ is not the same things as ‘prejudice’ – especially when it is of an ideology.

              >” BTW, in France if you said “Isislam” to denote Islam, you could be brought to court for incitement to hatred.”

              really!? Has France outlawed criticism and satire against islam now? I know french moslems enact a sharia death-penalty on those who satirise or criticise islam, but I didn’t realise the state had capitulated to them and outlawed criticism and satire of islam too!!

              Given that ISIS are the perfect realisation of the example and commandments of mohammed (I have recently finished reading the koran, the most badly written and immoral book I’ve ever had the misfortune to read) – and that every islamically sacred and holy act they perpetrate is scrupulously justified according to the koran or hadith, uncorrupted by kufr ideologies of democracy, freedom of thought, human rights and equality – it strikes me that ‘ISISlam’ is rather apt coinage.

              ISIS/DAESH, Boko-Haram &c are the shop-front of islam now.

              But I’ve noticed that my little bit of islamic micro-satire often offends those with islamo-apologist tendencies…

              >” Basically you support Western imperialism”

              I support the West, the Enlightenment project, secularism, democracy, free speech, freedom of thought, equal rights before the law, regardless of gender or religion.

              >”its state of emergency”

              I know that moslems and some kufr islamo-zombies dislike the ‘state of emergency’ because it prevents islamists performing their sacred religious duties, examples of which France saw at Nice, the Charlie Hebdo offices and the Paris attacks of 13-14 November 2015.

              Is preventing moslems from slaughtering kufr an abominable form of racism or religious discrimination? Personally I think not. I guess we’ll have to agree to differ on that one.


              1. It’s nearly midnight, and i’m not yet feeling my second wind so this will be short and as sweet as i can make something utterly devoid of glucose.

                I agree with Christian that your reply to his comments occurred as a personal attack, particularly the sarcasm about his alleged Islamophilia.

                He pointed-out a double standard held by people who are not you. He referred to the widespread FGM in non-muslim parts of Africa. This topic has interested me since i was a child horrified to learn that my idyllic vision of Maasai life was grossly underinformed: LG sexuality is given plenty of room and even empowered with choice until it’s brutal submission around puberty.

                Islam has merely condoned and codified older practices that are still common among people with religious beliefs that fit no recognizable label beyond ‘animism’, a very broad term.

                Having spent many many hours reading about FGM, and cherishing the sparkling words, for example, of Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her book, ‘Infidel’, i still managed to be unaware of the extent of this practice outside Africa as shown in the links you presented, LSM.

                I recommend coming up with better counter-criticisms than weak ad hominems when people challenge specific points in your spreading your disapproval of Islam.

                Granted, i skipped over half of your final reply above, having hoped to see you acknowledge Christian’s points and feeling like you were just flippant, irritable or tired. Like me. So maybe you already did.

                Oh, one other thing: Stamping-out FGM? I trust your articles in this blog generally are much more effective toward that end than your occasional toxic vitriol against religion which merely provokes the kind of defensive response that you read-into Christian’s challenge.

                FGM is just the most painful to us GL’ers of all humanity’s many inventions to deal with the challenge of sexuality as linguistic apes. It is not limited to any religious culture and it was not pioneered by Islam. Focusing on understanding its cultural benefits is a much more promising approach, in my view, of bringing it to an end than is attacking a religion to which innumerable dads adhere who cringe at the thought of what they think they must allow their daughters to go through.

                There are – oh, i don’t know – pretty many TED and TEDx talks that touch on the subject. I think it’s safe to say like any other cultural colonialism or mission work, efforts to end FGM consistently face their biggest barriers in the form of the mothers and grandmothers.

                I’m not a scholar, though, i just travel the world and listen to people and then what comes out of me is interesting bullshit.

                So here’s my summary: stop attacking religion. It’s classically male territory in agricultural and industrialised societies and if you wanna stop FGM you’re already alienated he women who’ve adjusted to surviving it. One needs allies and dads are the natural allies. We already know the girls aren’t considered for their actual opinions, or it wouldn’t require so many people to hold them down.

                Link withheld because it’s too grisly.


                1. Thank you for your comment Heath,

                  After reading your comment I reviewed my exchange with Christian and found nothing there that I won’t stand by, and nothing that I would not normally be willing to defend.

                  But I feel slightly awkward and shackled in doing so: while it reflects well on you that you come to Christian’s defense in his absence, it would be dishonourable of me, in his absence, to develop my critique of him and his position.

                  So I’ll try to address your points without mentioning Christian.

                  >”Islam has merely condoned and codified older practices that are still common among people with religious beliefs that fit no recognizable label beyond ‘animism’, a very broad term.”

                  Yes, FGM existed before islam (mohammed is recorded commenting on it in several different Hadith) – and some animist religions have continued to practice FGM. But what proportion of the human race are animist practitioners of FGM? And what proportion of humanity are moslem practitioners of FGM? Is animism a religion of conquest and conversion like islam? a relgion whose fundamental ‘morality’ is that its followers should do whatever contributes to its spread (including genocide, ‘taqiyya’ – deception and lying – rape – including child rape – slavery, forced conversion)?

                  Islam is the 3rd largest religious-oriented belief-system (after Christianity and atheism/secularism) – as such it is by far the belief system that most effectively perpetuates, spreads, propagates and justifies FGM. There are effectively no other contenders – to load all the responsibility on animism seems perverse.

                  >”I trust your articles in this blog generally are much more effective toward that end than your occasional toxic vitriol against religion”

                  If I hate islam it is based on facts and truth about islam – I have similar hatreds for other ideologies that seek to destroy my life and those things I value – fascism, unregulated capitalism, anti-environmentalism and other profoundly bad and dangerous ideas.

                  Some ideologies deserve toxic vitriol.

                  >”it was not pioneered by Islam”

                  True, but for 1400 years it has been sanctified, promoted, justified, spread (by the sword) and enforced by islam – with a violence and virulence unmatched by any other ideology. Islam has kept this practice alive, thriving and widespread in a way that animism hasn’t (animisms are not, by nature, a religion of conversion – being very much grounded in particular geographies and communities).

                  >”Focusing on understanding its cultural benefits”

                  I’m intrigued. Are there cultural benefits to FGM? And if there are, surely, wouldn’t focusing on these reinforce the cultural validation of FGM?

                  >”stop attacking religion.”

                  Sorry, Heath, no can do. I won’t stop attacking islam.

                  Why should the mother-lode of bad ideas and practices be immune from criticism and derision simply because it comes under the umbrella of ‘religion’?

                  Just as I’m not interested in sparing the sensibilities of paedophobes – I’m not interested in feather-bedding the sensibilities of moslems. On the contrary – I hope to that moslems reading me ARE offended – in the same way that Germans were offended when faced with the truth of Auschwitz.

                  And just as I hope that some of the more sensitive or intelligent moslems are offended when they watch ISIS propaganda videos and realise that what they are seeing is the true, unmasked face of their religion.


                  1. Thanks for the detailed reply and for the upright manner of it. I’ve read the part i skipped in your last comment above.

                    As i mentioned, i simply wasn’t aware of how widespread it is among adherents to Islam. You are right, then, to focus on criticising Islam if it is an ideological force currently promoting this particularly upsetting form of violence.

                    The point about understanding the cultural benefits is the keystone of my contribution. I do not, as you suggest, load all the responsibility on animism. I am very well aware that animism is neither a metastasising cancerous religion nor is it in any way organised or uniform and therefor it is utterly nonsensical to blame it for the horrific practice arising in its midst. Plenty of animistic societies not only don’t do FGM, they don’t do anything remotely like it. Animism simply allows a vibrant array of human creativity that other religions crush, and I actually like many animistic societies’ approaches to a lot of life’s challenges, almost (but hopefully not blindly) to the extent of admiring the ‘noble savage’ fantasy. Unfortunately for those of us pained by the cutting of girls (or boys) far or near, one of the brainchildren of early human cultural creativity was this thing of taking a blade to the most sensitive parts of children. Why?

                    I see no reason that understanding its benefits would lead to an increase of the practice. On the contrary it would reduce the instances if i understand human nature in this regard, since the actual purpose would be understood, and alternate methods found of accomplishing the same.

                    Consider medical leeches as a less appalling parallel. Their use was ridiculously widespread because A: it can work toward healing, and B: people would rather ape an action that worked for someone else than waste time to do the work of developing an original approach in the moment of need. That’s my take on it anyhow. The parallel isn’t a good one, because the use of medical leeches almost entirely died-out before being revived, but it has some value if we look at today’s situation: The leech is making a comeback. It will almost certainly not ever return to such a prominent place as it had, though, because now its function is far better understood, and this very understanding makes possible both more judicious application and alternative approaches.

                    The worst thing about the analogy i just used is of course that some will read into it the notion that i might think FGM should someday have a revival… I do not take the analogy that far. Instead i think that the benefits of it will be found to be much much easier to acheive elsewise, so much so that no one will opt for such barbarism. Everyone looking to accomplish what it accomplishes will turn to an alternative. Why do i think that? It’s a hunch. Call me religious.

                    Generations don’t swing, alternating between doing FGM and not doing it. They pass on the tradition unbroken. That means to me there’s agreement among those who do it, that it does indeed accomplish a vital something and isn’t what could be called ‘senseless abuse’.

                    Beyond domesticating and subjugating the Wild Girl, which is economically imperative in almost all societies, i have currently no guesses as to what other benefit the practice might have. I really think it would work best to just ask. Unfortunately any condemnation or lurid fascination will distort or entirely block the communication, so it will take a very rare kind of human to be able to hold such conversations. I might be up to the task someday. It’s on my short list of things to do when i walk across Africa.

                    I work to hack/understand from the inside patterns i don’t like, or just move away from them if that’s an option. Another point of Christian’s criticisms that resonated with me was the Western imperialism thing. And not in general, just on this issue. Your approach to this, dare i say, sounds oddly close to religious fanaticism. FGM is evil. Because you like little girls and hurting them hurts you. (I’m projecting; that’s why it is evil in my mind, not because that’s actually the God’s Truth, but because i just don’t like it. [insert GIF of a frowning kid shaking their head]) But life doesn’t give a shit about what any of us like. Even humanistic value systems are made-up agreements that have no reality and are no better to force on others than ones that came with a lot of fanfare from a mountain near Egypt. Even Western imperialism isn’t wrong, per se: i just don’t like it.

                    And to draw another analogy, let’s look at ‘addictions’, patterns that seem to take-on a power of their own, to ‘hijack the dopamine system’ as i’ve recently heard it described. The intelligent angles i’ve heard on ‘addiction’ come from skeptics regarding the reality of the phenomenon ostensibly identified as such. They take as their approach a ‘needs being met through costly means’ interpretation. I say the same thing is happening with FGM wherever it’s found. Actually i think i’ve just hacked the mens rea ‘evil’.

                    And about not attacking Islam, i am not sure if you understood my point about the dads. Did you? It’s fine to criticise Islam or anything at all, really, and that can be done without the extremism evident in your ridiculous, exaggerated mischaracterisation of Christian’s comments. I actually found your quips–the witty ones–about Islam funny. Many muslims probably wouldn’t, but that’s their problem, in the sense that one who cannot take criticism or laugh at themselves is… one who cannot take criticism or laugh at themselves. I guess i’m done for the moment.

                    Thanks again for your writing, it stimulates and inspires, even when i don’t like small bits of it and want to cut them out.


  9. i posted a very heartfelt (and even hardwon) comment here much earlier in the piece, and have no idea to this moment why it never appeared. I will keep my words to a minimum now in case the same fate befalls this ‘replacement’ post. If I may sum up my exploding thoughts at all, that summation could be put this way: I’d like to open up with LSM a big look at just how many degrees of paedosexuality there really seem to BE out there. It seems that a paedophile of the calibre (if you will) that LSM himself represents, is rather a difficult bird to find. Most everyone else in the field (if they are not some sort of VirPed!) is simply a paedosexually-focused and/or obsessed entity quite haplessly carried along by that fearfully powerful conjunction where whatever might be said at any point to be innate, meets desire that is *exclusively awoken by the forbidden*. In all of LSM’s writing i cannot find anything that directly confronts this pretty fundamental reality, only circuitously by way of (nonetheless compelling) reference to the most curious fruits or consequences of ‘consumer culture’. But I must check my head already as I do not know if this will appear or not. You can call me Turp(s) when I’m good and Warb(s) when I’m bad, sir. Do we have a deal?


    1. dear Warbling J Turpitude,

      Most profound apologies – I have just this minute found your comments in the ‘Spam’ – which I’m sure in no reflects the quality of their contents. I say ‘I’m sure’ because I have not got the time right now to give them the attention I’m sure they deserve – I’ve got to pop out for a couple of hours – Real Life calling. But I’ll give them my concentrated attention this afternoon and respond to them.

      apologies for keeping you waiting and maybe leaving you thinking that I wasn’t interested in your thoughts.



    2. thanks for your comment Turps (is that short for ‘Turpentine’ or for ‘Turpitude’? – just checked your comment to ‘rationalisation’ so now I know the answer to that question…),

      I’ll here reply to this comment but also to your earlier and longer comment.

      >”I am glad that you admitted readily in the ‘child pornography’ section that those there were very troubled waters indeed”

      I write in more detail about Child Pornography here ( and here (

      I regret that I can’t write about if from experience – I’m sure that seeing some would be, well, fascinating – but it’s not just a fear of breaking the law that prevents me, or any ethical qualms, but an awareness that my mental stability would probably not benefit from my exposing myself to it. Little girls doing gymnastics on youtube will have to suffice.

      >”paedosexual” (i have not yet seen you use it)

      No, I don’t use this term.

      I’ve nothing against it, and I acknowledge that it has a certain validity and usefulness, the way it parallels ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’.

      If I tend to avoid other words than ‘paedophile’ (though I like ‘Kind’ – the paedophile equivalent of ‘gay’) it’s mainly because whichever word we use, if it gains popular acceptance, will end up being the field where we have to fight our battles. The prejudices and misconception that have accrued round the words ‘paedophile’ and ‘paedophilia’ are those prejudices and misconceptions we would have to fight and correct whatever we called ourselves. Changing the name of one’s football team will not change the nature of the game that one has to play.

      >” I am sure you must be aware, that of Amy Adler’s “The Perverse Law of Child Pornography” ”

      Actually, I wasn’t aware of this essay. I’ve had a quick search to see if I can find a copy, but no luck. I’ll try again. But if you have a link to it, I’d be grateful.

      >” Most everyone else in the field (if they are not some sort of VirPed!) is simply a paedosexually-focused and/or obsessed entity quite haplessly carried along by that fearfully powerful conjunction where whatever might be said at any point to be innate, meets desire that is *exclusively awoken by the forbidden*.”

      Hmm – I think you underestimate the average paedophile, Turps. I’ve been a member of several boards – including Visions of Alice, and I don’t get a sense that the paedophiles there are focused or obsessed by the sexual aspect of their love. I think there is a very ‘romantic’ approach, loving the whole person. I think most paedophiles are quite happy having a chaste relationship with a girl they love, and this shows that the sexual aspect is really quite minor.

      >”In all of LSM’s writing i cannot find anything that directly confronts this pretty fundamental reality,”

      My post – Knowing ‘The Child’: An Epistemology of Paedophilic Desire – touches, I think, on this.


  10. As much as I agree that FGM is bad, I think MGM is just as bad, And is performed under the same religious delusions, But when I make comparisons to female genital mutilation I just get brushed off; such as, It is nothing like it, Or its hygienic; So much for soap. I read a book about male genital mutilation called ‘Unspeakable Mutations’ By Lindsay, R. Watson. It had interesting stories about peoples experiences with loosing part of them, Including a story in Holland during WW2 in 1944.


    1. [edit – I realise that I have not mentioned MGM in the final section on islam and through this omission have tacitly given the impression that it is not a problem or an evil perpetrated against children. I should have mentioned MGM . I don’t like to change posts to much once they’ve been published for a day or two, I take a ‘publish and be damned’ attitude. But I’ll hope to eventually write an essay looking at the nature and ills of both FGM and MGM]

      I certainly won’t brush you off Libertine. Ido agree that MGM is a great evil and should be made a crime.

      I would, however, argue that FGM constitutes a greater evil on several grounds:

      – FGM has a greater social and symbolic function – it makes the child and her sexuality effectively the property of her future husband. It’s like bringing a gold ring into a house – but covering it with wrapping paper, placing a seal on it and a blank gift label just so that it is clear to everyone (including the ring/child itself) that this parcel is destined to belong to someone else, even if no-one knows whom yet. The girl does not own herself or her sexuality once she has been infibulated;

      – whilst both reduce the capacity for experiencing pleasure (the foreskin preserves the sensitivity of the glans – I have two friends who have had their foreskins removed in adult-hood for medical reasons, and both say that they lost most of their sensitivity as a result) the snipping off of the clitoris removes the whole of the external organ. Infibulation closes of the vagina so that only the husband can have access to it through slicing or tearing open the scar tissue where the two labia have been sealed. It seems that FGM is more a more explicit and conscious attempt at suppressing sexuality and at making sexuality a painful thing for the child/woman;

      – FGM is done at an age (usually six and above) when the trauma caused by the pain is likely to be greater;

      – the health consequences of FGM are worse than for MGM. Whilst the snipping off of the clitoris constitutes no more risk than the removal of the foreskin, infibulation, which seals together the labia or sutures the vulva not only restricts access to the vagina but creates problems for urination and menstrual flow. Generally a hole the size of a match-head is left for these functions, but the result is that a great deal of decaying bodily matter gets trapped behind the suturing and causes infections, leading often to death and infertility.

      – FGM is part of a toxic misogynistic religious system – that treats women and little girls as chattels, as reproductive machines, preferably to be stored at home or kept in cloth bags when in public. The sheer violence of FGM reflects and reinforces this superstition. Islamopologists try to pass it off as an ‘african’ or ‘tribal’ thing – but mohammed 5 times in the hadith has the opportunity to condemn the practice but does not (he certainly does not forbid it in the quran), and instead commends it. It now only occurs (in any number) amongst moslems – including in ‘non-african’ countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Indonesia and Malaysia.

      Both FGM and MGM are gross violations of the rights of the child and I believe that both should be crimes worldwide. That fact that MGM goes on largely unopposed, and that westerners, and so-called feminists like Germaine Greer, can find it in themselves to defend FGM is sickening hypocrisy.


      1. I just realised that I made a mistake in the book description; Its ‘Unspeakable Mutilations’, Not mutations, similar meaning I know.

        Maybe the worst FGM is worse that the worst type of MGM? But what is the most common type among females? Its true that men can restore their penis (at least most of it), and begin to feel sensation down there again. The TUG-A-HOY is a tapeless foreskin restoration device invented by Dr James A. Haughey.
        TLC Tugger is a restoration device invented by Ron Low. Anecdotal accounts suggest that infant circumcision does prevent masturbation until puberty.

        As mentioned in the book by a guy who had his manhood butchered; The man is the one that has to perform, and when there’s no sensitivity due to circumcision, you can get an idea of how it can really destroy peoples confidence. Thank god it never happened to me!


      2. There are various forms of FGM. It’s hardly fair to compare worst forms of FGM to the best outcome of MGM. While I detest both, I have less problem with the symbolic pricking of a girl’s clitoris than with MGM, which is fully legal in the West, with its enlightened values.

        The lack of nuance, coupled with the complaining about misogyny and defense of Western anti-pedophilia doesn’t sound like support for the agency of little girls.


        1. dear Smith,

          Thank you for your comment – I’ve come across references to ‘the pricking of a girl’s clitoris’ in my research on FGM – the NHS website lists under ‘other harmful procedures to the female genitals’ – ‘pricking, piercing, cutting, scraping or burning the area’.

          I’d be interested to learn more about what you are referring to as I’m working on an essay on the subject of FGM and MGM. Have you got any links or references that cover this practice?

          >“The lack of nuance, coupled with the complaining about misogyny and defense of Western anti-pedophilia doesn’t sound like support for the agency of little girls.”

          here are the three categories of FGM performed on little girls, usually without anaesthetic and always with the girl either being held down, or strapped down:

          Type 1 (clitoridectomy) – removing part or all of the clitoris.
          Type 2 (excision) – removing part or all of the clitoris and the inner labia (lips that surround the vagina), with or without removal of the labia majora (larger outer lips).
          Type 3 (infibulation) – narrowing of the vaginal opening by creating a seal, formed by cutting and repositioning the labia.

          Please explain to me how condemning these practices and wanting to stamp them out ‘doesn’t sound like support for the agency of little girls’.


          1. I’m quite busy at the moment, give me some time to locate the reference to the medical procedure.

            Why is it so important if those denying little girls or boys agency are from an Islamic, rather than a Western, nation? Do you expect objectivity from UNICEF regarding pedophilia, child sexuality and the agency of children?


            1. >”I’m quite busy at the moment, give me some time to locate the reference to the medical procedure.”

              thanks, it’ll be some time before I focus on the GM essay – so no rush. I’ll also do some of my own research on pricking, now that I’m aware of its existence. But you say it’s a medical procedure? – that’s intriguing. .

              >”Why is it so important if those denying little girls or boys agency are from an Islamic, rather than a Western, nation? Do you expect objectivity from UNICEF regarding pedophilia, child sexuality and the agency of children?”

              Because for all its faults and wrong turns Secularism and the Enlightenment project have as their goal the well-being of humanity.

              Islam’s sole raison d’être is the promotion of the happiness of an imaginary being – and is ready to enact any amount of human and animal suffering to achieve that goal (islam is an apocalyptic religion – therefore it is willing, eager even, to entirely wipe out mankind in order to please its god or gods).

              Also GM performed on children is wrong, irrespective of who’s doing it. Given that, then the focus of campaigns and criticism should be on those people and ideologies that do it the most, and who perpetuate it the most forcefully.

              >”Do you expect objectivity from UNICEF regarding pedophilia, child sexuality and the agency of children?”

              No, but the issue in question is genital mutilation, not paedophilia.

              As to agency of children I think that, on GM, UNICEF are right to take the attitude that a children and babies can’t give valid consent to GM.

              And if GM is a child sexuality issue (which I believe it is) we, as paedophiles, should recognise that GM is designed to restrict, damage and control children’s sexuality and therefore we should condemn it and campaign against it.

              I’ll also give UNICEF the credit of having the interests of children at heart. Even when it comes to child sexuality – they may be wrong in their stance, but I have little doubt as to their motives.


  11. Worldwide legal ‘Under Age of Consent’ just means meaningless numbers 12 – 21.

    While Under 12s as young as eight CAN consent (or not) to commit crimes, and be legally caged, for causing pain to kind adult VICTIMS.

    So it’s clear that Under 12s as young as verbalised-four CAN consent (or not) to mere seXual pleasure with kind ADULTS creating NO VICTIMS!!

    Kwote a SeXy ’70s SeXentric-lovin HOT lil Loli, verbalised-4, stripped ready for her bath, “Look at me! Look at me!!”

    And soooo much mo’ to cum, soon-er or later.


  12. Ah! how this world would be a different place, if children were given freedom , freedom to be able to say “Yes” as well as “No”.
    Yes indeed!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hey, good Jonno.

      SeXentrix bin sayin that since WAY bak SeXy ’70s!

      The Adultophile’s charter, “My Mind My Body My Choice My Pedo – Mind Yer Own!”

      Kids can say “No!” or, “YESS PLEEEZE!!”

      So, now it’s “Sport Fer All – SEX Fer All” “Under Age All The Rage – The New Rock & Roll!”

      Liked by 1 person

  13. dear Leonard! I am deeply troubled right now as a comment I wrote 24 hours ago with considerable fear & trembling and goodness knows what self-riveting else besides, has failed to appear! I will not say more now in case it is not some strange fit of ultra-moderational prudency that overcame ye, but a technical failure in the comments-system..? I do have a lot I wish to say, and this has not been a good start! God was I excited to read your words above, and gad was I shook up went what i wrote went West!


  14. dear Sisyphiliterary One, I am excited to read this as I think a person can possibly be. This is Warb, otherwise know as Turp. Perhaps you could address me as Warb when I’m bad and Turp when I’m good. You have not failed me. I mean, you have not failed to take me even further up the hill than i was when I read the Essay on Rationalization. If you’ll pardon the caps. And the very short sentences which are the only way I can possibly arrest the multiply-associative flow of ‘Denkstoffe’ in its tracks. Indeed, to make any kind of track(tive)schoene here at all. I am glad that you admitted readily in the ‘child pornography’ section that those there were very troubled waters indeed. For anyone who believes for more than a moment that his moral compass might amount to something more – but by this ‘more’ i don’t mean any either/or – than the direction in which his custard-launcher is currently pointing, the point where one sups ever so gingerly at the fount of CP is where almost everything worth thinking about comes quickly to a head. But already the language it gets ahead of me. In this matter I think it most instructive if I introduce abruptly here the term “paedosexual” (i have not yet seen you use it). Which term, astoundingly enough, my permanently neologged imagination never thought of before. The term would seem to serve us handsomely as working means to distinguish that desire which is simply, albeit complexly haha – but most-of-all haplessly borne by the sacred/forbidden (they create each other after all) and that which might, by any stretch of the scientifically-oriented imagination, be said to occur as a ‘natural’ part of our subject’s individual, organis-mal? -mic?-mary? composition – or, in a word, ‘paedophilia’ – as understood from that balmy day of its introduction in Krafft-Ebing.

    Our own discipline is that of Generative Anthropology (ooooh what a giveaway!). That discipline concerns – once again in a word – the ongoing understanding that what is human or *universal* is first and foremost “the generation of a sign-world outside the temporal life-world” Cutting ever so chastely to the child-chase, the problem of “publishing and sharing” the details of that scene on which it is said – or hoped – that only love should ever eventuate is surely one that extends to all of pornography, and indeed to the ever-wider sphere that “reprographic certification” now increasingly encompasses. My thoughts are now overcome by the possibilities of what I might say next. Let me defer this turmoil if I may for now by re-pointing to an truly grand essaying of which I am sure you must be aware, that of Amy Adler’s “The Perverse Law of Child Pornography”, which deals with just that always extraordinary conjunction of the forbidden and and the most desirable, which, just as you thought it was safe to say ‘What You Think”, raises its slurpentine head right in our midst.


  15. I received exactly the same comment today for my post “Minou Drouet : Poème pour une chanson”, and yesterday I had received a comment by “fappy25” for the same post, about big corporations kidnapping and raping kids, the Super Bowl being the largest child-sex-trafficking event, etc. The IP numbers of both differ only in their last digits. I have marked both comments as spam. Don’t lose your time answering them, the authors don’t care, they just put their shit everywhere. And we are not interested.


    1. thanks for alerting me to that, Christian. The comment seemed border-line credible,so I gave it the benefit of the doubt. I need to enforce my ‘relevance’ criteria more strictly when it comes to hostile comments. I’ll take down her comment.


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