Doctor James Cantor has perhaps done more than any other scientist in the 21st Century to define paedophilia to the thinking general public. Cantor is a charismatic communicator who has manoeuvered himself into being the media’s go-to guy when it comes to the science of paedophilia.

He has appeared on many television, radio shows and podcasts, and has featured in the CBC documentary ‘I, Pedophile’. He is also widely referenced for providing scientific information about sex following high-profile cases of unusual sexual behaviour – such cases those of entertainers Bill Cosby and Mark Salling, and former Subway spokesperson Jared Fogel.

Cynics might attribute his success to the fact that his research offers society the narrative it wants to hear: that paedophiles are flawed humans, slaves to a poorly developed cross-wired brain, suffering from an illness not of their choosing, in some way ‘subhuman’,  whilst also offering solutions to the ‘problem’ that appeal to members of the public unwilling to buy into the ‘hang em all’ approach of populism.

The conclusions he has drawn from his research have neatly divided the paedophile world along the ProChoice/VirPed fault-line. The Virtuous Pedophiles have been eager to adopt his findings as the price for an increased tolerance by mainstream society; more radical paedophiles, however, have been unwilling to shoulder yet another fardel of dehumanisation and stigma, and refuse to consider their love as some kind of malfunction.

But it could be argued that when you’re as beleaguered as paedophiles are, anyone who is not an enemy is a friend. And in a climate of total ignorance, where even half-truths are considered as unspeakable, Cantor has done valuable work in explaining paedophilia to the public – enlightening presenters and audiences whose intellects had previously been running on empty as far as paedophilia and related issues were concerned.

The following podcast furnishes an example of how far a little education can go.

Sickboy: The Science of Pedophilia

One of the first things that struck me when I first encountered Cantor’s research was how dismissive he is of the role of Stigma. I felt that I’d identified the Achilles heel that would undermine his whole thesis. One of the notes to myself I made reads:

“look at academic records of paedophiles in primary school and compare these with their peers – if there is no difference then that suggests that adolescent stigma could cause brain differences”

But Cantor was, of course, many steps ahead of me. He had studied the school records of the paedophile sex offenders in his samples and found that their school careers were less successful than equivalent samples of teleiophile sex offenders and hebephile sex offenders.

Since an IQ difference was already manifesting itself in his sample at a time of life when they, being children, could not have been subjected to paedophile-related stigma, this seemed to prove that stigma couldn’t have caused the lower IQ he’d observed in his sample of paedophile offenders. My quest for the Holy Grail had stalled at the first hurdle and, tail between my legs, I slunk off defeated.

But nevertheless a sense that there was something fishy in Cantor’s methodology persisted, but I had other things I wanted to think about and research, and my first impulse was to dismiss my intuition – (as it turns out my original intuition concerning stigma was far from groundless – but I will address that in a future essay).

Brain Research and Pedophilia What it Means for Assessment Treatment and Policy | James Cantor Ph

A few months ago I watched the above lecture (which I recommend since it gives a useful summary of Cantor’s work).

Go to 19:44 and listen to the way he delivers the following words:

“Physical Height” (pause).
“They’re shorter” (laughter from audience).
“Paedophiles are physically short..!”

We never betray ourselves so much as when we are making others laugh.

Even scientists testing new drugs can find it in themselves to feel compassion or sympathy for the rats they inject their chemicals into. Apparently not Dr Cantor. His supercilious little quip betrays a batholith of contempt for those he is studying.

Compare this to the dedication Brian Martin Cash makes in his paper “Self – Identifications, Sexual Development, And Wellbeing In Minor – Attracted People : An Exploratory Study“:

“This thesis is dedicated to my participants. Though I have never met them, they are the bravest people I have ever known. I am forever grateful for the trust they have placed in me.“

The anger provoked in me by Cantor’s contempt motivated me in pursuing my intuitions of the fishiness of Cantor’s research: how sweet it would be if a subhuman paedophile were to point out some significant flaws in his research!

This essay will give an overview Cantor’s research and focus on a couple of general criticisms. I will deal with some more specific methodological flaws in a future essay.

And if you should happen to be reading this, Dr Cantor, I hope you will take what follows in the spirit in which it was intended…


Cantor’s research – a summary

(Numbers in brackets link to the relevant research papers)

Cantor recruited all the participants in his studies from the ‘Kurt Freund Laboratory’ of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, in Toronto, Canada.

The Kurt Freund Laboratory provides evaluation services to male patients referred as a result of illegal or clinically significant sexual behaviours. The primary source of their referrals is correctional institutions, parole and probation officers, children’s protective societies, with physicians and lawyers providing others. Some patients seek a referral on their own initiative.

Cantor’s samples consisted not just paedophiles, but would also include a range of sexual behaviours and dispositions, including teleiophilic ones. Cantor would use these as control groups. For example:

“The […] patients […] included 14% with no known sexual offenses, 52% with offenses against children under age 12, 30% with offenses against pubescents ages 12 to 14, 17% with offenses against minors ages 15 to 16, and 30% with offenses against adults ages 17 and older.” (3)

Each participant would undergo a battery of assessments. The details of these assessments vary from study to study – but would consist of essentially a phallometric test, which would serve to ‘sort’ the participants into various chronophilic categories (paedophile, hebephile, teleiophile), a semi-structured interview, and tests specific to the variables being studied, such as IQ, handedness, height, or school career).

(I have found no mention in any of his research of any controls for, or factoring-in of, any treatments his sample might be undergoing. Many sex offenders are treated with sex-drive suppressants, antidepressants &c. What effect could these have? Especially on IQ and memory? Maybe he assumed that the frequency, nature and intensity of such treatments would be evenly distributed across the various chronophilias and thus cancel each other out.)

Cantor acknowledges the possibility of confirmation bias in this sampling method: for example, paedophiles with low IQ might get caught more often than paedophiles with high IQ. Cantor also acknowledges that the fact that the tests were often done many years after the offence was committed could be a confounding factor in the results.

Dr Cantor’s first two paedophilia-related studies were conducted as part of a team led by Dr Ray Blanchard. These studies showed that his sample of paedophiles had a significantly high rate of head injuries severe enough to cause unconsciousness sustained before the age of 13. This seems to have started him on the quest to find the causes of paedophilia in neurological damage or malfunction. (1, 2).

In 2004 Cantor published a study which found that rates of left-handedness, poorer memory scores and lower IQ progressively increased as one tracked the continuum of chronophilias backwards (teleiophilia -> hebephilia -> paedophilia)(3).

In 2005 Cantor published two papers that confirmed the 2004 paper’s findings concerning handedness (4) and IQ (5) in paedophiles.

The above findings seem to suggest that there was something going wrong in the brains of paedophiles. Intelligence and memory could possibly be accounted for by heredity, environment, upbringing, trauma or disease. But handedness is a characteristic that is established before birth – the foetus already showing a tendency to suck the thumb of its dominant hand. Cantor found that 30% of his sample of paedophiles were left-handed whereas normally about 10% of the general population are left-handed. The only other group that display such a high level of left-handedness are schizophrenics.

This suggested to Cantor that whatever was going wrong in the brains of paedophiles originated very early in the brain’s development. Though social and psychological factors could be contributing to the results he was finding, Cantor states that

“there is no psycho-social way to explain […] handedness”.

In 2006 Cantor published a study in which he found that the school careers of his research sample of paedophile offenders were significantly poorer than those of hebephile offenders, and much poorer than those of teleiophile offenders (whose school careers, in turn, were also significantly poorer than those of teleiophile non-offenders) (6).

This suggested that whatever was going wrong with the brain was not a result of their having offended and been convicted, since significant differences between paedophiles and non-paedophiles were already evident in childhood, before they could be aware of being paedophiles and before they had offended.

In 2007 Cantor published a study showing that the paedophiles and hebephiles in his samples were shorter than teleiophilic men (7).

There followed a study (8) in which Cantor examined the entire brains of paedophiles using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and found that in the brains of paedophiles/hebephiles (this study doesn’t distinguish between the two) the white matter in the superior occipital frontal fasciculus and arcuate fasciculus had a lower density and was less well-formed than in a control group of teleiophile sex offenders (‘white matter’ is the connective tissue, the ‘cabling’, of the brain, and consists of the ‘axons’ of neurons. It links various areas of ‘gray matter’ – the cell bodies of neurons).

Studies show that there is no single ‘sex centre’ of the brain. Sexuality consists of several areas of the brain that operate together via the networking of white matter that is found in the superior occipital frontal fasciculus.

From this Cantor concluded that what causes paedophilia is not located in the various sex centres themselves (which would be located in the gray matter), but rather in the network that connects these sex centres and is responsible for identifying what is a potential sexual object.

Cantor uses the metaphor of ‘cross wiring’: when the paedophile perceives a child, the crossed wiring causes the sexual instinct to be triggered instead of the ‘correct’ nurturing instinct. However he cautions against taking this metaphor too literally.

Human brain right dissected lateral view, showing gray matter (the darker outer parts), and white matter (the inner and prominently whiter parts).(the darker outer parts), and white matter (the inner and prominently whiter parts).
Human brain right dissected lateral view, showing gray matter (the darker outer parts), and white matter (the inner and prominently whiter parts).


Imagine a scientist wanting to investigate the nature of the ordinary, everyday hetero-teleiosexual man.

Imagine him deciding that the best way to do this would be to focus exclusively on a sample of offenders convicted of teleiosexual crimes: rape, sexual sadism, voyeurism, exhibitionism, obscene telephone calling, toucheurism, frotteurism &c

He does tests on a sample of these offenders and finds that they have a lower than average IQ, poorer memory, a higher rate of left-handedness, relatively poor school records &c (these are, in fact, what Cantor found in his control group of teleiophile sex offenders).

From this he concludes that the ordinary hetero-teleiosexual man has a lower than average IQ, poorer memory and a higher than average rate of left-handedness.

He also concludes that whatever causes hetero-teleiophilia was present in early childhood – long before hetero-teleiophiles could commit their offenses – since his group had relatively poor school records and a relatively high rate of left-handedness.

Imagine the public response to such a study.

It would hit the wall of people’s experience of the hetero- teleiosexual males in their lives – their fathers, husbands, sons, friends, boyfriends, and brothers. They would not recognise these findings in the men they knew. People would assume it was a poorly conceived attempt at slandering and smearing the group concerned. It would fail the ‘Reality Test’.

Of course, such data can be ‘cleaned up’. An intelligent use of statistics and data correction can do much to make flawed data yield valid results. But how much controlling, covariance, outlier exclusion &c would be required to be able to extract the true characteristics of the average non-offending hetero-teleiophile from a data gathered from a sample of rapists, sadists, exhibitionists &c?

Or, for that matter, the characteristics of the average homosexual from data gathered from men incarcerated for homosexual offences prior to decriminalisation?

But this is exactly what Dr Cantor does with paedophiles when he extrapolates the nature and origins of paedophilia from a group of convicted sex offenders. He gets away with this because:

1/ there is no ‘Reality Test’ as far as paedophiles are concerned.

Though most people will have family, friends or acquaintances who are paedophiles, it is unlikely that they will be aware of their sexuality. This means that their interactions with real life paedophiles will not have any effect on the profoundly flawed preconceptions the general population cherishes concerning paedophiles and paedophilia.

No-one has ever had his reputation damaged by slandering paedophiles, even if (as in the McMartin case and the Westminster Paedophile Ring furore) those slanders are so outrageous that they ride rough-shod over the laws of nature.

A society that is willing to give credence to the idea that paedophiles can fly (‘‘Ray flew in the air.”) is hardly going to cavil at a scientist saying that they are slightly subhuman. There are no available competing public narratives that would give people a vantage point from which to question his findings.

2/ it is impossible to access a large sample of randomly selected paedophiles with whom to conduct in-person interviews and tests. People realise this. Groups of offenders were probably the best option available to Cantor, so people accept the results since better no better options are available.

However, acknowledging this in no way nullifies the flaws of Cantor’s approach. Sometimes a ‘poor second-best’ is so poor that any results are guaranteed to be misleading or false. Sometimes it would have been best not to have bothered at all.


In research like Cantor’s much depends on how valid an equivalency is being proposed between two phenomena. Which equivalence is the more valid: one between ‘the paedophile’ and ‘the teleiophile’; or one between the ‘the paedophile’ and ‘teleiophile sex-offender‘?

Dr Cantor’s research assumes that the correct equivalence is between ‘teleiophile-sex-offender‘ and ‘paedophile’: his assumption is probably based on the fact that both have desires which society considers as pathological; neither can act on their desires without breaking the law; both have two states, which are equally pathological: ‘potential offender’ or ‘offender’.

But a scientist whose own sexuality, in his own country and in his own life-time, has been both illegal and pathologised should be more wary: it is too easy to confuse ‘illegality’ with ‘pathology’.

Moreover this leaves him with nowhere to go with non-offending paedophiles, whom, in a later paper, he categorically distinguishes from ‘offending pedophiles’ (9).

When an identity becomes strongly associated with a problematic act, even if it’s only a tiny minority of that identity who engage in that act, that identity becomes defined by that act and the general population sees members of that group as either ‘perpetrators’ or ‘perpetrators-in-waiting’. The acts of the few pathologise the whole identity.

A more valid approach for establishing valid equivalency is to see whether the intrinsic characteristics of paedophilia map best onto ‘teleiophilia’ or onto ‘illegal teleiophillia’.

I propose three characteristics that distinguish non-pathological or healthy teleiophilia from criminal (or potentially criminal) teleiophilia:

  1. it is consensual
  2. it is accompanied or motivated by affection or love
  3. it holds no harmful intent towards the object of desire

How does paedophilia fare by these criteria?

1. it is consensual

Admittedly, even in the paedophile community there is a fundamental disagreement as to whether children can or cannot consent to sensual intimacy with an adult. Regular readers will know where I stand. I have written on this issue here, here and here. I won’t rehearse this debate here.

Instead I’ll cut the Gordian knot by reminding the sceptical reader that what we are concerned with are impulses, not acts, desires not deeds. And on this basis I’m confident that, in his or her fantasies, wishes and hopes the normal paedophile dreams of a child who is sexually eager and proactive – a child who wants, asks for and enjoys the imagined shared love and intimacy. In short – the impulse is consensual.

Undoubtedly there exist a tiny minority of sadistic paedophiles – but their existence goes to prove that the distinction between the paedophile with a consensual impulse and the paedophile with a non-consensual impulse is a valid and significant one.

2. it is accompanied or motivated by affection or love

I can do no better than to quote Dr Cantor himself:

“A majority of the sample described experiencing romantic feelings toward children, rather than their attractions being strictly sexual in nature, and included falling in love with a child or having fantasies about a romantic relationship with a child.”

“here is evidence to suggest that some pedophilic individuals, both those who have offended and those who have not, experience romantic attachments to children that are not strictly sexual and include love and nurturance, both in a romantic sense and a non-romantic sense (e.g., friendships and mentoring relationships)”
(both quotations from ‘Non-Offending Pedophiles’ – Cantor & Mcphail – 2016 (9))

3. it holds no harmful intent towards the object of desire

The reader whose only knowledge of paedophilia comes from the dominant narrative might again expect paedophilia to fail the test.

Again I won’t here rehearse the arguments about the true source of the harm often seen in ‘survivors’ of consensual child/adult intimacy (the essay ‘Three Essential Paedo-Reads: “The Trauma Myth” by Susan Clancy‘ deals with this issue). But again the Gordian knot can be cut by pointing out that the huge majority of paedophiles have no wish to harm or scare the children they are attracted to.

On the contrary – it would be grossly understating the case to say that the normal paedophile would find any possibility of harming or distressing a child the most powerful of anaphrodisiacs. Paedophiles generally value the mutuality of love, respect and trust between them and the loved-child above everything else. To do anything that might betray this would be to violate the foundations of a paedophile’s self-worth and self-respect.

It should be remembered that the huge majority of paedophiles who enter the legal system do so for acts that would not have been considered as crimes if performed within a teleiophilic frame of reference (mild consensual intimacy, or the viewing of erotica or porn).

On the other hand, it is reasonable to conclude that the desires that led the teleiophilic sex-offenders to commit their offences (sexual sadism, rape, voyeurism, exhibitionism, obscene telephone calling, toucheurism and frotteurism) all violate some or all of the above three criteria.

So, the characteristics of normal paedophilic desire map pretty much perfectly onto those of normal teleiophilia. And those characteristics of paedophilia that map onto ‘teleiophilia’ are intrinsic, whereas those that map onto ‘teleiophile-sex-offender‘ are accidental.

Cantor’s research makes an equivalence between ‘the paedophile’ and the ‘teleiophilic sex-offender’. He then extrapolates the findings that this equivalence yields to paedophiles in general. Neither the equivalence or the extrapolations he makes from it appear to stand up to close scrutiny.

I am working on a second essay that will address more specific flaws in Cantor’s methodology – especially those resulting from his taking insufficient account of Stigma. But before I publish this second essay I intend to look closely at the phenomenon of Stigma as it relates to paedophilia.

25 thoughts on “Dr Cantor & the Case of the Extrapolated Equivalence

  1. I do have a concern. Cantor looked at those who committed offenses against children and when comparing them to those that committed offenses against adults found them to have lower IQ, worse school performance, etc. Do you not feel this can’t be linked to non-offenders? Obviously it is not good research to do so, but given the lack of information…

    I think the one criticism that I find relevant to that is that, to commit an offense against a child requires a lot less, well intelligence, than to commit an offense against an adult. So the sample of offending paedophiles might be even more tainted by the fact that only the least intelligent of all people actually offend against children and get caught.

    I’m a paedophile myself of above average IQ, high level of schooling (Master’s), right handed, above average height etc. Still, I am one man.


    1. Ethan Edwards, one of the founders of Virtuous Pedophiles, but probably the most interesting thinkers amongst the VPs, has recently written what looks like an thought-provoking article on exactly the point you are making. But here I must shame-facedly confess that recent business – not least the Cantor essay – has prevented me from giving EE’s latest article the time I suspect it deserves.

      >”I’m a paedophile myself of above average IQ, high level of schooling (Master’s), right handed, above average height etc.”

      That’s a pretty good description of myself – other than the IQ and the Master’s 😦


  2. Good to see you back, Mr Mann, and yes, I am outraged because I now don’t know what or who I am.

    I’m short, so I must be a paedophile, even though I’m not sexually attracted to children.

    But, I’ve got a measured intelligence which puts me in the fourth percentile (or was it the third? Can’t remember; don’t care). So, I’m obviously not a paedophile…

    But, I am ambidextrous, being left handed in some activities, right handed in others, and who cares which hand I use for yet other activities? I certainly don’t.

    And, I was hit on the head quite badly, both as a child (paedophile!) and as an adult (unlucky?).

    On Cantor’s view, then, I am clearly a heterosexual who is both not and, simultaneously am, a paedophile. In other words, I am a confused old shit, waiting for yet more nonsense from Cantor to unravel my self-evident sexual confusion. (Oh, wait, everyone else I know is sexually confused also… could it be, (gasp, groan) the effects of a schizoid culture?)

    On a serious note, congratulations on having the patience to wade through the pseudo-scientific tripe Cantor presents, and which all to many seem to take with great seriousness. I’ve actually never managed to finish even one of his papers, his logic being too perverse for me.


    1. Hello BJ (btw – have you seen the film ‘L.I.E.’ staring Brian Cox? there’s some nifty use made of those same two initials in that film)

      >”I am outraged because I now don’t know what or who I am.”

      Ahh, the eternal questions – what am I? What is life for? Why, when I lick the oil out of a tin of sardines do I always cut my tongue?

      >”On a serious note, congratulations on having the patience to wade through the pseudo-scientific tripe Cantor presents, and which all to many seem to take with great seriousness. I’ve actually never managed to finish even one of his papers, his logic being too perverse for me.”

      Between you and me… I’ll make a confession here – I read his papers, but didn’t sweat the bits I had zero chance of understanding – all the statistical analysis stuff. I concentrated on methodology and conclusions. I studied statistics in my sixth form years, and found them uninspiring. But I have half a thought to find a good basic teach yourself book and take myself through the basics again. Could be useful.

      And, just finished reading a book about consumerism and children a few hours ago and your ‘Unsent Letters’ rose to the top of the to-be-read pile. So think of me tonight sat in the vespertine glow of a reading lamp, on my new comfy sofa, sipping a darjeeling and listening to Chopin on the radio whilst reading your crafted words… 🙂


      1. Point by point…

        No, I haven’t seen L.I.E> I’ll look it up, as it might be amusing.

        And yes, the eternal questions. Perhaps I should start by saying that it is clear that my tongue is in the right place at the wrong time? A perfectly good analysis, I assure you. I was going to give a long and reasoned commentary on the ideas in the video, which I finally got around to watching, but perhaps I’ll leave it at a few points:

        [1] Cantor’s approach is based soundly in the philosophy of materialism, in which he equates the brain with the person. This is a long held philosophic belief in science, which many scientists are rejecting, with the result that they are being rejected by the scientific community, in turn. Indeed, if we applied, e.g., Bruce Lipton’s ideas to Cantor’s work, the latter becomes babble. (Lipton’s The biology of belief is a popularisation of much of his more rigorous scientific studies. As such it is a very good introduction to his ideas, especially when his other work is flipping tedious to read.) Lastly, on this point, and very pointedly, is there really anyone who can seriously be a materialist after Einstein, Heisenberg, et. al?

        [2] Cantor’s approach, i.e., his ethical goal, which he freely admits, ultimately is to prevent “paedophilia”, i.e., to ensure that no one ever becomes a paedophile, and, secondly, to prevent “re-offence” in those who have sexually offended against children. Concerning this: it needs to be pointed out that it is inevitable that an ethical goal, based on contemporary laws and culture, will cause considerable (confirmation) bias in both approach and results.

        [3] He seems to be unaware of, or to be ignoring, much work in neuroscience dealing with, e.g., the embodiment of mind, the manner in which this affects our perception, thought, and responses to the world; he also neglects the work of researchers such as the late Candace Pert who discovered neuroreceptors throughout the body, necessitating a change in the manner in which the brain/mind is conceived. (Mental activity, or the biological markers of such activity, occur throughout the entire body,, not merely within the brain.) Perhaps the only thing I found promising in his presentation was his reference to the environment… so he should read Lipton, whose work on cell biology is thoroughly relevant.

        [4] In as much as his ethical goal refers to sexual offending, and the prevention of “paedophilic sexual offending”, should he not conduct research into homosexuality, which was a sexual offence not so very long ago, and still is in some parts of the world? Homosexuality has been held to be a perversion and an offence for so very long, and to be against nature (as he claims paedophilia is). There are many men still alive who were arrested, tried and convicted, for homosexual offences. Surely these men should be studied in exactly the same manner as Cantor is studying paedophiles? This would surely prove or disprove his ethical stance concerning sexual offences? Oh wait, it already does, but as a very very gay man, he simply does not want to discuss his particular style of unnaturalness.

        Ok, I was getting a bit snarky there in point number 4, but really… adult-child sex, man-man and women-women (and animal-human… etc.) sex has been going on for a very long time, and have not always been condemned. Therefore:

        [5] Cantor should read some fucking history. Sheesh. I so dislike the purposely limited ignorance of contemporary society, in which people refuse to look at what other disciplines have to say about the subject being studied. Ok, number 5, a small rant, over.

        This is far too long, but hey, I do that sometimes.

        Lastly, I hope the tea, and general ambience was perfect for the reading. And, of course, I hope you enjoy/enjoyed the book. Comments, privately or otherwise, will be appreciated…


        1. Thanks for your thoughts on Cantor’s video – I’ll take them into account when I complete the second Cantor essay I have planned – but which won’t be for a couple of months I suspect.

          I started ‘Unsent Letters’ last night (as I predicted: sat in the vespertine glow of a reading lamp, on my new comfy sofa, sipping a darjeeling. But no Chopin on the radio…) and am finding it intriguing, powerful and with some very moving and poetic moments that I can relate to.

          Damn you man! the scene where your mother speaks her last words to your father had me fighting back the tears… I’ll send you some comments and responses when I finish.


          1. Damn you man! the scene where your mother speaks her last words to your father had me fighting back the tears… I’ll send you some comments and responses when I finish.

            I’m perversely glad that that bit affected you, though I hope it isn’t due to witnessing something similar.

            As I said to Tom, the bits about my parents are actually from my life, the rest is a mish mash. If it hadn’t been for my mother dying, the book would never have come about.

            As for comments, they will be appreciated, be they good or bad. —Most people who self-publish in this way never have their work read. I’ve been lucky to have sold a few, and feedback from people other than friends, editors and publishers is good to have, even if I never write another thing. (Mind you, Tom is the only person to provide any feedback so far…)

            hope you enjoy the rest of it.


  3. Well, long-time friend-nemesis, I agree with you on being a non-offending pedophile is equal to being a non-offending ‘teleiophile’.

    But No, hebephilia does not exist, its important to say this, because it is an invention of these pseudosciences (injected by feminism, do not forget) called psychiatry or psychology.

    Every sexually heterosexual heterosexual man is attracted to girls since puberty, and especially to teenagers, he is neither a chronophilia nor stupidity of these “scientists” like Cantor and Blanchard, they are feminist homosexuals, whether they are aware of their alignment or not , And as such seek to pervert the normal heterosexual male attraction.

    The scale is not like this:

    (More preference) adult woman> mature women> adolescent minor> pubescent> prepubescent child

    Neither so:

    (More healthy and common) teleiophile> ephebophile> hebephile> pedophile

    It’s like that

    Pubescent> teenage girl> adult woman> peripubescent girl> prepubertal

    Until reaching the peripubescent girl is normal is a sexually healthy man, only the attraction to prepubertal girls is a paraphilia, which is not a disease but is outside the order of creation, it is the same natural order that indicates and predisposes A man should be with the couples as young and fertile as possible, that he is not a young woman of legal age, but a minor teenager, if she is fully in puberty is much better.

    I do not know what else to say, I will not investigate the obvious, for example, Seto is a liar or an ignorant, “hebephiles” are not 2% of the population, pubescent are biological adults with sexual characteristics, every heterosexual man would get His penis erect with a girl of 14 years dancing in a sexy manner, and even a girl of 12 or 11, how are they going to be 2%? What white matter? If 99% of men are attracted to teenage girls between 12 and 16! then to have an white matter is to be a healthy heterosexual man!

    Even in homosexual men, the same pattern is found, go for adolescent boys, there has not even been “homosexuality” throughout the human era until the 60’s, every homoerotic attraction was man-boy or pederasty,

    This “chronophilias” is a scam to conceal that seek to pathologize natural sexual behavior, nor does there exist that supposed ephebophilia, teleiophilia and hebephilia and much less that new bullshit of mesophilia, “hey, we just say that every age is a chronophilia!” NO, this is junk science without euphemisms.

    It is also funny that they are now adults with 17 or 16, or better, adolescents up to 25, really there is no adolescence, what makes my point stronger, if exist adolescents is just are in 11, 12 years-old (girl to women), being attracted to women 13 or more is to be a man attracted to adult women, no more no less.


    1. “Being attracted to women 13 or more is to be a man attracted to adult women”

      Indeed…Maybe there is no need for names , they are just preferences. And correct: A girl past puberty is no longer a ‘child’, The law is not based on scientific finding, reality or common-sense.
      There is no way that the evolutionary process would equip individuals physiologically to reproduce without the cognitive wherewithal to deal with such crucial facility in ways that are beneficial and not harmful, and serve in the most profound ways to be adaptive.


    2. nice to see you back NewOrder, my nemesis-friend,

      I certainly agree with you insofar as, if adult men were honest (either with themselves or with those doing sex surveys) I’m pretty sure that the percentage of them who could feel sexual attraction to pubescent girls would be way higher than 2% – probably something approaching 100%.

      However I think ‘chronophilia’ is a useful concept – in the same way as giving colours names is – though those colours don’t exist in reality and are part of a continuum that is interpreted and represented as colours by the brain. The categories make a conversation about attraction possible. Generally, the more words we have, the more concepts we have to think with. I’d also say that certain concepts – such as the teenager, the baby, the child are useful because they represent valid distinctions psychologically and sociologically – a baby is not the same thing as an adult, and concepts such as ‘the teenager’ have become real and taken on an identity of their own through the action of social and economic forces.

      So -though ‘hebephilia’ might not be the condition or pathology that the word seems to imply it is – it is still useful to have the word – even if it is only to be able to assert (as you do) that it is normal for adult men to have a ‘hebephilic’ component to their sexuality.


      1. I certainly agree with you insofar as, if adult men were honest (either with themselves or with those doing sex surveys) I’m pretty sure that the percentage of them who could feel sexual attraction to pubescent girls would be way higher than 2% – probably something approaching 100%.

        Sure ’nuff… that is what my book is about, ultimately, though I gather many do not get the message. Too much wanky philosophic thought, perhaps?

        And, But, and also: I’ll bite.

        Explain to me the usefulness of all these chronophilic classifications? They are obviously useful to Seto and others as a means of promoting their career; and to the moral mongers and legislators who need yet another reason to spurt nonsense and silly laws. But I really fail to see their usefulness in any other way.

        I seem to remember the old philosophic adage: the simpler the better. (Well, that’s my version of Occam’s razor.) We seem to think that the more complicated we make matters, the more we know. But that surely is obvious crap? Especially in psychology…

        I tend to think, in contrast, that the more complicated we make matters, the more difficult it is to actually know anything.

        Your thought, good sir?


        1. hi BJ – I’ll be emailing you before long to let you know how I find the book (I found it very good BTW) and to give you a response to the essay. But I’m still snowed under at the moment – several commitments converging.

          >”Explain to me the usefulness of all these chronophilic classifications?”

          If I remember my Orwell correctly, in ‘1984’ he has the thought police removing words from the dictionary and the language – the less words a person has the less they are able to think.

          A parallel might be that of a painter whose vocabulary only contains the names of the primary and secondary colours – red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet. He might see more colours but he will have more of a struggle to conceptualise them – instead of thinking ‘cyan’ he will have to think ‘the kind of of blue one finds low in the sky on a clear Winter day’ – it makes thinking about hues awkward.

          Also I think that the chronophilias represent real distinctions – a baby is not the same thing as a prepubescent child and a prepubescent child is not the same thing as an adolescent – one can distinguish them by objective, physiological and psychological criteria. And I recognise that my own attractions to toddler girls, a 7 year old girl, a 13 year old girl and a 30 year old woman are very different in their nature – my desires and affection adapting themselves to the nature and needs of the loved-object.

          >”I seem to remember the old philosophic adage: the simpler the better.”

          Yes, but, as an artist, you will know that simplicity is the hardest thing to achieve.

          It seems that any explanation starts when one observes the complexity and chaos of a phenomenon – the true explanation of the movement of the stars and planets, the heliocentric model, emerged under pressure from the observation of complexities in the night sky (the different motions of ‘wandering stars’ – the retrogrades some of them performed…). The same with evolution – Darwin, and other scientists, noting the tiny differences and similarities between species and subspecies – a kind of chaos – and seeking out the simpler mechanisms that have engendered that complexity. If Darwin had thought ‘all these birds are just Galapagos finches, all the same these minor variations of beak shape don’t matter’ I doubt that he would have gotten to the theory of evolution.

          Likewise with chronophilias – one starts with chaos and complexity and the simplicity has to be achieved, but not by trying to pretend that the complexity doesn’t exist, but by embracing it and trying to find the simplicity that lies behind it.

          Over to you, my good man!


          1. No worries about your comments—I know you are busy. As for the rest…

            I’m not sure your first two examples work that well; but I suspect it also doesn’t matter.

            I happened to have an 18 y.o. male in the house (friend of my kids, :P) when your reply came, so I asked him about it. His inclination was to see it not in terms of age, but in terms of body and personality type, and he mentioned his preference for women with very small breasts in terms of body. I happen to find that intriguing, especially in light of the cultural trend to relate everything to age, irrespective of anything else, such as the awkward fact that an 18 y.o is a legal adult, etc. One of the classes my oldest son recently had at school emphasises this is an especially stupid fashion. He and his fellow classmates were told, by the assistant principal and a local police person that yes, the age of consent for sex is 16, but only if the person was 17, ie., under 18, at which time they are capable of full consent. This teaching is not reflected in any statute I have been able to find, and very neatly provides a real life example of the problems with focusing on age coupled with the obligatory morality.

            To the extent that my little friend (7 inches taller and physically robust, so I just had to say it) emphasised physical and personality issues, then there will be age correlation, but it will not necessarily be an age correlation based on puberty. (One may be attracted to a very childlike body and find someone who is, say, 15, but who still has a childlike body even though s/he has passed well into puberty.)

            More importantly, perhaps, is the difficulty which arises when we relate sexual attraction to ages as such, as in Seto (The Puzzle of Male Chronophilias, (DOI 10.1007/s10508-016-0799-y). Seto is almost saved from silliness by the following statement:

            “In this article, I more broadly define sexual orientation as a stable tendency to preferentially orient—in terms of attention, interest, attraction, and genital arousal—to particular classes of sexual stimuli . If we accept this broader definition, then we can imagine that individuals actually have multiple sexual orientations rather than a single sexual orientation, corresponding to their sexual preferences along a
            variety of different dimensions, including age.”

            Unfortunately, however, he rather ignores his own suggestion. We are left, therefore, with a strictly age related category and the following rather pathetic note:

            “Physical characteristics, body shape and size are associated with different maturity categories, but this is an assumption because there is a paucity of research about what features—physical or psychological—are compelling in categories other than teleiophilia.”

            Seto, sweetie, if you don’t fucking know, I’m not sure you should call yourself a psychologist! (Oh, wait, you have to do bad science before we can say what we always already have known to be true. God love ya.)

            My own suspicion, in any event, and now that I’ve insulted a well regarded proto-psychologist, is that there is no real difference except, to run with my son’s friend, what one is attracted to. And that should be fairly obvious?

            I don’t think I’ve answered your reply at all, to tell the truth. Except to suggest that age is a secondary issue, body shape size and personality being primary.

            Quick, get rid of that tangent!


              1. fixed. I’ve been tempted by ‘blockquotes’ before – and suffered as a result – getting my head stuck, spilling chutney all over the cat, and accidentally setting fire to the contents of my toilet – since then I steer well clear of them.


            1. I assure you that in my country anyone who has sex with a 16-year-old can receive threats and even in extreme cases be attacked, even to me just for admit that I can be attracted to 16 years old many ignorants have expelled me from all places and even give insults to me. I think people attracted to young children like Leonard sometimes come to believe that those atractted to teens and even late teens are not being persecuted, but I assure you that I have noticed no much difference between being attracted to a 7 years old and a 15 years old, both youre a child rapist legal and social, even if legal that you like a 16 years old youre a pervert!!


              1. Ah yes, I haven’t been lucky enough to have sex with a 16 year old since… long time ago…

                Being what my kids friends call ancient, teachers who don’t know me glare at me while waiting to pick them up from school, and I can well imagine a determination to be involved with a 16 y.o. girl could cause quite a bit of difficulty, irrespective of legality.

                This is a part of the infantilising of young adults. They are not trusted any more than a 9 year old is.


                1. You have said it, minors at all ages are considered inferior and incapable beings. One of my theories is that as minors are being considered inferior by adult rulers, the adult attracted to minors is a traitor, a weird, and a degenerate because of having – socially and legally unauthorized – inclinations with the lower caste , Minors, and therefore worthy of hatred, as in a racial supremacism, or of any kind as cultural, of gender, of species, etc. To all who do not remain in their privileged caste (for let us admit it, adults are the most privileged beings on earth, not just the ‘white heterosexual man’) and relates in an unauthorized way to the inferior castes must be rejected and punished, as in the era of racial segregation is the most obvious case.

                  The clue is in the name as underage simply mean below legal age (usually to vote or have sex) but minor mean minor of something, of less importance or category, inferior in something, subordinate, cut from “minor of age” to “minor” directely.

                  As a curious note, in the extended Star Wars franchise, in the pseudo-totalitarian republic and later in the empire there was a group similar to the Hitler Youth, as the author put the significant and semi-conscious name of the Sub-Adult Group, ie the youth is Sub-adult, below, inferior, subordinate to adults, in fact I think that in a dystopian future it looks like a plausible name just like a junior anti-sex league is already real except in name.


  4. Another brilliant post. As a MAP who knows other MAPs I’ve always had a major problem with the kind of research presented by Dr Cantor since it does fail the reality test that I experience daily.
    I know many MAP’s who I consider to be brilliant, MAPs who run successful businesses or are academically highly accomplished. Some are tall and some are short, they come in all shapes, sizes and abilities just like everybody else. This idea that MAPs are somehow deficient physically or mentally just doesn’t fit the real world even if I can understand why such a myth is attractive.

    A nice post that captures this beautifully.


    1. Thanks for your support, oom!

      Like yourself I know a few MAPs in real-life and they’ve certainly all been intelligent. But then again I guess one always thinks of one’s friends as interesting and intelligent…


  5. On the issue of the laughter, here are some relevant thoughts:

    It’s true that Cantor is a ‘natural performer’ and we do see it clearly in this video (egged on to some extent by Seto in his introduction). When informing us of the point about paedophiles’ heights he seems to pause for effect. And that’s when the laughter comes in. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that laughter was what he was expecting or hoping for. A more likely explanation is that he thinks the correlation is very surprising (as indeed it is – assuming of course that it’s real) and he wants to give the audience time to take it in.

    The laughter is very sporadic, not universal by any means.

    Why did some people laugh? One interpretation (yours) is that the laughter meant something like “Christ, wouldn’t you just know those degenerates would be like that?’ But it may have just meant ‘How absurdly funny that there would be such a correlation!’


    1. Yes, I guess there are several ways of reading that laughter – I’ve watched that little section a few times in light of your comments and it seems that there’s a kind of synergy going on. Cantor pauses for effect, someone laughs, and I sense that he further extends that pause and does a subtle facial gesture with his eyes which works the comical element of the pause. I’ll also acknowledge that I’m not an impartial observer, that I am somewhat primed to take offense by this point in the lecture…

      I’ve got a funny feeling (though I’d have to listen to it again to be certain) that he extracts some comedy from paedophiles’ subhumanity in the Sickboy podcast too.

      I guess that his mocking approach is part his strategy for not being contaminated with proxy stigma.


  6. I enjoyed this post so much that i was just waiting and waiting for the right moment to link to it in a Quora answer. Well… today it happened.

    If i stumble across the breakdown of the various research efforts that have attempted to dublicate Cantor’s findings, i’ll post it here and on my answer. If anyone else beats me to it, you’re welcome to post it too, of course. If i recall correctly there was at least one study that succeeded and one that failed to reproduce the results.


    1. thanks Heath Synnestvedt. That’s a excellent comment you’ve left on Quora – I really should post there more often – but ConsentingHumans is an exacting and jealous mistress that does not allow me to stray very far…

      It’s a shame that Dean’s comment was deleted – I’d have been interested to read his summary of Cantor’s work. Why would his comment be deleted? Presumably it was Dean that deleted it? Was it so inflammatory or controversial?

      >”If i stumble across the breakdown of the various research efforts that have attempted to dublicate Cantor’s findings, I’ll post it here and on my answer.”

      I’d really appreciate this, Heath!

      I’ve got a second Cantor essay on the back-burner – one that very specifically addresses Cantor’s research on the intelligence of convicted paedophiles. One of the sections I’ve got mapped out is exactly this – what other research into the same question has found – I haven’t done the spade-work on this yet – but the following might be helpful:


........................... PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT........................... comments by the outraged and choleric will be approved only if they 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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s