I had prepared a selection and analysis of clips featuring women and children. But just before the intended day for publication DailyMotion took umbrage at one (or more) of the clips I’d uploaded, and closed down my account. To add to my difficulties an outbreak of house-guests (who were otherwise most welcome) has deprived me of the time and computer access necessary for the finding of a new host for the videos, or for the writing of a replacement post.

In an attempt to make a silk purse out of this particular sow’s ear I’ve gone through some unfinished drafts for blog-essays and selected from them three passages that seem worth sharing.

Mom pulls 13 pairs of underwear off of her tot daughter

As to those censored clips…

Maybe I should have foreseen trouble. I had originally found all seven clips on YouTube only for all but two of them to subsequently disappear. Clearly there was something about those clips that YouTube didn’t like.

I had planned to upload my copies of these clips to DailyMotion. A careful reading of their terms and conditions had reassured me that the clips should be fine – they contain no nudity or anything that would get the protagonists in trouble with the law. But of course, when it comes to questions of children and sensuality terms & conditions count for nothing –the decision to censor being taken on the basis of a mush of gut-reactions and a deluge of unthinking outrage.

I’d still like to share these clips with you – they are interesting on many levels – but I’ll have to find some host who has bothered to read their own terms and conditions and who is a little less trigger-happy with the ‘censor’ button.

Another possibility is to have the reader download these clips from a file-sharing facility – but I can imagine my esteemed readers feeling justifiably hesitant about downloading strange files containing material that YouTube and DailyMotion have deemed unacceptable…

Maybe readers with wise heads on such matters could advise me.

Anyway, enough waffle. Here are three unrelated musings – the first is some quasi-philosophical belly-aching provoked by a little girl pulling her tongue out at me, the second is on the label ‘Radical Paedophilia’, and the third are some things to keep in mind when telling or receiving secrets.

A Humiliation

La mer, la mer, toujours recommencee” from Le Cimetière Marin by Paul Valery

A few weeks ago, I was walking home through my local park, when a little girl of about nine, bored and killing time turning cartwheels, stopped her gymnastics and pulled out her tongue at me.

The way she did this was so filled with contempt and hostility that it left me shaken and 7765-770x433humiliated. I’ve had little girls pull out their tongues at me many times and the gesture has always been flirtatious and ironical – accompanied by a smile, or a laugh, or a coy squirm – its overt rudeness concealing a deeper wish to engage with the gesture’s recipient.

But this one had none of this playfulness or charm. It seemed that this girl had taken an immediate dislike to me. Or she had maybe sensed my desire for her and not liked it.

I’d noticed her from a distance and had taken a slight detour in order to pass by her. Near to where she was playing were four or five men sat on a bench talking loudly. They appeared – how can I put this without seeming a snob? – disreputable, unsavoury? – taking loudly, swearing, smoking, empty beer cans scattered round them on the grass. Presumably one of the men was the girl’s father, or maybe an uncle.

The men ignored me. Nor did they notice the girl’s gesture, her back being turned toward them.

The girl was one of the ‘gypsy’ children that inhabit an encampment on the outskirts of the town. These children are often strikingly beautiful – though an increasing number of them are over-weight, or even obese.

Their beauty is offset by a sullen hostility when in the presence of the towns-people – outsiders to their community. Local teachers tell of their poor school-attendance (indeed this little scene occurred on a school day, during school hours), their frequently disruptive behaviour when present, and their parents’ hostility towards education.

The girl had a knowing look and exuded the farouche sensuality that Bizet’s Carmen might have had at that age. Something about her, and the men she was with, gave the impression that she was maybe already wise to the desires of men whose gaze lasts a fraction of a second too long, whose glance darts too readily to her revealed midriff as she turns her cartwheels….

When I got home I looked into the mirror to get some idea of what the girl had seen…and realised that if I’d been a wild beautiful little girl and I’d caught a stranger of my appearance looking at me lustfully I might have pulled out my tongue contemptuously too.

Paedophilia seems to be an inherently melancholic form of love. We are brief guests in the romping, creative, silly-serious, fun, optimistic world of childhood. I suspect that even in my dream world, my ‘paedotopia’ (!?), there would be no escaping the fact that my way of relating to children, the way we can make each other’s world ecstatic – does not survive into the ‘cool’ of adolescence.

Teleiophilia seems better adapted to the flow of time than paedophilia – though it too has its time-related dysfunctions: the seven-year itch and the dumping of aging partners for younger models.

A man in his sixties might find women in their twenties more visually and sexually appealing than those of his own age, but it is probable that an element of his desires and affections will have matured as he has aged, and that he will value the history and world-view that he and women of his generation share. There is also a kind of pragmatic resignation – a knowledge that one can always fall back on partners of one’s own age, who presumably are willing to make the same compromises as we are.

Teleiophilic love, at its best, is like a long river that gradually changes, matures and adapts itself to the changing landscape it passes through.

Paedophiles are more like the wavelets that break on a beach on a calm day – forever making sallies, venturing forth a few yards, only to be drawn back to where we began – falling in love with a child and, if we’re lucky, accompanying them for a few year before things fizzle out, only for us to return to loneliness, a little older and a little less able to find another child’s love…

Whilst a teleiophile in his or her 70s or 80s has many good reason to be interested in a partner of their own age, why would a girl of nine find a man deep into middle age attractive, when there are so many teenagers and young men around to catch her attention?

I remember a few summers ago playing in a hotel swimming pool with a little girl on the verge of puberty. The girl and I had been close right from her toddler-hood. In her early and mid-childhood, she’d sometimes tried to push the boundaries of intimacy with me (but being a friend to her parents, and temperamentally law-abiding, I never allowed things to stray beyond what her parents would be comfortable with).

The swimming pool was empty apart from myself, the girl and her parents. Then a youth of about 18, with a slim taught body, and luxuriant hair on his head instead of on his back, came into the pool area. My girl’s glance at him maybe only lasted a fraction of a second, but it was enough to tell me that if this youth had come into the pool and shown interest in her I would have been abandoned like the old, now-embarrassing teddy bear that I am.

But, despite the tone of the above, I don’t feel too much self-pity: I have had my day in the sun – when the little girls would flirt with me, play the coquettes and get over-excited when I would reciprocate their attention. I was once that attractive youth, effortlessly drawing glances from the little girls.

It’s a new challenge coming to terms with the fact that those whom I find attractive, and whom I am strongly disposed to love, no longer find me interesting or attractive, and indeed may even be inclined to take an instant dislike to me. I think it is a challenge from which I will have much to learn and discover.

I’ll end this gloomy screed as I started it, with a poem. Robert Herrick’s advice in ‘To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time’ is an eloquent warning to young lovers everywhere.

And especially to lovers of the young.

Gather ye rosebuds while ye may,
Old Time is still a-flying;
And this same flower that smiles today
To-morrow will be dying.

The glorious lamp of heaven, the sun,
The higher he’s a-getting,
The sooner will his race be run,
And nearer he’s to setting.

That age is best which is the first,
When youth and blood are warmer;
But being spent, the worse, and worst
Times still succeed the former.

Then be not coy, but use your time,
And, while ye may, go marry:
For having lost but once your prime,
You may forever tarry.

Radical paedophilia

I have recently found myself using the term ‘Radical Paedophilia’ with increasing frequency when referring to the complex of ideas explored and espoused here, and on blogs such as HereticTOC, and on forums such as Visions of Alice, GirlChat and BoyChat.

I feel that there needs to be some label for those who adhere neither to VirPedery nor to the dominant narrative, and for the nexus of ideas that takes as given that children are sexual beings capable of making consent decisions, and that intimacy with adults is not inherently harmful to them. The label is, of course, a nod to the Tom O’Carroll’s book ‘Paedophilia: the Radical Case’.

Radical Paedophilia is a pioneer subject. It’s existence is known to few. There are no faculties or professors of Radical Paedophilia. As with the early history of many fields of knowledge – think Geology, Astronomy and photography – it is the ‘amateur’ (deriving from the Latin for ‘one who loves’) who is the true pioneer: the ‘specialists’, the professionals, are so profoundly mired in the false paradigms of the dominant narrative – their careers and reputations dependent on their toeing the line – that any advances they make can only take them further from the truth and deeper into the swamp of error.

Henri Cartier-Bresson -Jean-Paul Sartre, Paris, 1946

Radical Paedophilia is also an occult subject: too fraught for any ‘normal’ person to be permitted an open view of it. You will rarely find it properly represented and articulated in the mainstream media. It is a Gorgon’s Head – only safe to contemplate via the distorting mirror of the dominant narrative, and, more recently, of VirPedery. But paradoxically this makes the intellectual world of Radical Paedophilia an exciting place: the more something is hidden the more there is that needs revealing.

New and interesting thinkers constantly emerge on various forums and social media, and in the comments sections of blogs, proposing, exploring and defending new ideas and perspectives.

Such is the ignorance and misinformation that any paedophile who has thought deeply about his or her experiences and feelings unthinkable becomes a pioneer – refusing to accept as true that which they know to be false, asserting their identity in the face of a deluge of error.

In 1944, towards the end of France’s occupation and the Second World War, Jean Paul Sartre wrote:

“Never were we freer than under the German occupation. We had lost all our rights, and first of all our right to speak. They insulted us to our faces every day – and we had to hold our tongues. They deported us en masse – as workers, as Jews, as political prisoners. Everywhere, — upon the walls, in the press, on the screen, — we found filthy and insipid images of ourselves which the oppressor wished to present to us. And because of all this, we were free.” – from “Paris alive: The Republic of Silence”

Sartre understood that Freedom is not a condition but an act. He understood that one is only ever truly free when one is fighting for one’s freedom. Any paedophile who does not buy into the stigma, who refuses to wear the monster mask, who dares to love – whether she or he is celibate or not, or whether that love is requited or unrequited, is fighting for their freedom.

Any paedophile who questions the stigma and the hate that is thrust upon them is a pioneer, a radical, a freedom-fighter.

Secrets – how to tell and how to keep them

Over the past few years circumstances had led me to come out to a couple of long-standing friends. These comings out, whilst far from disastrous, went sufficiently imperfectly for things to be ‘interesting’.

I drew on these experiences when drafting a ‘secrets’ supplement to ‘The Toybox: Coming Out & Staying In‘ which word-count prevented me from publishing. Here it is. Feel free to add to it (or indeed subtract from it):

Some guidelines for keeping another person’s secret
  1. The obvious one: don’t tell their secret (though there may be circumstances where you may have to – see 5 below).

  2. If someone tells you something that you feel should be a secret, but without explicitly stating that it is a secret, treat it as one until that person tells you otherwise. Or till you find out that it is such common knowledge that it is nonsense to treat it as a secret.

  3. Don’t tell (or hint to) anyone that you either know a secret concerning a specific person, or even secrets in general. The best confidant is the person who seems to know nothing about anybody. Letting everyone know that you never open your ‘vault of secrets’ is not the best way of ensuring your vault’s security – it is better to give the impression that you don’t have, or need, a vault.

  4. Secrets should remain secret even if you have fallen out with the person who confided in you, or if that person has disappeared from your life or even if he or she has died (but see 5 below).

  5. Don’t, in a moment of anger, threaten to reveal a secret. A threat to reveal a secret is the half-way-house to betraying it: it casts doubts on your integrity and trustworthiness, and, in extreme circumstances, a threat of revelation may force the person who confided in you to preëmptively reveal their secret. However, if someone is threatening to betray you, it can be legitimate to remind them that you are in a position to betray them in return if sufficiently provoked. Being a good trustworthy confidant is one thing; being a doormat is another.

  6. Even if a 3rd-party gives the impression of knowing your confidant’s secret, still act as if you know nothing about it. They may be bluffing in order to get you to confirm some suspicion, or to get more details out of you.

Some guidelines for sharing your own secrets
  1. Granted that someone who was once a gossip can learn to be a good confidant, don’t be tempted to too readily forgive someone who has proven themself untrustworthy in the past. Someone who tells you other people’s secrets is likely to be untrustworthy with yours. Likewise mistrust someone who doesn’t divulge a secret, but who lets you know they hold a secret about someone – such persons are bursting to divulge what they know and generally need little encouragement to do so.

  2. Evaluate the potential damage that can be done by a betrayal of trust by your confidant. If your secret could potentially land you a 20-year spell in jail – then confiding in anyone, even your most trusted friend, becomes a serious gamble.

  3. An indicator of how trustworthy someone is likely to be is to observe how they handle being party to some embarrassing, but harmless, knowledge or experience concerning you, something that would be great fun and very tempting for them to spread around. Do they blab? Or do they treat the matter with discretion?

  4. Generally, when one is considering ‘coming out’ to someone, it is because you suspect that they might be especially sympathetic or understanding of paedophilia. Note your potential confidant’s reaction and attitude when related issues arise naturally (such as when discussing current affairs, or if a Gary Glitter song plays on the jukebox).

  5. Evaluate the stability of your relationship with your potential confidant. Is it a friendship that will fade once the circumstances that nurtured it change? And will this person continue to keep your secret if your friendship ceases to thrive? Whilst most people try to be trustworthy with the secrets of friends, far fewer are trustworthy with the secrets of ex-friends – the end of a friendship often being turbulent and accompanied by feelings of betrayal, bitterness and resentment that can fuel a desire for revenge.

  6. Remember that by telling someone a secret you may be placing a great burden on their shoulders – don’t confide in someone who is not up to supporting that burden. Even if they prove themselves to be wholly trustworthy, the secret you tell them may excessively trouble them or damage your relationship.

  7. Be prepared for your relationship with you confidant to change. Your secret will probably damage your relationship to a certain extent and you may subsequently need to make special efforts in repairing it and maintaining it. Be prepared to make sacrifices and compromises to keep the friendship healthy. Maybe most importantly: don’t rub your confidant’s face in your paedophilia. The main reason why we ‘come out’ is to be able to live and share our true identity. But, ironically, those whom we come out to may only stay our friends if we suppress this identity in their presence.

  8. When telling someone a secret make sure that it is clear to your confidant – and yourself! – exactly which parts of what you’ve told them are secret and which aren’t. Also make sure they understand what your expectations are as to what it means ‘to keep a secret’ (e.g. the points in the ‘Some guidelines for keeping another person’s secret’ section above).

  9. Control the flow of what you reveal and don’t get carried away by the exhilaration of confiding in someone. You don’t need to reveal everything. Keep secret what you don’t need to tell. Don’t overwhelm your confidant with everything but give them information a stage at a time. Allow him or her time to think about, discuss and digest a little at a time.

  10. If the secret is sufficiently serious one (as it is in our case) and several people are party to that secret, don’t tell anyone that there are other confidants to that secret. Each confidant should think they are the only ones who know. This guarantees that your confidants are free from ‘guilt by association’ if one of them should betray you. Imagine a disgruntled friend who ‘outs’ you, and at the same time outs all the friends and family who are party to your secret, putting them in the firing-line of stigma, or worse.

  11. Beware of being lured into confiding in someone simply because they have confided one of their secrets to you. Evaluate their trustworthiness on other criteria than their willingness to confide in you. Is it possible that the person has invented his secret in order to lure you into confiding yours?


41 thoughts on “A Humiliation, Radical Paedophilia, Telling & Keeping Secrets

  1. I am but, my sweet, your foster-lover,
    Knowing well when certain years are over
    You vanish from me to another —
    Yet I know, and I love, like the foster-mother.

    — Francis Thompson (30) to Monica Meynell (10), 1890

    Am enjoying catching up on a few of your blog entries, LSM :).


    1. No, I haven’t unapproved it and I’ve just checked and it’s showing up where it should be- at the top of the comments section for ‘Stigma and Paedophilia – the Early Years’ – followed by my answer.

      Check again – if it’s not visible in your browser then let me know, though I can’t imagine any reason why it shouldn’t be – other than your browser is using an old, cached version of the page.


    1. This comment is identical to the one posted on the latest Tom O’Carroll’s blogpost. So, I think, it would be a proper act to repeat here a warning issued by Dissident there. Here is it, beyong the lines:

      I don’t like being quick to mistrust or come off like a paranoid putz, but I would advise everyone here to be wary of this poster. I can’t say for a fact he isn’t authentic, but considering the illegal things he gleefully talks about, my radar keeps screaming “cop”, “vigilante”, or “troll.” I know this isn’t nice to say, and I would hate to alienate anyone who is authentic, but I think this needed to be said even at the risk of both. Also, I’m not naive enough to believe that all younger people who break the law do so because they are “naive,” which is a young person stereotype that those trying to entrap us would be quick to try playing into.

      Dissy, I hope you won’t object I reposted your warning comment here without asking you for permission! I just thought that your words of caution is needed here as much as on the Tom’s blog…


      1. thanks for that Explorer and Dissident.

        I hesitated long before approving Stef Wolfboy’s comment, and in the end decided to give it the benefit of the doubt. But your comment, and the fact that the same comment has been posted at HereticTOC, has tipped me towards thinking that it’s trolling, or worse.

        Of course, we may be wrong – if so apologies to Stef Wolfboy. But in such things it’s generally better to err on the side of caution. Thanks for both your vigilance.


  2. My best friends nine week old granddaughter was raped by a 51 year old sick pos pedophile a few days ago…the baby is traumatised and had to be put on intravenous pain meds and stiched up….you are a disgusting man to support this cause!!!!


      1. Good response, Lensman.
        And the funny thing is that it’s very true. Almost all child abuse and rape is committed by so-called heterosexuals.
        The reason that peadophiles do not rape children is that they, of course, have empathy for children. Raping a child is the last thing a childlover would be capable of doing.

        And so, that “jewel of denial” is a real jewel. . . of denial.


        1. I normally don’t approve the kind of comment Jewel Ofdenial made. But this one was offering such low-hanging fruit that I found the temptation impossible to resist.

          I’d have used the term ‘hetero-teleiophile’ instead of ‘heterosexual’ – it being more accurate, but I doubt that Jewel Ofdenial or his/her ilk would have appreciated the nuance.


    1. Presumably your last bout of spamming is a response to my critique of the treatment of little girls under islam, Sharia in particular.

      Interestingly nothing you posted addresses the points and accusations I make.

      Instead you only offer slogans – the lowest form of political thinking, and moreover slogans that have no bearing on the issues raised by Clive Martin’s ‘comment’.

      Here is the thinking behind your response

      1. someone’s criticised islam.
      2. The critic (or criticism) must be silenced, censored, punished or attacked in some way.
      3. I can’t oppose it by defending FGM and child sex-slavery – that would go against my principals and make me seem depraved.
      4. Therefore I will bombard him with ‘criticism’ on a wholly different topic

      This is the typical taqiyya-rich approach of kufr friends-of-jihad – you can’t defend FGM and child sex-slavery so instead you try to shift the debate onto defending islam’s right to genocide the Jewish people.

      I will not approve islamist propaganda or lies.

      Your mind belongs to the islamists – I attack FGM and islamic child sex-slavery and you reach for any issue you can attack me as being ‘islamophobic’.

      Clearly any attack on islam has to be stamped out by whatever means, whether relevant or irrelevant, honest or dishonest, non-violent or violent.

      Having said that I welcome any comment from you that is relevant, coherent and polite. I would also welcome a comment from you providing a defense of islamic child sex-slavery – it is important to know how moslems justify Sharia law – maybe you could give the a list of the many quotes from the koran and hadith that those you refuse to criticise use to justify it.

      Don’t bother answering this comment otherwise – it won’t be read by me or approved.

      You constantly accuse me of blocking you but I have till now approved those comments of yours that I have judged worth approving.

      Nor have I ever even looked at WordPress’s comments blacklisting system before this morning after receiving your spam.

      I am a straw’s weight away from blacklisting you.


  3. Lol, every devoted childlover, sooner or later will face this degree of humiliation.
    I feel for you, Lensman, and I have had it happen to me too. We are always on the lookout for children whose attention we may catch. They in turn sometimes stick out their tongues maliciously, and sometimes the encounter results in an exchange of conspiratorial smiles. The latter I much prefer!
    Long live Childlove!


    1. Thanks Jonathan – I try to be philosophical about the ravages of middle age… that which one can’t help can at least provide fodder for reflection and maybe a little hard-won wisdom… but ‘wisdom’ be dammed – I’d just love some funny flirtacious encounter with a tongue-sticking little beauty.


    1. Thank you for the link to that photograph, Clive Martin.

      In sending me this image I am not sure if you, Clive Martin, sent it in order to alert me to an obscenity. Or if you are one who is willing to purchase your desires’ satisfaction at all and any cost, including sacrificing the welfare and liberty of little girls

      Either way – it’s an image that raises a crucial issue for paedophiles.

      Do we hold our line and assert the primacy of the child’s freedom and consent, do we assert that sexuality during childhood should be light, playful, free and, above all, free from life-changing commitments and consequences? Do we assert that ethical paedophilia should be child-centered, age-appropriate, and not focused on the adult’s lust or needs, or those of fictional gods?

      Or do we, in our rush to get what we want, advocate an ideology that denies children consent? that encourages child rape? that sells off little girls for a dowry? that hacks away at their genitals and seals up a girl’s vulva as a guarantee of virginity for their future purchaser? that, once married, stores them at home, or, when out of the home, in black bags? that deprives married (and unmarried) little girls of their education? that allows a man to own a herd of women/little girls but stones a girl for being unfaithful to that same husband? That turns the little girl into nothing more than a domestic slave and a reproductive machine?

      Yes, Islam offers paedophiles a system in which they can legally satisfy their sexual urges. But its an offer that throws little girls, their freedom, their well-being, their dignity under the bus. And some paedophiles are being tempted by this offer.

      We need to articulate more clearly and more forcefully than ever the vast expanses of clear blue sky that lie between islamic child sex-slavery and the vision of Radical Paedophilia. We must resist any idea that they fall under the same rubric – they are diametric opposites – one is fueled by respect of the child, the other is fueled by fear and contempt of the female sex.

      And let’s not fall into the islamophilic trap of thinking that because islam opposes things we are unhappy with in the West that islam offers a better alternative. Make no mistake: the embargo that WEIRD society puts on child sexuality is infinitely preferable to the fates islam reserves for little girls. It is the difference between a little girl not being able to share intimacy with an adult to whom she is attracted and a little girl having her mutilated genitals then raped by a stranger she’s been sold to and spending the rest of her life being raped and giving birth.

      Think of a little girl you have loved and felt tenderness toward.

      Now imagine her undergoing a clitorectomy and infibulation – without anaesthetic; imagine her her being sold to the someone she may not even know, after no courtship or romance; imagine her having her infibulated vulva being ripped open by her ‘husband” prior to bloody and agonising penetration; imagine her being ‘disappeared’ and stored in a cloth bag; imagine her being deprived of her education; imagine her not being able to play with her friends, not even being able to have dolls (effigies of humans or animals being banned under islam); imagine her giving birth nine months after her menarche and seeing her exhausted and hollowed out by domestic slavery and childbirth by the time she is half-way through her teens.

      I repeat: the embargo that WEIRD society put on child sexuality is infinitely preferable to the fate islam reserves for little girls. If a child is deprived of the right to say ‘Yes’ in WEIRD society they at least they are protected from rape and real abuse by that compulsory ‘No’.

      isislam allows them neither the right to say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.


      1. For what it’s worth, Lensman, from what I have seen (and I’ve seen a lot in this community over many years), most Kind people do not support forced child marriage under any circumstances or framework–whether religious or secular. And despite your oft-stated belief that contemporary Islam promotes and accepts this practice outside of the West, if you get past your angry hatred of anything remotely connected to that religion and do some research you will see that this practice actually rarely occurs in even the most repressive, hyper-patriarchal government in the Middle East, and only then with periodic high-ranking members of the elites of these societies who are more empowered by their vast wealth than anything currently legally permitted by Sharia law. If one is wealthy enough, there is little you cannot get away with, particularly within the walls of your own palace.

        In fact, forced child marriage has been more attributed to Mormonism in recent decades than anything connected to Islam, but I have no idea how much that is truth, since the prevalance of such sensationalistic claims that are widely believed due to heaps of constant claims and pulling just the right emotional strings along with tweaking just the right fears in the public. We forget this at our peril, and in these cases, our emotions can be our worst enemy if we do not strive to keep them in check.

        That said, you know that I certainly do not support Sharia law, and in fact the majority of Kind people I have met, whether belonging to any religious affiliation or not, do not support any form of sectarian-based government, but a fully secular system that respects freedom of practice (or dissension from practice, as the case may be) but which does not respect any particular faith and leaves the matter an individual personal matter that the system does not indulge in.

        As for HeartProgress, I’m sure you have seen the critique recently given to it on Tom’s blog, and which noted the large number of trolls that either established the organization, or which have infiltrated it to make posts that get a rise out of people, both MAPs and non-MAPs alike… much as it did with you here. Do not feed those trolls, my friend! Though I know you will never be respectful of Islam as a faith choice (we share a dislike for Sharia law and any other type of sectarian government), please do not think the majority of people belonging to any group in the world today actually supports the forced domestic servitude and lifelong rape of little girls. Also, I think we should always keep the situation with HeartProgress in proper perspective.

        As for arguing that the situation we face in the WEIRD societies of today is “infinitely better” than the idea of forced servitude in a system of Sharia law, whether real or mostly imagined: I prefer to keep my emotions regarding Sharia law and all the horrors implicit in forced child marriage in proper perspective. This means that I refuse to take sides as for which of the two extremes is worse. Instead, I consider both forced sexual servitude and forced celibacy and asexuality to be equally abominable, because both infringe upon freedom of choice; and both of them manipulate girls to serve a certain form of religious or religion-like paradigm. Both of them insist that young girls be subservient to the needs and whims of adults, albeit in opposite directions. Both ideological frameworks deny girls the right to be architect of their own destiny, and both punish them severely for going against the established framework. Both of them brainwash girls into accepting their lot in a repressive system, though again in opposite directions. One ideological direction punishes girls for not submitting to a man they were forced to serve and attempts to brainwash them into believing they owe complete fealty to this man; the other ideological direction punishes men whom girls may choose to love of their own volition in a certain way and attempts to brainwash these girls into believing this caring partner was just using them. One direction demands control as sexual property of a strange man; another direction demands control via forced asexuality under the dominance and economic dependence of a small familial unit of adults.

        Thus, I will not even get involved in the argument as to which of these two atrocities is “preferable” to the other. Nor will I make the error of always choosing the side that involves sex as necessarily being the greater evil over the side that involves no sex at all. In either ideological scenario, innocent people are hurt and brainwashed, and sexuality is used as a tool to control others and remove choice, whether it be via forced sexual submission or via forced sexual repression. To me, that is like once again being forced to decide whether Trump or Clinton was the “greater” or “lesser” evil, when both are a pair of pro-capitalist despots who serve the same masters and the same basic worldview. I instead took a third route: choosing to prefer neither, and to recognize them both as a different wing of the same predatory raptor.

        Just some food for thought, my friend!


        1. “…. if you get past your angry hatred of anything remotely connected to that religion and do some research you will see that this practice actually rarely occurs in even the most repressive, hyper-patriarchal government in the Middle East, and only then with periodic high-ranking members of the elites of these societies who are more empowered by their vast wealth than anything currently legally permitted by Sharia law. If one is wealthy enough, there is little you cannot get away with, particularly within the walls of your own palace.”

          golleeee, Dissident, this oh so elitist “research” of yours, I don’t know… sometimes a humble, garden-variety image will suffice to reveal all we need to know https://goo.gl/images/XLr0rj


      2. Do you imagine the only ethical girl lovers, in whatever culture they happen to live, would argue in favor of doing harm to girls (and probably themselves) in order to possibly reduce the harm done to a Utility monster?

        That, I believe, is a reduction of all your arguments regarding pedophiles, girls and Islam’s flaws, into a form more suitable for discussion, and avoids assuming one’s opponents are Islamophobes or Sharia apologists.

        Here’s a related video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJUqhm2g08
        which caused a shit-storm in what remains of the atheist community.

        BTW, you might want to compare notes with Tom O’Carroll regarding recent spammers.


        1. hello Smith,

          I have to confess that I am finding the first sentence of your comment difficult to understand – I think ‘utility monster’ probably originally was an ‘convenient being’?

          I suspect that you’ve used a translation facility – could you have another go as I am interested to fully understand what you wish to tell me.

          I like to imagine a ‘Utility Monster’ is a more grown up version of the cookie monster.

          cookie monster

          (loved that video!)


          1. Well, my flawed brain is my translation utility, giving rise to my (probably) flawed understanding of utilitarianism and your arguments.

            If the Cookie Monster was a utility monster, we would have to feed him cookies rather than feed any number of starving people, as eating cookies makes him so happy his happiness is always greater than that of the starving people being fed. To deny the monster his cookies, or allow the very bad things to happen to the girl in your examples, causes far greater suffering than any alternative. Under such assumptions, how would even the attempt at creating a better society be possible?

            I loved the video too, and I hate the fact that the atheist or skeptic community have become more religious, in the sense that skepticism is not allowed regarding certain topics, including pedophilia.


  4. Blaire White has made a video where humiliates and denounces pedosexuals, you have to denounce this intolerance.


    1. who is this brainless bimbo?

      I would love to leave a comment below the video putting her right. But, because my youtube account is under my real name, not LSM, I can’t without risking giving away my ID…

      I’d be interested if anyone knows of a way of leaving comments without it being linked to your usual youtube account…

      But look at it another way this bubble-head’s outrage is a result of our voices getting heard. We must be doing something right…


      1. I would consider your response to that detractor as being invaluable to read, Lensman, so may it be feasible to do one of the following things:

        1. Start a new Google account under a different identity, and establish a YouTube handle under that “pen” name?

        2. Address all of her statements here, in a blog entry, so they are preserved for posterity?


        1. Hi Dissy! Long time No Read! It’s great to hear from you…

          I’ll approve your other comment later (there’s a lot to read there – every word is most welcome – and being a sophisticated kind of guy I don’t rush my pleasures… 😉

          To be honest I don’t have much interest in correcting the Blaire ‘witch’ White video – what she says is so banal and badly thought out that they hardly merits refuting.

          It’s like when you meet an adult who’s convinced that 2+2=5. The fact that they’re making such a fundamental error suggests that any effort expended in correcting the error will be a waste of time…

          Moreover I’m having to marshal my writing-time – I’m working on some essays that are trying to take up all my free time! I’m enjoying writing them, but am neglecting family, friends, pets and household maintenance in order to work on them.

          But, yes, there is some profound stupidity there, especially in the comments. I remember one that says something like

          “I thought pedophilia was illegal. Why aren’t these people arrested?”

          Well! A bonus prize to anyone who spots the brain-cell there.

          I’ll give the video another tooth-grinding viewing – I’ll write a response if it inspires more ire in me than contempt.


          1. >>>>>>>>Well! A bonus prize to anyone who spots the brain-cell there.<<<<<<<<

            Do I get a prize for the tenth of a quarter of a millionth of a brain cell? She needs at least that much to speak… a bit like one of my ex-wives. hmmmmm…


      2. Well, I don’t know what level of risk, regarding security and anonymity, you’re willing to tolerate. You could buy a new computer for cash (or use a virtual machine)
        then use a VPN or Tor under Linux to sign up for a new account.

        To expand of Dissident’s idea, maybe start another blog and post both to it and in the Youtube comments. If you have a different level of security writing here, you should take pains NOT to link your new account to this blog.


        1. Thanks, I’ll have a look at your suggestions, Smith. I think I can maybe set up another account – actually, I think I’ve got another account somewhere, under a different name. I’ll have to see if I can find the log-in details…


  5. Sad about what happened to your DailyMotion account … 😦
    Hope you can solve this soon…
    Maybe an interesting site for this would be the ‘VK’ (https://vk.com/) do you know?

    His three reflections were incredible, as always … Congratulations!


    1. VK is a Russian social network, so I won’t be so certain that it will work; to the contrary, I would be quite cautious. Russian authorities are reactionary and authoritarian, and highly censorious towards Internet,

      It is worth remembering that Russia, as far as I know, was the only country that blocked “Pigtails in Paint” website.


  6. Can’t last 5-mins in REAL WORLD free fer all YT-Search & Destroy Antis.

    Ineffectual psuedo intelleckshuls.

    Soooo dim – they think they’re BRIGHT!

    Bwah Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

    Like, er, Reply?


      1. Fer the umpteenth time of BLOCKING.

        Wot vids dy’a want pro-knowledge “YT-COMMENTS Commandos” SeXie&Co to, er, HOST?

        Or COMMENT upon in their NINE YEARS ongoin’ unchecked acts of YT-Search&Convert or DESTROY Antis.

        Like, er, Reply?

        We await (mo’ BLOCKING?)…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


        1. thanx SeXie – could you give me an email address to contact you? I will keep any address you send me confidential and won’t ‘approve’ it. Nor will send you the videos straight away, but I’ll tell you about them so you can decide if you really want to view them, or eventually host them.


  7. 1st, agin Len!

    To note Ur humiliating grammatical err-ection, detection, corr-ecshun.

    ‘An’ not ‘A’ ‘Humiliation’?




    Like, er, Reply?


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

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s