This post, like most of my recent ones, comes in at over 3000 words. I appreciate that not all readers have the time or the inclination to read an essay of this length. Such readers may wish to skip straight to the penultimate section of this essay (with the title ‘I have a dream…‘) and read there the conclusions towards which the rest of the essay leads.


What is it to be a paedophile and act and live virtuously? How do we best integrate our love into our daily lives, given that so many of its expressions are illegal, and carry a huge burden of stigma for those we love?

Monks and Friars

Religious tradition offers two answers to the problem of how to live well in a world that is (if you’re lucky) filled with temptation.

There is the solution of the monk, who achieves ‘virtue’ by withdrawing from the world and avoiding temptation.

Then there is the solution of the friar, who engages with the world and tries to do good, whilst resisting the temptations he inevitably encounters.

Monasticism engenders virtue that is negative. It is a virtue that is visible only to the eyes of a god (or of gods) since it consists of an absence, where ‘sin’ would otherwise be.

The friars, engage with the world and achieve virtue through good acts. Friars make themselves identifiable by various signs (clothing, tonsure etc). This means that their good acts are rung up to the credit of themselves as individuals, their order (Carmelite, Franciscan, Augustinian etc) and their faith. Their virtue is fully witnessed by the world.

A biographical digression…

Right from her earliest toddler-hood through to puberty I shared a special bond with a friend’s daughter. This friend and his wife saw that the bond between us was enriching to their daughter and did everything to encourage the friendship between us.

Some time back, reluctantly, and for reasons I can’t go into here, I came out to this friend.

Because my friend and his family lived in another country, I was obliged to come out to him in the worst possible way: by email.

A dark cloud came to preside over our correspondence over the next year or so. My friend’s most pressing fears and questions were left unaddressed. Our exchanges became stilted and cautious, were filled with misunderstandings, misjudgments and hesitations. We were both concerned by the growing distance and  malaise that had established itself between us, but felt that we couldn’t address it via email.

So when his work brought him to my region we somewhat nervously agreed to meet, talk things over face-to-face, and either heal our friendship or deal it a quick death.

So we met. After an age of small-talk, avoiding the subject, I asked him about what it was it that had troubled him that he had not felt happy addressing in an email.

We had a frank and honest discussion that lasted several hours, a discussion that went better than I suspect either of us had hoped.

It was all quite emotional for me. I’m sure that this blog’s readers will appreciate how rare it is for a paedophile to participate in this kind of exchange, with a ‘normie’ who is actually listening and who is taking what you say seriously.

My friend assured me that he had absolute confidence that I had never done anything wrong with his daughter, and that I’d had no underhand intentions towards her.

At one point in the conversation I found myself unable to speak, hit by a sudden emotional surge. My friend noticing that I had stopped speaking mid-sentence looked up at me, saw me fighting back tears and put a supportive hand on my shoulder.

The discussion had turned to the assumption endemic to the dominant narrative: that paedophiles are just seeking power over some smaller, weaker being.

My had friend said that the relationship between myself and his daughter had been the opposite of that: that he and his wife had found it remarkable how their daughter and I related, right from when she was a toddler, with the utmost respect for one another and with an absolute lack of a power-dynamic between us; that I had never acted ‘the adult’ with her, pulled rank or condescended her in any way; and that she had never acted the child, or been difficult or spoilt with me. He affirmed that I had been entirely a force for good for his daughter, and that his daughter truly loved me.

That was what made me break down. It was so beautiful to hear a ‘normie’ so generously acknowledge that the essential goodness of my love had not been invalidated by his knowledge that I was a paedophile.

Later in our discussion I asked my friend if he’d ever suspected I was a paedophile before I came out to him.

He confessed that it had never crossed his mind. He just thought that I was someone who was kind and respectful to his daughter and had brought out the best in her.

He said that he’d never associated ‘paedophilia’ with the sort of relationship I’d had with his daughter.

Love minus sex equals..?

Parents, family friends, grandparents, uncles, aunts, teachers etc variously express their love for children in a multiplicity of ways: through care, play, being patient, sharing interests and activities, paying children attention, physical affection, acting as role models, teaching and educating, gift-giving, correcting and punishing when necessary, going to work to provide for the family etc

Society accepts that there are many ways by which a ‘normal’ adult can show love for a child.

However, because the dominant narrative chooses to conceive of the paedophile in exclusively sexual terms Society deems paedophilia and the kinds of actions listed in the previous paragraph to be mutually exclusive.

The word ‘grooming’ embodies this assumption. It systematically sexualises all interactions, no matter how innocent-seeming, when a paedophile engages in them with a child. If the ‘grooming’ does not result in sexual abuse it is not because the interaction did not in fact have a sexual goal, but because the ‘grooming’, for whatever reason, failed to achieve that goal.

But the word ‘grooming’ conceals a half-truth: what distinguishes the ‘paedophile’ from the ‘normie’ is that the paedophile includes within their repertoire of loving gestures the sharing of sensual (or sexual) intimacy with a child .

Of course, Society by making any intimacy between an adult and a child highly stigmatised and illegal effectively removes this particular expression of love from the paedophile’s repertoire.

And because Society defines paedophilia in exclusively sexual terms it assumes that once ‘sexuality’ has been removed from the paedophile’s range of behaviours, that the paedophile will lose interest in the child in the same way that a hungry cheetah loses interest in a gazelle that has irrevocably escaped it.

But this thinking is flawed. And the flaw is so basic that it can be expressed as an equation: if the non-paedophile has a 100 ways of loving a child, the paedophile has a 101. By making child-adult intimacy illegal Society subtracts one way of loving from the paedophile’s 101. Subtracting 1 from 101 does not leave 0. It leaves 100.

In other words, the paedophile who accepts non-offending, still has available to him (or her) all the expressions of love that are open to the non-paedophile.

The murder of April Jones

A week or so ago Libertine posted the following comment:

Tonight I just watched a documentary about the murder of the Welsh girl ‘April Jones’….Of course the word paedophile was used in the usual sweeping terms; But I was just as horrified at what happened to her as the next man. They started ‘April’s Law’ calling for harder sentences for those that look at CP , Somehow taring all CP viewers (and there are a lot) with the child killer brush; I understand they want to leave a legacy, But its a blinkered one.”

It’s a perennial problem: one word shackles together the best and the worst of us. The popular narrative uses the same word to describe a devoted, nurturing, loving (and celibate) paedophile and someone like Mark Bridger, April Jones’s murderer.

The vocabulary teleiophiles use when they think and talk about themselves admits of finer distinctions – it makes explicit the huge conceptual expanses that exist between the caring, considerate husband or boyfriend and a rapist, a wife-beater, a pimp, a sadist and a serial killer. When some unfortunate woman is raped and left for dead we don’t read headlines proclaiming ‘hetero rapes and murders woman’.

Virpeds, take a step in the right direction. They have a vocabulary for the ‘bad paedophile’: ‘abuser’, ‘child molester’, ‘offender’.

But these words don’t clear much smog: ‘offender’ can apply to someone who has accessed child pornography (maybe something as inoffensive as a drawing), but never interacted illegally with a child; and none of these words take into account the nature of the intimacy engaged in. Whether it is hurtful to delicate teleiophilic sensibilities or not, to fail to distinguish between a doting uncle who, at her instigation, tickles his niece’s bottom when she’s sat on his lap, and a man who forcibly penetrates a struggling, crying toddler.

(An example of semantic inflation – listen to the word Dr James Cantor uses to characterise what offending paedophiles and child do together, 16:06 minutes into the following interview. On the trajectory Cantor establishes here I predict that in two years time respected scientists will be describing the downloading of child porn as ‘genocide’…)

The Man Who Dares to Bring Science & Humanity to the World of Monsters

“First in my series of interviews with psychologist and researcher, Dr. James Cantor, whose work with pedophiles has helped to revolutionize the way we conceptualize this horrible affliction.”

All this semantic imprecision, inflation and obfuscation contributes to the fact that we paedophiles are defined by the worst that can be imagined about us, the worst that can be said about us and the worst that is done by people labelled as ‘paedophile’.

It is not surprising that someone as thoughtful and educated as my friend, prior to my coming out to him, would have readily recognised the acts of Mark Bridger as ‘paedophilia’, but not the years of devotion, respect and love I shared with his daughter. Only the worst about us breaks the skin of public consciousness.

Our virtuous acts are invisible.

Two Cheers for Virtuous Pedophiles

So, what is it to act virtuously as a paedophile?

Virtuous Pedophiles, the most visible paedophile group, emphasises the monastic approach to virtue, that of not offending. And the avoidance of children, along with therapy or ‘professional help’, is one of the key strategies they advocate for achieving this.

This makes for virtue that has the same invisibility as that of a driver who, because he respects speed limits, does not kill a child he would have otherwise killed if he regularly exceeded speed limits.

This, the anchorite approach to virtue, is nevertheless virtue when it results in a person not offending,  who would have otherwise offended.

Of course in order to exercise the virtue of engagement, the paedophile (at least in the context of paedophobic society) needs to first exercise the virtue of resisting temptation.

But what about all those paedophiles who would never offend but, because this is the only advice they receive, who follow this advice of disengagement? Is not the net effect that many children are potentially deprived of the benefits of these people’s best impulses?

An emphasis on disengagement, on negative virtue, has the advantage of offering the public what it most wants to hear. This approach, and an emphasis on ‘therapy’, as solutions to the ‘problem of paedophilia’ has won for Virpeds access to the public and a certain respectability.

The therapisation of paedophilia is infantilising and reinforces the idea that paedophiles are so in the grip of uncontrollable lust, on such a tight-rope of self-control, that if it weren’t for ‘professional’ help and medication we’d all be offending against every small human that came within our grasp.

Moreover, are those paedophiles who do seek therapy going because they are unsure of their capacity to resist temptation? Or because they have been worn down by the stigma, the prejudice, the discrimination, the loneliness, the hatred, by depression, the disinformation and the lies?

But the truth is that resisting temptation is no harder for paedophiles than it is for any other sexual orientation.

In fact, resisting temptation might be easier for us: we are much more resigned to celibacy than are ‘normies’; we are not inculcated with a sense of entitlement to sexual and romantic fulfilment; normies, moreover, exist in a culture that constantly seeks to titillate them and tries to harness the resulting sexual dissatisfaction to consumer ends – we, especially exclusive paedophiles, by-and-large escape this; we exist in a culture that presents us with sexual or sexualised images of children of a homeopathic intensity when compared to normie culture; we also have much greater incentives for maintaining celibacy; and those of us who are non-exclusive have ready access to a pornucopia of legal stimulation to keep us distracted.

The REAL Virtuous Paedophiles

I know that if I had followed the Virtuous Pedophile two-point plan and avoided interactions with children, especially children I found attractive or whom I grew to love, those children’s lives would have been much the poorer for my absence, for my aloofness.

I know that I have exercised much positive virtue in several children’s lives. And that this positive virtue, when witnessed by the one parent of these children I have come out to, persuaded him that paedophilia could be a force for good.

We contribute a huge amount to children through our attention, devotion and love, as role models, as respectful adults. But because it is vanishingly rare that we can ‘come out’ to those who have witnessed this virtue, the virtue is not rung up to the credit of paedophiles.

The devoted teacher, the lady who teaches a neighbour’s son how to cook, the writer who pens books that ignite children’s imaginations, the pediatrician saving children’s lives &c &c may all be paedophiles.

But the world will never know it.

Meanwhile every news bulletin, every tabloid has its front-page child abuse story that reinforces the Monster and Predator narratives.

I am proud of the good things I have done for children. As should be all the paedophiles who do good things for children. But we are unable to take credit, as paedophiles, for the good we do, and so long as this situation persists our virtuous acts will contribute nothing to the public’s perception of what it is to be a paedophile.

I have a dream…

It is not enough for us to be privately proud of the good things we do. We need to celebrate them. Publicly.

The World is not going to come knocking, asking us paedophiles about the positive things we do for children. If the World isn’t listening maybe we need to put aside our natural modesty and proclaim the good we do. Maybe we need to shout a little louder. But how?

One possibility is a web-site that would invite paedophiles from all round the world to anonymously share the positive acts of virtue that they do, and have done, for children.

The acts could be small everyday ones – helping a child with her reading, listening to a child’s problems, playing with a child…. Or they could be major acts of virtue – supporting a child as their parents go through a divorce, or saving a child’s life, or a paedophile doctor volunteering for Medecins Sans Frontiers.

I imagine pages and pages of beautiful moments inspired by the love and respect shared by a paedophile and a child they care for – accounts that are varied, surprising, banal, extraordinary, passionate, moving, happy, bitter-sweet, amusing, serious, detailed, long, short, well-written and badly-written…

The site would also be non-sectarian – it would not be a place for arguments between ‘pro-choice’ vs ‘anti-contact’ paedophiles, or between ‘status-quo’ vs ‘reform’. To this end, and  for all sorts of other reasons, the site would, have a non-offending policy: no contribution containing, hinting at, or promoting illegal activity would be published.

The site would seek to occupy the common ground shared by most factions and would be something that all paedophiles who put the interests of children first should feel comfortable contributing to – whether they be male, female, Virpeds, Radical paedophiles, girl-lovers, boy-lovers, exclusives, non-exclusives, nepiophiles, paedophiles, hebephiles or ephebophiles.

I am enough of a dreamer to even imagine teleiophiles contributing. Maybe someone like the friend to whom I came out? Or some teleiophilic adult who fondly remembers the love, devotion and respect he or she shared with someone they now realise was probably a paedophile?

Of course, a large proportion of the public is going to wilfully misinterpret such a site and come to the site only in search of the thrill of outrage. These people, I predict, will view the site as little more than a place for paedophiles to share thinly-disguised grooming stories.

This can’t be helped. But if we let the most ignorant and brutish people have a casting vote on our best-intentioned projects then organisations such as Virpeds , B4U-ACT and Project Dunkelfeld would not exist – let alone sites like Pigtails in Paint.

Those seeking outrage will find precious little fuel there to keep that outrage burning – ‘Honey’s wacky smelly pants‘ as the French say.

We need to get truths out there over the heads of the bottom-feeders, truths that have so far failed to permeate beyond the paedosphere. And we need to let those truths do their own work.

Conclusion

It has been pointed out to me that the more extreme VirPeds will have nothing to do with a project instigated by an apparently ‘notorious’ apparently ‘pro-contact’ paedophile.

Well, that’s of course a shame. And I just hope for their sakes that neither Louis Pasteur or Sir Alexander Fleming turn out to have been ‘pro-contact paedophiles’ and that they consequently feel themselves obliged to opt out from the benefits of those gentlemen’s good ideas…

Anyway, since I have already mooted this idea elsewhere on the internet, and since I’ve published this post, the fact that this is my brain-child is probably the only point that is non-negotiable (though any VirPed wishes to take this idea and run with it is welcome to do so, provided that the site is public and done in a non-sectarian manner).

But the site would not seek to compete with VirPeds, or undermine them. It would instead complement the virtue promoted by Virpeds. It would promote a way of life that is doubly virtuous – that would add positive virtue to the negative virtue of VirPeds. It would encourage paedophiles who present no risk of ‘offending’ to take the next step – engage with children, and express their love by enriching those chidren’s lives.

So, over to you, good reader…

Does such a site seem like a workable proposition to you?
Would you be ready to contribute?
Do you think paedophiles in general would be ready to contribute?
Would you want to read this kind of thing this site would publish?
Can such a site be self-sustaining? Or would it need to offer something more to keep people returning?
What are possible pitfalls?
How could the haters and antis and the ignorant mob scupper such a project?
Any and all suggestions, thoughts, doubts, questions are welcome.

‘Two Ways of Life – 1857’ by Oscar Gustav Rejlander (British, born Sweden, 1813–1875)

27 thoughts on “Who Are the REAL Virtuous Paedophiles?

    1. A magyar nem elég, mint amennyire csak lehet…. my hungarian isn’t quite what it should be but, yes, I suspect that you are correct. the site looks like it could provide a useful template from which to get some design ideas.

      Can I come back to you eventually if I have any questions about the site?

      köszönöm

      Like

  1. Wow, a tear-jerker. And what a great discussion too. I’ll be pointing folks over here for sure.

    Tears to laughter and back again, Lensman i loved your use of ‘homeopathic’ and ‘excrete’!

    And Dissident, your frog metaphor is lovely, poignant.

    And hmm. So on this proposed horn-tootin’ gold-poopin’ site i would have to re-restrict my language back to the sort of emasculated Victorian Americanish i grew up with? And so soon after going full-monty outlaw paedo trucker?

    Oh, and i was genuinely impressed with a couple of things in that Cantor clip. One was the motivation he imputed to the paedos who decide on celibacy: He could so easily have parroted the usual (and something we’ve heard him say) that they decide that to avoid discovery/punishment, but instead he attributed it to their recognition of the potential risk of harm to the kid. Wow! That’s actually spot-on! He’s really been listening to somebody. He also implied pretty solidly that he got into this whole messy pioneering field because from the get-go he considered our people’s attractions to likely have the same sorts of origins as his or ours, throwing some doubt on his own research, it seems, or at least making room to challenge him to bring more doubt to his current findings that seem to him to point to pathology.

    Like

  2. “There is the solution of the monk, who achieves ‘virtue’ by withdrawing from the world and avoiding temptation”

    Did you not read about the English monks in the 11th century, They had it good, It was well known back then how boys can tempt red blooded monks. From what I heard these monks had it good, sex, drink, power, They had to be reined in so to speak.
    There was a conversation on Youtube about whether boys or girls are more attractive; To me, I suppose it depends on the boy, girl or ‘woman’. But I thought to myself, Its like all the hate is over, like the gays, we ‘won’, and are now just openly discussing our personal tastes, Quite surreal, but there is a lot of those types of discussions out there.

    Like

    1. I just realised going through the comments, I notice I said ‘rained in…that should be ‘reined in’. Dam it!!

      Like

    2. There was a conversation on Youtube about whether boys or girls are more attractive; To me, I suppose it depends on the boy, girl or ‘woman’.

      I would advance this suggestion to answer that question, Libertine: the answer to the above is subjective depending upon the individual preferences of the person doing the assessing 🙂

      For a GLer, it would be girls; for a BLer, it would be boys; for a teleiophilic heterosexual or bi man, or lesbian or bi, or young mesophile who was male and heterosexual or bi, or mesophilic female who was lesbian or bi, it would be women; for a pansexual, it would indeed depend on the individual boy, girl, or ‘woman.’ [Mesophile being the term recently coined by Dr. Michael Seto for younger people with a romantic preference for significantly older people in the middle-aged range.]

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I could feature some of them in “M.A. Voice”…

    >Does such a site seem like a workable proposition to you?

    “A Human Book: Pedophilia”?…

    Kabouter has maintained a website on Free Spirits, named “I BoyLover”…Though it’s different, it still kind of fits the concept…It’s dormant, though…and not so much a group effort.

    These things can be tricky to get off the ground and maintain…They demand a dependable, focused, respected and strong leader…someone people gravitate towards, and like to associate with.

    “Jim”, the creator of Newgon had it…and it was quite a ride, for two or three years…But when he exited, things went south…and only the wiki had life.

    >Would you be ready to contribute?

    I’d probably try…but I don’t have a lot going on in my life, that I feel safe about sharing….I generally dwell on the philosophical.

    >Do you think paedophiles in general would be ready to contribute?

    This kind of gets back to what I was saying about strong leadership…having somebody people are inspired to associate with.

    Any of us can have our own blogs and websites…People need to envision, why building such a collection matters.

    >Would you want to read this kind of thing this site would publish?

    If you asked me this twenty years ago, I’m sure I’d be reading everything…As it is, I currently skip over Boy Moments at BC, as common practice…

    …Make of that what you will….And, yes…I do miss those old days, of excitement and enthusiasm…but sometimes you just evolve out of things, and branch into other directions.

    >Can such a site be self-sustaining? Or would it need to offer something more to keep people returning?

    I don’t believe “I BoyLover” gets a lot of traffic…These things to easily fall into abandonment.

    If you can find energetic people who share your vision, they could probably find a way to make it work.

    >What are possible pitfalls?

    People burn out…It gets you stalkers and death threats…and an endless grind of abuse…But, we all already knew that much. 🙂

    One of the lesser reasons it took me so many years [over a decade] to finally talk about this

    https://ourlovefrontier.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/talkwithpedophiles-response-june-15-2015/

    …is because I thought there would be people accusing me of exploiting the murder of a seven year old boy, to “further my agenda”…mocking and rebuking me for it…

    …I’m not going to say it initially devastated me…but this went on for nine months, at least…I had to live under this, for nearly a year…It impacted me deeply…It was one prong, that led to the emotional breakdown, I’ve talked about in the past…

    …My first blog sprang out of the rebound of that breakdown.

    This boy never once showed up in that original blog…nor in the first and second incarnation of Our Love Frontier…About ten years after the fact, I broke my silence…

    …I still question myself, whether I should even talk about it at all…If I’m wrong for doing it.

    The most relevant and real facts I have to share, generally aren’t that cheery…Some are very dark.

    >How could the haters and antis and the ignorant mob scupper such a project?

    If it’s run right, they probably couldn’t…short of a Stacey Harp style, Fox News hit piece.

    >Any and all suggestions, thoughts, doubts, questions are welcome.

    I think I’ve already given these. 🙂

    …I’m sorry if most weren’t terribly deep…It’s hard to give a formula, for something that is honestly uncharted territory.

    Like

    1. thank you for your comment, Steve Diamond

      >”I could feature some of them in “M.A. Voice”…”

      Thanks, that would be most helpful.

      >”“A Human Book: Pedophilia”?”

      I still haven’t thought of a name for the site – my current working name is one suggested by Tom O’Carroll – ‘platonic paedophilia’ – which perfectly condenses the philosophy of the site – though there is always something abstract and forbidding about Greek philosophical terminology.

      Your suggestion is a very good one – it reminds me of a Victorian novel by William Hurrell Mallock whose title is ‘ A human document’ (that has been used as a basis for a work of art, by the painter Tom Phillips)

      What do you think of ‘A human document: pedophilia’? ‘Document’ introduces the idea of it being a testimony, a record and report of facts, data, experience that matter

      >”Kabouter has maintained a website on Free Spirits, named “I BoyLover”…Though it’s different, it still kind of fits the concept…It’s dormant, though…and not so much a group effort.
      These things can be tricky to get off the ground and maintain…They demand a dependable, focused, respected and strong leader…someone people gravitate towards, and like to associate with.

      I’m still not sure if this will work, but there’s only one way to find out, and a lot will depend on the community giving it a strong initial push to get it going. But luckily I’m not afraid of failure (IRL I work in a field where, in a sense, one failts 99% of the time!).

      >”I’d probably try…but I don’t have a lot going on in my life, that I feel safe about sharing….I generally dwell on the philosophical.”

      Yeh, me too – my life’s child-desert, and like you I spend more time thinking about sociology, philosophy and politics of paedophilia than actual children.

      It’s all gotten a bit abstract. I kind of realise that that comes through in my writting – I look at my early posts on my blog, from a time when I had regular doses of a fun, beautiful stimulating little girl – and they’re informed with a kind of passion that comes out of the experience of love, desire, and of being loved. Well, unfortunately, little girls and boys don’t come on tap – one has to negotate one’s way through the landscape one finds oneself in…

      But the site would welcome memories as much as contemporary accounts – I think that is something I’ll need to make clear in the guidelines section of the site. My own best contributions would be from over half a life-time ago (god that’s a depressing thought…)

      >”Any of us can have our own blogs and websites…People need to envision, why building such a collection matters.”

      Yes, I think you’re right – it puts a lot of onus on getting the philosophy of the site right, and expressing it as well as possible.

      >”I don’t believe “I BoyLover” gets a lot of traffic…These things to easily fall into abandonment.”

      Could you give me a link for that, please?

      >”People burn out…It gets you stalkers and death threats…and an endless grind of abuse…But, we all already knew that much.”

      I think that the first thing you mention – burn out – is the biggest factor. I suspect that all bloggers are susceptible to it. That is why I think it is important that this is very much a community and team effort. I’m in a pretty constant struggle with burn-out with my blog – I’m enthusiastic to get the early stages of this site sketched out, but after that my ideal is that other people take over, and I participate as just one of the team.

      >”One of the lesser reasons it took me so many years [over a decade] to finally talk about this”

      I’ve downloaded the audio you’ve posted and will listen to it later today. I’ll post my reaction to that in a separate comment.

      Thanks for your input and good work.

      Like

        1. Regularly copy and save the text of your comment in a MS Word file. Or write it as MS Word file, initially, and then copy the text to the blog comment section.

          This way, nothing would be lost.

          Like

          1. I rely on a spellchecker, which works through my web browser. I will never go back to typing in text programs, as I desperately need a spellchecker, and this one even allows adding my personal words into its lexicon.

            Normally, I open up the page I type in, so that the option to “go back” is not available…which safeguards from that specific blunder…I do take little precautions…This was just a weird situation.

            I simply forgot that I still had this tab immediately open…I went to look for a URL in the browser history, and accidentally hit the “homepage” button instead.

            Like

    2. >”One of the lesser reasons it took me so many years [over a decade] to finally talk about this

      https://ourlovefrontier.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/talkwithpedophiles-response-june-15-2015/

      that was a very powerful account, Steve – I listened to it whilst mowing the lawn, but only got half of what I planned done since there were times when I just had to stop and fully focus on the sheer drama and suspense of what you were relating.

      I can really imagine how that would send all sorts of waves and ripples through you – and to be accused of taking advantage of it is such a low dishonest tactic – you did what you had to as a citizen. As a paedophile you are damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. Moreover how could you know what was going on when that boy came into the shop. The fact that it was not the missing boy but someone impersonating him clearly meant that you were clearly unsure about his identity.

      Can I ask, how did the police respond to you? Did they show any awareness of your being a paedosexual?

      Like

      1. >Can I ask, how did the police respond to you? Did they show any awareness of your being a paedosexual?

        There was no official interview…I live outside a small village…In this kind of a place, we get to know the local law enforcement, on a more personal level…One of them simply stopped in the day after I made the report, and told me he was glad I did. That was about the extent of it.

        …Then things began to go quiet…within weeks, people were talking about the parents, and their suspicious behavior…The searches stopped…

        …I think the thing that hung over my head the heaviest, was coming to realize these were not good people…and had they discovered that “a local pedophile claimed seeing their son” [let alone, one with deep roots in the online “pedophile” community]…it was easy to imagine them trying to exploit this, at dire expense to myself…Even if they hadn’t, this was like a bomb waiting to blow up in my face…I was a sitting duck.

        ….I didn’t know if they were ever going to start looking at the people who claimed to have come into contact with the boy, or what…Which is typical, when an open investigation goes cold. This placed a tremendous amount of stress on me…It cost me a lot, on a private level.

        My life is strangely intertwined with this boy, now.

        Like

  4. The Azov films bust netted, if I recall correctly, a youth theatre coach, a primary school teaching assistant, a CofE vicar, a church organist and choirmaster and a major figure in youth baseball who, among other things, coached a team of local boys ages 11 and 12. And many, many more. Here http://www.shadowsproject.net/Galerie/S0003_Kay.pdf is the poignant story of a young BL who found that working him in a primary school not only did not lead him to make even a single “sexual mistake” but that the job “made my life as a paedophile so much easier, because I had children around me and I had commitment, a purpose and a responsibility”. Essentially because he loves boys 8-11 ‘too much’, he felt he had to leave the job.

    I always remember a comment written by a woman elsewhere in the vast reaches of the Web: “I had a much older male friend when I was a teenager — we met online (don’t remember how, probably an AOL chatroom). He was a teacher, I think in his 40s, I was 14. He wasn’t grooming me, he never asked to meet or made any sexual comments. He was just an adult I could trust and talk to.” And quite likely a GL!

    Like

  5. I believe that VirPed is a side effect of the dominance of the cognitive elite – the faction of society that over the past thirty or more years have increasingly dictated how others should live their lives … at the expense of the quality of the lives of those others. Chief amongst these has been the asset-stripping of traditional neighbourhood functions and responsibilities, and, as a result, the unstitching of the valuable fabric that once gave families a sense of purpose, place and trust within the community. In my estimation, VirPed is simply a hateful component of the scorched earth nanny-state policy that has so successfully eviscerated society’s soul and is relentlessly instilling fear of men across communities and every level of society.

    Until minor-attraction is deemed to be just another strand of human sexuality and thus valid by mental health professionals, and until laws are established to make it an offence to discriminate against the sexuality of every individual, then we will continue to be treated inhumanely no matter how many pro-MAP websites are created. The status quo will remain unchanged for as long as the cognitive elite – to whom VirPed obsequiously kow tow – are allowed to call all the tunes.

    Like

    1. hi feinmann!

      >”I believe that VirPed is a side effect of the dominance of the cognitive elite – the faction of society that over the past thirty or more years have increasingly dictated how others should live their lives … at the expense of the quality of the lives of those others. Chief amongst these has been the asset-stripping of traditional neighbourhood functions and responsibilities, and, as a result, the unstitching of the valuable fabric that once gave families a sense of purpose, place and trust within the community.”

      I agree. and I’d go further – I’d say that, in a sense, paedophobia is also a side effect of the loss of the role of community in family life, and the consequent nuclearisation of the family.

      “Until minor-attraction is deemed to be just another strand of human sexuality and thus valid by mental health professionals, and until laws are established to make it an offence to discriminate against the sexuality of every individual, then we will continue to be treated inhumanely no matter how many pro-MAP websites are created.”

      Yes, I don’t think we, as MAPs, can argue, campaign or blog our way out of the prejudice and discrimination we suffer. I certainly don’t see the proposed site as anything more than just a way of expressing a fact, a truth, that isn’t ‘out there’ at the moment. Whilst I’m a pessimist about our capacity to change anything, the one thing I do feel good about is that we can nevertheless assert and fight for our truths.

      I think of Galileo, after having been forced to recant his knowledge of the heliocentric solar system ‘Eppur si muove’ – ‘and yet it moves’.

      “The moment he was set at liberty, he looked up to the sky and down to the ground, and, stamping with his foot, in a contemplative mood, said, Eppur si muove, that is, still it moves, meaning the Earth.”

      A site expressing the fact that paedophiles do a huge amount for children would be the paedophile community stamping its foot in the face of ignorance and intolerance.

      Like

  6. Thank you for another great and thought-provoking post, Lensman!

    One thing I want to point out that there is a third alternative to MAPs staying in the toybox while associating with children (or minors in general), and being open about your attraction while taking the “Virped” path and mostly agreeing with the public about the sexual aspects of your attraction being inherently bad even if acted upon in a hypothetical legal framework while engaging in a combination of “theraputic” and deliberate disengagement methods to keep oneself “virtuous” and “in check”. Also, I believe the former path is wrought with risks outside of the “temptation” issue that (IMO) too many Kind people do not adequately consider before choosing it. This is why I have elected to follow a third path that has been too often either ignored or harshly criticized by both pro-choice and anti-choice MAPs in the past: that which I figure can be labeled the Radical Friar Approach (inspired by your own comparisons to monks and friars in this post).

    The Radical Friar Approach is a path that constitutes being “out” as a Kind person (for those whose personal and professional circumstances allow it, though there will always be elements of risk) and openly pro-choice and youth liberationist, but do not seek out close platonic friendships and/or mentorships with younger people in your respective age & gender preference in order to try and enrich their lives on a one-to-one basis. Instead, you maintain an open albeit not “in your face” (i.e., respects the sensibilities of your normie friends, relatives, and colleagues) status of your attractions and political/ideological views while striving to live the best life you can, enrich the lives of others you are able to legally interact with as best as you can, and work to benefit/improve the lives of children in ways other than direct one-to-one or one-to-small-group interactions. These ways can include: fighting for their rights, establishing or donating to charities that benefit them, and fighting for improvements in the system which will benefit them in many ways outside the realm of allowing greater sexual expression/choices, e.g., education, labor rights, respectful treatment while patronizing businesses, fair access to social media for expressing their uncensored voices, etc.

    Everyone knows why I have not chosen the ‘Virped’ path akin to political & theraputic monasticism, so I need not go into it in any detail here. But why I haven’t I chosen what may be called the Secret Friar path?

    I understand not all will agree with me on this, and many pro-choicers have gotten upset over what they believe is both giving too much of a concession to public sensibilities and also denying both myself and the lives of several younger people the mutual enrichment it may have brought had I chosen to make platonic friends with as many of them as possible. But I think the path I have chosen needs to be considered and added to the list of possible paths for MAPs to take for several reasons, depending on the individual; and also for the benefit of the future advancement of both youth and Kind rights; and for issues relating to personal safety (and possibly that of the kids you love). Please allow me to explain my reasoning.

    For one thing, being the type of person I am–one who, for better or worse, wants to do my part to make the world a better place for everyone, including youths and my fellow MAPs–it just feels wrong to me to, for want of a better expression, build a personal little nest and “feather” it for my personal emotional satisfaction and adding to the lives of the relatively few younger people I would build friendships with in my very limited human life span. I can do this on occasion with girls who are related to me or the daughters of close long-time friends who know me very well and thus realize it’s very possible to be a MAP without being a sexual predator, but this is on special occasions only.

    But seeking out friendships with a few while eschewing activism on a broader scale? That doesn’t work for me, as I believe that if no one, or only a mere few, are tending to the “bigger picture,” progress will be considerably slower, and future generations of both youths and Kinderfolk will needlessly continue to have to deal with much of the problems we do today, at least until the point in time when more are spurred to act and take the open activism route.

    I understand that some MAPs do not believe much progress is possible, so they simply stay in the toybox where they believe most MAPs must and should stay forever, and seek what emotional satisfaction they can via small-scale individual enrichment of however many kids they can form close platonic friendships or mentorships with in the course of a lifetime, and all with being anonymous about their Kindness. All well and good for those who feel this way. Others have told me that they have eschewed my path because coming out the toybox, while not necessarily ruining their lives, would nevertheless require them to abandon some of these platonic friendships with kids they have established, and impede their ability to make more in the future, and these are simply too valuable to them on a personal level to choose the open activist path I have. Also well and good.

    Some have chastised me for never really entering the toybox in the first place and being largely “out” (I don’t loudly announce my status as a MAP; but I do not pretend to be otherwise, either), and believe that virtually all MAPs need to be safely in hiding; and that I am incredibly stupid for even considering being “out,” and also incredibly selfish of me to deprive the many girls who would benefit from platonic friendships with me my company since I am now obviously unable to make such friendships.

    But in my estimation, from the standpoint of the type of person I am, the selfishness factor–if justifiably applicable at all–runs in the opposite direction. To me, many of us ignoring the big picture in that manner will have the effect of delaying the day when the world will become a better place. Okay, many believe it will not and cannot become much better, but I greatly disagree with that.

    As I see it, progress has only been so incremental (but notable, if you’re really willing to look) over the past few decades since the hysteria started because most of us reacted to its onset and subsequent proliferation by going into hiding. Most of us choosing the stealth route thus rendered us all but invisible, without a human face , and enabled the media, victimologist “activists,” politically motivated MHPs (mental health professionals), politicians seeking power & public brownie points, and NGOs with a paternalist agenda to construct the public image of us at their leisure, with scant opposition. When this ensued at about the beginning of the 1980s decade, the activist groups that emerged during the 1970s like NAMBLA and PIE weren’t big enough by the time the panic started to carry the torch on their own, nor could they beat back the rising hostile tide with most of our lay population in hiding and thus allowing the above mentioned pundits to shape public opinion all but unopposed. The mainstream Left was equally culpable for choosing the new, post-1970s strategy of backing down from and capitulating to the Right rather than vigorously opposing them as they did during the late ’60s and ’70s, and their contribution to the hysteria cannot be ignored or downplayed.

    Moreover, the normies in the fields of mental health, sociology, political science, etc., who didn’t agree with the prevailing sentiment, also largely either went silent or “changed their tune” for expediency, and the members of the general public who were sympathetic with MAPs went just as much in the closet as Kinderfolk themselves. This had the effect of further enabling the end result.

    This move on the collective part of ourselves and normie sympathizers was understandable given the circumstances, but I continue to contend that it was very unwise. It didn’t work when the LGBT community originally did the same (at least in America and U.K.), and similarly set back their own progress for emancipation many decades; and we shouldn’t have expected the result to be any different when we did the same. I also believe that the LGBT situation didn’t improve until they began coming out of the closet in greater numbers, and would have been further delayed had they not begun doing so around the late 1960s.

    Taking the Secret Friar route works to facilitate the happiness of many MAPs, and also the lives of the individual children they may meet and establish platonic friendships or mentorships with. This I do not deny. But it not only neglects the exceedingly important bigger picture when a huge chunk of our population takes that route, but it ultimately renders our good works invisible to the public since that path usually (not always, but usually) necessitates us climbing even further down into the toybox if anything.

    Then there is the natural, oft-discussed “temptation” issue. Do the majority of MAPs tend to maintain self-control in these extended friendships & mentorship positions? Many anti-choicers and even some pro-choicers will insist there is “no way we could know,” but I think the majority do indeed manage to avoid temptation. But here is another factor that some of us really need to consider: some Kinderfolk, which includes me, do not achieve emotional and social satisfaction by having these platonic friendships or mentorships, because whatever we may gain of that is too often offset by a simultaneous set of frustrations and bitterness over the fact that we must always maintain the “just friends” status, no matter how we may feel about some of the young people we become particularly fond of for many reasons related to their personality, social interests, etc.

    Let’s be honest here: how many teleiophilic normies are satisfied with the “just friends” paradigm when they are attracted to a peer they are in love with? It’s a common theme in both the sociological and pop cultural realm that this is a source of great pain and angst for many who experience it. And this factor may be greatly augmented for MAPs, because unlike the normies in most cases, we must refrain from taking such relationships to a romantic/sexual level even if the younger person feels the same for us as we do for them.

    Must all MAPs expect to “rise above” that personal pain for the “benefit” of the small number of young people that any one person can hope to enrich on a close personal level during a single lifetime? Is this truly noble self-sacrifice we should all indulge in? I say no, those who are hurt by doing it shouldn’t make a routine of doing it, because despite what our fealty to the conception of nobility and self-sacrifice may be, it cannot always “be about them, and never us” if we take our emotional health and self-respect seriously enough. We need to tend to our emotional health in in addition to that of young people. Hence, if you cannot handle platonic relationship with those you may fall in romantic love with, then I think MAPs should no more be expected to do it than normies who likewise cannot handle it and should. Does anyone expect me and others who feel the same to do this in the first place? I say yes, given the cavalier and angry manner in which that set of choices was insisted upon by many in the community who have taken me to task for it in the past.

    If it is something that you, as an individual MAP, can routinely rise above, then great. But if, as an individual, you cannot, I say the following: do not this to yourself. There are other alternatives for doing good works for younger people, and some of them are not only fully legal and ethically upright but create benefits for the youths we love on a far greater scale then one-on-one interactions with a relative handful over the course of a lifetime.

    Then there is the issue of personal safety. Because you have to climb further into the toybox (in most cases), many refuse to consider the risks of what would happen if their status as a MAP was somehow discovered, and the normie adults in charge of the young people they befriended, or were working with in the capacity of tutor, coach, chaperone, assistant caregiver, etc., were to be notified of it. Or if you should confide to the wrong mutual friend, and they misguidedly hit you with the following ultimatum: “Either you tell them or I tell them!”

    When you are a MAP in such a position, you become extremely vulnerable to false accusations, no matter how far you succeed in rising above actual temptation, and we forget or downplay this at our peril. Too many MAPs make the knee-jerk decision to volunteer to work with groups of children as a way of enriching the lives of kids, and when I have warned them of the possible consequences of false accusations, they have often curtly but politely told me that there is little chance of they’re ever being found out or exposed.

    However, I think many of us have seen such “outings” occur all too often, as the future is extremely unpredictable and does not always go as smoothly as we’d like. When such “outings” occur, MAPs who were discovered to be befriending and/or working with large numbers of younger people have been subjected to an unsettling number of consequences, including being legally investigated, dragged through the mud in the newspapers, and subsequently “outed” in a much larger fashion and blacklisted from ever working with kids again. Such a sequence of events tends to hit these Kind folk particularly hard, not only because of the enormous public humiliation factor, but also due to the abrupt separation from the kids they shared such a close emotional bond with and their understandable tendency to have come to rely on these close interactions with kids on a personal level for their emotional health. And this is not to mention how the same events may effect the kids who loved them: they may well be interrogated in an investigation, be told by LEOs (law enforcement officers) & social workers that the adult they loved and trusted didn’t actually think any more of them than an object to abuse, and hear their parents and other caregivers viciously gripe about how the MAP they never knew to be a MAP had “betrayed” and “deceived” them, even if the ensuing investigation couldn’t uncover any evidence of illegal activity (because likely none occurred).

    I concede that my chosen path is by no means free from risk. I have had my parents and friends express concerns that they worry my being “out” as a hebephile may negatively impact on my professional prospects in the future, despite the fact that my chosen vocation has nothing to do the youth community; or that my political work may be sabotaged as a result. I recognize these as legitimate concerns that I too suffer anxiety over.

    And yes, I am still vulnerable to false accusations under any number of potential circumstances. But at least in these cases, I can usually correctly prove that I did all I could to avoid any type of interaction that could be construed as “intention to commit abuse” in the first place. And I can make clear my respect and devotion to the betterment of younger people’s lives in a manner that cannot easily be construed as being underhanded excuses to gain “potential sexual access” to kids, or to put myself in a position to “groom” them. Best of all, I can conduct these large-scale good works, and smaller scale respectable actions with the legal adults I am allowed to be friends with and form a variety of relationships with, while being fully out as a MAP in my life outside my pure MAP activism (which is done more to decrease the chance of my family and employers being harassed more than anything else) and thus provide a human face to our community. This step, I believe, is essential for many Kind people to take if our situation is to improve significantly over the next few generations.

    I do not like having to be deprived of friendships with younger people, and to keep most of my platonic interactions with them “professional” and only while in the company of other adults, but IMO it’s a sacrifice worth making for the benefits this path makes possible, including what benefits it may have for enabling youths and MAPs in the future enjoying a better world free of fear, hysteria, and obstructed civil rights.

    Thank you for indulging me this diatribe thanks to your great post, Lensman, and I’ll end it with a few quick words about the viability of your project suggestion in the final part of your blog. I think such a project is indeed viable, and it may well work across the ideological lines of Radical and Virped MAPs. Many in the general public, however, will attack it and say it’s an affront to polite society, and the servers that host it can expect to be attacked and be accused of “attempting to ‘normalize’ pedophilia.” And we can also count on at least some of them capitulating. The best way to go about this IMO is to use a public access format like WordPress, which has done well for you, Tom, and others in the Kind blogosphere.

    We would also have to look out for too many individuals who would try their best to use the forum as a way of giving and receiving titillation by trying to “sneak” sexual references in there, and quietly try to incite other posters to do the same. And there will be MAPs who are fully legit and respectable who will nevertheless argue strongly that we should allow participants to say anything they want on the forum, and to develop a policy that basically says “fuck you if you don’t like it, this forum is here for us” to normies who may complain. This, I believe, is an extremely misguided attitude of defense to take for any such forum that is intended to be both public and provide easy opportunities for normies to learn more about the best aspects we, as MAPs, bring to the community table. I understand that those who disagree with me about keeping such posts “clean” of graphic sexual references and the use of crude street language while doing so believe this to be kowtowing too far to public sensibilities. However, I think we must consider the sensibilities of the public at this point and accept that we are in a very vulnerable position that must be handled delicately. We also cannot risk such a loose standard of rules to allow the forum to be eventually largely taken over by fetishists, fantasists, and trolls (both pedophiliac and teleiophilic) who will delight in hi-jacking the purpose of the forum to turn it into the equivalent of an erotic story and picture trading site.

    Like

    1. Thank you for you comment Dissy – it has proved to be very challenging and thought-provoking. I will write a response, but I can’t see myself doing your comment justice without spending some serious time on it – you raise a lot of points that are worth addressing.

      However, I will immediately address here the ‘nuts and bolts’ issues you touch upon in the last two paragraphs.

      >” Many in the general public, however, will attack it and say it’s an affront to polite society, and the servers that host it can expect to be attacked and be accused of “attempting to ‘normalize’ pedophilia.” And we can also count on at least some of them capitulating. The best way to go about this IMO is to use a public access format like WordPress, which has done well for you, Tom, and others in the Kind blogosphere.”

      I completely agree with this point. WordPress, would, of course, be my first choice – it is easy to use, very flexible and has proved to be robust when it comes to free speech. They will also have a level of security and protection (against DOS attacks etc) that someone going it alone can’t have.

      >”We would also have to look out for too many individuals who would try their best to use the forum as a way of giving and receiving titillation by trying to “sneak” sexual references in there, and quietly try to incite other posters to do the same.”

      I’m not really seeing this as a ‘forum’. I can only see problems with the forum format – especially as the site should be properly public – no registration or restricted access. I’m seeing it as an adaptation of the blog format. Basically people can contribute their stories as they would a comment on a blog. The moderator, or moderators, check the comment and then copy/paste it into a page. Each comment would have its own page. The front page of the blog would consist of the 20 most recent ‘comments’ much as the front page to my own blog consists of the first four or five lines of my 12 most recent posts.

      The blog format will mean that a tight control can be maintained on what is published.

      >”And there will be MAPs who are fully legit and respectable who will nevertheless argue strongly that we should allow participants to say anything they want on the forum, and to develop a policy that basically says “fuck you if you don’t like it, this forum is here for us” to normies who may complain.”

      I think that the site would need to make its philosophy and rules very prominent and clear – it is one of the possible problems with the blog format is that I would like a couple of ‘stickies’ that are always at the top of the home page, which make clear that nothing that even hints at offending, or an intention to offend, will be published – I’m not sure whether the WordPress blog format allows this – I need to investigate further, maybe certain themes will allow this.

      Anyway – I think that with a site like this, the moderators will call the shots and err on caution. I think Pigtails in Paint is a good model, they have been able to maintain a non-partisan approach by having a clear philosophy, by keeping their eye on the core purpose of their site and not getting distracted into partisan bickering.

      >”I understand that those who disagree with me about keeping such posts “clean” of graphic sexual references and the use of crude street language while doing so believe this to be kowtowing too far to public sensibilities.”

      I’m glad you brought up this question – I think that such a site should also insist on an old-fashioned level of politeness and decorum – certainly no sexual references, but also no crude language – I think such a rule would contribute to its success and present paedophilia in a positive a way as possible.

      >”However, I think we must consider the sensibilities of the public at this point and accept that we are in a very vulnerable position that must be handled delicately.”

      Absolutely. The site would serve to promote self-respect and positive engagement for paedophiles – but also seek to present to the public a positive face of paedophilia. As such the site should be well-written, welcoming and agreeable to read. For the public as well as paedophiles.

      >” We also cannot risk such a loose standard of rules to allow the forum to be eventually largely taken over by fetishists, fantasists, and trolls (both pedophiliac and teleiophilic) who will delight in hi-jacking the purpose of the forum to turn it into the equivalent of an erotic story and picture trading site.”

      The blog format should prevent this from happening. But I think that there would need to be a lot of thought put into the basics – not only the rules and guidelines that apply to the users, but also the rules and guidelines that apply to those who run the site.

      One of the questions in the final section of my post is:

      “Can such a site be self-sustaining? Or would it need to offer something more to keep people returning?”

      It had occurred to me that maybe there should be a forum associated with the site. However, as I said above, I can foresee only problems. Anyway, these things can develop organically, if the site takes off, and there seems to be some need or desire for a forum then that’s something that can be addressed at the time.

      Like

    2. Everybody’s choices are constrained by their life-circumstances – I can’t be a Radical Friar because to get deep into middle age and to break it to one’s ageing parents that I am a paedophile is something I could not do – the principals of not breaking the hearts of my loved-ones take priority.

      On the other hand, I have found myself at an age when I can’t really expect a child to be physically interested in me, and in circumstances where there is little chance that I can find myself in a postion to contribute positively to a child’s life, on a personal level. So aspects of the radical friar do have a special appeal.

      I think that there’s room for both approaches – though I acknowledge that the radical friar and the secret friar are largely mutually exclusive on the individual level. I wouldn’t do anything but applaud someone who takes your path, Dissident, and is out, and campaigns; but nor would I withhold applause from someone who gives quality time and attention to the neighbour’s kids, and enriches their world.

      I’d also add that for a lot of paedophiles who are secret friars – they don’t end up in that situation deliberately. My greatest friendship with a child happened by unintentionally – I needed to find somewhere to live when I was a student and ended up sharing a house with a lady who had a neice living round the corner – the niece and I soon became great friends and we just ended up spending as much time we could together. I found making her happy, making her laugh wonderful, but also building her up – taking her swimming, cycling, going to the cinema together, exploring woods and old buildings, writing stories etc…

      The secret friar role happened simply because that’s what happens when you find yourself in that kind of situation. this has been the case with the girl I write about in the essay – a friend gets married, has a daughter and we end up becoming close friends. I think that, given the circumstances in which these things have happened, it would have been a monumental struggle with the better angels of my nature, for things not to have worked out the way they did – for me not to have ended up as these girls’ Secret Friar.

      You also raise the matter of paedophiles remaining in the ToyBox slowing the pace of change and reform.

      I have to confess that the more I think about this question the more I find myself being an Eeyore. I identify paedophobia as having deeper, much deeper roots, that attitudes – I think paedophobia is a direct result of the structure of the family, of the community, schooling and the world of work – all of which are results of history, technology, resources. These things change of course, but they can’t be argued into changing.

      that is not to say that debating, arguing, researching etc aren’t of enormous value – the Truth has power, and even when it is not shining out like a blazing fire, even when Society is dead-set on extinguishing it, those who have stewardship of its embers have a duty to keep those embers alive, to nurture them, to keep them fueled, and to make them grow.

      I agree with you when you say that the growing hysteria has gone unchecked because actual paedophiles have not asserted their own narrative, that the public has not been able to look at the ‘paedo next door’ and see that he or she is a normal, decent person. I’ve often said that narratives that allow no counter-narrative quickly end up in the fabulous and the monstruous – this is how witch-panics happen, and what has happened with paedophilia is a text-book example of this.

      However, I’m not sure that paedophiles standing firm in the 80s would have worked – in fact I suspect that they did stand firm, by and large, and got steam-rollered – the dominant narrative, especially when in ‘witch’ mode will win against whatever strategy is set against it. I know may come across as defeatists, and pessimistic, but the changes required to bring about the end of paedophobia are not changes that are in the hands of paedophiles themselves to bring about.

      You touch on the the example of the LGBT community – it is an interesting one. I’ve written about it here:

      https://consentinghumans.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/unthinkable-thoughts-and-the-mechanism-of-hatred/
      – of course society likes to think that gay rights were won through campaigning, but this is an illusion of agency – they came about because the old-fashioned values required for an economy dominated by heavy industry were coming to an end, and were being replaced by ideas of masculinity required by a consumer and service-based economy. The real attitude changes happened on an structural and economic level and gay liberation merely pushed on an open door that had hitherto been a locked one.

      In short, I think the rout of NAMBLA and PIE was inevitable – and that standing firm would just have resulted in worse, more spectacular and humiliating defeats.

      >”Taking the Secret Friar route works to facilitate the happiness of many MAPs, and also the lives of the individual children they may meet and establish platonic friendships or mentorships with. This I do not deny. But it not only neglects the exceedingly important bigger picture when a huge chunk of our population takes that route, but it ultimately renders our good works invisible to the public since that path usually (not always, but usually) necessitates us climbing even further down into the toybox if anything. “

      I agree. But that huge chunk of our population will take the secret friar route regardless – it’s hard route to avoid whenever a likeable child becomes involved in one’s life. The site I’m proposing is a way, albeit imperfect, of making visible some of this good, good that would occur anyway, irrespective of such a site’s existence.

      This everyday ‘Good’ done by paedophiles, is like gold that strews the ground with where everyone walks. But non-paedophiles don’t notice it unless it’s pointed out to them. We paedophiles are the only ones who have the eyes to notice it. But to point it out in our daily lives would be to reveal oneself as a paedophile – so we keep quiet

      The site I propose is a way of pointing out this gold and telling the world that it is paedophiles who excrete it 😉

      >” some Kinderfolk, which includes me, do not achieve emotional and social satisfaction by having these platonic friendships or mentorships, because whatever we may gain of that is too often offset by a simultaneous set of frustrations and bitterness over the fact that we must always maintain the “just friends” status”

      Yes, I appreciate this. And, yes, I can’t deny that I’d have loved it if, with the little girls I’ve been close, we’d been able to have a more intimate physical relationship.

      But despite this I wouldn’t sacrifice a minute of the time I spent with a certain little girl, even if losing that minute meant I could live a year longer into old age, or even just a year longer now. My memories of the platonic love we shared make up the happiest memories of my life. I don’t think ‘just friends’ quite does justice to our relationship – I know that we would have been intimate if it had been permissible, if it had been thinkable. The ‘just friends’ scenario is one where one person loves the other, whereas the other just likes that person. This wasn’t the case – I know that these girls at times would have welcomed intimacy with me.

      I think of these relationships less as ‘just friends’ and more ‘Romeo and Juliet – lovers who can not love because Society is bent on keeping them apart.

      >”Must all MAPs expect to “rise above” that personal pain for the “benefit” of the small number of young people that any one person can hope to enrich on a close personal level during a single lifetime? Is this truly noble self-sacrifice we should all indulge in? I say no, those who are hurt by doing it shouldn’t make a routine of doing it, because despite what our fealty to the conception of nobility and self-sacrifice may be, it cannot always “be about them, and never us” if we take our emotional health and self-respect seriously enough.”

      I absolutely agree, Dissie – I don’t think anyone should feel obliged to be a secret friar against their will. I just think that those of us who are already secret friars, who feel the rewards are greater than the sacrifice, and who are happy being secret friars, should be able to take some credit for what they do. God knows, it’s hard enough being a paedophile – we’ve got to do whatever it takes to maintain our self-respect and our emotional health.

      On the personal safety question.

      Yes, there are always dangers and risks. The alternative is to isolate oneself from children. This is what VirPeds too often seems to encourage, but for different reasons. They do so in order to minimise risk of being tempted and offending, you do so from the risk of false accusations. Both of you certainly have a point – yet refusing all interaction with children is often impracticable, and is also impossible for a lot of paedophiles.

      I just think that every paedophile who wants to live well has to weigh things up and make their own choices – let’s say that there are three visions of how to live as a paedophile – the Monk, the Secret Friar and the Radical Friar:

      – The Monk is for those who do not trust their capacity to resist offending when presented with temptation.

      – The Secret Friar is for the person who is not able to come out, but is confident that they can resist temptation

      – The Radical Friar is for the person who can come out, who is strongly motivated to bring about change, and who finds a life devoid of children easier to live than one in which he is confronted by what he (or she) can’t have.

      We all have to negotiate a route through life, given that we are set at odds with the flow of things in the society we are born into. I don’t think any one route is ‘right’ – we just do the best we can, often muddling through, trying to get as much happiness as we can, trying to do as much good as we can, and trying to do as little harm as we can.

      But I think the paedophile world should be making the various possibilities, the various routes as visible as possible.

      I think that the two Friar routes have not been sufficiently highlighted – I can maybe do a little to make visible and to map the ‘Secret Friar’ route. That is one of the purposes of the proposed site.

      As always, thanks for your thoughts Dissie – always very challenging and stimulating.

      LSM

      Like

      1. And thank you for one of your usual thoughtful, insightful, and frank replies, Lensman! It was much appreciated.

        Just a few clarifications in response to some of your concerns:

        I agree with you when you say that the growing hysteria has gone unchecked because actual paedophiles have not asserted their own narrative, that the public has not been able to look at the ‘paedo next door’ and see that he or she is a normal, decent person. I’ve often said that narratives that allow no counter-narrative quickly end up in the fabulous and the monstruous – this is how witch-panics happen, and what has happened with paedophilia is a text-book example of this.

        However, I’m not sure that paedophiles standing firm in the 80s would have worked – in fact I suspect that they did stand firm, by and large, and got steam-rollered – the dominant narrative, especially when in ‘witch’ mode will win against whatever strategy is set against it. I know may come across as defeatists, and pessimistic, but the changes required to bring about the end of paedophobia are not changes that are in the hands of paedophiles themselves to bring about.

        This I cannot agree with, and I’ll tell you why. What I’m considering is that if the Left in general, including the emerging activist Kind community of the 1970s, had all stood firm against the backlash that was visibly occurring by the early 1980s, it may have prevented today’s dominant narrative from reaching the “witch” mode in the first place. But they didn’t. The mainstream Left buckled, and as Judith Levine noted in her ground-breaking book Harmful to Minors, the main reason the Right won during that era is because the Left let them. Had they remained steadfast and continued to fight as they did during the great Civil Rights Era that preceded the 1980s, the emerging Kind activist groups of the late ’60s and ’70s could have fully emerged and become a force to be reckoned with inside the still radically motivated Left. The self-emasculating notions of “pragmatism” and assimilationist policies of the Left may never have been initiated, and the LGBT community never adopted them, which would have enabled the Kind and mainstream LGBT communities to present a united front.

        You touch on the the example of the LGBT community – it is an interesting one. I’ve written about it here:

        https://consentinghumans.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/unthinkable-thoughts-and-the-mechanism-of-hatred/
        – of course society likes to think that gay rights were won through campaigning, but this is an illusion of agency – they came about because the old-fashioned values required for an economy dominated by heavy industry were coming to an end, and were being replaced by ideas of masculinity required by a consumer and service-based economy. The real attitude changes happened on an structural and economic level and gay liberation merely pushed on an open door that had hitherto been a locked one.

        True, true. But had the Left taken the battles it began during the late ’60s and ’70s to their logical conclusion into the ’80s, rather than acquiescing to the conservative and neoliberal agendas of capitalism once the ’80s began, the types of regressive changes we saw during that decade could have been avoided. What we might call the Great Backlash of the ’80s (even though its roots began in the media during the late ’70s) is a product of a larger conservative agenda that emerged on all levels at the time, because the Right and Big Business succeeded via propaganda to waylay the economic revolution that the New Deal Left was building up to. The liberal era of the ’70s was a reflection of the latter, before it got hijacked. Had the Left continued to progress as it was during the Civil Rights Era, the economic changes that would have allowed youth liberation and therefore the acceptance of Kinderfolk to continue unhindered as described in some of your posts may have continued progressing, and society may have managed to avoid the witch-hunting that dominated society along with the conservative takeover that ultimately “reined in” the Left and caused the LGBT community to embrace the pre-existing norms rather than continuing its revolutionary direction.

        “In short, I think the rout of NAMBLA and PIE was inevitable – and that standing firm would just have resulted in worse, more spectacular and humiliating defeats.”

        It was only inevitable, IMO, because the Left ceased its forward expansion once the Right hit them with sufficient opposition, and this cut off the forward movement that the Kind activist groups were beginning to make during the ’70s. NAMBLA and PIE couldn’t do it without the full force of the Left on their side, and going into hiding was a knee-jerk reaction that only worsened the situation, as it prevented NAMBLA and PIE from taking on a surfeit of new members, and also prevented a plethora of new MAP orgs to appear on the scene.

        Both of you certainly have a point – yet refusing all interaction with children is often impracticable, and is also impossible for a lot of paedophiles.

        Not if you’re out of the toybox! In that case, it’s amazing how easy it is to avoid situations that frequently bring you in direct contact with minors 😛

        I wouldn’t do anything but applaud someone who takes your path, Dissident, and is out, and campaigns; but nor would I withhold applause from someone who gives quality time and attention to the neighbour’s kids, and enriches their world.

        Thank you, my friend. To clarify better, my only lamentation of the Secret Friar path is that a disproportionate number of MAPs have taken it compared to those who have chosen the road of the Radical Friar. And many of the former have admitted to me in debate that their decision had much less to do with personal circumstances (which would be understandable), and much more to do with their own personal desire to be able to continue to make friendships with younger people. The little picture is every bit as important as the big picture, please don’t get me wrong. The problem is that the big picture is very disproportionately neglected. And let’s face it, in many cases the Secret Friar path is the easier, safer route to take even if one’s personal circumstances would enable them to take the Radical Friar route with minimal risk. Secret Friars do a lot of good, but we need Radical Friars out there too, taking the risks that they do, to make sure that at least some of our collective good works do not occur completely under the radar of the normies.

        The above is not intended to chastise the Secret Friar route, or downplay all the good it can do. It is simply to gripe over the large number of MAPs who take the Secret Friar route not because their circumstances make no other choice viable, but because its the easy way. Progress is always stifled when the majority of people take the easy path. Again, please note that I do not consider all Secret Friars (including yourself) guilty of taking the easy way; simply those of your number who, like me, could have viably taken the Radical Friar path but chose not to. And also, not because all of them took the easy path, but because the vast majority of them did.

        But despite this I wouldn’t sacrifice a minute of the time I spent with a certain little girl, even if losing that minute meant I could live a year longer into old age, or even just a year longer now. My memories of the platonic love we shared make up the happiest memories of my life. I don’t think ‘just friends’ quite does justice to our relationship – I know that we would have been intimate if it had been permissible, if it had been thinkable. The ‘just friends’ scenario is one where one person loves the other, whereas the other just likes that person. This wasn’t the case – I know that these girls at times would have welcomed intimacy with me.

        I think of these relationships less as ‘just friends’ and more ‘Romeo and Juliet – lovers who can not love because Society is bent on keeping them apart.

        I confess that “just friends” was likely not the best phrase to use for the entirety for my example. Your metaphor of a “Romeo and Juliet” relationship was much better suited to what I was talking about (thank you!).

        What I actually meant was, I could indeed enjoy a platonic friendship with a young pubescent or adolescent girl that I wasn’t romantically attracted to. And doubtless it would be greatly rewarding for both of us. But being forced to keep it on a platonic level if a mutual romantic attraction existed? That would be very depressing and frustrating for me, and as noted before, any enjoyment on my part would be offset by the depression and anxiety, and even a feeling of being cruelly tantalized.

        The same has been experienced by girls (and boys) forced to be in that type of situation, and some of them did not take it well. We must never assume that a younger person with an attraction to an older person would always be satisfied with keeping things to a platonic level without experiencing similar degrees of frustration and depression, or even thinking (incorrectly) that maybe the “real” reason the adult refrained from taking things to a romantic level was that he was actually disgusted by her and only said he had the same feelings but refrained bringing them to a romantic level due to the laws was to be “nice” in a condescending manner. I think whether or not this would be the case for the younger person in an Intergenerational Romeo & Juliet Scenario would, like the adult, depend on the individual girl in question. And to me, the only thing worse than experiencing this type of frustrating angst myself is to see both myself and the hypothetical girl I loved so much experiencing the same.

        Another problem with frustration I would experience in being around younger people is indeed the fact that the majority of them would not consider me a viable romantic partner simply because of my age, or even part of their social circle in any capacity. This is reality, true, but not a reality I care to face head-on in such a direct fashion. It would just constantly serve to remind me of how far I now am from their age group considering me a potential peer, and how much I am effectively stuck in a world I do not belong in.

        Consider the metaphor of a frog who really wants to be a part of the swamp he once lived in and to re-unite on all levels with his fellow amphibians, but has now morphed into the form of a cat while remaining a frog on the inside. He can no longer live in the swamp, but only the grassland with other cats whose company he likes but does not prefer; and every time he has cause to interact with frogs, to them he is now considered a cat and thus not allowed to directly participate in any aspect of frog life. He can guard the frogs, act in the capacity of authority figure to them, or even as a mentor or teacher, but he is not welcome in the swamp full-time, and it’s always made abundantly clear to him by both the other cats and the frogs– whose world he was once part of and yearns to be part of eternally– that he is not a frog and never can be again. He knows this intellectually, and even in his heart, but suffers a lot of emotional anguish at being in situations that bring this reality front and center to his mind.

        I have to confess that the more I think about this question the more I find myself being an Eeyore. I identify paedophobia as having deeper, much deeper roots, that attitudes – I think paedophobia is a direct result of the structure of the family, of the community, schooling and the world of work – all of which are results of history, technology, resources. These things change of course, but they can’t be argued into changing.

        On our own as we are now… no. But if we had a lot of help, yes. And could we have had a lot of help, and much more encouragement for huge numbers of us to openly or semi-openly join the fight, if the Left in general and we in particular hadn’t taken the route we did after the ’70s? We’ll never know, but I think we could have. It’s difficult to ignore a huge number of voices, especially when those voices include members of your own family, celebrities you respect and admire, friends you also love, professionals that you have come to trust and look up to, and many non-Kinderfolk belonging to the above categories arguing alongside the Kind members. As long as the vast majority of us are faceless with our personal stories untold, and bereft of Kind role models in prominent positions that normies can likewise respect them, or people in prominent positions influenced by relatives and friends they know to be openly Kind, however, then it’s far too easy to bow to the popular narrative.

        If this had occurred, this could have very well spurred on the very economic changes that you cogently note are required to foment and catalyze certain types of changes. Economic growth and change may, to some degree, be spurred on or delayed by certainly dominant attitudes, which is likely the main reason why capitalism has continued to exist well past the point when it was still a progressive system. I’m not contending that economics and the consequent direction of technological development is entirely beholden to mass psychological and sociological factors, but I do think the relationship to changes in both can be reciprocal and serve as mutual catalysts or buffers.

        Like

........................... 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 )

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