Will the Virtuous Pedophiles become a force? And, if so, will they do any good? One commentator here took a positive view: “imyarainbowstar”, suggested that heretics should “get behind groups like virped and B4Uact for getting the pedo message out”, as a small step on the way to more radical change.
But doesn’t the value of any such support depend on what the particular “pedo message” is? Such a strategy perhaps makes sense in relation to B4U-ACT, as this organization does not go out of its way to ape society’s contemptuous hostility towards those of us who wish to see cultural and legal change. As we saw in my most recent post, though, Virtuous Pedophiles does exactly that, notwithstanding the very welcome conciliatory comment in response from VP member Max. In considering what impact VP will have, it may help to separate the group’s public profile from the influence it will have on those minor attracted persons it seeks to help.
In terms of public profile, I would not discount the positive potential. With paedophiles universally demonized in the media are predators and rapists, it can hardly be a bad thing if VP can get across the message that many paedophiles are restrained, responsible people who do not “molest” or “abuse” children, and that it is unjust for them to be stigmatized. When I heard many years ago about a Cambridge University research project on “non-contact” paedophiles, I was very much in favour, and actively assisted the PhD student in question, helping her to build a database of paedophiles who had never been in trouble with the law and who claimed – honestly, I am sure, in many cases known to me – never to have “transgressed”. This postgrad worked on the project for several years and built up what her supervisor told me was an “immense” body of information. Sadly, for reasons which remain mysterious, she never completed her thesis. Instead, she transferred to another university without ever gaining her doctorate. Her data remain unpublished. Information of that sort is sorely needed, and if VP can attract publicity for any future research in this area, that will be helpful.
As for the likely impact of VP on paedophiles who turn to them for help, unfortunately I see a rather bleaker picture. They will not be battle-hardened old warriors like some of us here, especially those whose comments clearly indicate they know their own minds and are not shy in proclaiming their robustly held positions. No, they will mostly be young men, some perhaps not even out of their teens. They will probably have no idea about the considerably less dreadful times we knew back in the 1970s and before; nor will they have much notion that society could be different, as copiously evidenced from historical and anthropological precedents. They will be depressed, desperate, at their wit’s end in search of a livable life; and in this sorry state they will be vulnerable to the snake-oil salesmanship of those who confidently point the way towards “happy, productive lives”.
Note that Nick and Ethan, VP’s founders, both have a good story to tell in this regard. They are well educated, professionally successful people; they have each found a life partner and enjoyed a conventional married life; best of all, they have been blessed with children of their own, and have doubtless loved and raised them as well as most parents, or better. What’s not to like about that? The hopeful message is, it would seem, “If we can do it so can you!”
That will be fine, actually, for those pedophiles whose orientation is not exclusive. There are clearly many who have a significant, or strong, level of attraction to children who are also able to relate well to adult partners. If they can go down that road then they surely should, and good luck to them. But what many fail to understand, including perhaps Nick and Ethan, is that this option is not open to all. I know. As someone with effectively zero attraction to either men or women, fixity of sexual orientation has for me been an unwelcome but relentlessly abiding fact of life, and I know plenty of others to whom this applies. The “currently orthodox dogma of fixed sexual orientation” that Edmund spoke of in his comment is not a doctrine for such as me; we do not insist, dogmatically, that fixity applies to everyone; rather, it is simply a reality of our lives.
Without, I hope, being too dogmatic, I would add that quite a lot of people are gifted with a range of sexual response, and in a few cases this extends widely, towards pansexuality. But this is not at all the same as fluidity, i.e. a changing pattern of gender and age attraction over time; still less is it like a voluntary change of desires, as opposed to tastes developing and shifting without being consciously willed. It is also clear that women’s sexual orientation tends to be quite fluid, but among men the evidence for this is slim to vanishing, notwithstanding cultural variations such as ancient Greek pederasty, and significant variations in individual males’ sexual behaviour over time as demonstrated by, for instance, Kinsey’s great survey work. If a man could really choose to find women attractive, would he choose to be exclusively gay, as many men clearly are? Still less, would he choose to be paedophile, especially exclusively so, given the terrible hostility it entails?
It is important to mention the gay experience at this point. Over the years, especially in the U.S. where anti-gay “therapists” (often religious) have been busiest, there has been a thriving but completely bogus “gay reparative therapy” movement. Numerous gay men have claimed to be “cured” of their homosexuality but these so-called conversions to “ex-gay” status have a track record of turning out to be a phenomenon of hope temporarily triumphing over reality as guys manage to delude themselves for a while that their feelings have changed. When finally the truth that nothing has really changed becomes unavoidable, bitter disillusion sets in. My fear is that for many young paedophiles, if they are led up the garden path in this way, by VP or anyone else, their disillusion could break them entirely. It is not that VP necessarily believe they can change a paedophile’s fundamental orientation. It would be unfair to suggest they are saying that. But there are signs they may have unrealistic expectations for getting paedophiles coupled off with adult partners. How else might they propose to enable guys exclusively attracted to kids to live “happy, productive lives”? By becoming monks, perhaps? Might work for a few I guess, but not for most.
Just put yourself in the shoes, for a moment, of an exclusive paedophile who goes along to VP hoping for help and support. He is encouraged to try making it in a relationship with a woman (or a man). He will hear happy stories from those, like Nick and Ethan, who have done so. For one thing, what is he supposed to tell this prospective partner? Should he lie to them about his orientation? Nick and Ethan have both admitted (on Sexnet) to having deceived their own partners in this way and justify it by the outcome: everything turned out just fine. For them, the end justified the means. One might question how “virtuous” such an ethical decision is, given that the result could easily have been different. I am pretty certain that if I had gone through with that policy (I was engaged to be married, as a young man) it would all have ended in tears: my own and my wife’s: she would have been devastated when the truth eventually came out, as it certainly would have done.
And what of those exclusive paedophiles who are left with a truly realistic assessment that an adult partnership is simply not going to work? What can VP offer a young man of this type except a bleakly celibate life with not even the prospect of befriending children, or working with them, still less of having any of his own? Many would consider it irresponsible, unethical and not at all “virtuous” to recommend for the exclusive paedophile any sort of contact with children; and if I shared society’s view that any sort of falling into temptation was necessarily harmful, I would have to agree: the danger would be too great. For these exclusive paedophiles, all that VP can offer, it seems to me, is a permanent requirement of saintly restraint such as is imposed on no one else in society. They are likely to be left feeling even more devastated and lonely in the company of successfully paired off paedophiles than if they had never contacted VP in the first place.
The good news is that I see no present reason to believe the baleful influence of Virtuous Pedophiles will be particularly great. Despite getting excellent publicity in significant places such as Salon and the LA Times, a trend which I expect to continue, membership has not exactly taken off like a rocket. VP recently reported having 72 member accounts, about six months after its foundation. I would expect some of those (many? most?) to be people joining with a view to offering help, rather than receiving it. However, it may be that the members are all helpers, and that thousands of paedophiles have been asking for help. So my estimate of VP’s progress could be completely wrong. If so, no doubt Heretic TOC will be told. At all events, Ethan Edwards has offered to comment here, and I look forward to hearing from him. I hope to comment further in any ensuing debate, but I have an especially busy time coming up, so I might have to leave others to take up the baton.
VirPeds’ recommendations to therapists:
a new study on virpedes:
Etienne Garant, Alexandre Gauthier, Tamsin Higgs, Jonathan James, Jean–Pierre Bouchard, “Les pédophiles sont-ils tous des agresseurs sexuels d’enfants?“, Annales Médico–psychologiques, revue psychiatrique, 2022,
Hi Ovid,
I will address most of your comments in the guest blog that I am preparing. The reason that we do not invite alternate views on our web site is that there are plenty of other venues for that. Most of our members are familiar with these other sites. We have a listserv, but it is not intended to be a venue for debate of our core beliefs. Rather, it is a support group for pedophiles who wish to lead happy, productive and law-abiding lives. We do not view ourselves as a debating society, though we do not shy from defending our beliefs in venues where this is appropriate. Tom and I have butted heads on a number of occasions on sexnet, and I am grateful that he has afforded me the opportunity to share my views with you. I know the founder of the German group that you referenced. While we agree on many things, there are areas of disagreement, and you should not assume that you know what I think until you hear from me.
Hi Nick,
I like to think i am very much familiar with your perspective. But i admit i may be biased by my own experiences with your german “equivalents” and furthermore every individual there might think slightly different.
I am still slightly confused why you can’t bringt that topic up on your webpage. It might easily be a blog and you could bring in your own perspective in the main articles and invite commentators. Like Tom does here the other way around. That would leave less speculation on your stance, more openness and transparency. And that might help pedophiles who need orientation get a more broad view on the societal issues at hand
What actually happened in the german pedophile community is, that we had some years of clash and debates, but in the end, everyone kept to their own side in silence, which is what i suspect will happen here, too. And this is not particularily bad i think – to each their own. I just don’t like how sometimes someone claims the high ground and deliberately makes the other side look bad to further their own agenda. And i must admit i myself made some of those errors in the past.
To any degree – the claim to be “virtuous”, and therefore implying others are not, i find somewhat offensive. This is patting yourself on the shoulders for not abusing children – ironically something most pedophiles refrain from because of obvious reasons like secondary trauma and the socially destructive legal monster.
But at any rate, i think everybody could benefit from making themselves criticizable. As it stands now your ressources/FAQ/quotes on your webpage are written in stone.
But on the wider issue, i hope that there is also much to agree on, taking aside the question of intergenerational sex, there is still much ground to cover when it comes to the moral panic and mass hysteria with anything that has to do with adult males and children. And this becomes ever more depressing for more and more children and men. This is a topic i also like to talk about because it is very important and secondly has more support and understanding. There are sadly only 3% male kindergarden teachers in germany and sometimes i have to read on the internet how mothers are afraid to give their children to a kindergarden with male teachers, because they might be pedophiles. This becomes ever more depressing and cold for more and more children and men, who might not even be pedophiles but just child-friendly persons.
What about tackling this angle a bit? You don’t need to confine yourselves to this really narrow topic of how virtuous and heroic it is to not abuse children and letting the whole world know about it… we got the message.
Ovid
Ovid, I skimmed the whole thread to remind myself what you would have seen here — Virtuous Pedophiles has been discussed in Tom’s blog in a few other threads as well. I’ll await Nick’s guest post on many of the issues, but I want to address the intent behind the name “Virtuous Pedophiles” .
It was not subjected to focus group analysis among different constituencies. My top choice was “Celibate Pedophiles”, and while Nick’s preference for our name won out, he viewed it as basically synonymous with “Celibate Pedophiles” — which he disliked as suggesting erroneously that none of us had sex with legal adults. The original internal working name was “Gold-Star Pedophiles”, after the Dan Savage column — and while we liked the column, we felt that as the name of an organization, it was demeaning, gold stars being worthless fluff bestowed by adults on gullible children.
“Virtuous Pedophiles” was chosen not with regard to how pedophiles who debate such things on the internet would feel about it. It was directed to the 80% of society who are non-pedophiles and know very little about the issue. Among them, a common view is that all pedophiles rape crying and struggling children and get sadistic pleasure out of it. “Virtuous Pedophiles” contradicts that stereotype. It is also meant to exclude those who engage in sexual activity with children that is by apparent mutual consent (leaving under debate how fully informed such consent could be). Yes, by our name we intentionally set ourselves apart from such pedophiles. We think it’s really important that people know we exist, and the evidence is that we were right that it can get some people of liberal inclinations to think more carefully and sympathetically about pedophiles.
Dominant among the commenters on Tom’s blog seem to be pedophiles who are opposed to adult-child sex under today’s circumstances but want to transform society so it would be truly OK. I am inclined to assume that most of you live moral lives and are urging societal changes in line with moral principles. I think you are incorrect, but I don’t think of myself as “virtuous” in contrast to you. People who do engage in sexual activity with children know better or should know better, and I do think of myself as more virtuous than them.
Ovid, as the founder of Virtuous Pedophiles, I would be happy to give my perspective on this but it would take more space then the comment section permits. I would be happy to prepare a guest blog if Tom thinks it would be useful.
[TOC adds: By all means send a submission intended as a guest blog, Nick. If I don’t think it is suitable I would nonetheless consider allowing it to run as a longer piece than usual in the Comments section.]
Tom, please welcome exactly what Nick wants to say. I would welcome being able to have a substantive dialogue around the VP position (and not a moderated version of it).
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle (apparently)
I have never, ever, moderated on the basis of views being unacceptable. Where I will moderate, though, is when those views are expressed intemperately, especially through personal abuse. Occasionally, I will do people a favour and moderate through improving their grammar and other small corrective edits. Some correspondents actually request me to do so.
There are also sometimes issues of length, repetition and coherence. No newspaper, in its letters section, would allow correspondents to turn the letters section from an interesting read into a boring or baffling one. Length is fine when it is genuinely needed in order to build a structured argument. Repetitious rants are another matter.
READ ME FIRST…
Hi Tom,
You should know that the submission I made about the VP name is largely included inside the text of Nick’s guest post he made or is about to make. So if you’re going to approve his, then mine is redundant.
[TOC responds: Unfortunately, Ethan, your “Read me first” note arrived last.]
When i read this blog-post i thought was having some kind of Déjà-vu. I am german and i’d like to call myself one of those sex-positive pedophiles, more or less heretic like you are. We call ourselves boylovers or girllovers, too. And i didn’t translate that just now. We actually use those english terms.
Anyways we have those “virtuous” pedophiles here in germany, too and in the past we had very much quarrel with one another. (It goes back more than 5 years ago)
Seeing that virped and your blog-posts are relatively new, one might think this phenomenon is new?
(Maybe this has to do with those new kind of pedophile therapy programs; the first in germany is from 2005)
Reading your blog-post and the comments to the ethics article i observed astonishing parallels of the arguments given and the general way the discussion goes his way.
But there are also similarities in organization. We mostly “sex-positive” pedophiles, or some of us who respectfully disagreed, but had no problem with freely discussing the matter of child-adult-sex, had open forums, non-censored comment-sections and welcomed every opinion alike.
In the past the “virtuous” pedos tried some form of heavily moderated forum but gave up. They now only have a small guestbook where every comment is harshly reviewed and should any post be any way near a more balanced or even critical view your odds of this post getting through dropped dramatically.
I noticed that virped.org also has no means to freely discuss or anyhting (only some kind of contact form).
So what am i getting at? My best guess is: This is some kind of personal marketing-campaign towards society. So the website has to be as clean as it can get. And it has to establish a firm border between the good and the bad ones, there can’t be any respectful disagreement, it has to be condemned or even despised, or else you wouldn’t be able to sell clean morals and be respected from society.
In some ways i can understand this behavior. Being hated feels so unbearable, for some more than others – it can even lead you to synchronize all your principles with that of society and believe it at the same time, too.
But in some cases i suspect some kind of “getaway”. And i must stress that this is pure conjecture, but i cant get myself around to express it: From some of those “virtuous” pedophiles i know that they “slipped up” in the past, either they were caught possessing child pornography or they outed themselves in confidence to someone who reacted not very fair and basically took them hostage over this secret.
What can you do? Well… sell yourself. You are not that nasty kind of pedophile like in television. No. YOU are “virtuous” and responsible. So you enlist in therapy-programs like “Kein Täter werden” aka “Dont Offend”. And to be really convincing make a “life story” out of it, engage yourself in selfless “virtuous” behavior to show the world you are worthy as a member of society – more or less consciously or unconsciously an effort not to be ostracized from your loved ones who some time in the past, when you slipped up, got to know your “terrible secret”.
To some degree, that is what i would do, when i would face the possibility of either being fully rejected and ostracized from anyone i care about, or to just sell myself as someone who i am not.
But as i said: This wouldn’t necessarily explain the whole phenomenon and is mere speculation for some cases.
Anyways. Just come here to tell you those parallels are astonishing. If i wasn’t a biased sex-positive pedophile i would definitely make a research subject out of it. How do pedophiles gain their values, morals, world-views in the light of the discrepancy between of how pedophiles are being portrayed in the media/society and own self-perception.
How did i myself get so heretic? Would i have been, when there was no internet?
Great post, Ovid. Good to see you here. You ask:
“How did i myself get so heretic? Would i have been, when there was no internet?”
I don’t know, but speaking for myself I became a heretic in the 1970s, long before the internet. After self-identifying as a paedophile in my teens, my thinking was on the “virtuous” side initially. Although I had been sexually attracted to boys from when I was 10 years old myself, it was not until I was in my twenties that I learned that children may sometimes welcome intimacy with adults. This “radicalisation” came through meeting a novelist who had experienced such contacts, and after that I read a lot about it.
Confronted with similar information, the truly “virtuous” guys appear to go into denial about it: perhaps the reaction varies with personality type.
Edmund, my thesis has not been published because I can’t find a way to convet the TransRoman font into anything else! Besides, it is too wordy and too pedantic for most reasonable people. There are too many dry references, and a re-write would take MONTHS…
Yet the essence of the rather grubby brat who came in off the street to play Rosalind in As You Like It, was, I hope, faithfully captured. He changed from boy to girl, then was “disguised” as a boy — before turning back into a “girl” — then finally becoming a boy again as the play ended. Though the language is obscure to most modern people, the play’s bawdry hits one in the face. The audiences of then must have hooted — and the smutty boy actor played up to the crowd’s ribald laughter. The children of then would not recognize the children of now. Salomon Pavy was already famous when he died, at 13, and was tenderly eulogized by Ben Johnson.
The first Elizabethans had no quarrel with a boy’s natural sexuality. In fact, they thought it was hugely funny, and no opportunity for bawdry was missed in the comedies.
Best wishes and thanks for YOUR kind words! M T-W.
Well there were blacks who supported Apartheid and Jews who supported Hitler. Anyway, I think we should be very wary of talking about the “current culture” because history has shown that when sexual mores change, they often change very quickly. I think that intellectually at least we should be our true authentic selves.
“Echoing the prejudices of society is counterproductive and can only lead to self-loathing.”
It is worth recollecting that each of us comprises (nothing more than) a constellation of voices. It is inevitable that the cultural investments that determine these voices will be in a constant state of conflict: sometimes they will produces voices such as those of “VP”; other times they will produce the voice of the “Heretic”.
In short, the ‘arguments’ that we read from VP (for instance; the same applies to the more obviously complicit fascist tendencies of organizations such as ECPAT, the NSPCC, CEOP, and so forth) cannot be personalised – they merely repeat the investments of doxa, or common opinion.
There will always be collaborationists – “Vichy Paedophiles” in this case? – and the more interesting issue is perhaps not to seek an explanation of their ‘arguments’, but to consider instead the investments that their voices promulgate. It is only through this avenue that we might begin to launch ourselves on a new trajectory.
Interesting. Thanks S. of N.!
My views on VP.
1. I don’t like the name. It is for others to decide how virtuous I am or are not.
2. I don’t agree that minor attraction is chronically undesirable. History is very much at odds with that view particular in cultures other than our own.
3. My understanding of the Christian faith does not allow me such a belief. According to the Christian faith, as I understand it, all things come from God and are therefore intrinsically good, or at least have the potential to be when placed in the right hands. If I decide that certain attributes are chronically undesirable I feel that I am seeking to play the role of God which I see as inconsistent with Christianity as I understand it.
4. I believe that as MAPs, we must learn to work together. I am willing to work with MAPs of all beliefs. I do not agree with the ethos of VP, that says it will only work with MAPs who share Nick’s belief about the chronic undesirability of minor attraction. I prefer the inclusive ethos of B4U ACT
5. I found Nick to be contankerous within B4U ACT. In retrospect my impression is of a man who engineered arguments. We really have got to learn to work contructively with each other. Echoing the prejudices of society is counterproductive and can only lead to self-loathing.
Ethan — let me say that I admire your willingness to come to a forum where you might not anticipate a friendly welcome, and for your ability to be quite civilized in your manner of discussing it — avoiding, for example, any personal attacks. I say this even though I have come to very different conclusions than you have on a number of issues.
That said, lets try to delve a bit deeper into the issue of harm and benefits. It is important to keep in mind that nobody I know of condones forcing sex on anyone — regardless of age or sex. So we are talking only about the positive or negative consequences of mutually desired activities. Keep in mind that the negative reports come largely from three sources: 1. Recovered memories — which are pretty much worthless as data. 2. People who were forced into sex they did not want — which we all agree is a serious violation. 3. People who are interested in suing priests or others for money. In the largest study ever done on the subject of sexual abuse, Baurmann, it was found that violent offenses against males were rare — involving only .6% of the cases. Less that 1/2 of 1 %. This, put together with other data from the study leads to his conclusion that “male victims are seldom harmed.” Page 430. This report is long and not at all user friendly, but it contains a wealth of important information. On the other hand we learn from the accounts written by numerous men and boys that boys often find their love relationships with older men to be beneficial. Should their reports be disregarded?
A good summary, jedson303, except that you have omitted a fourth category of complainants, the most awkward and poignant: boys who were once happy in loving and consensual relationships, but come to believe, after years or even several decades of brainwashing by society that they “must” have been harmed and this must explain anything that might have gone wrong in their lives since.
Good to see your technical hitch appears to have been resolved, Edmund.
Dear Edmund, I am over the moon about your novel! It is all there: Julian’s dicovery of the glory and the terror at the same time — just like me. My boarding schools were both much freer than Eton in the time on which you focus. During the 1950s — my golden years — kids lived in one world and adults in another. Ne’er the twain would meet? But how gloriously passionate it all seemed, back then! Yet I was not so blinded, at 14, that I could not see a lifetime of pain, ahead…
I am married, with two grown up sons of my own. Not long ago, I spent four years writing an MA thesis about Shakespeare’s boy actors.
My very best wishes, and again, my thanks for that wonderful story. Michael Teare-Williams.
Many thanks for your kind words, Michael, deeply appreciated. I have always regretted that I missed out on the earlier and freer times you enjoyed. I suppose I must be thankful though that I was not born even later. My own grown-up son spent five years at Eton in the last decade without detecting the faintest whiff of that faint but potentially ignitable aura of sensuality I described as still pervading the atmosphere between the older and younger boys in the 1980s. So far as I can gather, these feelings have now disappeared from the emotional landscape of boarding schools, one reason why I wished to record them while there is still anyone left to understand them for what they were.
Your thesis sounds fascinating. Has it been published?
[Posted by T.O’C. for Edmund, who continues to have technical problems]
In a 90%+ World majority NON-Anglophone zones, fluidity, choice, change, options, curves, tolerance are norms.
It’s only the grim grid-sytem ‘little boxes’ judgemental, just-mental, post-Reformation Anglo Fascist psyche that is all inhuman harsh lines and sharp angles.
‘Angles’ ‘Saxons’ ? Bent Angled-SeXons would be a better tag, electronic-monitored ideally. So, like Peter Pan’s Capn ‘Crook’ the World knows when those warped weirdos are approaching.
Meanwhile here’s one from one of the last great, far from fascist Anglo/Yank eccentrics, seen and heard live on Brit-TV as recently as 1986. Just before the Fascist Anglo thought-Gestapo 24/7 raids,” Show us your certificates to smile, and licences to larf ! ”
Just pre-PC, Kings Of Alt Comedy, all time class-act, not-so-oddball EMO PHILIPS – for Prez !
” I wasn’t too bright at school, and when the math teacher asked, ‘what is a common denominator ?’ I replied, ‘someone with an unusual liking for little-girls.’
I was sent to the headmaster, and as I approched his study a boy came out holding his bottom. I thought, ‘Oh god, I hope the head doesn’t find me attractive !”
THIS COMMENT IS NOT FROM T.O’C. BUT FROM EDMUND, WHO EMAILED IT TO ME AS HE IS EXPERIENCING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES POSTING DIRECT TO THE WEBSITE. I THOUGHT THE WORDPRESS SOFTWARE MIGHT BE REJECTING THE LINK AT THE BOTTOM, BUT HE ALSO TRIED POSTING WITHOUT IT.
I would like to question the value you see in VP trying to convince the public that they do not want sex with children. What is the point? If it is really true, then I would have thought it highly contentious of them to describe themselves as paedophiles at all. Why not just be silent on the matter? Or is the idea, as Max comes close to saying, to pretend to the public now that they don’t want just sex in order to try to make paedophiles less popular, and then “in another age”, once this is achieved, to admit after all that they do want it? That doesn’t sound very honest to me.
In dismissing sexual fluidity, you acknowledge that “cultural variations such as ancient Greek pederasty” are against your argument, but you don’t explain why you can disregard them. Jedson303 is far from being the only person I have heard express consciousness of this fluidity in themselves. Can you be quite sure you are not underestimating the possibility that by the time an individual reaches the stage of insisting he is only capable of one kind of sexual attraction, all will to consider other attractions has not been driven out of him by long years of indoctrination into the doctrine of fixed sexual orientation?
According to the sexologist C.A. Tripp in “The Homosexual Matrix”, “Most people see their heterosexual responses as innate and automatic, but trained observers understand that people are specifically heterosexual because they have been geared by their upbringing to expect and to want to be.” I suggest the same may apply to gays and paedophiles brought up to believe that at an absurdly young age they should be ready to identify and give their exclusive loyalty to one sexual tribe they were allegedly born to. After a long emotional and perhaps intellectual investment, doubt becomes repellent.
You suggest that no one would choose to be exclusively gay and less still a paedophile if he had any choice, but I wonder. Some of us, myself certainly included, have an obstinate streak in our natures. Told that we cannot have something we feel sure is both desirable and harmless to others, we may be provoked into an obsessive longing for that one thing. I fear I would turn into an alcoholic if the government sought to ban alcohol.
“I would like to question the value you see in VP trying to convince the public that they do not want sex with children.”
Much hinges on that verb “want”. I want but abstain because of potential harm to children. You want but abstain because of society’s laws and attitudes. And all of us halfway-decent people, whatever the attraction, want but abstain because a particular partner they desire isn’t interested.
“What is the point? If it is really true, then I would have thought it highly contentious of them to describe themselves as paedophiles at all. Why not just be silent on the matter?”
It’s fascinating to me that anyone would hold that opinion. It matters because many of us feel that attraction intensely, day in and day out. Simply being able to share a hugely important fact about our mental life with our friends without hatred and ostracism would be a huge win. It matters if a pedophile’s arrested for child porn (a different complicated topic, I realize) and the authorities are trying to decide how dangerous he is to children he might meet in life. It matters enormously to the teen who realizes he loves children and is told he is a monster and will abuse children — you may think that characterization is off base in a few more ways than I do, but you must admit that’s what he will hear. If he goes online to associate with pedophiles, he will hear loudly the message that sex with kids is fundamentally OK, but he deserves to hear the alternative view from those who feel that same attraction that it is always wrong (even though the intent may be positive and harm does not always follow).
Just how many are entirely silent on the matter is of intense interest to me. My intuition is that the internet has in its light and dark places far more men who express your view. Is it because that is how most pedophiles feel, or because those pedophiles go online to talk far more?
“Or is the idea, as Max comes close to saying, to pretend to the public now that they don’t want just sex in order to try to make paedophiles less popular, and then “in another age”, once this is achieved, to admit after all that they do want it? That doesn’t sound very honest to me.”
If one believes the sex with kids is fundamentally OK, this is a strategy with obvious appeal at one level. It would be dishonest. One of the commonest mainstream criticisms of the VP message is that it is part of a devious plan to send us down a slippery slope. I can’t look into the minds of my fellows, but I know I hold my view sincerely, and I’m sure most of the rest of us do too.
” I want but abstain because of potential harm to children. You want but abstain because of society’s laws and attitudes”
Whatever you may imagine about my wants and how they compare with yours, there is one big difference between us that you have not addressed: I never fantasize about things I do not want. I like my fantasies to be imaginably enjoyable. I have never, for example, fantasized about raping someone, because even if I had immunity from laws and attitudes to do so (as in most wars), I cannot imagine enjoying it. You, on the other hand, apparently think sex with children is to some degree like rape, and yet you still fantasize about it. Why? Why not instead fantasize about something that may be unlikely to happen, but would be fun if it did, and thereby avoid big complications for yourself. In short, as Gil Hardwick keeps suggesting, why not go and get a life?
Wisdom ancien.
Often what is popular may not be right, and as often what is right may not be popular.
What is widely believed, may be the precise opposite of the truth.
We cum not appease the all-neg Anglo Fascist Seizures’ Dom Narrative – but to BURY IT !
The difference is not in the risks but in the benefits. The benefits to exclusive pedophiles of sexual relationships with children are clear enough, but the benefits to children are negligible. Yes, a relationship as a whole might be beneficial to the child in the right circumstances, but the sexual component of the relationship hardly ever is (and I venture is never large). In contrast, an awful lot of men and women look back upon their childhood sexual experiences with adults as a terrible thing.
Ethan, I have a suspicion that you read tabloids too much and cultural and anthropological research too little.
Do you know Rind and Yuill’s paper “Hebephilia as Mental Disorder – A Historical, Cross-Cultural, Sociological, Cross-Species, Non-Clinical Empirical, and Evolutionary Review”? Among other things, they write:
Please note that, even though this paper primarily deals with hebephilia, some of the examples in it are clearly related to pedophilia, too. For instance this:
I would draw a distinction between what is among nature’s possibilities and what is right. Our past is littered with (to pick a few of a great many examples) slavery, honor killing, and considering women property (including to my won in conquest after killing their menfolk). I’m sure in many cultures, the rituals at puberty of genital cutting of both sexes were (and are) often viewed with pride by those going through them.
We as a society have a recent and comprehensive moral code that rejects a great many such practices.
Ethan, that is seriously your reply? Just a comparison of sexual acts (may I mind you something that isn’t at all one sided and has many alternatives.) to children to somethings that were practiced back then and are obviously painful or abusive? This isn’t a surprise to me coming from your position, but come on dude, that is atrocious…
Ethan, you remind me a lot about Finkelhor. First he said that sexual contacts with children are unethical because they cause harm, and when he realized that no harm can be documented, he said that sexual contacts with children are unethical because they are unethical. That way, people can discuss ad infinitum…
I have given some thought to the premise that because intergenerational sexual contact can, and sometimes does, lead to negative consequences, it should never be allowed. If we applied this principle across the board there are quite a number of things we would have to prohibit:
Going anywhere in a car.
Swimming.
Being raised by one’s natural parents.
Going to school.
Being in any relationship where there is an imbalance of power.
Playing football — and probably a number of other sports as well.
Zero tolerance for risk in the real world is not an option. Why do we keep imposing conditions in one area of life that we do not impose in other areas?
Respect to Good Queen/King Heretic-TOC’s full frontal long-flowing humane stance, and long flowing respectful mutual admiration responses; sans ‘Blather’..
But – learned, Gil The Great nails it – again.
Just one flaw tho, like sooo many dedicated lil boy lurvers forgets lil gals undoubted charms on the measured ped-scale in fact the dominant attraction.
While all-Anglo Fascist all unreported, billions of non-victim aMused Adultos fancy the pants off millions of vulnerable adults.
Who, also unreported even here, are all vulnerable to pre-legal charms (AOC varied) given undisclosed opportunities.
Pedo x 3 classifications: ‘Fixated’, ‘Regressed’, ‘Opportunist’.
Another c. 99 words (change hands), all done and dusted.
Now where did we chuck that crumpled Dumbed Down Dom-Narrative for the trash can ?
“a database of paedophiles who had never been in trouble with the law and who claimed – honestly, I am sure, in many cases known to me – never to have “transgressed”.”
It would be wonderful if anyone knew how to get at that database, or even some of its anonymized statistics. I’d like to thank her for trying, if nothing else.
“young men, some perhaps not even out of their teens … depressed, desperate, at their wit’s end in search of a livable life; and in this sorry state they will be vulnerable to the snake-oil salesmanship of those who confidently point the way towards “happy, productive lives” … As someone with effectively zero attraction to either men or women, fixity of sexual orientation has for me been an unwelcome but relentlessly abiding fact of life, and I know plenty of others to whom this applies.”
Nick and I are very much aware of exclusive pedophiles and how they have it so much worse than we do.
“It is not that VP necessarily believe they can change a paedophile’s fundamental orientation. It would be unfair to suggest they are saying that. But there are signs they may have unrealistic expectations for getting paedophiles coupled off with adult partners … How else might they propose to enable guys exclusively attracted to kids to live “happy, productive lives”? By becoming monks, perhaps? Might work for a few I guess, but not for most.”
Some of us do suggest to new members that they try to cultivate relationships with adult men or women. It certainly seems worth trying. But we don’t keep harping on it, and we understand that it won’t work for many people. In the parallel case, I’d think it would be worth saying to gay men in cultures where that is greeted with great hostility — “are you sure you can’t get excited about women?” It’s just that when the man says no, you believe them and don’t keep bringing it up.
My main point here, after all these quotes, is: What do you offer these young men as an alternative? I’m suspending my disbelief for this entire section, assuming for the moment your view that a particular man-boy sexual relationship could be started knowing it will be safe and positive. With that assumption, I can think of some possibilities.
1. They devote their lives to changing the world. It’s not looking very promising these days. Should they be sacrificing themselves so maybe future pedophiles can have happy sex with children? I suppose that’s a question of how much you value activism. One way to deal with being fairly poor is to fight for the revolution, and another way is to be happy with what you have, considering perhaps that you are richer in health, longevity, and information/excitement/entertainment than 99% of people through 99% of history.
2. They think about how much they are victims and how society keeps them from being happy. Doesn’t sound like a formula for happiness.
3. They go ahead and have sex with children anyway, on the sly. We all agree that that is very likely to be harmful under today’s conditions — which is where we live, after all. Even if (very best case) the kid likes it, the message is that they have to keep silent about it or their adult friend goes to jail. That sounds pretty awful to me.
Maybe there are others.
Taking the broader picture, the grass really isn’t that much greener other places. A lot of hetero marriages end up nearly sexless after 5 or 10 years, and more often than not the participants are significantly dissatisfied in some respect or other. Yet these men find meaning in life, through all the other stuff that isn’t sex: jobs, friends, hobbies, news, TV, sports…
And if we waved a wand and made relationships with boys legal and not harmful, they’re still problematic. Boys can’t relate as equals, their sex drives tend to be low, and of course they grow up — at least those are some of the drawbacks I’ve read. So lasting relationships are not in the cards anyway.
Now, changing directions, large elements of our society are distressed that porn is so popular. One sort of fear is that men will come to prefer porn to sex with real partners with their pesky real-life limitations. With regard to pedophiles, this has promise! Most of society should be ecstatic to think pedophiles would prefer child porn to abusing children. (I’m convinced we could construct child porn to be very alluring without harming real children in its production, and entirely legal material with a little imagination goes a long way today.) I think men should think carefully about whether erotic fantasies might make them more likely to abuse children, but if they are sure they won’t, I am happy to encourage fantasy. And I suggest there might be greater happiness in turning away from contemplation of sex with the real children you can never have to fantasies, which are free and safe.
“Nick and Ethan have both admitted (on Sexnet) to having deceived their own partners in this way”.
Nick has said that. It’s not true of me, though my case is quite unusual. I didn’t admit to myself that my primary attraction was to children until my 50s, and have never entered a relationship with a woman knowing that — not that this is important to the issues at hand.
I liken the ethical problem to the ordinary guy marrying the woman who was not in your top 100 in attractiveness. Maybe you’re not so attractive yourself, and she’s the best you can get. I think marriage counselors will unanimously recommend that you not tell her how you would have preferred to marry other people; what matters is whether you do feel genuine affection and sexual attraction. I don’t see why it’s different for a non-exclusive pedophile just because those top 100 that he couldn’t have were children.
“not even the prospect of befriending children, or working with them, still less of having any of his own? Many would consider it irresponsible, unethical and not at all “virtuous” to recommend for the exclusive paedophile any sort of contact with children; and if I shared society’s view that any sort of falling into temptation was necessarily harmful, I would have to agree: the danger would be too great ”
Of course the bulk of society does say that — but not me. We’ve said before that VP doesn’t think such contact is necessarily harmful, just that it could be very harmful so it’s always wrong. I am not against men working with children or having friendships or mentoring relationships with them, as long as they keep in mind the risks and are sure they are in control. Surely there is no bed of roses here for the pro-contact either? If you agree that in today’s circumstances sexual relationships are harmful, where is there a practical difference? Both of us are telling men that today, in the real world, they have to abstain from sex with kids. The only difference I can see is *if* you don’t expect men to take you seriously, and go ahead and have sexual relationships anyway. I think we both agree the man can feel his tender ache at what can never be, and then go home and fantasize.
Thanks, Ethan. There is much to think about in all this. The question “What do you offer these young men as an alternative?” is a particularly big one. No doubt, other priorities permitting, I’ll eventually pitch in on this, though others here are welcome to beat me to it. There is great value to be derived from keeping a tight focus in this debate on the issues already started. Ultimately, though, my approach is premised on a much wider view of the nature of modern society and where we appear to be heading. It is not just a matter of hoping for, or working towards, an improbable paedophile “revolution”: it is a matter of social critique in which paedophilia plays an important role as a touchstone, a means of seeing what is going on, especially as regards the upbringing of children beyond sexual concerns as narrowly conceived; it is about the tone and quality of society.
Here we go again. Where on earth does the evidence exist that this so-called ‘paedophile sexual orientation’, virtuous or otherwise, causes all this misery, depression, suicidal ideation; all the rest of it?
Somebody here, please point me to it. No, don’t bother, is doesn’t exist.
Rather than being so goddamed self-obsessed with boy’s willies, their smooth hairless pre-pubescent bodies and nice tight buns, your own included, and what you like to do with them, and fondle and mother them and protect them, imagine for a moment that the very real problem here lies with this bizarre bureaucratic military-industrial plugged-in hyperliterate hyperactive caffeine/cocaine/Ritalin addicted psychoanalytic late-modern, thingamy?
That you’ve all been swept up in, and held in thrall; the body of the child the ultimate object of totalitarian social control.
Gad, talk about Orwell’s ‘1984’, Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’, this is FAR worse.
A radical new literary revival is way overdue!
At least some of them are being creative about it, what a blessed relief – texting, sexting, nude-selfies, DIY-CP – being radical, losing control, having fun, smiling and laughing in the midst of all this lunacy.
Tone and quality, of ‘society’? *BARF*
Sorry Gil, I didn’t understand any of that. Please will you put things much more simply?
NEVER MIND THE THE PICTURE, THIS POST IS FROM EDMUND . POSTED WITH WRONG ICON FOLLOWING TECHNICAL PROBLEMS.
“And if we waved a wand and made relationships with boys legal and not harmful, they’re still problematic. Boys can’t relate as equals, their sex drives tend to be low, and of course they grow up — at least those are some of the drawbacks I’ve read. So lasting relationships are not in the cards anyway.”
To take your alleged three “drawbacks” in turn:
1. Why is it a drawback that boys can’t relate as equals? When I was a pubescent boy, I longed for a relationship with someone who was wiser and more knowledgeable than me and could comfort me when I was unhappy, far more than I wanted relationships with people my age. One of my happiest childhood memories is of a week-long house party when I was twelve, in which I enjoyed just such a friendship (I am not calling it a relationship because it was not sexual). Presumably the man must have enjoyed the unequal friendship too, as he was the reverse of being under any pressure to spend all his time with me instead of his hosts.
2. A low sex drive is certainly not the problem of a boy who has reached puberty. By far my sharpest memory of my early teens is the constant, desperate and miserably unfulfilled longing for sex. It was so powerful that it may well explain why I am participating in this blog today. If you have the same sex drive now that you had at 14, then you (and your wife) are lucky indeed.
3. I too feel the need for lasting relationships, one reason why I too am married, but some men don’t, so we can’t say boys growing up is a drawback for them. Nor does a lifetime exclude the possibility of enjoying both lasting and temporary relationships. I should imagine that men and boys who have happy love affairs get a much more intense version of the relationship enjoyed by a good schoolmaster and his eager pupil, and that the satisfaction from it could well be felt for life.
I don’t disregard them: they are taken into account in what I say about range, rather than fluidity.
Not me, or at least not in this regard. While I do not seek to be less paedophilic, I would dearly love to have sufficient heterosexuality to sustain a relationship and raise a family. In my early adult years I made strenuous efforts along these lines. Incidentally, it would be easy to dismiss not just my sexual orientation but my entire stand on paedophilia as a matter of stubbornness; many do, indeed, calling it perversity. I suspect you would be quick to object to that, but doesn’t your dismissal of my orientation also presume a lot, grounded as it is in your own experience rather than mine? In some ways we are all the same (it would be odd to find anyone with green blood, say); in some ways we differ slightly (one person might be twice as tall as another, or able to run twice as fast); but in matters of sexuality, as Kinsey found, we differ hugely – in terms of quantity of sexual behavior by a thousandfold or more.
I am certainly not dismissing your orientation, Tom. At the very least, I am sure it is self-fulfilling; if you believe it, that makes it indisputably real. My views are based on the discrepancy between the practices and beliefs of 21st society versus those of most historical societies, especially the ancient Greek that you mentioned. They had no notion of a fixed sexual orientation, as opposed to taste. I merely suggest their thinking was sound. This is not based on my own experience; sadly I am not at all free of the influence of our society, which I see as suffering from being both obsessed with and repressed about sex. I agree “range” explains many individuals better than “fluidity”, but I don’t see how it can explain the fundamentally different assumption about sexuality between the ancient and modern ways of thinking.
The question of orientation v taste/preferences is a very deep one. Heretics (and non-heretical visitors, of whom we now seem to have a few!) might note there is a new journal now being set up, Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, under the auspices of the American Psychological Society. Yesterday there was an announcement on Sexnet that the founding editor will be Dr. John Gonsiorek.
I would recommend changing the world. Not promising? I disagree. One thing is obvious: There will be a lot of change in near future, the internet revolution has not even started yet. I don’t think about traditional democratic ways of fighting. Libertarianism is also a good direction for sexual freedom.
But, the main point is a different one: Fighters have fulfilled lives. They may lose one battle or another, but they will not care about this. Moreover, we fight for a good thing – freedom and justice for all.
>Fighters have fulfilled lives.
I couldn’t agree more, Sascha!
Although my own orientation is more complex that Tom’s, my opinions are pretty much in line with his. Two small points that might be relevant: First, my own experience convinces me that, while it is certainly true that one does not choose who he/she is attracted to, my own pattern has shifted. (In the direction of the attraction to pubescent boys becoming stronger). Why, I really have no idea. But there does appear to be some fluidity. Second, sexual desire is connected with a desire for a certain kind of relationship. It’s by no means just a matter of whatever gets your rocks off. My desire for that certain kind of relationship with boys is not, in fact, satisfied with a relationship with a woman. Nor is the reverse true.
This is one of the few real discussions I have ever seen between people who hold quite different views on this difficult topic. Hope this can continue.
Up until the age of 11, I was heterosexual. At that age I changed dramatically tosame-sex attraction. Since then, I seem to have got older but my sexuality hasn’t.
For now I will withhold any comment about how the VP group will function in the future. What I want to state is my full support for Tom’s humanitarian concern and his commitment to what I see as a very grounded and realistic understanding of many people’s situation. On my own blog site I hope to offer material that is equally humanitarian in its concerns. I am reminded of a quote from Lao Tzu, “To love someone deeply gives you strength. Being loved by someone deeply gives you courage.”
Peter, please will you tell me more about your blog?