Heretic TOC offers no detailed comment for the moment on the following guest blog, submitted without invitation by self-styled “virtuous” paedophiles Ethan Edwards and Nick Devin, although the headline speaks for itself. Some will wonder why I agreed to carry this piece at all, perhaps feeling all it will do is take us into sterile sparring and deeper entrenchment in mutual antagonism. However, I think there is enough to justify publication, both in terms of clarifying the VP position and obliging us to think about aspects of reality on which we might prefer to bury our heads in the sand. Or, rather, switching abruptly from the terrestrial to the celestial, might our more revolutionary ambitions be said to belong to Cloud Cuckoo Land?
Virtuous Pedophiles Explain Their Views
We are aware, of course, that many activist pedophiles have been critical of our organization, and we appreciate the opportunity that Tom has provided to share our thoughts. We thought it would be helpful to tell you a little bit about our history, our goals, and how we go about trying to accomplish our goals before we react to the criticism. You can find more information about us on our web site (www.virped.org).
Combatting Stigma
Our first contact with other pedophiles was a few years ago when we joined B4U-ACT. Nick was put in contact with B4U-ACT by a therapist who helped him when he was first coming to grips with his sexuality. Ethan found it from web searching.
Our time with B4U-ACT was disappointing. We believed that stigma was a major source of the problems faced by pedophiles — many pedophiles internalize societal attitudes resulting in severe depression, many even become suicidal. We felt that the main cause of this stigma was society’s conflating of pedophilic feelings with pedophilic actions. We believed that stigma would be reduced if society was made aware that many pedophiles are able to successfully resist their sexual feelings. Hence, our mantra: “We don’t choose to be sexually attracted to children and we can’t stop being sexually attracted to children, but many of us are able to successfully resist our sexual feelings. You should sympathize with us, and help us resist our sexual feelings, not hate us.” We tried to get B4U-ACT to adopt this approach. They had no interest because they felt that it would antagonize pro-contact pedophiles. They also believed that the approach wouldn’t have any impact – that people hate us because of our sexual feelings without regard to whether we act on them.
We continue to believe that we are right on this, and the early evidence is encouraging. Several sympathetic articles calling attention to the plight of pedophiles who successfully resist their sexual feelings have appeared in the year or so that we’ve been around, including in Salon, the Atlantic, the LA Times, CNN, Daily Beast and Crime Library. A recent book, Perv, by Jesse Bering, is similarly supportive, and we know that several college professors use our web site when teaching about pedophilia in their human sexuality classes.
There are a lot of people who share credit for this changing attitude, and we are among them. Will this recent spate of favorable articles make its way into the public consciousness and reduce stigma? We don’t know, but the early signs are hopeful.
Our Forum
In addition to trying to reduce the stigma attached to pedophilia, we also try to help pedophiles lead happy, productive, law-abiding lives. We try to accomplish this with our forum, which is a support group for pedophiles who share our core values.
Most of the people who reach out to us are in serious distress. They feel shame because of their sexual feelings, fear that they will not be able to lead happy lives. They feel that things are hopeless, that they are all alone. Many are depressed; some are suicidal. You can get a feel for the pain that people are feeling by clicking on the “First Words” tab under the “Who We Are” section on our web site. Pedophiles who hate their attraction may be able to reach out to us but would never on principle join a pro-contact forum. But thinking we make pedophiles miserable would be reversing cause and effect.
What do we do to help? Sometimes just letting people know that they are not alone, expressing sympathy and support, can be enormously helpful. Those of us who have successfully managed our pedophilia describe how we have done so. Often this involves encouraging people to focus on other interests — job or school or recreational or social activity, or encouraging pedophiles who are also attracted to adults to focus on adult relationships. Sometimes we encourage people to see professionals, often through ATSA, Project Dunkelfeld or ilovechildren.us.
Will we be successful? Will we help pedophiles lead happier, more productive, law-abiding lives? Who knows? We’ve had about 250 people cycle through our forum in the 16 months that we’ve been around. Some join and stay, some are on for a while and leave, some leave and come back. Many of them think that we have helped. Of course, we are not so naive to believe that this means that we have really provided long-term benefit. We suppose the jury is out. We do the best we can to help.
Our Views On Legalization, Harm…
We know this is important to many more activist pedophiles. We consider it to be interesting from an academic perspective but of little practical import to our goal of helping pedophiles lead happier, more productive, law-abiding lives.
None of us lives in ancient Greece and none of us is likely to move there in the near future. Laws and societal attitudes on adult-child sex are not going to change in the foreseeable future. Activist pedophiles have been fighting this battle for more than fifty years. Many are eloquent. Many are clever. They have had no success. Laws have become more harsh; societal attitudes more severe. Activist pedophiles who promote changes in age of consent laws are pretty much reduced to talking among themselves and have no ability to influence discussion on important issues where change is possible. Their arguments have no traction with society at all. Even if we shared their views, which we do not, we would remain silent and choose a different battle.
In terms of our view of whether consensual sexual relations between children and adults are harmful, our understanding from leading sexologists is that it is not as harmful as is generally believed and is not harmful in all cases. It is, however, harmful in many cases, sometimes severely so. The problem from the pedophile’s perspective is that he can’t know ahead of time which cases will result in harm. A child who seems to be enjoying sexual activity at the time may later internalize societal attitudes and severe harm could result. Taking the bigger picture, whatever the level of harm, there is very little benefit. Very few people look back on their childhood sexual experiences with other adults as profoundly positive – the relationship may have been, but not the sexual aspects. A great many look back with great anguish.
We do not take seriously claims of activists that they are really advocating for the right of children to engage in sexual activity with adults. The claim seems implausible on its face – why is it that only procontact activist pedophiles argue that children should have the right to have sex with adults? Surely others are also concerned about children yet they don’t seem to think the right is important. Children will eventually become adults and can then have the entire panopoly of sexual experiences, so it is hard to see how denying them this right for a few years results in harm. Moreover, we have no problem with children experimenting sexually with similarly aged peers.
Relations With Pedophile Activists
We think we probably agree with other pedophile activists on about 90% of the issues – reducing stigma, helping pedophiles deal with mental health issues brought on by their pedophilia such as depression, making mental health care more accessible, eliminating mandatory reporter rules, eliminating sex offender registries, eliminating civil commitment, eliminating laws prohibiting things like virtual porn and erotic fiction… We don’t think pedophiles should feel shame as a result of their sexual attractions. We think children should not be made to feel guilty about sexual feelings and explorations. When adults do engage in sexual activity with children, we think the children should be treated in ways designed to reduce iatrogenic harm.
It is disappointing to us that pedophiles who disagree with us on a small number of issues focus on those few areas of disagreement instead of the many issues where we agree. It is particularly perplexing since it should be apparent to everyone that there is no prospect for changing laws relating to adult-child sex in the foreseeable future but our organization has helped make progress on some of the other issues.
We think the negative reaction may be a reaction to our perceived holier-than-thou attitude as reflected in our name and in our public statements that adults should not have sex with children.
In terms of the name, it was not subjected to focus group analysis among different constituencies. Ethan’s top choice was “Celibate Pedophiles”, and while Nick’s preference for the 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 90% or more of society who 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 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 that we were right is that it can get some people of liberal inclinations to think more carefully and sympathetically about pedophiles. We do not view ourselves as virtuous in contrast to pedophiles who are opposed to adult-child sex under today’s circumstances but want to transform society so it would be truly OK – though we believe that they are mistaken. Being “not virtuous” is a moral judgment. People who do engage in sexual activity with children know better or should know better, and we do think of ourselves as more virtuous than they are. (We have a few members who have engaged in sexual contact with children, but are remorseful and are dedicated to never doing so again.)
With respect to our persistent statements that adult-child sex is wrong: The general public hates pedophiles. Pedophiles who waffle about whether adult-child sex might be OK do not get a hearing. The only way to get society to listen is for those of us who are truly opposed to adult-child sex to emphasize that fact. This requires us to say it loudly and often. To borrow from Tom’s always eloquent rhetoric, we have to burnish our halos.
We would never suggest that those of you who disagree with us should pretend you agree. But you might wish us well instead of despising us. To the extent we are successful, you might benefit in terms of all those issues we agree on.
“successfully resist their sexual feelings.” “successfully managed our pedophilia”
LOL. You talk about it as if pedophilia were some sort of demon separate from (and inimical to) you.
“A child who seems to be enjoying sexual activity at the time may later internalize societal attitudes and severe harm could result.”
This seems to be what Tom is talking about WRT iatrogenic harm. This would certainly be an argument against inter-generational sex but it isn’t an argument supporting the idea that it’s innately harmful.
“why is it that only procontact activist pedophiles argue that children should have the right to have sex with adults? Surely others are also concerned about children yet they don’t seem to think the right is important.”
*Cough* Hey, uh, I exist. The reason the rest of us aren’t active is insufficient stake. Support for lowering (or even abolishing) the age of consent is extremely costly in reputation and political capital. Kids like me would usually rather wait to pass the AoC than burn bridges (and are mostly barred from meaningful activism anyway) and non-pedophilic adults have no horse in the race to begin with. Pedophiles are the only ones with a large enough stake to make activism cost-effective.
“Moreover, we have no problem with children experimenting sexually with similarly aged peers.”
What if I don’t want to fuck my peers? Some of you clearly aren’t interested in your peers. The reciprocal of pedophilia (variously named) does exist.
“It is disappointing to us that pedophiles who disagree with us on a small number of issues focus on those few areas of disagreement instead of the many issues where we agree.”
One of my favourite quotes: “A heretic is someone who shares 95% of your beliefs. Kill them.” But, to be honest, people who are similar to you but wildly diverge on one issue are so frustrating! It’s like: “You were so close! You could have made it! Why’d you have to fuck up at the very last turn!?”
“We think the negative reaction may be a reaction to our perceived holier-than-thou attitude”
Yep. Right on the money. Of course, they’re also objecting to your beliefs about inter-generational sex but I think most of the venom is fueled by the fact that you look like you’re saying “we’re better than you”.
“Being “not virtuous” is a moral judgment. People who do engage in sexual activity with children know better or should know better, and we do think of ourselves as more virtuous than they are.”
Interesting view. Vaguely Virtue Ethics-y – which is appropriate given the name. Of course, most people here would disagree with you. All in favour of starting a group called Utilitarian Pedophiles say ‘I’. Tag line: “Dedicated to maximising mutual pleasure”.
I’d very much like to debate these two. Not necessarily to change their minds but to figure out where they’re coming from. I suspect there might be a deontological basis to their beliefs….
I really hope the VP guys read this!
Nice to hear from you, James. You are welcome to write to us via the virped.org website or directly at virpeds@gmail.com. I will happily answer you.
James says: *Cough* Hey, uh, I exist.”
True, you do (I assume). It’s taken a year for the first one of you to show up here. This thread will now do some serious necromancy.
James says: The reason the rest of us aren’t active is insufficient stake. Support for lowering (or even abolishing) the age of consent is extremely costly in reputation and political capital. Kids like me would usually rather wait to pass the AoC than burn bridges (and are mostly barred from meaningful activism anyway) and non-pedophilic adults have no horse in the race to begin with. Pedophiles are the only ones with a large enough stake to make activism cost-effective.
Pedophilic adults face a far higher cost in reputation than kids do, which means almost all pedophiles speak anonymously. Kids are certainly free to speak anonymously too without consequences. So where are the anonymous discussions where this injustice is being discussed among kids? As one of your top 50 priorities? You say kids would rather wait to pass the AoC — right, which is also what they would just as soon do regarding sexual activity with adults, not just activism about it. Waiting for the chance to have at those adult partners is just not a big deal (especially when doing utilitarian calculations).
James says: What if I don’t want to fuck my peers? Some of you clearly aren’t interested in your peers. The reciprocal of pedophilia (variously named) does exist.
It seems to be a rare condition, especially an exclusive version of it. If you have it, your condition condemns you to unspeakable misery for a realistic maximum of, say, 4 years? You can also probably find a guy who will do it on the sly, and if you keep it a secret the chances are he will too. You’ll suffer a lot less than he will if it’s discovered.
James says: Interesting view. Vaguely Virtue Ethics-y
Yeah, we know, choosing the name was not our finest moment. But our position is pretty much straight utilitarianism. A few kids suffer briefly because they can’t find an adult partner. A lot of kids are saved from distress at the hands of men who would misrepresent their intentions, feign affection to get sex or actually take sex by force. Of course none of the noble pedophiles who write eloquently online would do any of those things, but other men would. The biggest plus of the age of consent is to protect kids (mostly girls) from indisputable rape.
My favorite analogy here is the judge who is prohibited by law from ruling on a case where his son is a party to a lawsuit. The judge might very well render a fair verdict, so why should he not be allowed to? Is it an insult to his integrity? No. It’s just that on average, things work out better if judges don’t handle cases where they have a personal interest. Same with keeping adult-child sex illegal.
I too would like to change the world to eliminate iatrogenic harm, and figure if a young teen continues to maintain that whatever sex happened was just fine with him, there should be no prosecutions.
Feel free to write to us to ask more questions. I’ll also answer you here, but I only get a certain number of replies here a month before I run over Tom’s quota of insufficiently heretical ideas.
You don’t seem in any rush to change it, nor the divisive, holier-than-thou, attitude that led you to it in the first place.
“Pedophilic adults face a far higher cost in reputation than kids do”
I’d expect so. However, the effect size would likely be much higher. Firstly, adults are listened to in a way that children simply aren’t. Secondly, the direct benefit to the young activist would be low since any change would probably come too late to affect them personally. I know it’s impolite to talk about activism as if it were motivated by selfishness but my inner Robin Hanson wont let me pretend otherwise. MLK wasn’t Caucasian.
And there’s also the cost-benefit calculation of raw energy. You’re right that for most of us it isn’t in the top 50 causes. We have so many problems. If I had to choose between abolishing the voter age and lowering the AoC then (with apologies to the pedophiles) I’ll choose the former (though it might still lead to the latter). I’ve several peers who think the AoC is ridiculous or ridiculously high but it isn’t the most immediately beneficial cause.
…And I mean to our own benefit. If we were all perfectly selfless Utilitarians we would give everything we own to Give Well. Any normal activism assumes a certain baseline level of selfishness.
“It seems to be a rare condition”
How would you know? How much meaningful research is done on child sexuality? If we’re going based on self-reporting we’ve got a huge selection bias.
“your condition condemns you to unspeakable misery for a realistic maximum of, say, 4 years?”
This is what I meant about insufficient stake. However, beware trivial inconveniences. Harm which can be destroyed by sane policy should be.
“You can also probably find a guy who will do it on the sly, and if you keep it a secret the chances are he will too.”
Firstly: woman. Secondly, I’ve been trying. I’ve finally passed the local AoC but there is still the issue of the stigmatisation of age gaps. There is a clear inefficiency in the sexual market place.
“A lot of kids are saved from distress at the hands of men who would misrepresent their intentions, feign affection to get sex or actually take sex by force.”
Citation Needed
But, to be honest, I do support an AoC for somewhat similar reasons. I just think it could be greatly reduced and that such a reduction would actually have positive utility.
Kids are certainly free to speak anonymously too without
consequences.
Kids have done so and faced enormous consequences when they weren’t sufficiently anonymous. Dissident mentioned Fayla in the
essay The Importance of Truth (see Newgon).
Waiting for the chance to have at those adult partners is just not a
big deal (especially when doing utilitarian calculations).
Let’s see your calculations.
Imagine a world where some of your conjectures are true: A specific AOC
necessarily prevents the rape of A kids, while it causes B kids to
suffer for 4 years and C exclusive pedophiles to suffer for 60 years.
None of the kids or pedophiles break this law.
C is estimated to 3% of the large population.
For simplicity, assume B=C.
For a utilitarian justification, what is the minimum value of A?
Nice to meet you, Nada! I’m starting to feel like the Consiquentialists are taking over 🙂 Maybe we’ll all be able to team up and convince Tom to finally pick a side in the great battle of meta-ethics?
Ordinarily, I’d avoid counting the adults in the calculation for game theoretic reasons (I’m a Precedent Utilitarian) but for the sake of trying to answer the question, I’ll do it.
Firstly, lets define harm as (degree of suffering)*(time), a bit like the definition of power. I suppose the unit would be pain per second (p/s).
Secondly, lets assume that kids and adults suffer the same amount for chastity (possibly wrong but bear with me). If we assume the background irritation of involuntary chastity is roughly uniform over time, we can use this as the basis of our scale and define p/s as the harm of each second of involuntary chastity. Negligible on its own but building up over time. For kids that’s 126.23Mp/s (assuming 1 leap year) and for adults that’s 1893.46Mp/s (assuming 15 leap years).
Thirdly, I believe it’s fair to say that a rape victim’s suffering “spikes” during the act and gradually reduces in the aftermath. We’ll call the average harm at this high point X. This decrease is probably logarithmic, with the base of the logarithm varying from person to person and averaging B. The amount of suffering can be expected to gradually approach Y. I’ll use Y to represent “rape victim shame” which is is itself iatrogenic harm caused by social attitudes. I’d expect this to also be relatively constant over time.
Assuming 60 years between the rape and the victims death, the rape victim shame = X*(1893.46Mp/s). Add to this the harm directly resulting from the rape, which is the area under the curve of log[B]Y, and you’ll get the total harm. (Calculating the area involves integration and I don’t like calculus. Luckily, I’ve found a tutor.) Let’s call this total Z.
Now the question is, is (number of victims)*Z > (number of kids)*126.23Mp/s + (number of adults)*1893.46Mp/s? That all depends on the values of X, Y & B. Once we can calculate those, we’re golden.
(We should also try hard to push Y down to 0.)
Oops! made a mistake! I meant the area under the curve of Y/log[B]t on p/s against t, with ‘t’ being the time since the rape occurred. My bad. Now you see why I avoid calculus…
I mean “X/log[B]t”! Shit! How obvious is it that I’m trying to calculate utility with a migraine?
Maybe you should first calculate the utility of trying to calculate a utility while you have a migraine. Smiley face. (Where are the emoticons when you need one?) [TOC adds: Well, I just do this “:” then this “-” then this “)” and, there you have it, an automatic smiley: 🙂 ]
If it contributes to an understanding which changes other peoples’ minds, it could have positive utility. However, to calculate the precise amount of utility over all possible outcomes (factoring relative probabilities) would be sufficiently taxing as to be absurd self-parody. Thus, I use the following heuristic: someone asks interesting question – nerdgasm in the comment box 🙂
“Kids are certainly free to speak anonymously too without consequences.”
I just went and read The Importance of Truth as was suggested by Nada. It freaked me out. Here’s the relevant excerpt (I hope Dissident doesn’t mind me copying it):
“I have personally known a brave teen female gerontophile activist (she used to post on some of the MAA boards as Fayla) who spoke out in defense of mutually consensual relationships between adults and youths under 18, both on the boards and in a series of audio recordings she uploaded to Youtube. When her real identity was found out by the notorious anti-MAA hate group called Perverted Justice, and her parents, her school, and the police in her home city were notified of what she was doing by this organization, she was forced against her will into this “therapy.” She described to me the entire ordeal of any underage person who dares openly disagree with the moralizing imperatives thrown at them by the police and the corrupt therapists who oversee such programs. They relentlessly insisted that she was emotionally ill as a result of her preference for adult men, that she was “abused” by her adult boyfriend and that he couldn’t possibly have loved her but was only using her for his own selfish purposes, that it’s not possible or “normal” for an adult to love a person under 18 (any MAA will tell you that this common belief is a total load of bull), and that she should feel resentful against him and do everything in her power to see to it that he is put in jail. She had previously had other adult boyfriends whom her therapists likewise told her couldn’t possibly have had any genuine feelings for her and couldn’t have done anything other than having used and manipulated her for entirely selfish reasons, that she should hate every single one of them for what they did “to” her, and that she should do her utmost to cooperate with her “rescuers” by giving them the identities of these men so that they can be arrested. If you resist this attempt at brainwashing (which is what it clearly is), she said, her therapists only grow more and more relentless with it and they will not let any youth out of this “therapy” unless they begin telling these individuals what they want to hear, which can easily be argued is a form of thought control that is very similar to what adult sex offenders–whether they are real MAAs or not–go through in the prison “sexual recovery” programs. It’s far from uncommon for youths who are not activists, and thus not as strong-willed as those who are, to be successfully brainwashed after their initial attempts to resist and deny what these cops and “therapists” are trying to convince them of.”
Holy fucking hell! That was scary. I think I’m going to (grudgingly) switch over to using TOR again. I have no reason to expect anything of that scale in my backwater, third-world nation but I’m still pretty spooked.
So do I!
[TOC adds: looks like this comment has been mischievously posted by the WordPress software in the wrong place. I am guessing it is meant to express agreement with the hope I expressed that the VPs would read what James wrote. For once, it seems, our wishes have come true!]
To clarify my ‘So do I!’, which appeared in the wrong place, I was echoing Tom’s remark that he hoped the VP guys would read James’s attack on their stance.
WordPress keeps its word. A request for notification of follow-up posts on a subject is honored indefinitely, it seems, so I was duly notified by email. Nick’s a much busier guy, so it’s less likely you’ll hear from him.
Pleased to hear it.
Really? Anything particular, or is that under wraps? Or perhaps I should ask why you have idle hands, leaving yourself prey to doing the Devil’s work!
If he were busy I doubt he’d be doing anything less ‘diabolical’.
Yeah, I agree with BJ’s cogent analysis. He puts it succinctly. I know from my own experience that kids can and do negotiate sexual relationships with adults. Read “The Child Lovers”, the report by Wilson & Cox – the boys in that study were well up on what was going on in the relationship and had no trouble holding their own. It seems to me that these concessions, just like the anti’s, treat children with patronising contempt, assuming that they aren’t mature or bright enough to get the picture.
Not sure what is meant here. As the title suggests, the study was of child lovers i.e. adult MAPs, so any reference to their relationships would have been through the opinions of the grown-up. Perhaps you really meant to cite a different study? Sandfort, perhaps?
I am late to the party here, just saw a link on BC. Many of the comments hit the mark clearly, so I have little to add except: I have quite a bit of long-term anecdotal evidence to support the “fact” that young boys (I am talking 10 to 13 here) can and do consent to a full relationship with an adult. They are quite capable of “negotiating” the sex part as equals or more!
The VP rants seem to reek of what I can only call “sour grapes”. Since they can’t get laid they don’t want anyone else to, because… well, because. They are more virtuous in their “celibacy,” and what you are doing there Mister, well.. that’s always..well, almost always…well nearly always…well everyone thinks it’s always… harmful. So there. You better stop it right now or you won’t get a gold star. No, stop it… I’m gonna tell Momma even if both of you enjoy it.
The party’s still going strong, BJ, so welcome, although you’ll have to bring you own beer!
Just one comment, because I really need to go to bed…just as I did, prior to getting consumed by several posts on this blog [and their comments]…
You know…I am not opposed to VP doing their own thing…but I have just got to take exception, whenever anybody [especially amongst “our own kind”] sums up the roots of this movement as “fifty years of no success”…
As to the “fifty years of failed activists”…
This may not seem like much…but I, for one, am grateful to those “failures”, and indebted for the “fifty years of failed wisdom” some of them have imparted upon me…giving me some meaning of not just personal identity…but self worth, and a vision of having a rightful place in this world.
If that is a “failure”…then I will consider it a privilege, to go set with “the failures”…
The “radicals” have done more for me on a personal level, than anybody else in any branch of this movement.
You can argue that maybe it hasn’t been much…But I would argue, it has meant everything, and it has been one of the most substantive enrichments of my life from any source at all…
As a recovering Baptist, who long ago left religion [and theism, also]…I would even rank what I gained from this movement, above whatever demonstrably good influences religion once might have brought into my life.
What I have today, is hope and a sense of self worth…In no small part, this is thanks to “the failures”.
For all the stones that are so, so, so easy to throw at these incredible people, who have lived as social and political punching bags much of their lives…there is so much more depth and wisdom, which they have given to the world…Those who don’t see it, are either blind or boldly in denial [and just because this may describe most of society, does not mean that we should side with them, in their ignorance and wrongfulness].
I don’t see taking the stand that they took, as being a failure…Even if you never get anywhere, or you even go down in a blaze…for the love of everything that is good and decent, somebody needs to stand up for unpopular truth when nobody else will.
So maybe it has been “fifty years” of spinning our wheels…but 200 years from now [500?…750?…1000?], when history is looking back on our long and storied struggle…and maybe even some of our writings, recordings and other productions have survived, in the record archives…I’d be willing to wager, that a substantial number of people will be grateful, to “the failures” who selflessly put themselves on the line, and kept the fight alive in pursuit of the better world future generations will be living in…even when “the failures” knew they had little hope, of seeing this new world themselves.
These “failures”, are the most true of heroes this movement has ever seen, or ever will see.
Even if that future vision sounds overly optimistic…I will still vouch for the success of these alleged “failures”. In my eyes, from my vantage point…they have been successful in one of the most meaningful of pursuits, known by all oppressed minorities…passing forward our own social identity, wisdom and history, so that it is not lost.
Encouraging thoughts. Many thanks!
Certainly!…and thank you, Tom!
Of course, I mean nothing against anyone pointing out the backlash, in the presence of our various organizations and outspoken people…But I do take strong exception, when anybody implies that it was all for naught…or that [as is too often the case], we would have been better off had these organizations never existed.
Of course there are trade offs, and they may be harsh…but I consider existence in bleak silence, without a chance of standing up for ourselves, to be the worst fate possible.
I have never felt so much elation and satisfaction, as I have when witnessing someone breaking that deafening silence, which all too often gets imposed upon us.
Without people having the guts, integrity [and yes, compassion] to do this…I, myself, would have remained ignorant, with regards to people like us in a much larger context.
…It never would have occurred to me, that things could [or should] be better for us.
I think, people who have done this largely thankless work, are some of the most true unsung heroes this planet has ever seen.
looking from a utilitarian viewpoint,supposing there was no christianity and no victim feminism,and sexual expression was free across the board,
including child adult sex,because the sexual element would not be a problem
i can imagine allot more adult child interaction regardless the weather theirs a sexual interest,and that alone is worth it to me.allot of non family members these days are seen as distant enemies.
i think more interaction between especially men and boys is important.
Greetings, my Utilitarian brother! Are you Total or Average? Hedonic or Preference? Act or Rule?
Here’s another angle on this that is consistent with the VP message:
All talk of sexual relationships assumes a willing child acting in concert with an adult in ways that will not cause future harm to the child. All decent pedophiles are deeply concerned with the welfare of children. I maintain that the rest of society is too. Pedophiles may feel a special connection, but it gives us about as much extra understanding of a child’s true nature as a teen boy has of a teen girl he is madly in love with: zero. Maybe less than zero.
Now, many pedophiles feel that society is misguided in its decisions about the welfare of children. A common view is that they need more autonomy. What I would urge you to do, if you have such views, is to participate in such discussions and work for change — but do it under a non-pedophile identity. This has important advantages. An obvious one is that no one will think you hold your views for selfish reasons, so your words will carry more weight. Another is that the very presence of the word “pedophile” in a discussion tends to cloud thinking. The issue is the welfare of children, so it’s best to keep focused on that. To the extent that discussions will benefit from examples of adult-child sexual relationships, let it be only the children (now grown) who speak. Remember that society too is in control of how it treats children after they have engaged in such activity, the realm of iatrogenic harm.
Society will naturally account for the possibility that some of those weighing in on the issue of children’s welfare might be closeted pedophiles, but it is a possibility they must take into account in any event.
That leaves the question of what our pedophile identities should tell society, having relegated whatever activism we care to bring to children’s welfare to our other selves. My plan is not any sort of secret, so we simply explain it. We say that questions about the right and wrong of adult-child sexual activity depend overwhelmingly on what is best for children, that we bring no special knowledge to the table about that, and we leave it to non-pedophiles to consider, research, and debate the topic.
At the moment, of course, society’s view is that adult-child sexual activity is very wrong. Whatever our personal instincts might be, we defer to society’s judgment. We give up any schemes, plans or hopes for adult-child sex being OK, and we are of course committed to never engaging in such activity. A reasonable summary of our emotional outlook is, “Adult-child sexual activity is wrong and always will be.”
Now, if to our enormous surprise, in some future the rest of society seems to be uniting around a consensus that adult-child sexual activity is OK under certain circumstances, we could reconsider. But having recognized that theoretical possibility, we put it out of our minds and out of our hearts.
We are now all celibate pedophiles who are content or at least resigned to our condition. We have ceded to society the judgments about how children’s minds work and what is good for them. But we do not cede to society the judgments about how our minds work and what is good for us. We introduce ourselves to the mental health profession, showing them the law-abiding, well adjusted pedophiles that practitioners and their teachers may have never met before. We show them by example what would constitute good outcomes for troubled pedophiles in their care. We serve the same function directly for pedophiles not in their care. We collaborate with scientists in investigating the real risk factors that could lead a pedophile to abuse a child, to strike the right balance between the freedoms all people are entitled to against caution when there is a high risk. This would definitely include working for the elimination of mandated reporter laws based on future possibilities rather than past actions.
I anticipate resistance to this view among pedophiles. To analyze one source of it, I’d like to look at what the function is of online “pro-contact” talk among pedophiles, for instance on GirlChat and BoyChat. In theory there is interest in outreach to change society, but I see little of this in practice. Instead it serves to unite a community of pedophiles with particular attributes: They are indignant and wronged, and believe that they have a unique understanding of children and would be able to have wonderful sexual relationships with them if only the bad guys — meaning the vast majority of society — didn’t hold their ridiculous views. This serves to bind the community together, but it has disadvantages. When the content of the discussions is distilled for the general public, the take-home message is that such pedophiles are deluded and angry and most definitely not reaching out for compromise or common ground. I also do not think it is good for the pedophiles themselves. The familiar prayer asks for “serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.” Given a sober view of the chances of change, such communities are failing miserably in encouraging the serenity which is appropriate in this situation.
I laid out above an activist agenda for celibate pedophiles. But when it comes to coming together for our own needs, what does an online community of celibate pedophiles look like? Must we all hate our desires if not our very selves? Not at all. Remember, we did not cede to society the right to judge how our minds work or what is good for us. The way remains open to appreciating the beauty of children and sharing how they make us feel. The way remains open for community discussion of private sexual fantasies. The way remains open to discuss non-sexual friendships with children. But all such discussions carry the implicit or explicit message that the sexual parts of these fantasies must remain just fantasies.
The fact that these topics are still open does not mean that all pedophiles will choose to engage them. If they can overcome self-hatred on the one hand and on the other accept with serenity that celibacy is their lifelong condition, many may choose a different path. They might focus more of their attention on all those other aspects of life that are unrelated to their attraction to children.
[TOC adds: Enough already! A period of silence from you will now be very welcome.]
“Now, if to our enormous surprise, in some future the rest of society seems to be uniting around a consensus that adult-child sexual activity is OK under certain circumstances, we could reconsider. But having recognized that theoretical possibility, we put it out of our minds and out of our hearts”.
This contradicts your principle that “adult-child sexual activity is wrong and always will be”. To me, it seems that you have no ideals to fight for other than those that meet the majority’s approval. In other words, you make a virtue of necessity.
I agree with this. If you concede that society might change its mind and that if it did you might go along with it, then it can’t be correct to summarise your position by saying ‘It’s wrong and always will be’. That is at best misleading and at worst dishonest. The only way to avoid that conclusion is if you think it SO unlikely that society will change its mind that the possibility can be overlooked in practice. But that is unjustified. If–to take the most obvious example–the situation in the Netherlands in the 70’s could occur once within living memory, then it can occur again even in the not too distant future. I know it seems unlikely at the moment, but no doubt the same thing would have seemed practically inconceivable in 1950’s Holland.
What VP OUGHT to say is something like:’At present, we should consider child-adult sex to be wrong, but it is possible that in the future we may have to reconsider this.’ Not a million miles away from what most ‘Heretics’ would say, I suspect. And note that B4U-ACT–which VP was so unhappy with–doesn’t even go as far as this, preferring instead not to adopt a position on the issue apart from urging conformity to current laws. This, I suggest, is the best stance for MAPs seeking to influence the general public in their favour.
“’At present, we should consider child-adult sex to be wrong, but it is possible that in the future we may have to reconsider this.’”
That’s too wishy-washy to earn you any political capital. It’s all or nothing. It seems to me to VP is playing a game of Realpolitik.
To expand: ‘At present we should consider child-adult sex wrong because it is illegal and contrary to a taboo which at present is too powerful to allow safe violations, but in the future, when laws may be different and the taboo weaker or non-existent, it may not be wrong’.
Better. Good enough for people who think sanely about policy/politics. However, realistically, how many people do think sanely about policy/politics? VP has realised that to win mainstream allies one must publicly castigate oneself in the strongest possible terms, whether you believe them or not. Only by crawling on your knees shall you enter Mordor. Sauron will never see you coming.
(To clarify: I do believe that Ethan and Nick honestly believe Child-Adult Sex is wrong. They probably believe this at least as strongly as Christians believe they will go to paradise when they die. However, it’s also true that people are amazingly good at strongly believing politically advantageous things: behold all the rich economic conservatives and working class economic progressives. And, of course, Christians wear seat belts….)
Although I have never put up a text on the internet that says I support sexual contacts between adults and the young I read comments from those in the VP group as positioning me as a pro-contact author of online texts. I think the issue is not what I have written but how I have stated things, and I think now is a useful time to restate my concerns.
I have worked as a Family Therapist, and this allows me to see into that world of helpers who at the moment are ideologically driven to position the minor attracted person as dangerous and bad, as well as remain silent on any actual evidence they encounter that the young have views that are different from what some adults claim are the needs of the young. I in no way wish to support the idea that sexual abuse does not happen; I do want to say a good part of the experience of the young who have sexual relations with older friends and contacts is kept from the public eye.
Where the VP position is weakest in my view is how they not only claim it politically sound to promote a message that says no sex with children and older people in this climate, they also seem to say this will always be so, and should have been the case if we go back in time. This view is cross cultural and ‘eternal’ for them, and this reading of their text is the kind of reading I think James is adopting.
Currently my concern is not sexual relations across generations; my interest is the quality of life for the minor attracted person. I see the VP message as fundamentally damaging to the sexual health of the minor attracted person. I agree with a group of sexologists who talk of minor attraction as a sexual orientation, not a condition to be managed or cured.
I have no doubt the current social attitude and actions that punish and harm many is not going to go away any time soon; I do write knowingly as if what we have now is not forever. Change will not be a return to some past position, it will be the out-workings of what has always happened, all of us wrestle with what is, and what is shifts.
Some may know of the site where I post my views on this at a slow and continuing pace – http://takearisknz.wordpress.com/
“it gives us about as much extra understanding of a child’s true nature as a teen boy has of a teen girl he is madly in love with: zero.”
Maybe it’s my inner scientist speaking but I can’t imagine loving someone and not being motivated to learn more about them. Particularly how they think.
“let it be only the children (now grown) who speak.”
Firstly, what happens to us before we’re grown?
Secondly, I get where you’re coming from, but my engagements with the Social Justice Movement have left me with a strong aversion to all talk of who should and shouldn’t be allowed to speak about XYZ. I say this as an autistic, too-often-mistaken-for-male black Feminist.
“we leave it to non-pedophiles to consider, research, and debate the topic.”
Why can’t everyone “consider, research, and debate the topic”? It’s not like you bring any special handicap either.
“we defer to society’s judgment.”
So, depending on when you were born, you’d say it’s perfectly fine and dandy to kill infidels, witches and homosexuals? Do you really not see the problem here?
“We have ceded to society the judgments about how children’s minds work and what is good for them. But we do not cede to society the judgments about how our minds work and what is good for us. “
Why do you give society free reign with children but not yourselves? You seem to value self determination for yourself, why throw us to the wolves?
“strike the right balance between the freedoms all people are entitled to against caution when there is a high risk.”
As a Utilitarian, I strongly agree with the importance of managing risk. However, on what basis do you judge “high risk”? Citation Needed
“I’d like to look at what the function is of online “pro-contact” talk among pedophiles, for instance on GirlChat and BoyChat. In theory there is interest in outreach to change society, but I see little of this in practice. Instead it serves to unite a community of pedophiles”
And thus the one reinvents Politics As Signaling. You really need to read Robin Hanson.
I can’t imagine loving someone and not being motivated to learn more about them. Particularly how they think.
The motivation is there, but that is very different from the dispassionate insight separated out from one’s self-interest.
So, depending on when you were born, you’d say it’s perfectly fine and dandy to kill infidels, witches and homosexuals? Do you really not see the problem here? … Why do you give society free reign with children but not yourselves? You seem to value self determination for yourself, why throw us to the wolves?
What makes the situation different is that we pedophiles appear to have a reason that is separate from other people’s — and a reason most people revile. A rough parallel would be controversy about easing US immigration policies and harassing illegal immigrants less. Lots of people support that from the point of view of the immigrants. However, agribusiness would support it from the point of view of wanting cheap labor to keep their profits up. And indeed, agribusiness keeps a low profile on the issue. I’m not saying they do it out of a sense of ethics rather than self-interest, but if they were guided by a sense of ethics they might.
And let’s also keep some perspective on what “throwing you to the wolves” means here. It means restricting your choice of sexual partners for a couple years — and not even that, really. Just refusing to hold legally harmless adults who might agree to be your partners. A member of a reviled group about to be burned at the stake might resent the comparison.
“The motivation is there, but that is very different from the dispassionate insight separated out from one’s self-interest.”
Which, of course, is why Martin Luther King was white. As I’ve already stated, activism is not perfectly altruistic. There is need for people sufficiently motivated to make a case and people sufficiently rational and dispassionate to judge it. You seem to be setting up “society” as the judge of this case, why do you want the pedos to unilaterally disarm their lawyers?
“However, agribusiness would support it from the point of view of wanting cheap labor to keep their profits up.”
I see no reason why agribusiness shouldn’t be allowed to plead its case. If it’s a good one, I’ll accept it; if it’s a bad one, I’ll reject it. To prejudge an argument based on who’s making it is to commit the Genetic Fallacy. Bear in mind that this isn’t called a ‘fallacy’ because it represents flawless reasoning.
Throwing us to the wolves means robbing us of self determination. The sexual restrictions are just one of myriad small injustices and restrictions. Small individually – trivial, even – but great in aggregate. From political representation, to control in our education, to continuous surveillance – we’re constantly hounded. We may not be driven to pick cotton and cut sugarcane but we are certainly not free.
The true Utilitarian does not look at a problem and shrug, saying: “It’s trivial! The harm is so small!” The Utilitarian slays evil wherever ever it rears its ugly head. There is no ‘balance’ of good and evil. There is no small, acceptable evil. When good and evil fight the good should win. And if evil returns? Stomp it back down.
why do you want the pedos to unilaterally disarm their lawyers?
This shows a perspective on this whole issue that is very different from mine. These are actual political questions in a messy society, not some abstract intellectual exercise. Pedos might hire lawyers for kids secretly, but to represent themselves? On this issue? A losing proposition from every perspective.
From political representation, to control in our education, to continuous surveillance – we’re constantly hounded. … we are certainly not free.
There’s no reason all these issues have to be lumped together. All I’m suggesting is one rather small limitation that you admit is not in the top 50 youth concerns.
The true Utilitarian does not look at a problem and shrug, saying: “It’s trivial! The harm is so small!” The Utilitarian slays evil wherever ever it rears its ugly head. There is no ‘balance’ of good and evil. There is no small, acceptable evil. When good and evil fight the good should win. And if evil returns? Stomp it back down.
Utilitarianism has many varieties, but I don’t think that formulation sounds very much like any utilitarianism I’ve heard of. Good and evil? Utilitarianism? “That harm is small enough we can ignore it” is spot on for the spirit of utilitarianism. Throw the one guy in front of the train to save the other five, right?
“but to represent themselves? On this issue? A losing proposition from every perspective.”
Homosexuals represented themselves despite being reviled about as much. Your position seems to be that ‘society’ wont listen to pedos at all. This seems to be an empirical question rather than one of values. However, isn’t your explicit goal to make sure people don’t automatically hate pedos? Wouldn’t that end be conducive to them being listened to? You also seem to vastly overestimate the extent to which children would be listened to.
“Good” is Utility; “evil is Disutility. Utility is variously defined but all forms of Utilitarianism include suffering as a form of disutility. The Utilitarian goal is to optimise everything until there is no more disutility. The choice to switch on the Trolley Problem is meant to reduce disutility from 5 deaths to 1. This does not mean one death is trivial, it means that is the greatest possible reduction. In every sphere where disutility can be reduced it should be reduced. No exceptions. If you have to choose between putting a dust speck in one person’s eye and not doing so, you shouldn’t do it. Even the most trivial disutility is disutility and must be optimised away. The AoC, as it currently stands, is sufficiently suboptimal that it is producing disutility. It must be optimised.
Bravo!
Homosexuals represented themselves despite being reviled about as much.
Pedophiles should represent themselves on matters such as getting mental health care, sharply limiting the scope of mandated reporter laws, not facing discrimination, etc. But homosexuals never (except possibly as a sidelight) asked for the right to have sex with children. You have a chance of arguing children should have the right to have sex with whoever they want, but not the right of pedophiles to have sex with kids who seem willing. Sure, individual pedophiles have the RIGHT to ask for whatever they want, but I think that one is morally wrong and politically harmful.
The AoC, as it currently stands, is sufficiently suboptimal that it is producing disutility.
My contention is that the deterrence of indisputable rape and coercion is removing far more disutility than the disutility of restricting adolescents’ sexual choices a teeny bit. If there’s a way of disentangling them I’m all ears.
First I’ve heard of it. You and Nick have always seemed absolutely deaf to any proposals.
The homosexual lobby at present want to make a clean and forceful break between those adults who are minor attracted and themselves. This is the same as the heterosexual lobby, they see the minor attracted person as the pervert and not like them. The position is about keeping a ‘clean’ profile, and in my view is deeply artificial.
Sexual orientation as a category inside the talk of sexual identity may well be a valid idea, and I use it myself, however at the same time this message of ‘not us’ by the homosexual adult and the heterosexual is really denial of what desire can include for them.
Of course a good many of the adults I want to challenge in these two groups will argue the young person is 12 or older, and yes there do seem to be ways of talking that group desire for some and not others, but my concern remains the inhuman treatment of the minor attracted person. What is being done now in my society I see as deeply dishonest.
The comments have become thin so I’ve moved my response here.
“But homosexuals never (except possibly as a sidelight) asked for the right to have sex with children.”
You’re avoiding the main issue: homosexuals had to fight for the right to have sex with each other. That is the right that was being denied. Have you conveniently forgotten how recently people reacted to the idea of two men have sex with each other with the same violence with which they respond to the idea of adult-child sex?
“You have a chance of arguing children should have the right to have sex with whoever they want, but not the right of pedophiles to have sex with kids who seem willing.”
What, exactly, is the difference? One is the natural reciprocal of the other. Plus, I’m just loving the way you say ‘seem willing’! Is there anything to go on other than appearances? When adults have sex do they see into each other’s souls and read each other’s minds to establish, with P=1, that they’re willing? I’d say the standard of consent is a verbal “yes” in the absence of coercion or excessive intoxication.
“My contention is that the deterrence of indisputable rape and coercion is removing far more disutility than the disutility of restricting adolescents’ sexual choices a teeny bit.”
Just wondering: are you aware that we have laws in place designed to protect adults from rape and coercion? Those laws exist, fully formed, out in the wild. Would it really be so outrageous to extend a similar (possibly more rigorous) system a few years down?
“If there’s a way of disentangling them I’m all ears.”
PIE had a few proposals. I’m sure Tom can give you the link.
Also: as far as I know you’ve never taken issue with the fact that adults are in the business of legislating on child safety. Why is it that adults are allowed to make decisions for us regarding safety but not sex? Since you’re so in favour of letting us handle our own intergenerational-sex activism, why are you letting grownups write the laws on how high a slide can be? Surely if our voice is essential to one it’s essential to the other.
Rind:
“We neither stated nor implied that CSA might be positive for willing children, as “positive” in this context connotes beneficial.”
It seems your interpretation of Rinds statement is wrong, Nick. Rind never stated nor implied that CSA is beneficial, just because his meta-analysis never claimed to even analyse beneficials of CSA. (In the same way his meta-analysis also made no claim about the non-existance of climate-change. This doesn’t mean you can conclude on or the other)
The meta-analysis was about harm and subjective rating – not about health beneficials or whatever.
And you made a wrong “argumentum e contrario” out of it, making it seem like Rind makes such a blanket claim like you do, which he does not.
On what we say to reporters on harm, we simply say that we are opposed to adult-child sex because many children have been hurt as a result of such conduct. This is consistent with what leading sexologists tell us. The question of whether the harm is due to intrinsic factors, as opposed to iatrogenic factors, has never come up. If it did, we would probably refer the reporter to the experts. Personally I don’t view the distinction as important in reference to the pedophile’s conduct–harm is harm. We do believe that children should be treated in ways to reduce iatrogenic harm.
I was recently made aware that sometimes my comments in relation to harm are too emotive and can lead readers to believe that adult child sex is always devastating to the child, which I do not believe. My discussion of the Gordon Stuckless case is an example of this. I will be more circumspect in the future, simply saying that many children have been harmed and leave it at that.
“we are opposed to adult-child sex because many children have been hurt as a result of such conduct.”
Many more children have been hurt by car accidents. Should we ban cars? This argument only makes sense with solid numbers and cost-benefit analysis.
I’ll have to respond to comments in traunches as there have been a lot of them and I’m having troublle submitting lengthy comments. On the question of harm, we state: “[O]ur understanding from leading sexologists is that it is not as harmful as is generally believed and is not harmful in all cases. It is, however, harmful in many cases, sometimes severely so.”
This is consistent with what leading sexologisists say, including those who are familiar with all the literature and are generally sympathetic to pedophiles such as Mike Bailey and Jesse Berring. Even Dr. Rind, in a 62 page response to critics published in Sexuality and Culture, stated: “We neither stated nor implied that CSA might be positive for willing children, as “positive” in this context connotes beneficial.”
[TOC adds: Nick, you wrote, “I’ll have to respond to comments in traunches.” I would point out that you have already been given a much lengthier piece than the space taken by the responses so far. I am not going to allow an endless war of attrition on this or attempts to buttress points with slight variations on what has been said before. The time I can spend on this as moderator is not infinite.]
THIS COMMENT IS FROM “FRED”, WHO HAS BEEN EXPERIENCING A HITCH WITH WS SOFTWARE, HENCE POSTED BY TOC:
Speaking of adult-child sex, you wrote: “our understanding from leading sexologists is that it is not as harmful as is generally believed and is not harmful in all cases. It is, however, harmful in many cases, sometimes severely so. The problem from the pedophile’s perspective is that he can’t know ahead of time which cases will result in harm.”
What we know from the definitive study on child sex abuse published by the American Psychological Association in its most prestigious journal, i.e., the Rind et al meta-analysis, is that in a majority of cases involving boys, outcomes ranged from neutral to positive. You fail to consider the harm you are causing by preventing positive outcomes, i.e., you are only seeing the harm you choose to see.
Also, it is not true that one cannot know which cases will result in harm. These outcomes are not random. Those that result in harm are fairly consistently those in which force or coercion is used. Sure, some who thought well of their experience were later brainwashed into believing they’d been harmed, but most people don’t doubt their own experience and so are not so susceptible to such tactics and are thus relatively rare.
You guys know this already, but for some reason refuse to incorporate it into your ethos. This phony harm argument is responsible for my endorsement being lukewarm at best; furthermore, it is absolutely unnecessary to advocating that people abide by the law. This is the reason why many MAPs find B4U-ACT’s approach palatable but not yours.
Related to this likely is that I do not share your pessimism about change. Keyword there is the “foreseeable” future. Most of the future has always been unforeseeable. I could certainly understand how a follower with a similar outlook to yours might despair and even become suicidal, so in that sense VirPed contributes to our woes. That outlook is not a healthy one for us.
“Those that result in harm are fairly consistently those in which force or coercion is used.”
I don’t think that’s correct.
Many cases that reach the courts report severe secondary harm to boys who’ve been sexually involved with men in the context of a friendship or romance.
These harms include iatrogenic effects but are also a consequence of the child’s internalization of negative social attitudes such as homophobic bullying by peers and disgust and anxiety expressed by other adults in response to manifestations of the child’s sexuality.
This internalization usually (but not always) begins when a paedophilic relationship is discovered and prosecuted. The boy, who’s intimate life has become public property, is mortified that ‘everybody knows’ and is terrified that he might be ‘gay’. His shame and embarrassment easily descend into social withdrawal, depression and occasionally suicide.
The capacity of society to turn a benign sexual experience into a nightmare is real and it must be factored in to any evaluation of the ethics of adult/child sex. It may not be the ‘fault’ of the older partner that society responds the way it does, but it is his responsibility to take this response into account in his dealings with children. Under current social conditions, almost any adult sexual activity with a child would have to be considered highly problematic.
The dynamics are somewhat different for men involved with girls but the principle holds. While I agree that a fundamental distinction ought to be drawn between sadistic and affective paedophilia (ie, between coercive and mutual relationships), secondary negative effects impacting on mutual relationships cannot be underestimated or discounted simply because they are beyond the immediate influence of the older partner.
I am in agreement with what you argue for here Sean. At present there is a difference between life in a Western country like American, England, New Zealand, and societies and cultures where the harmful outcomes because of ‘discovery’ of consentual sexual contacts is much less violent and harmful for the adult and the youth/child. Of course one is aware how some from these Western countries are travelling to other places to make these foreign spaces just like the West.
This idea of harm that springs from the policies and actions of the child protection lobby is well known, an author on this issue is Judith Levine (see here book: Harmful to Minors). Is there a need perhaps to add more support to Levine and others and stress how the harm to children is serious?
So you don’t think my assertion is correct, and your evidence is anecdotal court cases? You haven’t cited any, and in the many cases I have seen, and unless some sort of financial settlement were at stake, there were very few if any of harm to boys who’ve been sexually involved with men in the context of a friendship or romance.
I prefer science over anecdote: from King et al, The British Journal of Psychiatry (2002) 181: 153-157 doi: 10.1192/bjp.181.2.153
“‘consensual’ sexual experiences in childhood were associated with fewer psychiatric disorders than child sexual abuse.”
From: The Effects of Early Sexual Experiences: A review and Synthesis of Research
by Larry L. Constantine (from Children and Sex – Constantine & Martinson (eds) Little, Brown, Boston, 1981
“the evidence is generally consistent that the presence of force and/or coercion is associated with the more negative outcomes and its absence with the more positive ones. In the study by Symonds et al. those who fared worst were those subjected to brutality, humiliation, and so-called discipline.”
‘Incorrect’ was the wrong word and your claim is probably borne out by available statistics. If data was the plural of anecdote, I’d have plenty, but I don’t. I do have large numbers of court reports but I can’t even provide refs right now sorry. Most are clippings from local papers and involve school male teachers and boys between about 8 and 13, detailing affective sexual relationships. They show a consistent pattern of the younger partner suffering psychological trauma in the aftermath of discovery and intervention.
This trauma may well be entirely the product of the intervention itself. It is certainly a product of social factors. It is also relatively predictable. It may be mild, but sometimes it isn’t. Many of these cases report an apparently genuine love between the older and younger partner, and I think these secondary effects are an important exception to the ‘rule’ that coercive contacts are harmful and willing ones are not. Simply being kind and empathetic does not guarantee a protection against harm.
In a perfect world, it might, but this world isn’t perfect.
Sean, I think this piece of writing is very helpful to a person who is minor attracted. It shows him that even a kind positive relationship is not immune to the problem of pain in human suffering. It also shows how dangerous and harmful the court process can be for the young.
One comment I will make that is an opinion. In a court situation it is standard for the claim to be made that what has happened has been deeply traumatic and damaging. The actual facts that form the basis for the statement may be weak or even absent, however it will not be challenged.
===
sean: “There are many good reasons why adults should not be sexually involved with children”
peterloudon: “Sean, would you care to expand on those reasons, or perhaps provide a list?”
===
Nothing revolutionary Peter, basically: children are vulnerable to sexual exploitation and their emerging sexuality is fragile. Sexual conduct is located around openings in the body, which are sites of some psychological and physical risk. Ideas of safety and physical integrity are rooted in personal comfort with, ownership of and ability to protect these sites.
Sex is a kind of mutual objectification and use of another’s body, so depends on a negotiation to establish this mutuality. Children are, by default, in a subservient relationship to adult authority and are also sexual novices, which makes full negotiation problematic.
Any adult, regardless of actual relationship, is ‘in loco parentis’ to any child. Establishing a sexual relationship in this context is a role conflict, complicating the above negotiation and also the parental functions. Children are encouraged to follow the instructions of adults for their own safety and wellbeing, and are ill equipped to detect when instructions are directed to some other end.
Adult sexuality is typically orgasm focused, unfolding in a sequence of powerful and instinctive behavioural patterns. Adult arousal is a kind of dissociative or fugue state, where self awareness, empathy and foresight can be compromised in favour of direct goals and rewards. In contrast, child sexuality is exploratory play, without goal or purpose. It seems to me that these modes are incompatible; that the child’s interests are easily swamped by the adult agenda.
Nevertheless, most people accept that exploration enrich and should be part of adult erotic life. A childlike way of relating to the world is considered a gift, and it seems to be a common aspect of paedophilia. There is something about meeting with a child on her own terms that is deeply rewarding for both parties. Perhaps this applies to sex as much it does to other spheres of life, and perhaps when an adult truly does meet with a child on level ground, meaningful negotiation (ie, meaningful ‘consent’) is possible.
So my objections, while categorical, are not without counter examples or arguments. I suspect that children are sheltered from adult sexuality for their own protection, but I also know that social control of emerging sexuality is one of the tap roots of authoritarianism. I don’t really know what the consequence would be if prohibitions against adult sexual conduct with children were relaxed but, in the context of our current culture, I suspect they would be negative.
Perhaps humans will evolve to the point where we can pleasure one another according to mutual expressions of interest and desire, but I don’t think we’re there yet. Nevertheless, most people accept that exploration [and play] enrich and should be part of adult erotic life.
[TOC adds: Sorry for delay in approving this post and several others. I have been experiencing technical problems.]
Sean, again I take a genuine interest in what you offer. You have formed two groups here – the adult and the child. I wonder, is it valid or does it fit what we know already to place in separate, well-defined categories, the sexuality of those who are involved in the exchanges we are discussing. Notice we are considering two profiles, first the minor-attracted individual and this can be a young person, and also that portion of the younger grouping whose interests are dirrected upward, rather than inside their own age grouping. It is note-worthy how the interests of the younger person is often left out of a discussion as if it is only the older person who is of interest. (Sean I see in your text an interest in seeing the situation through the eyes of the young, my comment is not a criticism of what you offer, merely my observation of how this topic is often framed.)
Is it possible to look at the life practices and experiences of a group such as the minor attracted person in order to shed light on this? Is it helpful, as another way of asking this question, to look at the ‘non-sexual’ aspects of a minor attracted person’s life to see how play rather than goal-centered interests are part of who the person is. If it can be seen that the minor-attracted person has allowed the play and child aspects of who they are to blend inside adult life and have been, perhaps, better at keeping the authoritorian aspects of adult life at a distance, then social concerns about the inter-action between some adults and children/youths can be reduced.
Note how this position diverges from that of VirPed, who seem to be simply repeating a dogma of harm.
There are many good reasons why adults should not be sexually involved with children, but none of them support a blanket, categorical prohibition based on either a certainty of harm or an absence of benefit.
So far as I am concerned, there are contingencies and shades of gray in this question as in any other involving the complexity of the human heart.
“There are many good reasons why adults should not be sexually involved with children”
Sean, would you care to expand on those reasons, or perhaps provide a list?
(I agree with Peterhoo – your posts make for interesting reading.)
ps: It’s also worth noting that my sample of anecdotes is a forensic one. The secondary effects I describe may be absent from adult/child relationships that never come to light, but that can’t be taken for granted. As I recall, the Rind study is based on a random sample of college students, so perhaps that’s more reliable.
Another case in my clipping file records boys being deeply traumatized by the suicide of their ‘abuser’, which is another perspective to consider. These boys apparently loved the man who hot tubbed and played masturbation games with them, remaining loyal to him despite his being charged with their ‘abuse’.
I’d say his suicide was thoughtless but understandable.
Reblogged this on The SRP.
If the “Virtuous Pedophiles” had been sincere in not wanting to sound holier-than-thou, there is a multitude of names they could have chosen without implying celibacy, eg. “Abstaining Pedophiles”, “Refraining Pedophiles”, “Law-abiding Pedophiles”, etc. etc.
“Why is it that only procontact activist pedophiles argue that children should have the right to have sex with adults?”
Are Virtuous Pedophiles so ignorant of history that they think the suffragettes were men and Martin Luther King a Caucasian? Most people have never even considered how a child might benefit from a love affair with an adult, and most of the remainder would not dare to speak out against society’s view for fear of falling under suspicion. This is integral to the success of every witch-hunt. What I find so contemptible about Virtuous Pedophiles is that they are equipped with the natural motivation both to examine the child abuse lobby’s propaganda critically enough to see through it and to inform themselves enough of the broad sweep of history to realize that it is just our present society that is aberrant, and yet they are too sheepish to do so.
“Any pedophile who believes that adult-child sex is wrong today because of iatrogenic factors has already put their cause at the mercy of society.”
Ethan constantly tries to trivialize the difference between resistance and collaboration by asserting that everyone here anyway refrains from sex with children because they know it is wrong as long as the law says so. I say this is intellectual blackmail and I challenge it. There are many who refrain because they think it would be unwise to break a draconian law rather than wrong to break an unjust one. That is precisely why the law is so brutal. Moreover, the ploy of Virtuous Pedophiles to win over the public won’t work because most people are much happier with a cat that’s too frightened to eat a sparrow than with one that claims to know it would be wrong to.
Thanks for the article.
Where do i even begin?
Let’s begin at the very end, shall we?
“We would never suggest that those of you who disagree with us should pretend you agree.”
Well, i don’t need to. Because – you are already doing it for us. I mean: Come on? I don’t really buy it. Again… it seems to me you think and know … deep down …. that there are totally harmless sexual encounters between adults and children, which is part of human nature, and penalizing this amounts to more damage and harm than allowing it could ever accomplish.
The only thing that motivates you to go another way is… well, i can quote like a million instances of this.
“The only way to get society to listen …”
“Their arguments have no traction with society at all”
” to the 90% or more of society who know very little about the issue”
So it basically comes down to this: ‘Society can’t be convinced, so let’s just have some beneficial surrogate, which puts us in a good light and at the same portrait us as kind, heroic and vIrtuous pedophiles.’
I don’t believe for a second you buy into the trauma myth. And it becomes apparent when reading this article.
You somehow try to carefully “walk the line” – to somehow be accepted by everyone you come across. It is not enough to suck up to society, you can’t even resist to be accepted by all other kinds of pedophile activists.
And this is why the part about your views about legalization and harm becomes insanely inconsistent and weird. Somehow you need to acknowledge harm… but at the same time concede it is not harmful “in all cases”.
Would you also concede this in an interview for the Huffington post (or whatever?).
Next time a newspaper writes an article about you. Please mention these parts:
“that it is not as harmful as is generally believed and is not harmful in all cases.”
“eliminating mandatory reporter rules, eliminating sex offender registries, eliminating civil commitment, eliminating laws prohibiting things like virtual porn and erotic fiction”
By the way: Your german virtuous friends would not even condede that. But then again: They gave up on trying to suck up to other pedophiles. They drew a line in the sand.
And i predict you will, too. And those “liberal” positions of yours will perish. Why? Because they don’t fulfill a function anymore. If other heretic pedophiles are not a target group of your marketing campaign anymore, these statements will become null and void. Time will tell.
Just ask yourselves: Would you write the same article or make the same claims in a guest article on a public newspaper? Or would you polish up some “details”?
At last i would like to say something about – as i like to call it: The homeopathy-argument.
“our understanding from leading sexologists is that it is not as harmful as is generally believed and is not harmful in all cases. It is, however, harmful in many cases, sometimes severely so. The problem from the pedophile’s perspective is that he can’t know ahead of time which cases will result in harm.”
My understanding is that homeopathy is not as effective as is generally believed and is not effective in all cases. It is, however, effective in many cases, sometimes severely so.
And as we all know the effect of homeopathy entirely rests on the placebo-effect.
And as you know we do only argue: The harm of child-adult-sex rests on iatrogenic harm or other confounding variables.
So i don’t really get this statement:
“The problem from the pedophile’s perspective is that he can’t know ahead of time which cases will result in harm. A child who seems to be enjoying sexual activity at the time may later internalize societal attitudes and severe harm could result”
This is exactly our point?! And i thought you were somehow stating that there is real INTRINSIC psychological harm in mutual child-adult-sex.
Are you or are you not? It is not very clear from this article.
“Taking the bigger picture, whatever the level of harm, there is very little benefit. ”
How would you even know? You just said that society contributes to iatrogenic harm. If removed, what would we be able to measure? What if society was to encourage sexualtiy more? Couldn’t this have the reverse effect? Wouldn’t this be better than misery, victimhood and a witch-hunt against pedophiles?
Look at it this way: child-adult-sex is part of human nature and it probably was from the beginning, seeing that our cousins the bonobos share a similar variety of sexuality. And you can’t just stop or remove this part of nature..
Removing stigma and penalization would relieve us all from this moral panic, iatrogenic victimhood and a witch-hunt and hate against pedophiles as a whole.
And this doesn’t even touch positive effects, you can only speculate on.
But you can make analogies. Just read studies about children who were allowed to have sexual experiences with their peers and those who were strictly prevented from having anything similar or even being sexuall repressed and pathologized.
What do you think you would find?
“But you might wish us well instead of despising us.”
My biggest problem is still the issue about how you portray pedophiles. And while doing so you switch one stereotype with another one, from the sadistic criminals to mentally sick, disordered, dangerous and unstable person or to the sad and poor little pedophile who needs compassion and social support.
Sadly you didn’t touch this subject in your article at all.
Lastly i am sorry for my poor english. While writing this comment i sometimes whished i could have said things more eloquently and more clear. And maybe i came across somewhat hostile – if so i’d like to apologize, since i am still and very much interested in a healthy debate.
Your English is excellent as it the thoughtful content of your comment. I was going to write a more extended comment, but mostly I would just be repeating your thoughts.
Social change never comes easy. Agents of change sometimes find themselves united on core issues with individuals who have very different perspectives on peripheral issues. Like VirPed, those of us associated with the iLoveChildren.us website see a huge difference between attraction and action. Desire is not the deed. It was refreshing when the (unedited) DSM-5 acknowledged that if a person has a pedophilic sexual orientation without any distress or action regarding it, they do not have pedophilic disorder. I have read many other publications in the past year that are sympathetic to the plight of those who are sexually attracted to children but choose not to act on that attraction.
For your group the position of ‘not acting’ would have to do with sex with a youth or child where they are under the age of consent for the country inside which the person lives. Have you developed a way of discussing sexuality where action expands into the whole series of acts a person engages in? I have in mind a whole range of behaviours that do not involve contact with a youth or a child, for example masturbation, viewing images, reading and writing texts, where the sexual desire of the person is integrated into the issue of how an individual lives a whole life and acknowledges their sexuality? I am interested in individuals and groups who promote the idea that sexual desire can be compartmentalized.
VirPed are somewhat justified in their stance that pretending to hold socially normative beliefs will make life a lot easier for a minor attracted person.
Unfortunately, this amounts to a significant contraction of what Noam Chomsky has called “the bounds of thinkable thought”. Such thought policing has seldom brought positive changes to society and there’s no reason to think it will bring any to the predicament of paedophiles in the 21st C.
It’s apparent that the worthy goal of ‘child protection’ readily devolves into a punitive, repressive, sex negative ideology that criminalizes and pathologizes not just sexual assault but normal childhood sexuality and sexual rehearsal. In fact, there is reason to believe that many ‘child protection’ initiatives are stalking horses for even more sinister authoritarian agendas, such as state assaults on free speech and increased domestic surveillance.
It’s difficult to see how subscribing uncritically to ‘sexual abuse dogma’ can increase the moral worth of a paedophile who is already blameless in his conduct and conforms scrupulously to social mores wrt children’s bodies. Surely personal conduct is the crucial issue here, not what a person might happen to believe. Adult sexual conduct with children covers a vast range of potential behaviours from child rape to sexual pedagogy to social learning among pubescents and adolescents. It is untenable to demand a single conforming position on these heterogenous cases.
Hence, I am agnostic on all questions of sexual contact between adults and children; it is simply too large a category to make categorical pronouncements on. However, I am quite clear in my position regarding my own conduct with children, in that I engage in no conduct that requires secrecy or disguised intentions. Sexual conduct is out of bounds by default, because social conditions make it so, and no further analysis is required for my personal decision making. I defer to the wishes of (in particular) the caregivers and guardians of children with whom I might associate.
However, nobody tells me what to think. I do my own research and make my own decisions. What’s more, I consider this a socially responsible habit.
What makes me uneasy about VirPed’s position is that it seems to _require_ certain beliefs. I believe this is a fatal step for any organization advocating for the rights and wellbeing of minor attracted people. Helping people is a worthwhile goal, but for that help to have any value at all, it must respect individual beliefs. Real help allows this stigmatized minority to cultivate self respect, not blind obedience to a cultural obsession.
Sean, a well written piece, I have enjoyed what you offer. It is note-worthy how good, thoughtful, responses sadly gain so little social acknowledgement and support when it comes to this issue of crafting a life as a minor-attracted person.
I suppose there’s also the feeling that VirPed are setting up a kind of scale of moral worth and putting themselves at a slightly higher level on it, on account of their position on the ethics of adult/child sexual conduct.
Ascribing moral value to particular beliefs is reasonable, but it’s problematic to extend that evaluation to those that hold those beliefs. A belief is not an act, a distinction articulated in law.
My arguments on this subject are my own, and are typically conservative. I generally argue against sexual conduct with children, but I draw the line well before a categorical condemnation. The reasons for this are rooted in my understandings of ethics, human biology and culture and the psychological development and wellbeing of children. In other words, I believe my refusal to concur with the VirPed position is ethically superior to theirs — yet I feel as if I am found ethically wanting for holding it.
This has not been the case when I’ve explained my arguments to friends, who may and usually do disagree with me, but do not condemn me.
Speaking of adult-child sex, you wrote: “our understanding from leading sexologists is that it is not as harmful as is generally believed and is not harmful in all cases. It is, however, harmful in many cases, sometimes severely so. The problem from the pedophile’s perspective is that he can’t know ahead of time which cases will result in harm.”
What we know from the definitive study on child sex abuse published by the American Psychological Association in its most prestigious journal, i.e., the Rind et al meta-analysis and related articles and later corroborated, is that in a majority of cases involving boys, outcomes ranged from neutral to positive. You fail to consider the harm you are causing by preventing positive outcomes, i.e., you are selective in the harm you see.
Also, it is not true that one cannot know which cases will result in harm. These outcomes are not random. Those that result in harm are fairly consistently those in which force or coercion was used. Sure, some who thought well of their experience were later brainwashed into believing they’d been harmed, but most people don’t doubt their own experience and so are not so susceptible to such tactics and are thus relatively rare.
You guys know this already, but for some reason refuse to incorporate it into your ethos. What keeps me from fully endorsing your organization is your support of this phony harm argument which is absolutely unnecessary to advocating that people abide by the law. This is the reason why many MAPs find B4U-ACT’s approach palatable but not yours.
Related to this likely is that I do not share your pessimism about change. Keyword there is the “foreseeable” future. Most of the future has always been unforeseeable. I could certainly understand how someone with your outlook might despair and even become suicidal, so in that sense you contribute to our woes. It is not a healthy one for us.
Peter, in terms of your comment about whether society will be accepting of people who have pedophilic feelings but do not act on those feelings, I direct you to the many articles referenced in our blog and on our web site. Surely not everyone will be accepting, but at least some will.
I have followed this issue in various online spaces, and I will check I am familiar with the items you refer to, however to date these messages of apparent shifts to increased understanding are far from the target I have regarding real change. The analysis of your group (VIrtuous Pedophiles) of the media items needs to be more realistic. Just like Catholicism, read the tolerance as more PR and less as real change and fundamental acceptance of whole people – with a person’s sexuality included inside an open gaze of acceptance and respect for the person.
The online presence of a text that shows debate is alive on the issue of minor-attraction, and indeed its paired human experience – the desire and attraction of the older by the younger, is welcome.
The comment is made in your text, “We felt that the main cause of this stigma was society’s conflating of paedophilic feelings with paedophilic actions”. I respectfully acknowledge you want to believe this, I just think you are wrong.
As a reader I do not read paedohilic actions as always abusive; others would not agree; your post on Tom’s site suggests you might agree with my position in part, if not in full. That effort to distinguish paedophilic feelings from paedophilic actions involves an illusion.
If one says the desire a person experiences will never be acted on where a youth or child is involved will this mean the stigma against the person with that desire will therefore fold? The Catholic church has had a similar PR message directed at the homosexual man and the lesbian, love the sinner and hate the sin, its a propaganda message that does not convince me the Catholic Church love, respect and accept the homosexual man or the lesbian. I think the same happens when a minor-attracted person sends everyone the message “I will not act”. Love, respect and acceptance from others does not follow, and is unlikely to because ideological constraints are very much in play.
There was a time in Russian politics when Stalin was its leader, there was another time when to be black was to be second class in America. Yes, political actions needed to be constructed that did not lead to the deaths of those who resisted such situations, and it is this strategy that appears to be similar with your virtuous paedophile group – change seems improbable, so work with what you have in front of you. What I do not see in the virtuous paedophile movement is an appreciation of the value of resistance, not because change is possible now, but because the dominant ideas/ideologies of the day are unjust and are themselves an engine for social harm.
Perhaps it could be argued I feel about the virtuous paedophile movement the same way that Socrates felt about the movements in Greece, groups that argued rhetoric is all that matters, win at all costs. Whatever the contributions of post-modernist philosophical views, there is a truth here about ourselves – we are all equal, we all deserve respect, and human sexuality is not merely about desire, it is about the ethic of living a good life – a person’s sexual profile is about actions that are sexual for the minor-attracted person, just as it is for all other sexualities.
My final point is about accountability. It seems grossly distorted to hold one person in a sexual encounter responsible for the future of their partner, especially where at the time of that meeting an analysis of how the exchange takes place involves consent and integrity. The youths and children who grow to regret and feel harmed by sexual relations with older people where there is no rape nor is there any harm experienced at the time, are being harmed by wider society, and/or the clinician/s and helpers they encounter later. To give that wider society a sense they will never be held to account for the harm they do, and then to make the adult involved fully responsible for those others is deeply unjust. I do not promote the sexual relations between children and youths and older people, however I do not gloss over this issue of accountability.
An excellent statement. I can think of nothing to add.
A few comments:
‘Laws and societal attitudes on adult-child sex are not going to change in the foreseeable future. ‘
… This could have been said about homosexual criminal laws or , more recently, sodomy laws. These changes were foreseeable to many who are still living.
‘In terms of our view of whether consensual sexual relations between children and adults are harmful, our understanding from leading sexologists is that it is not as harmful as is generally believed and is not harmful in all cases. It is, however, harmful in many cases, sometimes severely so. ‘
… You have been taken in by ‘the incest narrative’. As Boy Lovers, we are not discussing those types of relationships.
‘Very few people look back on their childhood sexual experiences with other adults as profoundly positive – the relationship may have been, but not the sexual aspects. A great many look back with great anguish.’
… I believe your statement is false and can provide a large number of accounts from those who would confirm the correctness of my belief. Again, you seem to be unable to think ‘outside of the box’ of the ‘incest narrative’.
‘why is it that only procontact activist pedophiles argue that children should have the right to have sex with adults? ‘
… This is a patently false statement.
‘ it should be apparent to everyone that there is no prospect for changing laws relating to adult-child sex in the foreseeable future’
… See above.
‘a common view is that all pedophiles rape crying and struggling children and get sadistic pleasure out of it.’
… THIS is the core of the ‘incest narrative’.
‘ People who do engage in sexual activity with children know better or should know better, ‘
… People should be educated in schools well enough so they can examine issues carefully, be aware of their own personal biases, and address the core issues. Wouldn’t you agree?
Randy
Thanks for posting this, Tom. With regard to the title, a parallel one might be “Virtuous House Cats Commit to Vegetarianism”. It is in the nature of house cats to eat sparrows and to want to eat sparrows, and humans accept this about house cats. If house cats achieved moral faculties and decided to swear off the birds, we might applaud them. I realize the analogy breaks down, in that no birds want to be eaten, and it is plausible that some children might be OK with sex with adults if society approved.
But the analogy of your title assumes that we are urging pedophiles to put themselves at the mercy of society instead of fighting. But there is no pedophile guerrilla insurgency, and we are mostly definitely not suggesting that pedophiles out themselves. Any pedophile who believes that adult-child sex is wrong today because of iatrogenic factors has already put their cause at the mercy of society.
“Any pedophile who believes that adult-child sex is wrong today because of iatrogenic factors has already put their cause at the mercy of society.”
There is a big difference between saying “we should not do this thing because it may cause harm due to environmental factors” and “the thing is bad and the environmental factors are A-OK”. The first lends itself to changing the environment. The second is sour grapes and the worship of the intractable.
Let those who worship evil’s might,
Beware my power: Green Lanterns’ light!