Am I my own worst enemy?
I don’t think so, if only because there are so many others!
All I can say with confidence is that Danny Whittaker, who runs a website called My Own Worst Enemy (MOWE), is definitely not the worst. For sure, he has shown himself to be sternly against child-adult sex, but after being interviewed by him as part of his regular podcast series on psychology and mental health, I would describe him as a respected opponent rather than an enemy of any kind.
That is because his interviewing style is fair and honest, which is more than can be said for most of the broadcasters and journalists who have had a go at me over the years. Nor did he selectively edit the recording so as to take things out of context as often happens, giving a distorted and unflattering impression. Instead, he has put our encounter out to the audience in completely unedited form. This is fine by me not least because I felt able to speak my mind without interruption and to present information it would otherwise have been very difficult or impossible to get across.
The result, I think, will be of interest to heretics here and to a much wider audience if it proves possible to attract their attention. So without further ado let me say I can highly recommend his Interview with a pedophile (British site but American spelling), which is available in audio-only at the website and on video at YouTube.
Be warned, though. Some people call us heretics monsters, but in this case the podcast itself is monstrous, a huge beast, a King Kong of a production! Danny’s introduction alone lasts nearly 40 minutes and the interview itself is about two and three quarter hours; so the entire show lasts almost a whopping three and a half hours! Early “critical acclaim” has been good, so this great length may not be as crazy as it seems.
I won’t say anymore about the interview. It’s best just to get stuck in. You may be thinking about skipping the long introduction, which would be OK, but I would also give this advice: if you like the interview you will love the introduction, or at least some its very unexpected highlights: one of them is on the Virtuous Pedophiles (see also second item below), a topic not discussed in the interview itself.
Actually, you might like to stick around on Danny’s site. One reason I agreed to do an interview with him is that I could see I would be in good company, as many of his other interviewees are people of some authority and distinction. Just to take a couple that caught my attention, there are John Cromby, a psychology professor at Leicester University, talking on power and responsibility, and Massimo Pigliucci, a professor of philosophy at the City University of New York, on Stoicism.
Danny’s “show notes”, as he calls them, are good too. This is where he introduces his guests and their subjects in written form. On the page about my interview, he presents a balanced view and gives links and references that I suggested. The direct links include Heretic TOC and two key sources of information on positively experienced child-adult sexual contacts, namely the compilations of personal testimonies produced by Marshall Burns in the Cases in the Research at his Consenting Juveniles website and Titus Rivas in his book Positive Memories.
Also on the page, via a button labelled “Tom’s recommended studies”, is a substantial list of mainly academic sources, which is both a resource for the reader and also backs up my claim that our heresies are well grounded in the research literature.
Finally, a word is in order about MOWE’s ingenious logo, the “o” of which takes the form of a snake eating its own tail. Looking this up, I discover it is a very old symbol, as I suspected. Called the ouroboros, this depiction of a “serpent” or “dragon” consuming itself apparently originated in ancient Egyptian iconography, entering the western tradition through Greek magical tradition and later associated with medieval alchemy. It is said to be often taken to symbolise introspection and personal re-creation, hence highly apt for Danny’s website.
It is also doubly relevant to my blog today, as will be seen from the tail-piece (yes, in both senses: it’s the final item and very much the tale of a tail!), which features some children and a snake in the most amazing wildlife (and that’s just the kids!) footage you will ever see, recently brought to my attention by a friend. I just had to share it.
VIRPED BACK IN BUSINESS
VirPed’s website is back up again.
I am not sure there is much point in saying this as few seem to have noticed it was down for at least a week earlier this month. Have I been missing something? Using Google Advanced Search for a domain-specific search of Boychat and Girlchat, I find no discussion of “Virped” or “Virtuous Pedophiles” in the last month, although I must admit this particular Google search tool seems to be a bit erratic.
Anyway, I was made aware on the 12th there had been a problem when someone mentioned it on Sexnet. Describing himself as “co-founder and co-owner of Virped”, Ethan Edwards replied to say there had been an announcement on the subject (possibly through email to members or on the “unaffected” peer-support forum). “Technical issues” had been cited. On Sexnet, Ethan said the account had been suspended because there had been DDoS attacks and these “were adversely affecting other customers on the same server”.
The DDoS problem seems to have been fixed by using Cloudflare, a company that specialises in DDoS mitigation. When you click on the virped.org link (not that anyone here would want to!) you have to wait a few seconds while Cloudflare somehow checks your browser and decides you are not part of a mass attack. Sounds like a company that might be worth remembering.
CHILDREN OF NATURE
Not a lot to say about this video (the top one of the two on the linked page). Just watch, and be amazed!
Update on the links in the text:
the website My Own Worst Enemy (MOWE) seems not functional anymore
(http://ww1.myownworstenemy.org/?subid1=5597e020-9633-11ec-b90a-b6beb335dc4b)
so the podcast Interview with a pedophile is not to be found there but here:
https://podtail.com/podcast/my-own-worst-enemy-psychology-philosophy-mental-he/-051-interview-with-a-pedophile-tom-o-carroll/
The interview as posted on Youtube could not be tracked (by me anyway)
The book Positive Memories by T. Rivas is no longer officially available (for fear of judicial consequences). It can be found in pirate internet book libraries.
Thanks, Frances, for this important info. I hope to find a moment this afternoon to fix these links.
Thanks, Frances.
I have now fixed the relevant links.
The archived audio version may ultimately become important if the YouTube version goes down. However, it is still viewable, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8SBM-yXULc&t=3955s
This link is already shown on Heretic TOC in the links column on the right-hand side of all pages, including the Home page. The interviewer in question, Danny Whittaker, changed his site from My Own Worst Enemy to Renegade Ape. You will see the link alphabetically under R for Renegade.
>The book Positive Memories by T. Rivas is no longer officially available (for fear of judicial consequences). It can be found in pirate internet book libraries.
Yes, I see it is here, at Yumpu: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/23484277/text-ipce/3
The author himself has clearly done all he can reasonably be expected to do to withdraw the text from circulation, so I do not feel he will have any legal trouble with the circulation via Yumpu or other non-approved sites. It is out of his hands.
I am confident this scholarly text is perfectly OK under UK and US law.
At some point in the interview (2:42:25), Danny raised the point that the only ones campaigning for child-adult sexual relationships are adult men, not children. I’d like to leave these testimonies of people below the age of consent telling what they think about the way society restricts their sexual rights (all of the videos have subtitles).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eTlPbNilPE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGy2aDalsac
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hDFoMAWPlU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_1AgkdDISk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_jSxLZak8E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0L17QGCw2k
Thanks very much for these links, Alice.
So far, I have only seen the first video. On this limited evidence, it looks as though you have made a valuable compilation.
In the comments section below the first video there is a comment in Spanish. Google has translated it as follows:
>13 year old girl argues about the injustices caused by the age of consent law. The original video was deleted after she suffered a series of insults and threats because of her opinion.
It is terrible, but unfortunately not surprising, that any young person speaking out faces the risk of being insulted and threatened. Is it any wonder that most of them keep quiet?
Maybe you could put into your blogroll the YouTube channel PensamentoCrítico from which these videos come: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyN4Ae9lennoxj-nk_VDdXA/videos
Just watched the video interview, interesting exchange of ideas!
Tom
I have read PIEs what looks like a manifesto i will re read it again and see what i think, by the way do you still have a full 1970s manifesto for other polices to keep both adults and children safe?
PIE’s views were expressed in various ways e.g. through magazines and a Q&A booklet on paedophilia. The organisation’s primary “mission statement”, though, was incorporated in its written Constitution. The leading points, such as commitment to reform aimed at legalising consensual child-adult sexual relations, also appeared on the membership application form, so new members would be fully aware of what they were supporting.
Tom
Do you have a link for PIEs Q and A on paedophillia so i can test myself?
There are no “right” answers, Daniel, so it isn’t like the answers at the end of a maths textbook to all the “exercises”. The booklet was meant to give people an introduction to some basic information, but time moves on and we might put things a bit differently if we were answering the same questions today.
I do not have a Dropbox link for the booklet, unfortunately, but one of the “antis”, Ian Pace, has put a facsimile of document on his website:
https://ianpace.wordpress.com/2014/02/27/pie-documentary-evidence-4-up-childhood-rights-and-paedophilia-some-questions-and-answers/
All readers
I know that its a separate issue (in a way) but do any heretics question the legality of seduction weather it be sexual or otherwise.
> “I know that its a separate issue (in a way) but do any heretics question the legality of seduction weather it be sexual or otherwise.”
Yes indeed, in fact I think every person on the fence of child sex not always being wrong and can be beneficial question the notion of sexual manipulation or seduction and how would it be dealt with in an environment that distinguishes rape & consensual sex with children legally. (If that is what your question is asking.)
Some argue for child molestation cases to be argued in a civil court, rather than the standard one. This court involves the parents testimonies, and the like to conclude whether or not some lucrative play is being shown to have happened in the relationship between said adult and child. If found out to be guilty, then the relationship ends and could land the adult with some jail time under the parent’s choice, or if found innocent, the relationship could keep going.
Some argue for a permissive approach to it, like being dealt with in a legal court (sorry if I said it wrong) and finding out from the child’s accounts on whether or not the relationship was abusive. This system was used in France until recently, since a petition made by the citizens to make an age of consent to 15 was made over a case that shows no abuse happened in a sexual encounter between an adult and 2 eleven year olds. Which just not only shows the stupidity of such people for fucking up a better system, but shows how people don’t give a rat’s ass about a child’s needs once it falls off their corrupted comfort barriers.
A few argue that the parents should allow the relationship to happen or not. I have a lot of problems with this, most notably that it is dictating a child’s life and not all parents exactly care what children want, also some are selective and there is a chance that our legal system might crumble from this due to their sheer laziness. (Our current one shows the laziness of law enforcement.)
Those are a few ideas, might be more but this is all I got.
” could land the adult with some jail time under the parent’s choice”
That sounds like a terrible idea; Parents have an interest in the child, and their bias or jealousy could blind them on the issue and call for harsher sentences.
“seduction”
If it’s underage, They just call it grooming, A sort of seduction pejorative!
Libertine and Purpledragon85
I remember hearing somewhere that seduction was once a criminal offence because of unhealthy reasons and weather or not it has at all crossed the mind of any heretics.
That wouldn’t surprise me; Started a book called ‘London’s Underworld’, bought it because they discuss child sexuality in Victorian times; crazy things were capital offences like cutting someones beer-hops. They made up for lack of law enforcement by mass executions. It’s funny how I just grabbed this book, opened it up and they’re discussing pubescent kids having sexual relations.
It’s been a great day for a hike Mr O’ Carroll.
>It’s been a great day for a hike Mr O’ Carroll.
Yes, and I’ll be going on one tomorrow: good weather is again forecast. Thank you for the thought, Mr Libertine!
Sounds good my the way libertine i like walking as well.
> If it’s underage, They just call it grooming
This is true, and a great shame in many respects, as ‘children’ are quite capable of seducing older people too.
Tom, might I suggest converting (by printing) the PIE proposal document to pdf format, as not everyone has MS Word?
OK, here’s the new PDF link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2vh8ybxfi54s9da/PIE%20-%20Evidence%20to%20Home%20Office%20Criminal%20Law%20Revision%20Committee.pdf?dl=0
Does anyone know if there is an aoc in the Trobriand Islands (so children could consent with each other) and is there any evidence that children had consensual relations with adults?
I don’t think an AOC defines children could consent with each other. Given I have searched up the place in your question, the sources I look at state it is 16 years of age for females.
And yes, there is a plethora of information, studies, meta analysis, and the like that have found consensual relations between adults and children. (Teens and prepubescent included)
Most notable the rind meta analysis of 1998, which a lot of people against child sex who read that like to twist up the information in the meta analysis.
(I know if they read this they would say the same thing about all of you guys and me who had read more than a page or two on the meta analysis, but a guy who read the 30 page paper for a full on week, aka me, can see how dubious these guys make out the study. The meta analysis consisted both of prepubescents and pubescents, people who state it all consisted of the latter simply only read a bit of the analysis, trying to justify their behaviour and actions for the current climate on children and sex, which doesn’t hold up even when this claim is right, or have poor reading skills.)
Replication of that meta analysis which yielded similar result is ulrich, Randolph and Acheson 2006.
Titus rivers (I believed that was his name) collaborated a study on positive relations, and made a bunch of copies on IPCE the site.
There is many more, simply too many, you can find a bunch on google academics by simply searching ‘positive child sex’ or a similar worded search, This site’s blog roll also has a bunch of sites with other sites that have sources on child adult sex being positive, the dark net also has a bunch of sites where child sex isn’t always horrible. (But most likely these sites contain some illegal things, so I suggest stay clear of the dark net.)
purplegragon85
Thank you
> the dark net also has a bunch of sites where child sex isn’t always horrible. (But most likely these sites contain some illegal things, so I suggest stay clear of the dark net.)
Topic Links 2 on TOR (I prefer the term TOR instead of ‘dark net’ due to the ‘dark’ connotations) advises people if any site listed on their index contains anything most likely to be illegal in any country, ie child pornography. There are lots of links to all manner of sites, and if only for the sake of remaining a law abiding citizen, leave the cheese pizza alone.
All readers
Lets say hypothetically i was to go into a place (given the current state of things) where a local MP was publicly speaking and ask him/her in front of everyone why our society discriminates against paedophiles do you think the pollie would answer the question whilst being put on the spot and does anyone think the outcome would be different today than it was in the 1970s.
Well I don’t advise it, That would be complete madness. I’m sure EDD would agree.
It’s an interesting question, and it’s fair to say that most, if not all, people at such a gathering would look at you as if you are on drugs or had been let out for the day. I know yours is a hypothetical question, but if one were to consider doing that without first addressing the issue of how words like ‘paedophile’ have been twisted to mean something it does not, my only advice to you would be to wear running shoes, a heavy disguise and carry a smoke grenade with you for when the lynching starts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZTUsYpGADw
This is really good. Not sure about the final rallying call for everyone to come out – the wisdom of that very much depends on many circumstances – but I love the passion in this well structured, carefully thought out presentation. This young guy has so much to offer.
I was a little ‘taken aback’ to read TO’C asserting that the wisdom of just ‘coming out en masse’ (so to speak) depends on many circumstances. Circumstances being one very broad concept, of course, I’d love to cut to the chase here and hear something about one exemplary such ‘circumstance’ that gives me a much better idea of what Tom is thinking… first and foremost because ‘circumstances’ does most always presuppose a situation perceived most passively/dependently, as if any agent/actor can only be but a product of same…. ? So yes, bring it on Tom, unless of course explanatory nourishment is already at hand somewhere within the hundreds of comments here…. have been ‘lying rather low’ after deciding not to directly challenge Ed on almost everything he had to say about blending talk variously surrounding ‘drugs, paedos & terrorists’ into ONE ‘govt-manipulated media’ scenario (circumstance?), when it seems plainer all the time that its been media>influencing>government that has been the defining direction for years now (how else to describe the deathless “lied about WMDs” trope that is the epitome of media-saturation in motion?), and also wondering very hard about what on earth Lensman might be up to all this time, not to mention a Texas ‘libertarian’ soul such as Mary ‘Healing Our World’ Ruwart! If I haven’t opened a can of worms yet, then I’ve surely opened a can of threads, and I welcome anyone who might wish to grab hold of any one of ’em here….
>I was a little ‘taken aback’ to read TO’C asserting that the wisdom of just ‘coming out en masse’ (so to speak) depends on many circumstances.
Taken aback? Really? I felt my praise for the video needed to be tempered very quickly (and I didn’t have much time) by saying coming out would not be wise for everyone. On reflection, I still think that’s the right message. The word “circumstances” was a bit lame in its vagueness, for sure. But I’d have thought that just makes what I was saying a bit bland rather than anything that would cause raised eyebrows.
My guess is that when at least 9 out of 10 people read my message and take their own circumstances into account they will have no difficulty concluding that coming out would be a bad idea in their case. As for a small minority, they might (like me) come out and end up feeling they have made a good decision, even if it does mean a long hard journey through life on a rocky road.
On the subject of WMDs, I think it is government influencing the media.
And whatever happened to Dr David Kelly!
> after deciding not to directly challenge Ed on almost everything he had to say about blending talk variously surrounding ‘drugs, paedos & terrorists’ into ONE ‘govt-manipulated media’ scenario (circumstance?), when it seems plainer all the time that its been media>influencing>government that has been the defining direction for years now
I think that’s a bit rich warbler. I stand by what I said, but I can’t see how it is one government manipulated media scenario, other than to say that similar techniques are used in the demonisation and mis / disinformation of said topics so that the general populous are predisposed to regard these things in a certain light.
I do also happen to think that it’s a two way set up as far as government / media relationships are concerned. I know that you disagreed with what I had said, you made that much clear, however I’m pretty sure you didn’t go into a great deal of detail as to why.
Loved this video so much I became a patron.
Perhaps there is the smallest shift of policy happening at Virped. Ethan Edwards linking to Tom’s HTOC :
The article “After The Fall: A Beginner’s Guide to Destroying Pedophobia in the 21st Century” was posted to Visions of Alice on February 23rd. There was little discussion — a few comments saying it was too long to read. That’s a sentiment I share. A search for “pedophob*” in the indexed of GirlChat and BoyChat didn’t get any hits in the same timeframe or since then.
However, going further back in Visions of Alice, I found links that led me to this post by Tom O’Carroll reviewing it:
https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2015/ … -the-fall/
So it’s been around since 2015 at least. Tom seems to take it seriously, though I’m not sure anyone thinks they know who the author is. And I don’t claim to have followed this back to the source by any means.
I have heard the word “Kind” used by people at GC and at Tom O’Carroll’s blog, so that is genuine.
Wow. Maybe my temper tantrums have worked…..maybe not….it’s nice to see though….
Ed Chambers
Thanx for recommending the film 1984 (1984) i will defiantly look out for it
Thought this would be a suitable and relevant introduction to secure communications using Pretty Good Privacy :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography
https://www.gpg4win.org/index.html
Tom, in the interview you say that the current panic about sex, childhood and paedophilia is a result of the “gender revolution” of the 60s and 70s. This is like saying that Napoleon Bonaparte is a result of the French Revolution, or that Joseph Stalin is a result of the Russian Revolution. Quite to the contrary, all three phenomena represent in fact a retreat of the revolution and its degeneration.
Normally a revolution revolves around a social and political progress, hence its effects should be lasting. For instance the French Revolution destroyed feudal barriers between regions and between different trades, established the principle of equality of all in law, and the system of a democratic republic with an elected national parliament. So if the current panic was a “cultural revolution” as you say, it would be progressive and lasting, something which seems absurd to me.
Notice that the panic started around 1977, at the same time as political religion rose throughout the world: in 1977 the election of Jimmy Carter and the “Save our Children” campaign in the USA, and the coup by the Islamist general Zia Ul Haq in Pakistan; in 1979 the establishment of Khomeini’s Islamic Republic in Iran and the rise of anti-soviet Jihad in Afghanistan; in 1980 the emergence of the Catholic-tainted trade union Solidarity in Poland. Concurrently Thatcher took power in Britain in 1979, followed by Reagan in the USA in 1981. Under Reagan, the “satanic child abuse” madness swept the USA.
Many self-styled “radical” feminists adapted themselves to Reaganism, for instance by contributing to the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography, which functioned on ideology, not science (see the articles by Milton Diamond of The Pacific Center for Sex and Society (PCSS) at the University of Hawai’i, http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/). Then “radical” feminists advocated capitalist exploitation provided that it is led by women, and denounced “male sexuality” at the same time as Reagan was attacking contraception and abortion rights (see Alice Echols, Cultural Feminism: Feminist Capitalism and the Anti-Pornography Movement, Social Text, No. 7 (Spring – Summer, 1983), pp. 34-53, http://www.jstor.org/stable/466453). Most feminist organisations adapted themselves to the established order, and similarly the gay movement abandoned the radicalism of Harry Hay and David Thorstad for gentle demands like the right to marry and to serve in the imperialist army.
This is like Joseph Stalin who in 1933 capitulated to Hitler and in 1934 banned abortion, criminalised homosexuality and extolled traditional familyi; at the same time, he initiated his bloody purges.
While early feminism wanted to empower women and make them equal to men, now that word is used to present women as helpless creatures needing the protection of the (preferably gender-neutral) paternalistic State. I quote the psychotherapy critic Tana Dineen (November 25, 1997, http://tanadineen.com/media/UnionTrib.htm):
“At the turn of the century, women were said to be hysterical; now we suffer from stress and trauma. We had to be protected then; we have to be protected now,” […] “I see the return of patriarchy: ‘Women are children,'” […] “But let’s not assume that the new patriarchy can’t wear skirts. I call it patriarchy in drag.”
Nowadays, any reactionary bourgeois woman politician can claim to be “feminist”, which does not lead to any progress for society. The “MeToo” phenomenon (which you consider “A revolution as deep as evolution”, 2017/11/21) completely ignores the most precarious parts of population, which are the biggest sufferers of sexual violence, such as prisoners, refugees and sex workers. In France under Macron, at the same time as social laws and workers’ gains are under attack, self-styled “feminist” politicians helped by psychotherapists invoke a new concept of “sideration” to claim that it is psychologically impossible for a young girl to consent to sex with an adult man, or to justify any rape accusation when there is no visible sign of surprise, threat or coercion, etc.
Lots of interesting stuff here, Christian. I think I’ll leave others to take a first crack at responding to it substantively.
Notice that the panic started around 1977
Why not in the mid 19th century to early 20th century, when feminists arbitrarily restricted the freedom of men and girls to love, and pedophilia was delineated from both normal sexuality and what became homosexuality[1]?
It should also be noted that Stalin’s USSR, with AoC set at puberty, was revolutionary compared with the feminist demands (AoC of 18), whilst homosexuality was decriminalized already under Napoleon. As for the right to marry, it was one of the first demands of the Danish (gay) Association of 1948, dating back to Axgil in the 1950s. Axgil was also one of few gays showing solidarity with pedophiles, joining Danpedo after it had been ejected from the Danish gay organization in the early 1980s.
[1] https://www.boychat.org/messages/1512972.htm
>Nadia
>assuming that you are talking about moral panic.
according to the paedophile next door in Britain it was in the Victorian time during the time the NSPPC began to start campaigning for children’s rights wasn’t it? Or could i be wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQsmOHQsFWs&t=1456s
The Paedophile Next Door is essentially propaganda for the masses, to maintain the status quo as far as knowledge / enlightenment on inter-generational love is concerned. Consume with large quantities of salt.
It’s only worth, arguably the only point that should’ve been taken notice of but was disregarded, was help for people like Mark Bridger, Ian Huntley, Roy Whiting et al should be widely available, but owing to mandatory reporting laws, no one in their right mind will volunteer for such therapy.
It is horseshit Daniel. Accordingly, stay clear of it.
Ed Chambers
>re the pedophile next door
do you know when the 1st aoc was introduced because i have google it in the past and it said something like 1212 but then Ive hear Lindsey Ashford say that in the uk it was (like it says in the paedpohile next door documentary) around the Victorian era.
Not 1212, but 12 comes into it because 12 was in effect the age of consent set down in law later in that century by the Statute of Westminster in 1275. Also, from Tudor times until the early Victorian age, sex with a consenting girl aged 10 or over was considered only a minor offence (a misdemeanour). I wrote about it all in a blog a few years ago, appropriately in 2012. See here:
https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/mary-mary-wonderfully-contrary/
>Tom
so in 1275 was consenting relations with children still socially seen as acceptable up until the Victorian times, but was still against the law in 1275 only more tolerated just like it could be in 3rd world countries today.
Back in 1275, and indeed right up until late Victorian times, it was all about girls getting married. So 12 was when they could get married and family life could start. The age of consent wasn’t about child protection or about children’s rights and freedoms either.
Having the age of marriage set low gave men a better chance of having a virgin bride. Virginity was prized because it ensured that a man would know his wife’s children were his own. So the customs and laws of the time were more about protecting the interests of husbands and fathers rather than of children.
As far as I know, the AoC served to protect younger girls from prosecution for sex outside/i> of marriage, while it was possible to marry a young girl and (obviously) for husband and wife to have sex.
Vestiges of this freedom can still be found, such as the Johns/Winstead marriage or the controversy about teenage girls/older men courtship.
In whose interests are the vast extensions of the sex laws?
Tom
i tried clicking on the link to the PIE law reform but im just getting a 404 messege.
Thanks for the info, Daniel. Where did you see the link posted? On HTOC? Which blog?
Tom
>PIE law reform link 404 error.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44284820/PIE%20-%20Evidence%20to%20Home%20Office%20Criminal%20Law%20Revision%20Committee.docx
Where was the link posted? I won’t be able to replace it until you tell me.
Tom the PIE law reform link is on heretic toc under
Mary, Mary, wonderfully contrary
Ah, right! Maybe I should have guessed that but there is actually not much obvious connection in terms of subject matter between historical ages of consent (which was the topic under discussion) and PIE’s law reforms, which is what the link is about.
Tom re PIE aoc law reform
I know that it doesn’t have anything to do with the aoc history but this is something i want to read separately i dont know weather or not it has anything to do with autism but i for some reason i like reading those kind of things.
Yes, I understand.
This link should work:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/h46ue4ds0x4y4tt/PIE%20-%20Evidence%20to%20Home%20Office%20Criminal%20Law%20Revision%20Committee.docx?dl=0
I’ll fix the link on the page ASAP.
Also tom how did the aoc in 1275 take so long to pass yet the smoking ban was much quicker and society seemed to accept it and those who dont like it and abstain from the pub “but thats a different topic lol”
>Also tom how did the aoc in 1275 take so long to pass
What makes you think it took a long time? For all I know, it could have been decided in five minutes.
The Statute of Westminster wasn’t just about the age of consent: it was about all sorts of things, setting out all the laws. It was specified for instance, that “Amerciaments shall be reasonable, and according to the Offence” and that “Nothing shall be taken for beaupleader.” If you have no idea what either of these things mean, join the club: neither do I!
This was Mediaeval England, after all: very different times with different problems and different words. If I were a Mediaeval historian I would know more about it. But we can all find out about this stuff quite quickly thanks to the wonder of Wikipedia. Take a look at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster_1275
Look at the table of measures. The one that concerns us doesn’t actually mention the age of consent in those words. I think it’s the one that comes in at No.13, “The Punishment of him that doth ravish a Woman”. So this would be about “ravishing” or having non-consensual sex with, “a woman”, but girls were also part of this provision.
Tom
i understand the confusion now my mistake i didn’t mean to ask how long it takes for the law to pass, so would i be more correct in saying that people who where genuinely interested in protecting children was more recognised in Victorian times and that somehow the public have come to the conclusion that the aoc is there to protect the child, these feelings of wanting to protect children come from somewhere.
>these feelings of wanting to protect children come from somewhere.
Some historians have traced the beginnings of a changing view of children back to the 1700s, in the so-called Age of Enlightenment. It’s a complicated story, though. A more immediate cause of change in the Victorian era was the rise of the women’s movement and its concern with “social purity”. The militant women of those days wanted to stop prostitution, and especially child prostitution.
This gives the impression that sex with girls of 10 or 11 has always been punishable since 1275, albeit mildly, but that is not so. Though the First Statute of Westminster that year remained theoretically in force, it became a dead letter after 1576 when another statute proscribed consensual sex with girls under 10. This remained so until the age of consent was raised to 13 in 1875. No one between 1576 and 1875 was convicted of consensual sex with a girl over 10 and jurists confirmed such sex was in practice not prosecutable. Therefore there was a distinction between the AoCs for sex and marriage, since the latter remained 12.
Also, the Statute of Westminster did not initiate the age of consent of 12. It merely gave statutory confirmation to the common and canon law.
Full a full discussion of this see “Vulnerability and the Female Age of Consent” by Antony Simpson in Sexual Underworlds of the Enlightenment (edited by G. R. Rousseau, 1987).
Edmund Marlowe, author of Alexander’s Choice, https://www.amazon.com/Alexanders-Choice/dp/1481222112
.>Tom do u know how many and what characters are required to register with gc
Sorry, Daniel, I don’t know. I am registered there but that was ages ago and I cannot remember the process.
>Tom
ok
>To all readers
As much as we are in agreement that the aoc should be abolished, shouldn’t we as child lovers also try to encourage governments to give children the right to vote to start off with and then put forward a policy that allows children a referendum on the aoc maybe you and Tom have any ideas and would you all be in agreement.
In the UK, mandatory schooling up until the age of 16, then we get the right to vote at age 18. There is no coincidence that this is how things work. It is carefully designed so that people are inducted into this system of capitalism, and the moral compass is heavily influenced according to puritanical values. It is judged to take this long to allow a child to grow into an adult. Whilst I can imagine all childlovers are in agreement, at which link in the chain does one strike?
Do you start off by lowering / abolishing the AOC? On what grounds if children themselves are not asking for it? Parents will not like the idea for the most part as it takes away a condiserable part of the leverage / power they have over children. Whilst children are considered the property of any parent, this would be stamped out pretty quickly.
This is pretty much the same as far as the voting age is concerned.
Any change has to come from children themselves for this to be a valid social movement. The only thing we could do as genuine child lovers, considerate of children’s rights etc, is to encourage children to seek this.
So would society see it as unreasonable to ask children if they would like the right to vote (just ask children that for now)
> So would society see it as unreasonable to ask children if they would like the right to vote
There is a status quo in this regard for a reason : Control. Legislated for and backed up by scientists on the payroll.
At the very least you would get some strange looks if you were to advocate for these things, if you weren’t a ‘child’ that is.
Ed Chambers re child votes
It might be interesting to know what youth liberation think and would it be worth tom promoting heretic toc to their page?
>would it be worth tom promoting heretic toc to their page?
There’s a whole lot of promotion I should be doing that I simply do not have time for. Anyone here is welcome to promote Heretic TOC anywhere they think would be suitable. That last part (where “suitable”) is of course a matter of judgement, and some ideas could be counter-productive. Even so, I am happy to leave it to my fellow heretics’ good sense.
Do you have a link for youth liberation Daniel? Is there such a site / organisation? I have not searched for it per se aoy.
As Tom says, blasting into various sites dropping HTOC links might be a little too obvious, so some good judgement / planning would be necessary, obviously. I think a clandestine operation is very possible.
https://www.youthrights.org/issues/voting-age/
Thanks Lilo.
Also, a contact of mine on PSC knows of someone there who is in the middle of a similar project. He said he’d keep me in the loop so I may pass on the details here if / when it’s appropriate.
>Ed Chambers
youth liberation link
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCPYKfzWYPjqFl1P-lIQ_-w
Thanks!
Ed Chambers
>children’s right to vote
What do you mean by clandestine operation?
>Ed Chambers
The reason I ask about children’s voting rights is because I believe the media have it half right (the best way to understand children is to converse with them) which i agree with.
Daniel : The only time the media have anything right is when a person believes what they want you to believe.
With that being said, what do you think they have ‘half right’?
Ed Chambers
>re the media being half right
I was talking about them saying that we need to listen to children in order to understand wat they want.
I agree with what you say here Daniel. There was a book I read sometime ago, I can’t remember it’s name, whence children ruled the world, ie major decisions about how the world was run etc was left unto them. It’s something worth consideration imo as children see the world very differently from adults and there are many pros to this, more so than cons.
Ed Chambers
ive asked Libertine the same question, and that is do you know of any films that might be of interest?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087803/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
Watch the film Daniel, read the book….if you like….that’s unless you already have…all else will follow.
Ed Chambers
>re the book “children rule the world”
just had a thought, have you ever seen the film lord of the flies and if so, well we currently don’t have a system where children can vote and thanx to the grown ups it is just like that on this island now. have you or any other readers thought the same?
I’d like to respond to a post made by Ethan Edwards on Virped, drawn to my attention by a contact who remains a member. As I’m no longer there, and probably wouldn’t be allowed to post if I were, I was hoping Tom would allow this here (Thanks Tom!)
> Ethan’s original post :
I know a lot of us think Eddie was very brave, and his two documentaries (there’s also “I, Pedophile”) advance our cause. Based on many subsequent interactions, a lot of us also think he is a very troubled man, and his troubles include paranoia. He has turned against VP and hates us with a passion. He also is now what I call pro-legalization (and others call pro-contact). None of that detracts from his bravery, and I have no reason to think he has ever molested a child or ever will.
This was in response to someone who is creating a new documentary called ‘Virtuous : The Film’, asking for a way to contact me. I subsequently replied to said individual, simply referring to my guest blog here, and stating that in the five years or so since I joined Virped, my philosophy on the topic is now very different. Their website made me cringe.
To Ethan :
In order for a person to understand the true nature of paranoia, one must first go through this process. In some respects, it is the same as paedophilia. For many years, I used drugs as a crutch, in denial of being paedophilic and it’s fair to say that this has had a negative impact on my life in many ways. I have now been clean for over three years. I am feeling much better.
I am the first to admit over the years I have indeed been paranoid from time to time. Perhaps even now, I can ‘over think’. I have discussed certain things with Tom, and he has always offered good advice. I can‘t imagine you have been through this process Ethan, and so, once again, you do not know enough of what you are talking about. If you have ever been paranoid in your life, feel free to offer your expert advice, but as this is not the case, the best course of action for you to take is to remain quiet. This goes for the others among your staff who are as unknowing as you are.
Being out as a paedophile in this world must be one of the most difficult things in the current climate. Again, you have no experience of this in your own life, never having shown enough commitment to your beliefs to speak without anonymity.
You won’t know what it is like to have your private property deliberately damaged because you are paedophilic. You won’t have ever experienced what it is like to walk down the high street in a city, or to be at work etc and verbally abused for something you can’t help. To be called a ‘pervert’ when said person will likely not know the history of the word, or its true meaning. To be called a ‘nonce’ or a ‘tosser’. To be eating food in a restaurant and have a member of staff allude to spitting in your food, whilst you are eating it. To be called a ‘pedophile’ with all the shame this is supposed to entail. It bothers me no longer. I am paedophile and proud whereas the mere mention of the latter on Virped brings the admin out of the wood work to quell such feelings whence one would wish to dismiss this senseless shame. So many things you know nothing about, what people do to those who are, according to the mainstream, fair game.
We need to expose the sham of ‘prevention therapy’, and lay out the facts in such a way that the fiction about our kind being predatory and mentally ill, that children are not sexual and can’t consent, would be displaced. The NHS could be slapped with a law suit that they would surely lose. Never let it be said that I didn’t search for or want help from mental health professionals. It isn’t there, and yet you continue to give the false impression help is available, through your association with StopSO, ATSA, PPD, StopItNow etc.
I have seen many places infiltrated and trolled by LEA and antis. The same kind of actions take place on Virped, recently shown by the DDOS attacks and screenshots taken by antis. Your forum is infiltrated by malefactors, yet there is no official advice for users to take maximum precaution with TOR for the sake of their anonymity.
How long do you think you have before something big happens there? Before you are asking what, when, where, who, why, & how? You wouldn’t know which way to turn. Perhaps then you would know what it is like to be paranoid.
I shared this interview with someone online, This is his response:
“Just finished listening (podcast version); though I skipped the lengthy intro. Great stuff, and all credit to Danny for giving so much time and freedom for a pedophile to express views he, Danny, clearly finds hard to deal with on an emotional level:
‘(to paraphrase) ‘I support absolute freedom of speech in principle, but permitting pedophiles to create websites where they get to comment on how sexy celebrity kids are.. I couldn’t tolerate that. Few people would’
Interesting that Danny matter-of-factly mentions that kids of 16 can join the army (they can actually apply at 15yrs 7 months of age; and join the cadets at 12), as part of his support for keeping the age of consent at 16 (instead of lowering it). Society’s OK with training kids to use and face extreme violence, but balks at even the slightest sexual contact between under-16s and adults!
UK society seems much more at ease with exposing their kids to violence and war – risking serious injuries, life-changing disabilities, PTSD or even death – than even the voyeuristic gaze (photoing/videoing), let alone touch, of a ‘pedo’! That’s seriously fuc ked up, but too few seem to see it as such.
Tom is a great example of how speech can save and silence can destroy people. Speaking out and being honest about his sexuality has made many hate him, got him imprisoned, media monstered, etc; yet here he is at 72, saying he enjoys life and feels fulfilled. Whereas many pedos who’ve done their best to keep it secret, are fucked up or dead long before retirement age.
Apart from the benefits to societies in general – politically, intellectually, educationally, philosophically, spiritually, scientifically, economically, cultura lly, etc. – free speech benefits individuals psychologically. It’s good to talk :-)”
Good to hear this feedback, Libertine. I think the “good to talk” aspect of this comment could be worth us promoting more widely. I might post it on Sexnet, for instance, where presently, in the main, only the stoic, bottle-it-all-up, secret feelings, VirPed approach is seen as positive.
>tom re sexnet
i a bit confused what are you thinking of posting on sexnet just to make sure we are thinking of the same thing?
>i a bit confused what are you thinking of posting on sexnet
Just the final two paragraphs of Libertine’s post, above. Anything I say by way of introducing these paras would not mention anyone else’s posts at HTOC.
good stuff.
An answer for women who always ask paedophiles why are we not attracted to them well 1st off your clothing is whack compared to theirs younger girls dress more feminine/girly than you, they like to wear pretty bows as opposed to the desperate goin on drunkard nites out ergo the little girl/teen will have a much stronger mind set to make a good decision than you. 2nd female mums may not necessarily abuse their children sexually but that doesn’t mean to say they dont abuse them emotionally on a regular basis and MAYBE a lot of paedophiles remember that abuse wen they were children and want NOTHING MORE to do with you.
Does anybody know what happened to the conference videos from Deep in the heart of weird Texas? could be of interest to newbies like Daniel.
>Libertine.
Deep in the heart of weird Texas?
Sorry, I should’ve provided a link. Fucked if I know what happened to the videos though!
https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/deep-in-the-weird-heart-of-texas/
>Libertine
When it comes to studies about the kind of topics,opinions,facts ect, would you be able to recommend any films that I could watch? because I would find it easier to digest.
There is ‘A Decent life’ on the sidebar of this website, just click on Tom’s face if he doesn’t mind.
>just click on Tom’s face if he doesn’t mind.
No problem. It’s not painful! 🙂
Tom
>re the film a decent life.
is that the youtube video where you talk about your time in prison? because i think i have seen it.
>is that the youtube video where you talk about your time in prison?
Yes, you will have heard my voice along with a graphic/musical compilation by David Kennerly. See link on right-hand side of this page.
I know this is a bit old but what the heck!
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/oct/04/uk-female-child-sex-offenders
I could kick myself for not having a way of identifying my women abusers when I was about five or six so I could sue them and make lots of money. I am kidding of course about suing, and what was then just some female’s peccadillo would today be seen as major child abuse.
In a children’s camp where I had been sent as a child we played various childhood games. One particular female counselor had children in my group give up a piece of clothing whenever they failed at “Simon Says.” When most of us were totally naked and came time to return clothing items, she would gently give a spank to a seemingly willing boy on his bent over bare rump – one spank for each item of returned clothing. The game had been in a secluded area of a nearby wood.
Another awful incident I remember was the doing of another, rather dour female counselor. Once on a country walk besides a stream she had us sit butt naked on a blanket as she washed us individually. It was very embarrassing! The embarrassment was made all the greater when another group of older boys in swim suits came by and boisterously jumped into the creek. I do not remember if those sophisticated eight-year old boys jeered at us, but the embarrassment was no less intense.
No wonder that I am completely messed up today.
I remember when I was around nine or ten, This woman about twenty would visit, She would go on about me being sexy, Probably because I went around with a hole in my trousers. One day in the car when she mentioned it, we went past two brothers about eight at the local bridge; I said, ‘but they’re sexy too’.
The fact that they were boys like me never seemed to cause confusion, Don’t think I considered it then.
Ive never met any female paedo’s (not that i know of)
“As a society, we find women sex offenders difficult to acknowledge.”
Seems there is more things in society, and even the ‘professionals’, that are difficult to acknowledge about child sexual abuse/child molestation/child rape. To name a notable few, how about the autistic semantics of CSA, The handling of people who have acted on CSA, the handling of pedophiles and child molesters through therapeutic processes, putting positive cases under the rug as they ‘don’t seem to be prevalent enough, how the abuse cycle is not only just a god damn conspiracy, but is nothing more than false propaganda to treat sexual activity with children as some sort of fucking plague, etc, etc, you get the memo.
Jesus, the same site that published that one article on pedophiles (dark desires to light I believe.) is going retarded and just spewing out shit that is already known, most likely virtue signalling, and blaming a source that probably has little to no affiliation in its coverage. (I mean really, it’s the court’s fault for not acknowledging women ‘abusers’ as prevalent as men? It’s not just society’s bias over men causing more sex crimes than women? These guys know how to make excuses to justify there carelessness for children.)
>Purpledragon85
>re female sex offenders
Would it be ok for me to share what you have written?
Re: Daniel
I don’t mind at all, go nuts.
Commentators here may be interested in reading a 3-part series of responses from me to some of the exchanges here in this comment thread over on GC. It’s in 3 parts to make for easier reading/mental digestion, and will save Tom a lot of challenging moderating. If you would like to respond, please do so on GC, and not here, in accordance with Tom’s request. Some of us are already registered for GC, and it’s not difficult to do so if you haven’t already. Also, this may have the added benefit of bringing more traffic to Tom’s blog, which it definitely deserves, and there are many thoughtful minds there as well as here.
Part 1 is here: https://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/724006.htm
Part 2 is here: https://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/724008.htm
Part 3 is here: https://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/724009.htm
Thanks for this Dissident.
For what it’s worth, I enjoy your writing, I like your style and the length of your contributions. I also find Tom’s ‘eye’s glazing over’ type comments amusing, and perhaps it might be taken akin to sitting around a camp fire, with a beer or a G&T, but as you are indifferent to this now, that’s probably a good thing. I think that it’s a lengthy task doing the moderating all by oneself, and perhaps it helps Tom to throw in the odd dry remark to help pass the time, particularly when it concerns a well respected and intelligent contributor. There is perhaps some comradery here of a type. That’s how I interpreted this situation, rightly or wrongly. We’re all friends here….unless you are an Eefan. Then you are tolerated.
Out of interest, how easy is it to join GC? Is it a case of sending an email with a choice of username etc?
For GC registrations, send the desired details to Baldur by email.
Also consider Vision of Alice, less focused on debate than defacto GC.
>Nada
thanx for the email gcbaldur@fastmail.fm but what do i say in the email in order to register? Do i just say i want to register?
I think you send in your desired username, along with password. Then, change your password once registered (?) although as only the admin will know this, perhaps it doesn’t matter.
Let me know how you get on with this email address Daniel.
Nada, perhaps a silly question, but is it the correct one? I tried to send an email but it was rejected (no recognised user etc)
In a recent GC post, Baldur writes:
People wishing to register can email me at gcbaldur (at) safe-mail (dot) net
I (Nada) would also like to apologize for the incorrect information previously given regarding this issue.
>Dissident
I am having difficulty login into girl chat i am not registered and i’ve tried clicking on the link at the bottom of the screen on the administrators page but it hasn’t worked.
This is of interest on Victoria Derbyshire: I will reserve judgement because it sounds like there was coercion here. The interesting thing is, The abuser was the younger and he was under TEN!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p065dvr6
>Libertine re child on child rape video:
Many questions spring to mind, Should parents re consider how to (or if not) approach their children whilst talking to them about sex? Should parents help their children in some kind of non sexual way of introducing children to their own body parts and help them understand how they work and what they do as time goes on for preparation later on in life? Or should parents encourage children to practice sexual interaction in a positive way rather than a negative way?
Well Daniel, The reason why I thought this was of interest was the title, “child on child abuse”…..They are not content with condemning child/adult sex, Now they’re going after kids themselves.
Also some of the parents were surprised; They didn’t think a kid under ten was capable of what seems penetrative sex. And like intergen sex, they’re focusing on a few horror stories to justify calling it child on child abuse, Assuming all the rest of these liaisons are never consensual, Sound familiar?
Now kids hanging around alone will start to be treated with suspicion, Especially if one is older. As for parents talking to kids about sex, often any interest in sexuality is stamped out so as to be seen to fit in with the rest of society.
It’s another dynamic when parents are sexual with their kids due to the power parents have over kids, compared to the pedo down the road whom the child is free to leave when he pleases. That is not to say incest-taboo will never be broken in the future. Not sure how much historical evidence there is on incest apart from mothers masturbating their babies.
>Not sure how much historical evidence there is on incest
It is only in our very recent times that the definition of incest has been expanded. For most of history, and cross-culturally, the laws and taboos have forbidden penis-in-vagina sex of father-daughter and mother-son and sometimes these prohibitions have extended to wider kin. But homosexual intercourse and activities such as oral sex or masturbation would often not have been taboo.
i assume that our opponent danny whittaker would say that its a very rare case, though just like thompson and venebles.
Daniel, can we keep Danny’s name out of things for a while, please? It could be taken as a signal that it is now OK to revive the debate with him. It isn’t. He called a truce, until further notice, and I agreed to that.
ok then
> Ethan : You speak as if I hope to get through to people like Danny, but there is a whole class of nons that we have gotten through to, notably Sarah Goode, the late Margaux Fragoso, the ATSA director, the StopSO director, Klaus Beier (Dunkelfeld), Ray Blanchard, Fred Berlin, David Finkelhor, Michael Seto, Mike Bailey, and Paul Federoff — the last bunch some of the biggest names in mainstream sex research
I would like to point out this is an ‘achievement’ of false significance. None of these people allow themselves, or are allowed by others, the breathing space to accept that what we see in the media regarding the molestation, rape and murder of children is something rarely, if at all, to do with genuine child lovers. It is a propaganda machine of hate so that society continues to enjoy having a demographic to demonise and deride.
Sarah Goode is a sociologist with such puritanical views that any of her work on topic is biased by default, regardless of the methodology she may use. That people actually listen to her at all is surprising bearing in mind the rhetoric she has used in the past. The experiences of Margaux Fragoso, RIP, she often regarded as neither harmful or abusive, but Ethan ‘you got through to her’.
StopSO director Juliet Greyson believes that a therapeutical situation with a client is worthwhile despite said person not being able to discuss the very things they’d wish to, on account of mandatory reporting laws she claims to not to have to abide by. Indeed, their strict views on intergenerational intimacy and child pornography are very much of the puritanical mainstream view.
Klaus Beier’s PPD manual is based upon the guiding principle that no person under the age of 18, under any circumstances, would ever want to have a sexual experience of any sort with an older person. It was shown in recent studies that many MAPs who attend therapy leave feeling worse about themselves and none the wiser to how they fit into the world.
And of course, regarding the biggest names in sex research, rarely do these people receive the funding to study the harm, or lack thereof, in intergenerational relationships, let alone any benefits. Being as society has no interest in altering the status quo as far as AOC and child pornography etc are concerned, the research here could be considered very much in line with keeping this tradition due to funding criteria.
Ethan, as already pointed out here, it’s a tiresome habit of yours to point out that you are better than other MAPs for following your path, although you like to suggest on Virped that you don’t do this. The times your moderators were allowed, and encouraged by a lack of any notable deterence, to refer to pro c kind as scum is a crack you like to paper over. The fact you are allowed here to play your scratched record is a testament to Tom’s respect for freedom of speech, and yet you don’t extend the same courtesy on your own site.
If you actually allowed these types of discussion on your site, members there wouldn’t feel the need to find other places to do this. Have you not realised that this leaves you with a core of MAPs who have no experience of the nuance of this type of discussion, and who invariably move onto to other places when they realise, like I did, that you are keeping them in the dark for the same kind of reasons that the mainstream media use with the general populous.
Still you dribble on about your 2000+ members, of whom only a small fraction regularly post, as some sort of triumph or progress, when many forums on TOR have member lists of 6 or 7 figures.
I know, the truth may be hard for you to take Ethan, you come to places like this due to the lack of this type of open discussion on Virped in the hope that you find someone naive enough to listen to you, perhaps adding a digit or two to your member tally.
> The experiences of Margaux Fragoso, RIP, she often regarded as neither harmful or abusive, but Ethan ‘you got through to her’.
She was very clear that her life would have been better if her abuser had not been sexual with her. She didn’t like him portrayed as a one-dimensional monster, but that is quite different. When she did reach out, she reached out to VP and she had nothing resembling a pro-legalization view. More generally, you can wonder how many of those who are cited for even positive experiences themselves hold a pro-legalization position. I bet many do not.
Otherwise, you simply note that our supporters are not pro-legalization. But six years ago, they mostly believed that all pedophiles molest children, and that pedophiles conversing online was a bad thing. Now they don’t and are willing to be quoted as supporting VP, and willing to refer their suicidal pedophile clients to us. We help them. I say that’s genuine progress, and a lot more for 6 years of effort that pro-legalization people have achieved in decades.
>She was very clear that her life would have been better if her abuser had not been sexual with her
I am not saying this is inaccurate but an exact quote and source would be appreciated.
You want a quote and a source. It’s certainly implicit in her book, which you said a few years ago that you had.
She posted quite a bit to the VP forum in the summer of 2016, and she and I also had private email exchanges. I’m not sure I can find a quote where she said, “Adult-child sex should not be legalized”, and I’m not inclined to look it all over line by line, but it was still clear what she believed on the subject.
Here’s a paragraph from a VP post, one of many that I think makes it pretty clear:
“But there is nothing more true than my experience with the addiction to Peter and it was exactly why I stayed with him and put up with his abuse which was not only sexual, but physical and emotional sometimes as well. I remember describing the book how he had a platonic relationship with a girl, Jill, whose mother was always present during their interactions and therefore he had no opportunity to do anything to her. Peter was NOT a virtuous pedophile: he believed child/adult sex should be legalized and wasn’t fully aware of the implications of what he was doing to children until he saw me grow up very depressed and shamed by the absue, even trying to commit suicide at 16 because I felt “ruined.” “
Thanks for the Margaux Fragoso quote, as requested, Ethan.
You wrote earlier, in response to Ed Chambers:
>She was very clear that her life would have been better if her abuser had not been sexual with her.
Peter was clearly no saint. His relationship with Margaux was highly manipulative. So I do not seek to justify all of his behaviour.
What I tried to do in my review of her book, though, was say that the pros and cons of the relationship were a complicated mixture, and even with the dark downside it is actually quite hard to say whether her life would have been better without Peter taken as a “package deal” i.e. the good bits (his consistent emotional support and encouragement of her creative side) along with the bad (some violence, some none-too-consensual sex, although she describes herself as a willing, and at times even demanding, participant in some sexual acts).
Ideally, she should have had just the good side on its own but that would not have been a relationship with the actual Peter: that perfect option simply wasn’t available from him, nor do there appear to have been any other potential knights in shining armour ready to step in to offer sexually disinterested help.
As is the case for many women, unfortunately, in her case a relationship with some abusive aspects could well have been better than no relationship at all when we bear in mind the horrible family background from which Peter provided an escape.
Just for the record, lest anyone might get the idea that I was ever trying to sell Fragoso as a poster girl for a successful sexual child-adult relationship (I wasn’t), I’ll leave readers with a few key quotes from my review of her book, plus a link to the review itself.
QUOTES:
…while Fragoso portrays herself as a willing, and at times even a demanding, participant in under-age sexual acts, her own lively sexuality is always at odds with the sense of grossness and disgust she feels towards the wrinkled, decrepit body of her aging lover and the whore’s repertoire of tricks and role plays he nags her into performing.
Nor can she be accused of propagandising in favour of a child’s ability to consent to sex with an adult. Ultimately, the author is plainly of the opinion that the relationship was harmful to her in many ways, and that men like Peter need treatment.
…she leads both herself and the reader towards a reasoned assessment. It is also a balanced and fair one. We are told, for instance, not just that Peter could be violent and was often “pushy” in his sexual demands. No, we are additionally told that far from being “innocent”, little Margaux as a child could be calculating and manipulative, and she spells out exactly how. Ultimately, of course, there is no moral equivalence: the adult must take responsibility.
…there are many ways in which the book leads the reader towards the view that the relationship with Peter was deeply traumatic: to take the most serious of these, the sexual side compromised her, making her feel she was “corrupted” and that others would regard her as worthless. Even the “romantic” aspect was awful because it locked her for year after year into emotional dependency on a partner who had no future, and whose attentions kept her unhealthily alienated from her peers – which may have been why, in a belated act of redemption, Peter ultimately killed himself, setting her free at last.
…
While these terrible facts are undeniable, what the author’s own conclusions ignore is the serious possibility that without Peter’s love and support her life might well have been even worse. It was her father, after all, not Peter, who would habitually rant and scream at her, telling her she was a worthless burden, before she had even met Peter. Her response as a small child had understandably been one of aggressive “acting out”: she would randomly kick other people in the street. After meeting Peter, she transferred that aggression to him, lying and playing mean tricks on him. His reaction, by contrast, was generally one of patient, almost saintly restraint: Margaux’s admittedly delusional mother even thought he might be a reincarnation of Jesus, “so wise” was he, “and pure of heart”. The presumably non-delusional author would commend his consistent support for her creative side, and the praise he habitually lavished on her, boosting the self-worth so sapped by her father.
LINK:
http://www.sexarchive.info/BIB/FragosoRev.htm
But six years ago, they mostly believed that all pedophiles molest children, and that pedophiles conversing online was a bad thing.
Beliefs consistent with those of Nickerson, whom you consider worthy of a promotion and an apology.
Is it progress when your moderators calls suicidal pedophiles child molesters or scum?
> When she did reach out, she reached out to VP and she had nothing resembling a pro-legalization view.
Margaux reached out to VP already with an outlook very different to that of a pro consent view on IGR (inter generational relationships), so I stand by what I said regarding you ‘getting through to her’. You didn’t. She was already of that opinion, although….the question needs to be asked, is this as black and white as you are trying to make it appear? I refer to Tom’s comment and his review of Margaux’s book.
I think it’s fair to say in many instances of IGR that there is both good and bad, regarding emotional, sexual and intellectual experiences. However, society encourages people to cast aside any positive memories in this respect, discouraging and shaming all mentions thereof, preferring tales that show how badly one was treated and abused. I think it’s fair to say that anyone with experience of IGR as a young person will be under considerable influence in this respect, and I have no reason to believe that Margaux’s experiences would be any different. If one is encouraged to see the glass as half empty, it will be forever so.
> More generally, you can wonder how many of those who are cited for even positive experiences themselves hold a pro-legalization position. I bet many do not.
And I’ll see that bet, raise you one lolita. Although I’ll concede that permissible mentioning of either a pro – consent / positive IGR experience is very much taboo, so we’ll probably never know.
> We help them. I say that’s genuine progress, and a lot more for 6 years of effort that pro-legalization people have achieved in decades.
I find your need to justify six years of effort endearing Ethan, and also very insecure. Progress from a ‘pro c’ viewpoint, during these times of puritanical posturing and fabrication, is to keep the idea alive and for kind to survive. To this end, the community is very much alive and thriving. That is, the community Virped chosen to set themselves apart from.
Never let it be said that Virped didn’t help me. If it were for that reason alone, I would wish for you to continue. However, as with much of your agenda and the suppositions you make regarding IGRs, you only allow half, at most, of the truth to be told. This maybe a satisfaction to some members who feel safer in ignorance, but for many, growing tired of seeing things in this Virped half light leads them to question things for which you provide no answers, only silence. Whilst you persist in restricting open discussion on the topic so that MAPs have no other choice but to find their own way, people will inevitably begin to distrust you, questioning why this is so. Arguably, this is why so many of your members no longer visit the forum.
> I’m not sure I can find a quote where she said, “Adult-child sex should not be legalized”, and I’m not inclined to look it all over line by line, but it was still clear what she believed on the subject.
In your opinion, which is no surprise.
> Peter was NOT a virtuous pedophile: he believed child/adult sex should be legalized and wasn’t fully aware of the implications of what he was doing to children until he saw me grow up very depressed and shamed by the abuse, even trying to commit suicide at 16 because I felt “ruined.”
I think the idea of a young girl feeling ‘ruined’ as a result of IGR is a result of Iatrogenic harm. Victorian Puritanism is alive, well and will continue to be. At least until a time when to claim that an IGR was a sexually liberating, mind expanding experience becomes a novelty that will sell books. It’s fair to say that Margaux saw an opportunity in profiting from her experience in the current societal climate and good for her. I am sorry that she did not have more time to enjoy the success her writing gave her.
I can’t imagine Peter was an angel by any stretch of the imagination, but by reading Tom’s review of her book neither was she.
It would’ve been interesting to read Peter’s opinion on the situation, although all things considered, it’s fair to say that current society and culture would play a considerable part in dictating where your sympathies would lie. To admit to anything else Ethan would alienate your buddies in the CSA industry.
The thing is, Ethan, the pro-legalization people have proven to many researchers that controversial ideology does not make someone a bad person, let alone more likely to offend than someone morally against intergen contact. More and more researchers and journalists are turning to us to get the full story behind this ideology, and are increasingly believing a full understanding of MAP dynamics is incomplete without looking at all sides, whether you agree with the ideology or not. This opens the door for mesophiles, including underage medophiles, being given the podium to speak in the future without fear of reprisal or being forced into “therapy.” Marshall Burns is a good example of this, as no one other than the pro-choice camp — both MAP and Non-MAP researchers — have an interest in doing anything other than suppressing the mesophiliac voice, only giving the podium to youths who insist they are victims and say what the mainstream anti-legalization camp wants to hear.
Let us also keep in mind that Lifeline had many pro-choicers that were talking MAPs out of the suicide “option” long before most therapists cared to, and B4U-ACT, which is neutral on the legalization/consent issue and welcomed MAPs of all ideologies from the outset, opened the door to Virped and others to establish dialogue with therapists and researchers. The reason so many of these anti-legalization therapists are sending MAPs to Virped instead of, say, B4U-ACT for this is because they want an organization that is more focused on preventing intergen sexual contact as its first and foremost goal in their eyes, rather than helping torment-ridden MAPs realize their lives are worth something in this world, even if the organization in question never promotes and even openly discourages crossing the legal line.
She was very clear that her life would have been better if her abuser had not been sexual with her. She didn’t like him portrayed as a one-dimensional monster, but that is quite different. When she did reach out, she reached out to VP and she had nothing resembling a pro-legalization view. More generally, you can wonder how many of those who are cited for even positive experiences themselves hold a pro-legalization position. I bet many do not.
You bet many do not, Ethan, because you and others refuse to give the podium to any youth with such experiences, or adult who had them as a youth, that does not say what the woman you are quoting here happened to say. If they do say it, they are quickly censored & censured, with adults running the risk of enduring what our friend Milo endured; and youths running the risk of having their parents and their local police contacted, where they will be held in an interrogation room while being pressed to reveal the identifies of the adults they had their positive experiences with. You know this is the case, as does everyone else, but it’s ignored in favor of a false implication that people are routinely listened to no matter what they have to say about this topic.
Granted, the woman you quoted didn’t describe her “abuser” as a one-dimensional monster, but I suspect there is a good chance she was subjected to that infamous interrogation process after the relationship was “found out,” which is part of the standard legal protocol and the “thereputic” process, could easily have resulted in a major re-conceptualization. The very fact that you use terms like “abuser” rather than, say, “partner,” makes it clear how strongly the system and the media biases against such relationships.
I could write quite a bit more about Margaux and what her posts to VP add to how we should understand her. Maybe I’ll put some on my blog, but the discussion isn’t very productive in this venue.
In the case of Margaux, we can test your idea that she developed her anti-contact ideas after brainwashing, because there is a trail of evidence. I don’t know if you’ve read the book, but the idea that some wonderful thing got re-conceptualized doesn’t hold up in her case. I think brainwashing is a rather small effect overall.
More broadly, we’ve been over this ground before. You have what is essentially an unfalsifiable theory that there is a hidden groundswell of interest by kids in sex with adults, and only societal attitudes have cowed them into trembling silence. I have pointed out that there is a large minority (at least) of kids who will not be cowed into silence on any subject and we’re not hearing from that group either. But you say the repression runs deep — very deep. You could also argue that there is hatred of Muslims in the US, and that most of us would become followers of Islam if only that hatred was removed. Or perhaps we would find a great hidden interest in mother-son incest, or that water sports is an overwhelmingly popular sexual fetish — if only hostile societal attitudes were removed. They’re all unfalsifiable.
If patterns run true, you’ll write some long rebuttal, and I’ll give up replying. If I were to vigorously defend my views here, I would be very busy — until Tom decides he’s heard enough and uses his moderator powers to shut me up.
>In the case of Margaux, we can test your idea that she developed her anti-contact ideas after brainwashing, because there is a trail of evidence.
Where Margaux is concerned, I think her lack of self-worth, which left her vulnerable to seeing herself as a cheap slut (as she might have thought) is most convincingly explained by the foundational relationships in her life, with her parents, especially her father. An “emotionally abusive alcoholic” as I say in my review, he appears to have been a nasty piece of work who delighted in putting his daughter down, losing no opportunity to make her feel useless or worthless. Peter, by contrast, did everything he could (as Margaux readily admits) to encourage her artistic side and see some value in herself. It seems harsh to blame him for damage that had already been done to her self-esteem.
I think Tom covered a lot in his response, based on many quotes he took from Margaux from her memoir, that the entire situation was much more nuanced than you are willing to say. Peter was not an ideal adult partner for a child by any means, but many MAPs do not act like him, and do not have his particular negative needs. The fact also remains that Marguax had a very bad life in general, but she grew up in a political environment that not only shamed younger people (and often females in general) for their sexual desires and actions, but also heavily demonized intergen relationships. It was easy for her to develop the feelings that she did about intergen relationships in general within such an environment, as the full degree of emotional problems and bad life would have put far more scrutiny on her relationship with Peter than the one she had with her father. This can largely explain why her memoir largely focused on her relationship with Peter, rather than the trials and tribulations of her life in general, which were hardly limited to, or attributable to, Peter.
It also needs to be pointed out that if we lived in a youth liberated society, not only would Margaux have been free to get away from her father, but she may not have felt inclined to choose Peter as her adult partner, if an adult partner was what she wanted. Was Marguax a victim? I think yes, but the source of her victimization goes far beyond Peter alone, yet our society finds it easy to label him as the prime source. I do sympathize with her greatly, even if I do not share her feelings as to what the prime source of her travails was, since the sex negativity so prevalent in our society appears to have been a major culprit of why she viewed her relationship with Peter as so “disgusting” in the first place.
Regarding what I said as brainwashing: It is not only “found out” relationships that go through the system that can result in such re-conceptualizations. Considering the emotional problems Marguax was suffering in from many different places in her life, the reactions she doubtless received from revelations to others about her relationship with Peter, and what she constantly read about intergen relationships, without ever seeing or speaking with the many others who feel differently (because they are usually not allowed to say it without getting censored and/or censured) could have severely colored the retrospective feelings of someone with such a degree of general emotional baggage to deal with. This is where sociogenic (rather than iatrogenic) factors come into play. Would this have been the case if she had grown up in a culture that did not demonize such relationships, and did not force younger people into dependence on anyone? I personally doubt it. There is no way to prove otherwise, of course, but do note that many vanilla gay people often suffered a lot of emotional turmoil and shame over their feelings and homosexual engagements during the era when such relationships were demonized.
More broadly, we’ve been over this ground before. You have what is essentially an unfalsifiable theory that there is a hidden groundswell of interest by kids in sex with adults, and only societal attitudes have cowed them into trembling silence. I have pointed out that there is a large minority (at least) of kids who will not be cowed into silence on any subject and we’re not hearing from that group either.
As others have pointed out, there are many things that kids hate that they are not protesting about because they lack not only the political right to freedom of speech and the right to assemble, but until the recent advent of social media, had no access to multi-media sources to speak on. That is now starting to change with the return of walk-outs, and the rebirth of the youth liberation movement as a whole, which is resulting in more youths speaking out about everything. However, you routinely underestimate the extreme volatility of the subject of youth sexuality in general, and intergen sexual contact in particular, as if it carries no further emotional weight than kids protesting having to go to bed at a certain time at night, or of having to spend eight hours a day in school. To the contrary, that is–metaphorically speaking–like comparing the weight of a 500 pound barbell with that of a compact neutron star. Kids know they will likely pay a severe penalty for speaking out about that topic, especially in a world where their YouTube channels are routinely shut down or videos removed if they show the slightest bit of nudity, or even broach the topic of sexuality.
But you say the repression runs deep — very deep. You could also argue that there is hatred of Muslims in the US, and that most of us would become followers of Islam if only that hatred was removed.
Except I never said most of us would become Muslims if the hatred was removed. For starters, mesophilia is not a choice. Secondly, I think people in general would be more inclined to make certain choices if they had the choice but the choice wasn’t legally prohibited in addition to being heavily demonized. Making the choice to be a Muslim–not connected to inborn qualities like sexual predilection–is not illegal, however, so we still see many Muslims openly practicing as such against the demonization, since their choice along these lines is still protected by the law. Not so when it comes to intergen relationships!
Your other examples were equally a matter of apples and oranges pretending to be the same fruit. The point is, if something is against the law, and groups of people are heavily marginalized and censored against even discussing the topic, then you will not see anyone speak out about the practice, or the desire for it. Underage youth are both third class citizens with no civil rights, and even their growing voice thanks to social media is heavily monitored and censored at this date, despite increasing difficulty in doing so. They can be censored at will and forced into “therapy” for speaking out on this topic, something that won’t happen if they speak out about unfair bed times, curfews, and compulsory schooling.
If patterns run true, you’ll write some long rebuttal, and I’ll give up replying.
Some patterns should continue, my esteemed opponent 😀 Sort of like the summer season, tornadoes having a short life span, and yet another season of The Simpsons.
If I were to vigorously defend my views here, I would be very busy — until Tom decides he’s heard enough and uses his moderator powers to shut me up.
Two people with strong and passionate disagreements on issues they both consider very important will tend to do this. That’s how debate tends to work, and how changes in society eventually happen. And in Tom’s defense, he is just as likely to shut me up too for long-windedness despite our essential agreement on this particular issue. I’ll cut and save this and take it to GC where we can continue it there if that happens.
Note to Tom: Upon looking at the post upon its completion, I think it’s too long, so please DO NOT moderate it. Just delete it. I am going to put it up on GC, and I will leave a short notation and link so you and others here can go and read it there. I tried to truncate it as best I could, but I couldn’t do it and still be able to give a response that I think would do full justice to what I think needed to be said. At least, not enough to cap it at 200 words.
Too late!
>..in Tom’s defense, he is just as likely to shut me up too for long-windedness despite our essential agreement on this particular issue.
Quite so, Dissy. This is not your best work. My eyes were glazing over after a few para. It all seemed just a lot of waffle.
You’re entitled to your opinion, my friend. I’m confident that enough people who appreciate the work I do will disagree that I do not think I wasted my time writing it even if you feel you wasted your time reading it. My apologies for not getting the message to you fast enough so that you could delete it and simply send the people over to GC. But if you did that, it would have defeated your excuse to make that remark at me.
>, it would have defeated your excuse
Not an excuse, Dissy: I would neither have needed nor wanted to make the remark in the absence of a good reason for it. Candour can sometimes be offensive, and while that is never ideal it is sometimes justified.
To you, Tom, what passes for “candor” is praise for any message I happen to throw down that is less than ten words, and admonishment for anything over 100 words, due to your aesthetic preferences for short length and your personal problem with me over my lack of finesse for brevity — along with your irritation that I have open support from others that do not agree with your aesthetic preferences and respect me anyway, due to their ability and willingness to overlook this quirk of mine based on what they believe I have to offer the community in terms of substance and concern. It’s at the point now that I no longer care what you think about anything I happen to write, even to the extent that when you praised a trio of shorter posts I comprised a few days ago, my immediate reaction was indifference rather than a feeling of accomplishment, since it all felt loaded. This is my candor to you. And since there may be some parts of the bridge between the two of us left intact, you may want to gather some matches and kerosene, since your job isn’t done yet.
>And since there may be some parts of the bridge between the two of us left intact, you may want to gather some matches and kerosene
Not at all. It’s just that I welcome your contribution a lot when it is good and less so when it is (in my judgement) not so good. I don’t mind that you have a few supporters in terms of length but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with them.
As for objecting to anything of yours over 100 words, that it simply not true. One of your responses to Danny was 3,000 words. Even at that length, I did not complain, although it was 30 times as long as my supposed maximum toleration level! The one that is the current bone of contention is 1,200 words, a mere twelve times over your idea of my limit.
My response to Ethan would have been a bit too long for Tom’s blog, so those who are interested in what I had to say in response to this please go to the post here: https://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/723988.htm
You have what is essentially an unfalsifiable theory that there is a hidden groundswell of interest by kids in sex with adults, and only societal attitudes have cowed them into trembling silence.
Well, I never said any such thing, but I do believe the following:
There is a large groundswell of kids interested in sex; kids who want to know all about it, most of whom would get on with it in practical terms, given the chance. In fact, when I was a kid, that’s pretty much what happened. How many, if any, want to have sex with someone older than them? We are not in a position to know. Your claim that there ain’t none, is just as unfounded as any claim that there are some. BUT: as long as there are those who say that it did not harm them, then the door must be left open for the idea that there are children who want sexual relations with adults.
“Klaus Beier’s PPD manual is based upon the guiding principle that no person under the age of 18, under any circumstances, would ever want to have a sexual experience of any sort with an older person.”
Does he have arguments to assert his own claims?
I don’t know is the straight answer, but of course any proof contrary to this basis is buried, not only for the fact that otherwise he would not have been able to obtain funding from the federal government for the project.
It would be interesting, I agree, to know about the qualification for this aspect of the PPD manual.
As far as I know this is only a sentence made by Klaus Beier in an interview with Ken Jebsen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdGl6fqnA4
Ken Jebsen is a conspiracy theorist who considers himself left-wing but isn’t accepted at many left-wingt protests among other things because of several anti-semitic statements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KenFM#Criticism
The YouTube channel of the Dunkelfeld Project however recently uploaded a video on their channel called “Are there consensual sexual contacts between children and adults?” in which they said, to quote the last sentence, “There can be no consensual sex between children or teenagers, and adults”.
People in the comment section pointed out that the age of consent in Germany is 14 and so the Dunkelfeld Project responded in the comments that they only wanted to gave a short, simple answer without going into details. The video has 17 dislikes vs. 3 likes, so their video doesn’t seem to be well received by the presumed mostly minor attracted audience.
As far as I know, there has never been a referendum among minors to ascertain if they are not interested in sex with adults. In much the same way, no referendum has ever been held to find out if they are interested in going to school 5 or 6 days a week.
If a referendum were to be held on the question of whether minors one day a week would prefer to get a blowjob from the local pedo instead of going to school on the day in question, however, then I think I would be able to predict the outcome…
LOL! Very good!
Alternatively, why not let pedos into schools, so kids can be fellated as well as being educated.
so in other words turn the school into a speed dating pub.
The bottom line that the people behind Project Dunkenfeld et al. do not want to discuss, Sugarboy, is this: The adult-dominated society wants to prevent underagers from doing anything it believes they shouldn’t be doing, whether harm is proven or not; and likewise wants to force them to do things they do not want to do, even if harm all too often does result (e.g., being forced through the standardized, authoritarian system passing for “education” where a huge amount of bullying from both peers and adult staff occurs, and where self-esteem often takes severe blows due to the humiliating system of judgment based on “grades” and “passing & failing”; forcing them to live under the iron hand of their genetic parents even if they are terribly unhappy under that situation, and thus prone to suicide, severe emotional issues, and/or running away as a result).
The system that is doesn’t want to prevent harm and emotional distress among children and younger teens. It wants to stop them from having sexual contacts of any kind, hopefully between each other but most definitely not with adults. If it was truly and selflessly concerned with harm per se, the status of younger people in the world would be very different right now.
Tom Ive heard one or two negative comments about the sex offenders register on here and was wondering if it had any benefits re the most dangerous of offenders.
Daniel’s comment is addressed to me, but at the end of a long day with a lot of difficult moderating and commenting, I’m going to invite others to answer this.
~~sex offenders register~~
assuming this question is in good faith, why a sex offender’s register and not a recidivist drink driver’s register?
the narrative of ‘crimen exceptum’ applied to child sex offending is a hysterical reaction to an imaginary folk devil, not a measured response to a social problem.
>sean re sex register
Would u have a better alternative
How about a ‘pedo’ register, Where kids can find suitable pedos and go on a date.
> How about a ‘pedo’ register, Where kids can find suitable pedos and go on a date.
I like this idea. We could also have a hebe register, if only for the sake of being pedantic.
so in other words turn the school into a speed dating club.
As long as we don’t give them the Heebie-jeebies!
>Libertine
re pro paedo register
if there is such a thing then i wonder what percentage of minors that would be.
In my experience, More than you’d think, But good looks don’t last forever.
>Sean re sex register
do you think it should be banned completely or should some ppl be on and not others?
Remove it entirely, since it has no effect on mitigating child sexual abuse. (If you consider that most child sexual abuse cases have been stated to have a relation between the offender and child, and that a lot of child molesters aren’t types of people to stalk children everyday and night, hell probably not creepy weirdos either.
Danny has posted a very reasonable valedictory note below (see his comment of Apr 24, 2018 @ 20:40:36) and I think we should try to keep it sweet from this point on. So no more posts of any kind referring to Danny or his views, please, until further notice, which may be months away.
Posts will still be accepted on other topics until my next blog is up and running.
You are a generous man, Mr O’Carroll. Long may you remain so.
>You are a generous man, Mr O’Carroll. Long may you remain so.
You haven’t been in a pub when it’s my round! 🙂 Seriously, though, thanks!
>Tom
So you like a pint? I dont drink at all.
[TOC: The following comment by Danny, in reply to Dan Smith (Apr 23, 2018 @ 21:08:18 below), is being re-located here, for greater width and more prominence]:
IMPORTANT NOTICE FROM MODERATOR: PLEASE DO NOT ATTEMPT A LENGTHY POINT BY POINT REBUTTAL OF THIS POST. ANY SUCH ATTEMPTS WILL BE DELETED. ANY POST OVER 200 WORDS WILL BE AT GRAVE RISK OF DELETION. SAME GOES FOR MULTIPLE RESPONSES TO THIS POST BY ANY INDIVIDUAL, OR ANYONE WHO SEEMS (BASED ON STYLE) TO BE THE SAME INDIVIDUAL USING DIFFERENT MONIKERS. THIS IS SIMPLY A NECESSITY IN TERMS OF MY TIME MANAGEMENT.
I’m sure your relinquishment of complimentary sentiments was intended to invoke a sense of dejection, but it was a wasted effort I’m afraid.
To your first point, not quite. What about the retrospective trauma of societal narrative? That’s very real. And you can blame society all you like, but the fact is, the trauma of societal narrative is the end result of a process of events. A process that begins with pedophiles. So it’s equally valid for conservatives to say “keep your hands off the children” as it is for you to say “society needs to change”. Each side is just focusing on a different part of the process.
The reason the conservative argument is stronger is because it’s easier to enact laws to deter pedophiles than it is to force an entire society to accept something which is universally considered abhorrent, and it’s also the most democratic position to take because it falls in line with the OVERWHELMING majority of people who don’t want to grant a minority of adults the legal right to have sex with THEIR children.
Sexual contact with children is illegal. Whether you agree with this law or not is irrelevant. It’s a fact.
If pedophiles don’t want to tear their families apart by ending up in jail, then don’t commit the crime of child sexual abuse. Simple. That you expect me have sympathy for people breaking the law is just silly. (Yeah, yeah, the laws are, I know!)
What’s more interesting is how concerned you are for the families of the poor pedophiles going to jail, and the emotional upheaval that this will cause, yet you don’t extend this sympathy to the families of the children who would be equally devastated to learn about their child having sexual contact with an adult. But again, that doesn’t serve your agenda, so you can’t even detect the hypocrisy.
Let me guess, if the child consented then who cares about the parents? They should just learn to get over it and be more “sex positive”. Well, guess what. In choosing to have sex with a child in a country where the law deems it a criminal offense, you do so in full knowledge of the potential consequences. So, if you get caught and wind up in jail, tough. And maybe the families of pedophiles should just learn to get over that as well.
You only consider the argument about children joining your cause “irrelevant” because it undermines your agenda.
In any other civil rights battle, all parties to whom it directly concerns are consulted. You wouldn’t accept whites speaking on behalf of ethnic minorities without consulting them. You wouldn’t accept heterosexuals speaking on behalf of homosexuals without consulting them. So why should this standard slip when it comes to pedophiles and their demanding rights to have sex with children?
The argument from your side is that its absurd to suggest that young children would able to engage in such activities. If it’s absurd for them to do so themselves, then they require representation on their behalf. For the millionth time, who should represent them? Their blood relatives, the people who clothe, feed, and care for them every single day? Or random pedophiles?
But you don’t want representation for children at all because it undermines your agenda which can basically be boiled down to: Parents get out of the way and give us your children to have sex with.
Expecting parents to grant you access to their children is like asking husbands and wives to to grant access to their spouses. It’s ridiculous. The fact that you think that waving studies around is enough to counter the emotion bond between parents and children is laughable.
Parents on the whole want nothing but the best for their children. What pedophiles have to offer isn’t the best. It’s not even good. It’s just “not necessarily harmful”. How inspiring. Well, neither is heroin, but excuse me if I refrain from feeding it to my children.
And you can act high and mighty all you like brandishing statistics than rain down from the ivory towers of academia, and try to turn the “facts don’t care about your feelings” sentiment back towards conservatives, but here’s another fact for you. We live in a democracy. Let’s take a vote. Who wants to give pedophiles the legal right to have sex with small children? All in favour? *Barely a fingernail scratches the heavens*. All against? *An endless sea of hands of all shades, genders and generations blots out the sun*.
Regardless of your marginally favorable, heavily context laden statistics and their lackluster conclusions, and your exceptionally rare favourable anecdotes from former minors, nobody wants you having sex with their children. And none of your campaigning, and false analogies, and appeals to history, and comparisons with or attempts to appropriate the sentiments of other civil rights movements, and accusations of bigotry are ever going to change it. And that’s a fact that doesn’t care about your feelings.
There’s quite a lot of good stuff here, Danny, before you surrender to ranting.
Just a couple of points:
1. The adverse affects of the current intolerant climate extend far beyond adult child-lovers. Approximately one third of registered “sex offenders” in the UK are minors themselves. In the US kids find themselves registered and branded as paedos at ridiculously early ages, far younger than 10. This sort of inappropriate harshness and judgmentalism is poisoning young adult social relations as well. A man of your years (36 is it?), already with a partner, may not notice how hysterical the situation is getting for the student generation. It seems that on campus these days even a written contract stating a person’s sexual consent offers very little security against later been called a rapist.
2. You talk about democracy. Alexis de Tocqueville, the great observer of American democracy, recognised the danger of crude majoritarianism about 180 years ago when he spoke of “the tyranny of the majority”. He was thinking of the potential for ill-treatment of ethnic minorities and others whose votes would never be enough to secure their interests. That terrible potential was realised in Germany in the 1930s after Hitler was elected in a democratic vote on an anti-semitic platform. I hardly need remind you how that panned out. Democracy needs checks and balances. Good national constitutions recognise this.
That’s right children do break the law sexually (i tried looking for uk stats but to no avail) i had a friend when i was at secondary school and he did something to a girl in the class, she reported the boy and he got taken away from his mother and force to live in a care home.
Goebbels would be proud of you Mr Whittaker.
[TOC’s MODERATOR NOTE: Miles has been very careful to keep his post below the requested 200-word limit, and appears to have posted before seeing my latest note asking for no further contributions relating to Danny until further notice. For these reasons, I am going to admit his post. Also, it is a good one in my view and he is careful not to get personal.]
>To your first point, not quite. What about the retrospective trauma of societal narrative? That’s very real.
Rind 1997&8 and even The Trauma Myth shows that trauma isn’t likely if the child is willing.
>If pedophiles don’t want to tear their families apart by ending up in jail, then don’t commit the crime of child sexual abuse.
The law is the thing creating the problem and changeable (unlike sexuality).
>if the child consented then who cares about the parents?
Children have agency. The parents should take the child’s opinion into account opposed to not listening to them and trying to define their experience.
>It’s just “not necessarily harmful”.
if harm’s unlikely and it has the potential to be positive it should be allowed.
>“facts don’t care about your feelings”
facts are against you and you even admitted that your emotions were getting in the way in the interview.
>exceptionally rare favourable anecdotes
research shows that positive or neutral experiences are more likely than bad ones, society just silences people who don’t support the widely believed narrative.
(198 words)
For whatever my opinion on this may be worth to you, Tom: I think many of us would be far less tempted to make lengthy, multi-point responses to Danny if you insisted his posts adhere to the same length restrictions you told us to observe. Otherwise, his ability to make numerous points we cannot respond to due to the length restriction requirement on our end risks giving casual readers the mistaken impression that we have “nothing” to say in response to certain contentions/accusations of his, thus giving Mr. Whittaker an unfair advantage over us when it comes to the making/refutation of points.
>thus giving Mr. Whittaker an unfair advantage over us
He is one person. We greatly outnumber him. Swings and roundabouts. It really doesn’t matter.
What matters is not responding to his every point. What matters is that this outsider will not be able to leave with an honest claim that we do not listen. We do. And he knows it.
You may be interested to know that I have just received a private email from him that is far pleasanter and more conciliatory than you might suppose. We have earned a measure of respect from him, believe me.
Tom im personally trying to not attack him and if it was the other way round i guess it would be just as much a challenge for us as it currently is for him so are you saying that we should allow him to say what he wants and what way do you suggest we approach what he has to say?
I expect the whole discussion to come to a halt before long. But feel free to say anything politely. Don’t resort to abuse even if someone else does.
I agree we need to keep calm and handle it in a rational democratic way.
I do give him respect, and I think I have been fair to him in my responses, even when he went a bit over the deep end. And I think others have also, barring a few comments of snarky tone here and there (we aren’t perfect). However, even though he is just one person, I still think if he is allowed to present a plethora of points that must be left unchallenged then he is given a very unfair advantage with a false perception being given to casual readers that has many points beyond our ability to refute. Respect needs to work both ways, and many of us are irked that MAPs always have to agree to accept less public respect than non-MAPs. I think you would be a bit more sensitive to that, Tom, especially since 99.99 % of the time it’s us who have to deal with a large number of detractors going at us all at once. And I think we were all far more fair-minded to Danny than the legions of individuals of his disposition that routinely “gang up” on us at Twitter and most other places in social media. I am proud of our conduct here, as I do not think any of us went overboard in our attitudes.
I know this was difficult for Danny, but I’m sure he realizes that he has every advantage over us. And I commend him for the pleasant conciliatory missive he sent you via email (sincerely), though I do wish he had said it to all of us here. That is all I will say on this point after this post.
This post was apparently posted some time ago and must have been overlooked. My apologies.
>…99.99 % of the time it’s us who have to deal with a large number of detractors going at us all at once.
Yes, that is perfectly true, but two wrongs do not make a right. Simply reversing the balance of advantage would even things up somewhat but it would still not be a recipe for a good debate. We would simply be surrendering to the “echo chamber” effect that bedevils so much online discussion, in which like-minded people just echo each other’s views without learning anything – including learning how to deal with opposing views when they are given a fair hearing rather than being overwhelmed by numbers.
Danny, a constitutional democracy demands certain inalienable rights to minority groups. If you let the majority vote on giving rights to minorities and expression of unpopular opinions, you risk emotionally-driven mob rule. Note how the citizens of California, when given the vote, voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage just a few years ago in the U.S. Your more emotional rants make it clear you do not care what history says, or what the facts say, or what anyone outside the majority (including kids and mesophiles of adult age) themselves have to say when you get in a certain state of mind.
[TOC’s MODERATOR NOTE: Dan’s initial note intended just for me shows he definitely posted before seeing my latest note asking for no further contributions relating to Danny until further notice. His post is an excellent one, not too long in relation to the extremely important content. For this reason, I am going to admit his post. Also, he is careful not to get personal.]
@Tom – Apologies for going over the 200 word limit here, I did try to keep this as short as possible, but there’s only so much I can condense it. I’ll just deal with the issue of harm vs benefit here, which I consider to be the most important issue, and let others deal with Danny’s other arguments if they wish. This will likely be my final comment on the issue for now.
============================================
Hey Danny.
I actually did take retroactive trauma in to account when making my point about a lack of evidence for harm, in fact, all of the studies I had in mind when making this claim were based on retrospective reports from people in adulthood.
Psychological adjustment of people who had consensual sexual contact with adults in childhood doesn’t differ significantly from those who did not in any of the studies that actually take consent in to account (which is even more impressive given that most of these studies didn’t even control for Family Environment), and such sexual contacts are viewed no more “negatively” in retrospect than they were at the time of occurrence. On the contrary, they’re far more likely to be viewed positively, and to actually have a beneficial long-term effect (Condy et Al 1987, which I mentioned in more detail in another comment below, is a good example of this). I think that classes as more than just “marginally favourable”.
Of course, it’s undeniable that *some* children go on to be retroactively harmed by the social stigma and the negative reaction from parents and law-enforcement, but empirical evidence proves that this only happens in a tiny minority of cases, which are then pushed in to the spotlight by feminists and the media.
The reason you hear less personal anecdotes from the people who had positive experiences is because it has become increasingly taboo to talk about such experiences in anything other than a negative light, even with close friends and family. On the other hand, people who feel that they were victimised or abused in some way are actively encouraged to come forward and share their story with the world. Because of the biasing effect this creates, the only way to get an accurate idea of how pedophillic relationships effect the average child is to look at scientific research that uses unbiased samples from the general population.
You also have to remember that people’s perceptions of good and bad are shaped more strongly by their own experiences than they are by society, so people who had positive experiences in childhood tend to see the hysteria around pedophillia for what it is, and thus don’t allow it to shape their own perceptions of their earlier experiences. People who have not had such experiences tend to fall in line with the predominant societal view, and fail to see how anyone could possibly see it any other way.
The reason you hear less personal anecdotes from the people who had positive experiences is because it has become increasingly taboo to talk about such experiences in anything other than a negative light, even with close friends and family. On the other hand, people who feel that they were victimised or abused in some way are actively encouraged to come forward and share their story with the world.
This is an important point I have tried to make to Peace and others in the past who continue to make the odd contention that claims to “victimization,” and claims to the contrary carry equal weight in the mind of the average reader. This is why victimization claims are heavily scrutinized by the MAP community rather than just believed at face value.
People who have not had such experiences tend to fall in line with the predominant societal view, and fail to see how anyone could possibly see it any other way.
As do non-victims who only get to read about the above type of stories, because those to the contrary are regularly censored or banned as “inappropriate,” or beaten into silence by social media mob assaults.
[TOC’s MODERATOR NOTE: Nick, like Miles, has been very careful to keep his post within the requested 200-word limit, and appears to have posted before seeing my latest note asking for no further contributions relating to Danny until further notice. For these reasons, I am going to admit his post. Also, as with Miles’, the post is a good one and he is careful not to get personal.]
“In any other civil rights battle, all parties to whom it directly concerns are consulted. ”
And exactly this is what many pedophiles are advocating for: That instead of courts seeing all intergenerational sex as harmful per definition they would ask the child what they think. And if the child says they love the adult and the parents are okay with it (and there are many parents who are, when you look at history or other cultures of today) the adult shouldn’t be punished because there’s no victim but only happy people loving each other. And if the judge isn’t sure then a psychologist can analyse if the child is truly happy about the relationship. Because otherwise, as you say yourself, there could be done a lot of harm if everyone acts as if the child was abused in cases were this is not correct. When you in these cases tell someone they’ve experienced something horrible then mental health problems become a self-fulfilling prophecy. To put pedophiles in concentration camps or whatever won’t help because many people breaking age of consent laws are minors and even most adults breaking them are not pedophiles. There is no alternative to prevent harm.
For many poor children (by their parents) today this is the case something that us heretics should passionately oppose and fight against any way we can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rQchSZhl6k
If you’ve not seen BrassEye, Your in for a treat. The clip where the guy is looking down with two kids under his cloak is how society sees us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZDGWICVQ3w
>Libertine
lol is this supposed to be funny or serious “sounds to me like a bit of both” if u like that check this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFKwZSarWKE
also read about Caroline Berriman.
The worst thing she did was to tell her son to call him ‘dad’. Otherwise, Clap him in for banging a fit young teacher. I was in boys boarding school with no hot teachers, or girls. Some of the boys were hot though. None were as nice as the one on my village. I was at a boys school and I’d think to myself, when I get back home, I hope I’ll see Stephen in his shorts.
Here is a blast from the past, can’t seem to find the full length video though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oINFeGsyxBU
I looked through the video today, and in my previous comment to Danny Whittaker I had said that towards the end of the interview, he had resorted to emotional response to combat any valid and rational points Tom had put to him.
I stand by this, and to be fair it can be seen from some of his most recent comments here that he has regressed, to the point where you could throw a huge bucket of facts at the man, but he’d still be saying ‘You are wrong because my personal feelings dictate this is so’.
From a promising start Danny, you’ve shown yourself to be a victim of the authoritarian culture in which we live. You are a product, like so many others, of an education system that discourages you to think outside of the strict societal norms that are imposed upon us according to a puritanical system of morals. Despite many generous and patient arguments from notable participants here, you have shown yourself, at least as far as this topic is concerned, to be an automaton of the state.
TOC writes: Daniel asked me to delete this comment of his.
This post is important, but very personal. Please post it as an email to me and I will reply privately.
To Tom and Ed Chambers thank you for letting me know you have done me a favor you are right and thank you.
No sweat, Daniel.
Thanx to u both u have made me come to my senses.
Daniel, please see my comment below.
Also, I would use caution when discussing your personal browsing habits with anyone. Many, but not all, will be suspicious and doubtful of the reasons, however benign, behind membership or participation of, even legal, online places on topic.
Tread carefully.
Just a quick response to Danny. He may not be here to reply, But hopefully he will read some of the responses when he has time.
As mentioned by some, Why assume that attraction to kids is a ‘bad’ thing.
Also just because we may have self-interest, That does not invalidate our arguments: Like the slave owners arguing to end slavery, Regardless of the fact that governments were paying handsome compansation to those that gave up their plantations. Slavery is still seen as bad to most people today.
To expand on this, I will link lensman’s excellent blog post on this very issue.
https://consentinghumans.wordpress.com/2016/01/13/rationalization-can-paedophiles-argue-for-childrens-sexual-rights/
Sorry…’compensation’, This bloody Apple Mac!
Thanks for reminding about this. LSM’s blog is an excellent resource. I expect to be emailing Danny soon anyway. I’ll make sure he gets this link.
I think he might be afraid of the truth its not his fault that he is socially obligated to feel that way.
re being afraid of truth im talking about danny whittaker
This is a response to Danny down below in a verbal donnybrook with Tom, as the text is getting “spaghettified” down there by now. I will give a break to Tom’s doubtlessly strained but heroic moderating efforts over the past few days by only responding to what I thought was the two most important statements made by Danny in that sub-thread. (Btw, Tom, thank you for your generous tolerance of the word count from me and several others over the past few days. I think a lot of important things have come out of your interview and the comments resulting from your blog about it! This is truly one of your “greatest hits”!)
I’m happy to concede that pedophiles can have benign intentions, Tom, but intent doesn’t always correspond with results.
Thank you, Danny. Sincerely. But what you said about benign intentions not always corresponding with like results can also easily be applied to just about all of the legislation against MAPs we see today, as well as the refusal to recognize kids as full persons, and thus disallowing them to reach their full potential as individuals for the stated benign reason of “protecting” them.
So, again, who is best qualified to decide what’s in the best interests of the child. The parents who birth, raise, clothe, feed, educate, and love them… Or pedophiles who want to have sex with them?
I think, Danny, that the close emotional relationship parents have with their kids will often result in a gross inability to make objective decisions. And since total power tends to corrupt, the current major power imbalance between parents and their children (which does not seem to concern you, I should add) will often result in decisions that will not be in the best interests of the child themselves, but rather in the best interests of the parents themselves, i.e., in regards to maintaining control over the child’s destiny, and of remaining the sole adult influence save for a few other “authorized” adults (e.g., teachers, coaches).
Do parents love their kids? I would say in most cases, yes. But love can have a dark side, as it can lead to attempts to control the people whom you love. Many of us have had parents, significant others, etc., who genuinely love us but are very controlling, and very selfish with maintaining that control to their own advantage. In many cases, they want us to remain dependent on them for as long as they can get away with it.
And once again, your flagrant misuse of emotive language to attempt to make sexual desire automatically appear to be a bad thing: “… who want to have sex with them?” First of all, the majority of MAPs are not interested in full intercourse, but have sexual desires on the level of the age group they are attracted to. This may entail no more than mild “sex play” similar to that which often occurs between two children; or the moderate levels of “making out” sans intercourse that often occurs between younger adolescents. Using the word “sex” and focusing on phrases like “exchanging bodily fluids” is clearly designed to manipulate the emotions of readers so that their imaginations conjure up the most vile types of scenarios, most of which will not be remotely applicable to actual Kind desire or our attraction bases, let alone the types of relationships we would actually want.
Secondly, we’re talking about romantic love, which does typically have a sexual component to it. But does that necessarily negate the “love” part of the equation? Or the respect part? Or the full appreciation of the person as a person? Or the enjoyment we can have by their company alone in various social outings? And conversely, does a form of love that does not normally include a sexual component (e.g., parental love) automatically entail purity of either intention or actions? Considering where the great majority of real abuse of all kinds inflicted upon children and young adolescents derives, I think the answer is quite clear.
The belief that sexual desire is, at its core, banal and tainting of moral “purity” is the root of this whole hatred directed at MAPs, just as it is the dark source behind other negative social phenomena such as slut-shaming and stigmatization of sex workers and professional strippers.
>Btw, Tom, thank you for your generous tolerance of the word count
Thanks for saying that, Dissy. On this particular, rather special, occasion, I thought it right to give a bit more leeway than usual.
Some simple thing that Whittaker can’t understand because of his conservative prejudices:
I also find it interesting that the same people mocking me for suggesting a power imbalance between pedophiles and children in the context of a sexual relationship, suddenly consider power imbalances a serious issue when it comes to parents acting as a barrier to the people you’re trying to have sex with.
Simple: parents have a State-sanctioned authority over their children, while an adult who does not belong to law enforcement has strictly no authority on a child outside his family. Parents have thus power on their children, none of which is shared by extra-familiar adults. For instance if a child decides that she does not want anymore to live with her parents, and moves into the house of a friendly adult who accepts her, law enforcement will be sent to bring back the child to her parents, and the sympathetic adult will be charged with child abduction.
Being cornered by criticism, Whittaker loses all balance and just resorts to blind hatred and prejudice, for instance in his insistence that paedophiles think only of having sex and ejaculating:
pedophiles, who just want to have sex with them […]
I’m sorry, but this child liberation nonsense is a non-starter for me. It’s smacks of little more than horny men clutching at disingenuous political abstractions in a lame attempt to legitimise their attempts to wrestle innocent, naive children from the protection of their parents for the sole purpose of ejaculating inside them.
[…] what terrible parents we are those of us who’d rather our children focus on activities that didn’t involve them being drenched in semen and saliva.
[…] That some of you even attempt to dress up the desire to exchange bodily fluids with minors as some sort of charitable concern for the well-being and political liberation of children in general
This is the old orthodox cliche, that heterosexuals are loving spouses driven by noble romantic feelings, while heretics are just sex-obsessed perverts. In the pasts, gays were deemed to be obsessed with nothing but having sex and putting their sperm inside a male rectum. So a male heterosexual teaching young girls was safe, while a male homosexual teaching young boys meant danger.
In reality, this obsession with penetrative sex and ejaculation does not belong to paedophilia, but rather to standard heterosexuality. Heterosexuals spend billions worldwide on standard heterosexual porn, which revolves around nothing else than putting a penis into any type of female hole and then ejaculating. Compared to this big industry, child porn is just peanuts. So it is easy and convenient to project your own vices onto a defenceless minority.
Then he resorts to the related cliche of heretics being selfish and predatory, contrarily to the heterosexual saints:
the shallow selfish nature of their true motivations
[…] the shameful nature of their behaviour
[…] predatory motives; the pedophile exploiting situations such as family breakdown, a time when a child is most vulnerable, in order to take advantage of the situation for their own sexual ends,
The reality is that most sexual violence is by men against women and post-pubertal girls, and most child abuse is within the family.
I believe that many standard heterosexuals are loving and caring for their family only, and will ignore the plight of anyone outside their family, while many paedophiles care about people outside their family.
I agree with your arguments here, Christian…
…Yet, I want to add that talking about Danny in this third-person style, while he is an active participant of the debate here in the comment section, is quite impolite. While I disagree with him, I still respect him as a worthy opponent who is not (as Tom said in the very title of this blog post), in the same time, an enemy – just don’t forget that he not only interviewed Tom, but allowed him to present a range of sources supporting consensual child-adult sexuality, thus informing a wider audience about them.
And – didn’t you noticed that the number of subscribers to Tom’s blog is now notably higher (15 – 20 more people or so). I think it is connected to the interview.
So, while you are correct when you disagree with Danny, it would be better for you if you addressed him with your criticisms directly, not talked about him as if he’s not here.
Is Danny also aware that youth liberation is a movement that is entirely unconnected to the MAP community and its own movement? Its early version was created during the early 1970s by younger people, and had nothing to do with MAPs. The fact that the majority of pro-choice MAPs have embraced the ideology should hardly be seen as selfish or deserving of suspicion given our respect for younger people on all levels. Further, the benefits we would receive from the establishment of a youth liberated society in no way nullifies its benefits to younger people, and saying that having sex with kids is the only possible reason we could want youth liberation is an extreme ad hominim-laden generalization. Refusing to acknowledge the possibility that adults can have full and respectful romantic feelings for a child or even a young teen is underhandedly condescending towards kids, and in no way respectful to all they have to offer as a complete human being.
Tom, I wish you would fix your comment section. Some of these comments are difficult to read without copying and pasting them into a text editor. They are one word per line.
>Some of these comments are difficult to read without copying and pasting them into a text editor.
This is what I suggest you do. It is not that difficult.
Unfortunately, the WordPress software is not ideal. I did not design it and cannot fix it. Some other WordPress comment options are available but they do not allow for deep threads with multiple contributors.
That some of you even attempt to dress up the desire to exchange bodily fluids with minors as some sort of charitable concern for the well-being and political liberation of children in general is precisely why discussions with pedophiles and the rest of society haven’t, can’t, and won’t even get off the starting blocks. You can’t even seem to be honest with yourselves about the true nature of your motivations, so how can you ever expect the rest of society to ever take you seriously?
Dear Danny,
Yes, body fluids are disgusting things, aren’t they?
And now, something for you to think about.
It may be true that the paedophiles here are not honest with themselves, though I doubt very much that it is in respect of their desires, because most of the posts and comments I have read expressly go against the “desire to exchange body fluids”. But, perhaps I have not read this blog closely enough.
But this is the least important point. Much more important is the question of being honest with oneself.
How many people are in fact honest with themselves about their desires? And about the reasons for their desires?
Are you honest with yourself about the reasons for your most recent comments here? About the fear which those comments show?
I do not expect a reply to my questions, but I do hope you think about them.
Dissisent talk about being a “hebephile” in response to Danny comments.
Dissident is a long-run claimer that there is a separate attraction to girls in puberty, teen-age and “legal” adults (with another separate orientation to mature women), instead of all heterosexual men being attracted to women since they are women.
Sorry for him because he have good intentions but we deny that. There is no such thing as “ephebophilia” (or “hebephilia”), that “philias” are the normal male heterosexuality, just as there is no special and separate attraction to 20-year-old women. This just being a straight man, just that.
I think Seto, Blanchard and others are pulling your leg and I don’t know why you’re buying it, but most heterosexual man are not naturaly attracted to adult women only and if he admits that he likes teenage girls he no has a special and different emotional-sexual attraction called “somethingphilia”.
We know that there are only 2 genders and that men are attracted to young women, if you believe in “mesophilic” that being attracted to women of 30 or even 40 is the “natural” thing, well, it’s not much different from believing that there are 50 genders.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfRGcZ77kaE
Also about MAP. There is no such thing as being a “MAP” or not a “MAP” to all humans, except for the asexual and fetishist exclusive to the elderly, are attracted to those under 18.
http://theantifeminist.com/map-is-the-most-aspie-term-yet-for-male-sexualists/
To clarify my position: Is there such a thing as a hebephile? Yes, I think so, and it differs from mainstream teleiophilia in just one important way: it’s a specific preference for what are, biologically and emotionally, very young (i.e., “developing”) women; or, a significant attraction to them that is equal to their attraction for women in what is recognized (both legally and developmentally) as young adulthood (i.e., late adolescence to early to -mid-20s, say).
The average teleiophile may find themselves attracted to young adolescents, but that attraction is not a specific preference, nor is it significant enough that they have much difficulty ignoring or suppressing incidences of it most of the time in accordance with cultural expectations and social “politeness.” They may have a strong attraction to women (or men, as the case may be) in young adulthood, but as they get older at least, they can be attracted to older women (or men, etc.) in their age group, and likely have a better emotional connection with the latter in regards to romantic feelings.
Is there such a thing as a MAP/Kind attraction base? Yes, I also think so, based on the above criteria.
Human sexuality is complex, that pertaining to the male of the species arguably more so. Owing to my own feelings and experiences, I would otherwise agree with you, but I would say this means that homosexual behaviour would be included in this ’empirical male sexuality’ to which you refer, whereas I am simply not attracted to men / boys / anything with an appendage.
>Tom re being dependant on HERETIC TOC.
I can understand that u dont want me to be to dependent on this site but at the same time if my labido has been in some way been reduced and the fact that i find airing my grievances and view points help me stay away from any high risk situations (sex offending) then surely your site is a positive step.
>the fact that i find airing my grievances and view points help me stay away from any high risk situations (sex offending) then surely your site is a positive step.
If Heretic TOC is doing that for you, that’s great. You need a social circle as well, though, really.
tom im hoping to get my computer problem sorted out today
Tried Boychat/Girlchat? You could even request access to B4U-ACT’s forum (don’t worry, they make it clear that they believe that our attraction isn’t an illness and they won’t try to “cure” you at all)…
This place is buzzing! It’s great to see….
Yes, I think it’s good; as the moderator, though, it has been a bit challenging to keep up in the last few hours, not least as quite a few posts seemed to require comments of my own!
Does any one Dr Glen Wilson
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11951889/Paedophiles-working-as-teachers-a-social-good-psychologist.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Wilson_(psychologist)
Yes, he’s a good guy. I urge other heretics to read the excellent and very brave comments he gives in the linked article. In one comment he is quoted thus:
>“In my studies of the Paedophile Information Exchange in the 1980s, many members admitted sexual feelings for children which they had been able to contain or turn to social good.”
I was the Chair of PIE at that time. We (our governing committee) decided to cooperate with Wilson and his colleague David Cox, allowing them to interview volunteers from among our membership. The result was a book called The Child-Lovers.
(Wilson, G. D., & Cox, D. N. (1983). The child–lovers: A study of paedophiles in society. London: Peter Owen.)
>Tom
Did Glen still manage to keep his career?
Judeth Lavine still seems to manage.
Good question. Yes, he did.
so is it possible (even in this day and age) to become a psychologist or a counsellor ect and be open about paedophillia at the same time?
It was less difficult in the 1980s when Glenn Wilson was doing this work. He is now retired, though, so I guess he is more relaxed about speaking out than others would be, especially those still in the early years of their career.
Ah yes, He was on Channel Four a few years back, Just after they interviewed you by telephone.
“Maris Stratulis, manager of the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) said: “Paedophiles will use sophisticated rhetoric to justify and promote their feelings of sexual desire towards children.”
She is essentially saying that the Devil can quote Scripture. So Tom, your eloquence is not due to intelligence, thorough research and intellectual acuity but because you are evil.
>…but because you are evil.
Well, I’m sure you always knew that, Peter! 🙂
Sophisticated rhetoric = Facts, research that support their arguments & points. (Better quality & conduction than a lot of the rhetoric spewed out stating the opposite.)
Doesn’t seem to amaze me to see the constant bias from these people 😀
A parasite who get money on the fact by laws that persecute sex with people under 18 says that those who like people under 18 would use words to say they want people under 18.
“Social workers will use sophisticated rhetoric to justify and promote their feelings of power desire towards children.” 😀
She is also saying, as usual, that our feelings being intrinsically “wrong” is an absolute, incontrovertible given no matter what the data might say, or what arguments we make. To her ilk, it’s the equivalent of our trying to argue that the force of gravity exists even if they are heavily emotionally invested in the belief that it doesn’t, and couldn’t.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEI0FDNvHtM
he says pretty much wat ive been saying
Good stuff!
Thank you for informing us all about this wonderful YouTube channel, Hypersonic! The sheer amount of relevant information it contains…
It’s just a shame that so many people on the non-choice side of the fence will pretend they didn’t hear it… despite the mounting evidence that you do not have to be a MAP in order to support the pro-choice position, let alone youth liberation in general.
Just as a by-the-by, this seems to be a fascinating article on sexual age preferences, and the perception of faces. I have only just found it and given it a quick skim, or I would have posted in in the more relevant MT-W post just gone.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4046377/pdf/rsbl20140200.pdf
Thanks, Bruce. I haven’t seen this paper before but it is part of an excellent on-going research project headed by Jorge Ponseti. I actually reported, briefly, on another paper by his team in the February blog “Nothing like Nordic noir to cheer us up!” That was a new Ponseti et al, paper, published just this year, titles “Decoding Pedophilia: Increased Anterior Insula Response to Infant Animal Pictures”.
Jorge Ponseti et al, 2018
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00645
The debate begins.
Almost 3 hours later, the old Irish pedophile man (with a suspicious left-wing ideology) gives the bearded man a “argumentative” beating.
The bearded man (who uses suspiciously feminist concepts such as “power dynamics”) in the face of the old pedophile’s victory concludes: “no, damn it, Tom the paedo, you’re not going to touch my children, em it’s wrong, wrong em o-ok? period, I feel that way, em I don’t care about the dozens of contrasted and empirical arguments that you’ve presented to me for 2 hours”.
Old Irish pedo: Thank you for this delightful debate even if you are in the same position that in the start and almost asked for all of us being gassed.
Now, Tom the Paedo, OBE, is going to moderate the comments on his blog (The Irish Republican Pedo), to aprove sagacious, ironic and full of sarcasm and 100% certified British humor comments like this.
>Now, Tom the Paedo, OBE
OBE? News to me. I think I must have missed the letter from Buckingham Palace!
>Ed Chambers
hi its daniel, got your fbook messege yes i would still like to skype with you i have done so with tom he saw my face (you can ask to confirm) preffare daniel, also i think there has been some confusion i dont know this adam you are talking about.
I agree, there has been a misunderstanding….nevermind….I think it’s important as a pedo you keep active, particularly if you are in a situation that is oppressive for you, perhaps police, social services etc. Perhaps you can go jogging, or to the gym to keep fit.
Being with like minded people here at HTOC is a good thing, and in addition to this place, have you considered B4uAct, Visions Of Alice, Girl / Boy Chat, and (only on TOR) Pedo Support Community? You can search for the latter with notEvil, a search engine specifically for TOR. It’s best to spread yourself out, as Tom said this place could be here one day, and gone tomorrow, god forbid. There are also chats on Discord.
If you want to branch out, use notEvil on TOR to find the topic links for our community.
A question I want to ask here to commentators:
Why do you want girls and have a life of problems and suffering, when you can have women and have a decent life? Why don’t you simply ignore your attraction to girls and go with women?
I’ll ask the persons who like boys the same question too.
To a question we dont want children to have a terrible time wat a stupid question.
Do you know anything about attraction?
>To fucking christ
Yes i do know what attraction is i also know wat sexual abuse is i have been abused myself.
(abused as a child by someone)
so i know how it feels to be genuinely abused which is NOT fully consensual.
Daniel, I don’t think this remark was addressed to you. It referred to the comment above yours, if I remember correctly. It is easy to make this mistake, unfortunately, as the WordPress layout is not very clear.
Tom re girls suffering are you talking about the obe?
Sorry, Daniel, you’ve lost me, but I think the answer is “No”.
someone with the screen name saying that paedophiles want to make girls suffer.
Why do you want girls and have a life of problems and suffering, when you can have women and have a decent life?
I do not want girls to have a life of suffering and problems, which is why I do not form romantic relationships with them in an environment where it is against the law, and they are denied full civil rights of personhood based on the matter of their age alone.
Being able to have women (or adult men) for legal reasons, and because it’s within the comfort zone of “polite” society, is not the same thing as being attracted to them on all levels. Attraction is not a choice, as any of us can tell you, and as any LGBT person you may know will tell you.
Some MAPs are non-exclusive with very broad attraction bases, and do indeed form fulfilling and loving relationships with fellow adults. Others, however, were not given this attribute by nature, and they do not form relationships with other adults because they are not attracted to them sexually, and cannot effectively fall in love with them emotionally or find common ground in social activities. In such a case, that would not be a decent life, but rather would be living a lie in one sense, and using the fellow adult as a facade for public acceptability — as a living prop, or a “beard” — in another sense.
Would the latter be legal? Yes. Would it make a lot of people in society happy? Yes. But would it make the couple themselves happy? No. Hence, is it really an ethical choice? No. Lies and deceit do not lead to decent lives or happiness, at least not in the long run.
As for MAPs like myself who are attracted to younger women of legal age, I do indeed attempt to form legal relationships with much younger women, as I have a degree of physical attraction to them, and have proven capable of falling in love with them and we enjoy similar social activities. However, society often does not approve of this due to age-based discrimination being both popular and highly acceptable (even when legal), and would prefer that I lie and deceive an older woman to make society happy in place of me and her.
Why don’t you simply ignore your attraction to girls and go with women?
I already went into detail above as to why many of us heterosexual MAPs do not go with women. Ignoring our attraction? I believe most of us attempt to do that as often as we can, as we are denied any type of physical outlet, and can only achieve the type of emotional and social fulfillment that is natural to us under certain very strict conditions (if then).
Now I will say this: Even though you asked politely, and I thank you for that, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that pro-choice MAPs routinely attempt to have illegal romantic relationships with girls. The majority of us do not, because the legal environment makes that far too dangerous for both MAPs and any youths we may have that kind of relationship with. Hence, the great majority of MAPs, of all ideological camps, do indeed routinely “ignore” their attractions, or perhaps more accurately, put it aside and do not act on it.
Those Cambodian fishing boys, Some are beautiful, And there is no shortage of those fishing videos on YT.
>And there is no shortage of those fishing videos on YT.
In that case, I could be the last Kind in the world to have found them!
The only reason to prohibit sex with “minors” or “children” (as I see people reject biology for the sake of “legality”, they call “non-adults” children even though those have reached puberty) is so that “adults” have the false “freedom” to do what they want among themselves. There is no other real reason to conclude that sex is only for adults. Their “arguments” are not such, they are simple rationings devoid of the minimum of decency, intelligence and moral courage. All maintained exclusively to maintain the same system of adultist, ageist power, the indefinite status quo of having children as property of parents and the state, as inferior beings (which is why they are called “minors” because they are considered inferior because of their age).
They will never stop considering children and young people as property if nobody stops them, they are their slaves, but to believe that they are not doing evil, they created the perverse idea that they “do it for their own good” and consider themselves “guardians, fathers and mothers” and not just “masters”. That’s what the legalistic idea of the age of consent and coming of age comes from, and after that we see the rationings of “children do not consent” or “to be able to make decisions you have to live independently” that for them is being an “adult”) that are not based on the least human reasoning or empirical research, are nothing more than the pseudo-intellectual expressions of the master regulating his property as it suits him while he feels better about himself.
There are only two positions regarding children and young people: juvenile (and child) liberation or adultism. Youth liberation includes the absolute sexual liberation of young people, if it does not include it is not youth liberation, it is adultism. Adultism is an incorrect position because discriminate and considering people as property because of their age is INMORAL. Applying logic and reason we deduce that “child guardianship” is slavery. That sex is not and never will be exclusively for “consenting adults”. Morality is an imperative, not an option, the release of children and youth from adult ownership, and their sexual release is a moral imperative.
Spot on!
>Tom
Hi Tom mate ive have a thought with your permission would it be ok for me to share this blog with any particular organisations and if so what would be the do’s and don’ts.
It’s a public blog, Daniel, and I am more than happy for posts to be republished on other sites, with acknowledgement of the original source. So you can use the sharing tools that appear below the main post , which give the option to share with Twitter, Reddit or Facebook. There is also sharing by email or (unlikely to be used much) by printing out.
Do you have any particular organisations in mind? It would probably be better to avoid posting to any where the response is sure to be hostile. If in doubt, by all means ask me.
There is another choice, too: the Press This button, which can be dropped and dragged for use as a tool on a browser bookmark bar. I haven’t really thought about this one before. It looks as though I could use it on my browser to immediately publish any webpage as a post on Heretic TOC. I don’t see how you could you it, though. Maybe this button only appears on my version of the page while I am logged in as the administrator.
What about organisations such as Circles Uk or various other organisations for lonely paedo/offenders so they have a more positive outlet rather than the negative temptation of re offending because i find that this blog is a useful site to not only get out negative emotions but also feel wanted by a wider community, this may sound a bit embarrassing but i have also found myself masturbating less cos i am busy putting my efforts into something else.
>Tom
http://www.circles-uk.org.uk/
>What about organisations such as Circles Uk
Fine by me, Daniel. The people who run Circles might not like it but I don’t see any harm is making the gesture.
I am puzzled, though, because you somewhat worryingly recently described HTOC as your only social circle. I would not want you to depend too heavily on any website, not even this one. Didn’t you have some contact with Circles? What happened to that? I recall you saying you had to move home, so did you lose contact as a result? Forgive me if you mentioned this before.
As for wanking, that’s OK; but having nothing else to do is a bad sign for sure.
>Tom re circles
I had an interview but i wasnt accepted,circles was one suggestion Im sure you know plenty of other ways to advertise just trying to think of ways to help get a wider audience.
>Im sure you know plenty of other ways to advertise just trying to think of ways to help get a wider audience.
Yes, there are ways of generating free publicity, through social media, etc, but using these effectively tends to require more thinking time and energy than I have available, as I discovered when trying to promote my book Michael Jackson’s Dangerous Liaisons a few years ago.
I wonder if ed chambers has any ideas? i might ask him.
>Tom re not having things to do.
I dont really have a life anymore people in society have driven me to the point where i have nothing else to focus on, plus i have oppressed these feelings so much im now unleashing it and wanting to help the cause to the best of my ability, if i can have a proper skype conversation with you i would be able to explain my situation to you a lot better but unfortunately we couldnt really do that last time.
>but unfortunately we couldnt really do that last time.
Check your internet connection speed. If it’s not great, maybe you can try from another location? This is a personal matter that does not involve other readers (unless anyone has a solution?). So please email me to discuss this further if you need to.
I am hoping to deal with the issue asap
Tom re Michael Jackson
Their are many ppl whos say he’s innocent of any wrong doing (depending on definition) or not at all I haven’t read this book i did however read a couple of chapters of judeith Levine’s Harmful to Minors i assume you have done the same.
Many of Michael Jackson’s fans, especially years ago when he was still at the height of his fame, were young women and girls who fantasised about having a relationship with him. That dream would have been spoiled for them by knowing he was attracted to boys, so they denied it passionately.
They were not interested in studying the facts; they just wanted to dream, and hated it when I set out the detailed case for him being a boy-lover, with over 600 pages of reasoned analysis, making use of such sources as sworn statements and court transcripts. If I had been on the jury in his 2005 trial I would have said Not Guilty, just as the actual jury did, because the case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt in relation to the accuser in question.
But the balance of the evidence, taken as a whole, most definitely points to him having been an active boy-lover with a number of boys.
And, yes, I have read Judith Levine’s excellent book.
Hey Tom. I found a good study a few months back that actually differentiates between consensual and non-consensual sexual contact between adults and children. Somehow it seems to have fallen under the radar of most activists, but as far as I’m aware it’s be best research on the effects of consensual CSEOPs (Child Sexual Experiences with Older Persons) to date.
The study was conducted on a probability sample of 912 gay/bisexual males in the US, half of whom had had sexual contact with adults when they were children (aged 15 and under), and half of whom had not. Among those who’d had sex with adults as children, the prevalence of consensual sex was almost 70%, with only 30% of encounters being non-consensual.
They found that the boys who’d had consensual sex with adults were just as well adjusted psychologically as the boys who had not had sex with adults, and interestingly enough they actually performed *better* in all of the “risky sexual situation” variables.
Unsurprisingly, boys who’d been forced/coerced in to sex with adults were significantly more likely to be experiencing psychological distress and risky sexual situations than either the consensual-sex or no-sex groups.
Perhaps more surprising however was the fact that experiencing homophobia in adulthood was an even greater predictor of negative outcomes than experiencing non-consensual sex with an adult in childhood (maybe because the homophobia was more recent and often ongoing). Experiencing homophobia in childhood was on-par with forced sex in childhood as a predictor of negative outcomes.
https://sci-hub.hk/10.2105/ajph.2008.138925
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2865208/
P.S. Do you happen to know where I can find an English version of the 2013 Finnish Child Victim Survey?
Thanks.
Hi Dan.
I’m glad you have reminded me about this study by Arreola, Neilands & Diaz, which I was aware of and have in fact read and made notes on. You are right, though, to say it has “fallen under the radar of most activists” and I am guilty myself of failing to cite it enough.
As for the 2013 Finnish Child Victim Survey, I do not know of any English version. So, if HTOC has any Finnish followers, here’s your chance to make yourselves useful! I found myself resorting to Google Translate in order to get the gist of key parts of the survey when there was some debate as to the statistical significance of some subsets of the data.
Thanks for the reply. I posted this study because I’d just read your article titled “Latin lovers versus British bum bandits”, and noticed that you didn’t mention this particular study (although you did mention a different study by the same authors), so I thought that perhaps you weren’t aware of it. That article was from 2 years ago though, to be fair.
Speaking of that other study by the same authors ( https://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/00224490802204431 )… When you wrote about this, you seemed to hint at the fact that this was specifically about sexual experiences between boys and adults, rather than sexual experiences of boys in general. The authors themselves also hint at this a couple of times, and even Bruce Rind hints at it when citing this study, however I can’t seem to find any definitive proof that it is primarily about adult-child experiences. Am I missing something here?
As for the Finnish study, I did try once with Google translate, but quickly gave up trying to find the relevant parts as it was so long, I guess I’ll just have to keep trying.
>I can’t seem to find any definitive proof that it is primarily about adult-child experiences.
Just on a quick inspection this evening, I have to say it looks as though you may be right. I’ll have another look tomorrow, when I should be feeling fresher.
Hello Dan,
thank you very much for posting this study which I didn´t know.
Do you know of any other quantitative studies that explored if consensual sex of minors with older persons had negative mental health consequences or not?
The only other study I am aware of that differentiates between forced and consensual sex of minors with older persons is King et al. (2002): Sexual molestation of males: associations with psychological disturbance. British Journal of Psychiatry, 181 (2) 153-157. This study too had the result that there is no relationship between consensual sex of minors with older persons and later psychological disturbances (although there were some little differences with some other variables). So this is the current state of research. Very good.
Would be great if anybody could do and publish a metaanalysis especially about the effects of consensual sex of minors with older persons.
Filip
There’s also Condy et Al 1987 (“Parameters of Sexual Contact of Boys with Women”). In this study of 571 males, consensual sexual contact with women (5 or more years older) was strongly associated with favourable feelings for the boy, and had a positive/beneficial effect on their adult sex life, whereas the forced sexual contact was associated with negative feelings and a negative effect on their adult sex life. The ages of the boys at the time of the sexual contact ranged from 3-15, with a mean age of 12. Here are some direct quotes from the study:
“As indicated in Table VI, in only a rather small minority of the cases did the male report being forced. In a much larger proportion of the cases, the male actually reported initiating the activity. Furthermore, the present research found that the men tended to report the experience as negative if they were forced and positive if they were not forced. This is consistent with the contention of previous authors that the most influential factor in a traumatic sexual event for a child is the type of coercion (Finkelhor, 1979; Groth, 1979; Sarrel & Masters, 1982).”
“Among both the college and the prison men, there were far more respondents indicating that the sexual experience was good than those who regraded it as bad. The preponderance of respondents also regarded it as having a good rather than a bad effect on their adult sex lives.”
“It is apparent that both the condition of “female wanted to, male agreed” and “male wanted to, female agreed” were associated with reported favorable feelings at the time and reported favorable effect on adult sex life. If the boy was forced, the feeling at the time and the effect on adult sex life were reported as unfavorable.”
“Age [of the boy at the time of sexual-contact] was not significantly related to either effect variable”
https://sci-hub.hk/10.1007/bf01541421 (let me know if the link doesn’t work for you)
I’m pretty sure couple of other studies that I’m forgetting, but I can’t think of them right now. I’ll reply to this comment again if I remember them.
Many thanks, Dan. The name Condy in this context seems very familiar (because often cited by Rind???), but I have to admit I cannot find this study among my files.
The quotes you cite give further validation to the consent concept. It occurs to me as an immediate response that Danny Whittaker really has to start taking such information more seriously in order to keep his investigations honest. He has had a lot of new information to digest, emotionally as well as cognitively. The easiest thing for him would be just to dig his heels in and go into denial. There are signs of that in his latest post.
You are correct in saying that it’s often cited by Rind, it was actually one of the 59 studies in the Rind et Al meta-analysis, and as far as I’m aware it’s the only one which made a clear distinction between consensual and non-consensual acts, although admittedly I haven’t got round to reading every single one yet.
I also hope that Danny reads these and takes them on board. In his interview with you he seemed to be fairly intellectually honest, and took the studies you gave him in to consideration even though he maintained his anti-pedophillia stance from an instinctual/emotional standpoint. It generally takes a lot of time for people to change their views on things, especially when presented with evidence that contradicts beliefs that are so deeply rooted and widely held in society, so I’m honestly impressed that Danny has been so open-minded about this so far.
Just a side note: I thought you did incredibly well in the interview, and you effectively conveyed a lot of thoughts that I also have on these issues. It was also surprisingly refreshing to hear someone other than the usual anti-cs being interviewed for a change.
>I thought you did incredibly well in the interview
Thanks, Dan. It was great to be given a bit of space to give expansive answers, which makes a huge difference. The attack dog style of interviewing, by contrast, makes it pretty much impossible to say anything sensible. Having experienced interviewers of the snarling, sneering kind a few times, I now have some admiration for politicians who manage to keep calm in a tight spot and stay “on message”. It’s really, really difficult.
Thank you very much Dan. Would be really great if you could post here further studies in case they come to your mind.
Three more studies maybe (a close look is necessary) could also be included in such a metaanalysis about the effects of WANTED sexual contacts of minors with adults:
1) Rind (2001): Gay and bisexual adolescent boys’ sexual experiences with men: An empirical examination of psychological correlates in a nonclinical sample. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 30 (4) 345-368.
2) Sandfort (1993/1994): The Sexual Experiences of Children. Part 1 in: Paidika – The Journal of Paedophilia, Nr. 9/1993; Part 2 in: Paidika – The Journal of Paedophilia, Nr. 10/1994, Stichting Paidika Foundation, Amsterdam
3) Bernard (1979): Pädophilie. In: Albrecht-Désirat und Pacharzina, Sexualität und Gewalt, 1979
Maybe such a metaanalysis could have a similar title as the famous metaanalysis by Rind/Bauserman/Tromovitch, for example: A meta-analytic examination of assumed effects of wanted sexual contacts of minors with adults
I am strongly convinced that such a metaanalysis could be very helpful for MAP-argumentation.
As good as this study admittedly is, Dan, I still have to give my usual complaint, as I believe it’s necessary: It would have better, and even more fair than it already was, if it didn’t limit its study of consensual romantic/sexual liaisons to those that occurred only between boys and men. This has been a very pervasive and politically driven bias in both the Kind community and research circles studying us for far too long now, and it needs to be challenged. Man/girl, and even woman/girl contact, is not rare, and should not be nearly as marginalized as it is among both researchers and this community.
Doing so leads to the implications that man/girl love (and woman/girl love; or even perhaps woman/boy love) is morally deficient compared to the possibility of mutually consensual man/boy love, and is thus not as worthy of such nuanced consideration. Some of the rationalizations for this too frequent bias and omission is not only insulting to GLer’s, but it’s equally condescending to girls, whose personhood and freedom of choice is argued to be less important to respect (as opposed to controlling) than that of boys. I do not think I am overstating this critique, especially when a study promoted as researching the possibility of consensual, non-abusive intergenerational relationships turns out to have this double-gender bias yet again. Thankfully, the Consenting Juveniles site is not doing this, but too many older research sources have.
I agree, Dissy. Also, I must admit that the bias is so routine it escaped me that this is something to which attention needs to be brought.
Indeed, the emphasis on man-boy love in considerations about inter-generational love owes in part to politics. The opposition to any AOC and the defence of inter-generational love came first from the radical gay movement, following Harry Hayes. Hence among radicals, inter-generational intimacy was seen as a gay issue. On the other hand, man-girl love was seen as a variant of ordinary “straight” sexuality, or worse, incest. Add the influence of victim feminism, presenting girls as hapless victims of oppressive male sexuality.
Moreover, as girls suffer more than boys from the stigmatisation of sexuality and from sexual violence, they have a much higher incidence of negative experiences in sex. Thus there is an opportunist tendency to say “it does not work with girls, but it does with boys, so let us emphasise boys.”
The bias toward man-boy love is strong in academic studies, for instance in the works of Bruce Rind (I have supposed he must be gay), and many defences of inter-generational sex were published in the Journal of Homosexuality.
BTW, there is on WP a “rad-fem” pastiche of Tom Grauer’s blog: Your Daily Misandrist.
Well said, Christian. Another contribution to this lop-sided gender emphasis is the simple fact that the BLer’s had a two-decade head start on GLer’s in terms of becoming politically active and building of community. That went a long way towards placing the research focus heavily biased towards man/boy love, even if not entirely intentionally (if at all). This has led to a sometimes extreme bias on the part of even non-BLer researchers, some of whom believe that the study of man/boy love is as far as the serious study of the MAP attraction base need go, even going so far at times as to display sympathy for man/boy love while being hostile or dismissive of man/girl love — while scarcely acknowledging woman/girl love or woman/boy love).
>Re consensual relationship study
When ever ive been on the net to find these kind of studies they seem to be very limited if anything at all.
I completely agree, it’s frustrating how little research there is on the effects of consensual adult-girl sexual contact (virtually zero afaik, aside from a passing mention in one of Kilpatrick’s studies. (http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498609551302)). I’ll keep searching though, hopefully there are more studies that have gone unnoticed.
Kilpatrick wrote a whole book on the topic back in the early ’90s, where she was implicit in differentiating between consensual and non-consensual contact between men and girls, and the results did not have anywhere near the disparity between the genders that the initial findings of the Rind Study did… before Rind et al. re-submitted the questions with the issue of consent made more clear; as well as subsequent studies that likewise made no differentiation between consent and non-consent in its questions about intergenerational experiences. And she made a major point to not only focus on reports from girls very heavily, but children as well as young adolescent girls.
https://www.amazon.com/Long-range-Effects-Adolescent-Sexual-Experiences/dp/0805809147/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524443465&sr=1-1&keywords=Allie+C.+Kilpatrick+-+Long-Range+Effects+of+Child+and+Adolescent+Sexual+Experiences&dpID=516wDbPSQKL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch
Unfortunately, Kilpatrick’s book and the main body of Rind et al.’s study continue to be overlooked, and I have no doubt that it’s on purpose in many cases.
I’ve heard a lot of good things about that book, but I can’t seem to find a free version of it anywhere, is paying for it my only option?
This is the heavily researched book that many non-choice/non-legalization pundits do their best to ignore and pray will vanish from the face of the planet. It’s also the book that proponents of man/boy love research who are hostile or dismissive of man/girl love wish the same thing for, since its emphasis on the consent issue from the start puts paid to the “girls are very likely to experience all sexual contact with adults negatively, in contrast to boys…” rhetoric, due to research that overlooked this important stipulation when asking people of both genders about their intergen sexual encounters as youths (Rind et al. cannot be held to blame, because they accounted for that discrepancy in the main body of their meta-analysis, but too many people have a strong political agenda for ignoring that and only paying attention to the initial findings reported in the abstract, before all was taken into account).
Now, to answer your question: Sadly, I have not been able to find this book or the bulk of its reports available free anywhere, and its admittedly pricey cost has been a major factor in keeping it out of the hands of interested researchers, and considerably more easy to help it sink into its undeserved obscurity. My advice is to take advantage of Amazon’s rental policy for the digital version, and take extensive notes that you record for future reference and excerpting on relevant sites for discussion, with every quote carefully cited. I plan to do that myself!
I got the Kilpatrick book from AbeBooks for less than 10 euros, postage included!
When my attention was first drawn to the existence of this interview, my first thought was ‘I’m not interested in what the interviewer has to say, I simply want to hear Tom extrapolate.’ After having watched all the way through, I want to briefly comment now, before watching it once more and giving a more detailed opinion on it.
I started off with a pre / misconception about Danny, given that most, if not all, of interviewers of our kind in this scenario often talk the subject down, dismiss many valid, progressive and interesting points, and are generally rude, obstructive and obnoxious. By the end of the interview, I found myself warming to the guy, just a little, and I have to admit that it was only this change in my perception of him that encouraged me to watch his introduction, as I had groaned and cursed at my first attempt, and somewhere around the 2 minute mark I skipped to when the interview started.
Credit where credit is due. I am impressed by the apparent time and respect Danny offered Tom and the topic in general. Whilst I thought he was biased in some respects, I was happy he allowed Tom to talk with the time he deserves, and for the most part gave some degree of consideration to what was being said.
I think it’s fair to say when facing Tom, Danny was out of his depth to some degree. In this respect, I would look forward to a time / 2nd interview when the latter was more informed and educated on topic. What I thought disappointing towards the end of the interview was Danny retreating from facts to a reliance on emotional response, and arguably being content with this.
As for Tom’s appearance here, it’s fair to say that his knowledge on topic and ability to access and convey this in a respectful and coherent manner are unrivaled.
The last five minutes really struck a chord with me, as I also find myself thinking about perhaps having missed the opportunity to have had my own children and watch them growing up, although it was also warming to learn that Tom is content with his life in many regards.
On a final note for now, I can’t help but think of Danny as an Imam of Internet Interview, owing to his fantastic beard….
Hi Ed,
I’m going to make this my final comment on this topic. I have a new episode coming out today, so my attention must shift elsewhere. But a couple of things I feel worth addressing:
“I think it’s fair to say when facing Tom, Danny was out of his depth to some degree.”
I find it interesting that most people here viewed this primarily as a debate. Maybe you guys are just so used to speaking from a defensive posture, but this certainly wasn’t my intention going in. The idea behind this episode was to explore the subjective psychological nature of being an adult attracted to minors. I was here to primarily to learn from Tom. The issues of debate that were raised weren’t so much about one side attempting to prove the other wrong, but trying to get a clear picture of Tom’s side of the argument, and the psychology that lies BEHIND the conclusions he has come to.
Secondly, the idea that this debate could be “won” either way is, I think, a misnomer. Even if Tom “won” the debate against me in the sense that he was better informed of the studies and statistics, a victory of what is essentially general knowledge facts and figures against somebody lesser informed is hardly a victory of any substance. So too the idea that I was going to convince Tom to not be attracted to children anymore is about as realistic as him talking me out of being attracted to women my own age.
“In this respect, I would look forward to a time / 2nd interview when the latter was more informed and educated on topic.”
As stated in the intro, I will be revisiting this topic from the scientific, objective perspective, but don’t see any reason for Tom and I to cover anymore ground at the moment.
“What I thought disappointing towards the end of the interview was Danny retreating from facts to a reliance on emotional response, and arguably being content with this.”
I don’t feel I did this. I was merely acknowledging the reality that pedophiles face which is a general public which is, and I suspect will continue to remain, completely unmoved by science and statistics.
Conservatives like myself often like to preach the “facts don’t care about your feelings” maxim. But one criticism I have of this stance, that conservatives seem to refuse to engage with, is that feelings themselves are indeed part of the totality of facts that exist out there in the world, and are therefore something that needs to be taken into consideration.
But even so, I don’t find the facts themselves very compelling. The Finnish study for a start merely asks about persons “5 or more years older”, but doesn’t account for actual age discrepancies, nor the age at which the encounters happened (or if it did, I couldn’t see this data as I could only access certain sections, but happy to be corrected). I suspect the wider this age gap gets, the more likely it is to be a negative experience.
The huge discrepancy between the boys and girls who found it a positive experience just made me feel even more protective towards girls specifically.
I haven’t yet heard a convincing argument for a child’s ability to give informed consent. In fact, my conversation with Tom and his answers to this question left me even more reassured by this argument.
The fact that pedophiles are the only ones arguing in favour of adult-child sexual relations, and that there are no young people doing the same is hugely damaging to the cause and a blatant demonstration of the power imbalance inherent is this entire issue.
The trauma by society problem is a HUGE moral problem. Since societal judgement will lead to trauma for some children as we transition to a more “sex positive” society, how many children is it acceptable to write off as collateral damage during this period?
Finally, since there is no evidence to suggest that children who don’t engage in sex at an early age end up worse off than those who do (though there is arguably plenty of evidence to the contrary), what would be the point in parents and/or wider society being open to allowing it?
Sure, there’s some self-reported anecdotal evidence that some people found a paedophilia relationship positive. But how are we supposed to guess for which child this retrospective analysis will indeed be the case?
Children fare better with an education. They fare better under a two parent household. They fare better with good nutrition. There are incentives for parents and wider society to pursue these aims for children as they demonstrate, statistically, a net positive. But since there is no reason nor research to suggest that children grow to be more well rounded individuals due to having had sex with an adult, and plenty of evidence to the contrary, what benefits, beyond the sexual satisfaction of pedophiles would such a societal shift serve?
I think there’s a good argument to be made that if anybody is retreating to emotion on this issue, it’s pro-contact pedophiles who are ultimately seeking legal access to other peoples children for what appears little more than self-serving sexual gratification.
Anyway guys, thank you for listening to the episode. I’m sure this page will continue generate interesting dialogue, and I hope you felt it ultimately worthwhile despite the seeming unbridgeable chasm that lies between us ideologically.
If you have any questions you’d like me to pose to my next interviewee on this topic please drop me a suggestion: danny [at] myownworstenemy.org
It currently looks like it’s going to be Juliet Grayson from StopSO in the UK… I was speaking to James Cantor, but he’s seems to have gone quiet since the release of this interview.
Thanks, Danny
Lots to ponder from this. Having just got home from an enjoyable but exhausting day’s fell-walking, I certainly won’t be attempting a substantive response today. Others are welcome to have a go. All I would advise is that you think carefully about Danny’s arguments rather than dashing off a knee-jerk response. Arguments and information are required, not hostility.
To Danny whittaker I dont know if you have heard of someone called Amos Yee but he is also in favor of paedophiles and he claims not to be a paedophile.
Here’s the thing: even though I’m a pro-reform (read: “pro-contact”) boylover, there is much here that I agree with. That is not to say that I disagree with every single other pedo, because of course I don’t. But I do think that many times I have fundamental disagreements with either conclusions or arguments that are put forth.
One thing I find especially disheartening about many pro-contacters (and I guess just many pedos in general) is the almost slavish devotion to science and appeals to history. Speaking about fertility, peak sexuality, and human bodies in the abstract doesn’t make you look like you have a good point: it just kinda makes you look like a biological essentialist creep who, like almost all people who claim to know what’s “best” for youth, have not spoken to or asked youth about what they believe is best for them or how they feel about sexuality. This kind of essentialist thinking is limiting; there is no nuance, no appreciation for individual differences that manifest themselves throughout a youth’s life and which can affect a youth’s – and adult’s – expression of or thoughts about sexuality.
There’s also the simultaneous belief and disbelief in societal pressure and systems. Many pedos recognize that they and others in their community have believed in false notions because of societal messages, or because an authoritative figure in psychology or other field said so. They see that a lot of times, society wants to make a victim out of somebody who does not feel like a victim, and various messages received about sexuality affect this so-called “victim.” On the other hand, I’ve seen people blatantly disbelieve somebody when they say they felt victimized, as well as a blanket dismissal that learned experiences with authority and adults could influence somebody’s perception of a situation.
If you see that on average girls report more harm from intergen relationships than boys do, you need to get to the root of why that is. You should strive to understand why girls receive gendered messages about sex, sexuality, and their body that are different from boys. You should investigate how messages from society, their parents, the media, their peers, their religion, their sex ed, etc. can influence how boys and girls are given sexual roles. The idea that girls must be sexually available, but not too sexual; the idea that boys are always sexually available and must be “dominant.” That’s not even to bring up how race, culture, sexual orientation, class, or a myriad of other factors affect youth and their relationship with sexuality and adults.
Youth are not sexually innocent or asexual like many adults wish they were; that does not, however, automatically mean that they have sexuality and consent all figured out. Hell, lots of adults don’t have sexuality and consent all figured out either, and this isn’t some kind of moral failing. What this signals to me is that we need to move forward as a sex-positive society and provide resources to youth and adults on how to have positive, consensual, and collaborative relationships as well as how to spot abusive or manipulative relationships. We are not giving youth the tools they need to navigate relationships or speak their mind freely.
I’m a pro-reformer – in fact, I’ve been one since I myself was in middle school. But I disagree with notions about sexuality and consent that are simply biological in nature or which attempt to prove their worth through the invocation of how things were in history or how things are in other countries. I think it’s extremely worthwhile to examine the subject through a variety of lenses.
“it just kinda makes you look like a biological essentialist creep who, like almost all people who claim to know what’s “best” for youth, have not spoken to or asked youth about what they believe is best for them or how they feel about sexuality.”
Is that a fair assessment? To say those who have difficulties to express their feelings about discrimination look like creeps? Shouldn’t we rather empathize with them instead of accusing them of not actually caring about youth? Can they be blamed for only having arguments that are self-centered when that may be literally all they have? Their only source for self esteem in a society that actively supresses any possibilities for a youthlover to find a feeling of self-worth.
“What this signals to me is that we need to move forward as a sex-positive society””
So then why call people who say they want sex creeps? Just because they “have not asked youth about what they believe”, whatever that means. How many young people does a person need to speak to to not be called a creep anymore when they say they’d like to see laws changed?
In a sex-positive society people would simply ask others if they’d like to have sex and that’s it. They wouldn’t have conducted interviews of whatever group of people they find attractive beforehand as a “justification”.
They simply wouldn’t need to justify themselves for wanting to have sex. So please let’s not call folks who justify themselves for wanting to have sex but don’t do so in a perfect manner creeps. It’s the people who see sex as inherently bad who are creepy, not the one’s being so courageous to say that they want it.
“Youth are not sexually innocent”
I’m not the word police, so use whatever terms you like, but I hate that expression. There’s nothing about sex that makes you guilty. So let’s maybe say “sexually inexperienced” instead?
“I disagree with notions about sexuality and consent that are simply biological in nature or which attempt to prove their worth through the invocation of how things were in history or how things are in other countries.”
If the antis manage that we judge ourselves on their own terms, that we think of every youthlover who points at history, nature, or other cultures as someone who is a potential rapist who makes these arguments because a lack of empathy then they control us. You know why youthlovers make these arguments? Because they’re desperate, because they perhaps expect at least a tiny bit of compassion from others so that instead of “playing stupid” they will fill in the gaps of the argumentation. That they will understand that e.g. referring to lower age of consent laws elsewhere includes the implication that this might be because this is because there’s no harm in intergenerational relationships, and not because the people there wouldn’t care for young people. That referring to biology and history means to assert oneself in a society that tries to erase one’s identity.
Haha, what? Where did I say that people who want to have sex or those who have difficulties expressing their feelings about discrimination are “creeps”? I’m saying that people whose evidence of youth being able to consent is only biological in nature are more likely than not reducing people down to bodily functions and discounting the person attached to that body. Discussing girls’ sexual maturity or fertility or whatever is irrelevant. Nobody asserts that their consent (or anybody else’s consent) is valid because they’re sexually mature or fertile, they assert it because they feel that their consent is valid.
I also think that if your self-worth is all tied up in your ability to have sexual relations, you might want to reevaluate yourself. I’m sure sexual relations are great, but they aren’t the end-all-be-all to your worth.
Sexual positivity isn’t just “people can say yes to sex and not feel bad about it.” I think it’s people can yes or no, people can choose to engage or not engage in sex, people can determine what feels comfortable, people can discuss things openly with their partner, people don’t feel pressured to do or not do certain things, people can explore their sexuality in various ways, people have the right to sexual self-determination, people don’t have to follow certain sexual scripts, people can do, be, and say certain things without being expected to be sexually available, etc. and on and on.
I don’t think it’s wrong of us in the pedo-community to understand that healthy sexuality and sexual relationships are not based simply on biology or the magic word of “yes,” and I don’t think it’s wrong to be critical of arguments that we find faulty or lacking. Consent and healthy, positive sexuality are not scary topics, and I don’t think they should be simply brushed aside with “people can say yes.” I’m not calling people “potential rapists” because they point to biology or history, I’m saying that I find it unhelpful to do so.
>I’m saying that people whose evidence of youth being able to consent is only biological in nature are more likely than not reducing people down to bodily functions and discounting the person attached to that body.
So far so good.
>Discussing girls’ sexual maturity or fertility or whatever is irrelevant. Nobody asserts that their consent (or anybody else’s consent) is valid because they’re sexually mature or fertile, they assert it because they feel that their consent is valid.
Fertility was mentioned in a comment on the previous blog in relation to a claim Tom Grauer supposedly made (whether he actually did so was queried) about adolescent fertility.
I would just urge that we take some care to distinguish between biological facts in themselves (which it can be very useful to know), on the one hand, and moral or policy claims based on those facts (which may be dubious) on the other. Just because anyone makes a lot of reference to biology, or scientific findings with a bearing on sexual issues, does not necessarily mean they intend to be biologically deterministic.
Please be sure you are sitting down for this, Peace, because I am going to be quite frank with you. I will not be rude, and I do not think I will be unfair to you, because I have known you long enough to have a good understanding of the worldview you strongly adhere to, and it’s not one that is very friendly to anyone who is biologically male and heterosexual; and a bit overly sympathetic with the “victimology” ideology since in our culture that is seen as a largely “female” issue. Hence, I am not going to be “polite” by pretending this view does not color your interpretations of this topic, because it very obviously does.
But I do think that many times I have fundamental disagreements with either conclusions or arguments that are put forth.
Oftentimes, Peace, I think that is the case because the majority of the MAP community on the pro-choice side are not friendly to the SJW attitudes, since they are not very friendly to us. Being a trans BLer, though, has caused you to align yourself with this ideology, hence your routine disagreements and rather biased ways of interpreting our words.
One thing I find especially disheartening about many pro-contacters (and I guess just many pedos in general) is the almost slavish devotion to science and appeals to history. Speaking about fertility, peak sexuality, and human bodies in the abstract doesn’t make you look like you have a good point: it just kinda makes you look like a biological essentialist creep who, like almost all people who claim to know what’s “best” for youth, have not spoken to or asked youth about what they believe is best for them or how they feel about sexuality.
I don’t fully disagree with this, Peace, but do keep in mind that some pro-choice MAPs, including me, are youth liberationists who support youths on all fundamental rights issues, and have indeed had extensive talks on the political field with youths about how they feel about sexuality (as well as all other issues).
They see that a lot of times, society wants to make a victim out of somebody who does not feel like a victim, and various messages received about sexuality affect this so-called “victim.” On the other hand, I’ve seen people blatantly disbelieve somebody when they say they felt victimized, as well as a blanket dismissal that learned experiences with authority and adults could influence somebody’s perception of a situation.
Once again, Peace… it is absurd to contend that claiming you are a “victim” when you actually weren’t carries equal weight to the opposite claim. Saying you are a “victim” gives you a tremendous amount of power over people’s emotions, and a strong desire by many to believe you regardless of circumstances, and many others terrified of questioning you out of concern for being labeled as “insensitive” and losing their job and professional reputation. Danny clearly admitted his walking on eggshells over saying anything that might offend victims of sexual abuse (real and manufactured), including stating the opinion that adult attraction to minors should not be directly connected or conflated with adult sexual abuse of minors. He knows, just as you and all of us knows, that there is a very powerful and lucrative industry backing those who claim to be victims.
As for those who make the very unpopular contrary claim… um, not so much. At this point in time, Marshall Burns’ Consenting Juveniles and a few unusually courageous YouTubers do not pose a serious counter-opposition to the “victomology” lobby and industry. What you have actually seen is people in our community asking questions based on specific circumstances surrounding various cases that most people are afraid to ask, and which SJWs do not want to be asked or considered since the majority of Victims (again, both real and manufactured) are female. Sorry, but these questions need to be asked, and we cannot be concerned about making the man-haters upset when we do.
If you see that on average girls report more harm from intergen relationships than boys do, you need to get to the root of why that is.
Is this seriously meant to imply that we haven’t done this, Peace? I mean, honestly, I know that you can read, and I know that you have seen not only me confront this issue several times, but that you also likely read others do the same thing, including very good observations made by Christian earlier today in this very comments section. It’s not a mystery at all to anyone who does three things: 1) Are inclined to cease ignoring the many times the flaws made in the initial findings of the Rind Report have been mentioned here, which Rind et al. acknowledged, corrected and got “much more homogeneous results” after eliminating the conflation of consensual with non-consensual inter-gen experiences with girls; 2) Actually chose not to ignore the several times it’s been mentioned that studies conducted by Allie C. Kilpatrick and Sharon Thompson (note Chapter 7 of her book Going All the Way) always got a great majority of positive results from girls when the consent factor was included in the questions from the get-go; and 3) Makes note of the very obvious fact that girls are much more heavily stigmatized for any type of sexual experience, which puts the blame far more on society than any boy or man she may have chosen to be with.
If a person as intelligent as yourself continues to ignore these things over and over again, it forces others to conclude that you have a political agenda that requires you to willfully deny readily available data and very obvious aspects of society that you have been regularly exposed to.
You should strive to understand why girls receive gendered messages about sex, sexuality, and their body that are different from boys.
Would you scoff at the many boys who rightfully complain when they are considered unattractive specimens for not having athletic ability, not having natural fighting ability, and not having a “six-pack”?
The idea that girls must be sexually available, but not too sexual; the idea that boys are always sexually available and must be “dominant.” That’s not even to bring up how race, culture, sexual orientation, class, or a myriad of other factors affect youth and their relationship with sexuality and adults.
This I totally agree with, and was much more fair IMO.
Youth are not sexually innocent or asexual like many adults wish they were; that does not, however, automatically mean that they have sexuality and consent all figured out.
It also does not mean, however, that adults should be required to jump through numerous hoops and practically ask for a signed contract to insure that consent is there even when the girl is positively responding to sexual overtures, rather than passively resisting. This same thing is used against heterosexual men by SJWs when it comes to the consent issue with adult women, and likely serves the same underhanded purpose: Not for empowering girls and women (whichever the case may be), but giving them entitlements to always be believed when they make an accusation. Has justice actually prevailed when this policy has been put into effect? No, it leaves men vulnerable to a lack of due process and helpless before accusations if a girl or woman should later regret a sexual encounter or relationship she consented to because she didn’t get what she wanted out it, or the guy refused to give into demands she made of him, or she was later shamed for being with the guy, etc.
Do the majority of them do this? Currently, no. But give them the power to do it, and it will bring the worst out of them, and they will do so in increasingly greater numbers, just like all human beings would if given that type of power.
Hell, lots of adults don’t have sexuality and consent all figured out either, and this isn’t some kind of moral failing.
But adults have their civil rights, so they are almost always given the benefit of the doubt.
What this signals to me is that we need to move forward as a sex-positive society and provide resources to youth and adults on how to have positive, consensual, and collaborative relationships as well as how to spot abusive or manipulative relationships. We are not giving youth the tools they need to navigate relationships or speak their mind freely.
This I agree with, but speaking your mind must include the right to ask uncomfortable questions without fear of emotionally-driven mob assaults.
I’m a pro-reformer – in fact, I’ve been one since I myself was in middle school. But I disagree with notions about sexuality and consent that are simply biological in nature or which attempt to prove their worth through the invocation of how things were in history or how things are in other countries. I think it’s extremely worthwhile to examine the subject through a variety of lenses.
How things are in more sex-positive cultures may indeed shed some important light on matters, unless we argue that people in the West are vastly different from people outside of that geographic region in some intrinsic biological way.
I think it’s extremely worthwhile to examine the subject through a variety of lenses.
What lenses remain after you have rejected not only science but also history? Subjective dogma, akin to listen and believe?
I think I should be clear that when I referred to “science” in my initial post, I was mostly talking about natural sciences (as seen by my references to biological arguments), not social sciences, and that the use of science or history in an argument doesn’t immediately make it seem suspect to me – only when natural sciences or history are the only point of reference. Social sciences can, I believe, be a great avenue to viewing minor attraction.
What kinds of lenses can we view minor attraction through? Well, you’ve got things like sociology, pschology, art, media studies, feminism (yes, I know), queer theory, criminal justice studies, political science (including things like anarchism or libertarianism), sex positivity, family studies, activism, censorship, etc.
Hmm, this was interesting to read. Super dense. Lots to think about. But a lot more balanced than a most of other stuff I’ve had thrown at me on here. Do you have a blog or any other material I could read?
Just to clarify, Danny, since the manner in which WordPress formats responses on sub-threads can be difficult to determine at times: Was it me or Peace you were asking? I suspect it was Peace, but I figured I would ask just to be certain.
I was addressing, Peace. Sadly, using my phone, I can’t sort back through these threads in a way that makes sense at all, so I can neither remember nor find what your original comment was. However, if you too have a blog or some articles online you think might be worth reading, by all means let me know. With so many of these comments being directed AT me, I think I’d rather just read some stuff without feeling the need or urgency to respond.
Also, with more recent contributions beginning to stoop to the level of cheap insults like “fucked in the head”, I think this comment thread has descended to the point where dialogue is no longer going to prove fruitful. I think it was just yesterday in fact that somebody came within a single degree of proving Godwin’s rule of Hitler analogies by evoking the Nazis. The only way is down from there.
I’ve said a couple of times I was going to opt-out of this conversation, only because the topic of my podcast has moved on, only to find myself keep returning to address new points being made, mainly because they were interesting and challenging. However, my enthusiasm has begun to wane with the advent of Nazis and F-bombs, so I’m just genuinely not interested in participating any further. But, as I say, happy to compile a suggested reading list.
I hoped you would be able to depart on the same sort of conciliatory note you offered me privately, Danny. This is a disappointment and makes a comment of mine not five minutes ago look very foolish. Congratulations, you have ended by giving me a very public shafting!
Not quite sure which comment you’re referring to, Tom. Especially as I can’t sort through these comments in chronological order on my phone.
I don’t feel I’m exiting on a sour note, nor do I think exiting for the reasons cited undermines anything I’ve said to you privately. I’ve enjoyed reading, learning, and the rigorous (if at times, heated) debate. And I’m happy for you to share the things I wrote to you via email, if you think you can present them in a way that makes sense to readers.
It’s not that I think the debate as a whole has turned sour. For the most part it’s been great, if at times forceful and assertive, though this is my own style, so I wouldn’t have it any other way. However, the introduction of base level insults have acted a bit like a turd in a swimming pool, a drop of toxicity tainting the environment enough to inspire retreat, but certainly not representative of the entire experience.
> And I’m happy for you to share the things I wrote to you via email, if you think you can present them in a way that makes sense to readers.
Thanks for this, Danny. It’s greatly appreciated, as is the post as a whole. Cheers!
Well, Danny, I would like to begin with the observation that I didn’t think it was a debate. I did think that, as an interview, it suffered because of your presentation of your questions and comments. But you explained that, and I accept the explanation. Moreover, in writing answers on this blog pabe, youi show everything I had thought not there, so you have certainly made e pull my criticisms up and shake them (internally, because I thought it would be boring to have a discussion about that publicly).
However, and moving on, you said:
The fact that pedophiles are the only ones arguing in favour of adult-child sexual relations, and that there are no young people doing the same is hugely damaging to the cause and a blatant demonstration of the power imbalance inherent is this entire issue.
I am not entirely certain that this is the case. Not only are there people such as myself,but there are many academics, artists, writers, and so on, thinking about paedophilic sexual encounters and people, and expanding awareness and knowledge of the whole area. Many are coming up with answers and ideas which challenge the common perception of this area. If this continues to happen, and I believe it will, then the popular perception will change,and I believe it will change in favour of pedophilic relationships. Money and wealth may not trickle down and help the impoverished, but ideas certainly do trickle down—and surge upward!
As for “the power balance inherent in this entire issue”—if you mean adults having more power than children, and being able to excise this power over children sexually, I would have to suggest that this is the fault of the society teaching children nothing about sex, and denying children power over their own lives. Or, when power is given, it is given in such a poor fashion that it is problematic. As one young man said when I corrected him and my son in respect of what they were talking about: I can have you in jail, all I have to do is tell the cops you touched me.” (Words to that effect.) Power imbalance? Oh yes. And any adult was going to be the loser…
When it comes to paedophilia and paedophilic relations, many assumptions go unquestioned, perhaps on both sides. On such area, e.g., is the question of what sex is: what is a sexual act?
On my view, which is based on the ideas presented by Alan Goldman in his paper Plain Sex, (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0048-3915%28197721%296%3A3%3C267%3APS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W), all pleasurable touching desired by one person in respect of another, is sexual. Hence, when you, or I, or any adult, want to hug their kids, it is sexual. I don’t think there is anyone on this site who agrees with me, Tom certainly doesn’t.But if I am correct, and obviously I believe I am, then damn near everyone is a paedophile—and the term paedophile becomes even more ridiculous than it now is.
There is far too much in your comment to be answerable, so just two more things.
,em>…since there is no reason nor research to suggest that children grow to be more well rounded individuals due to having had sex with an adult, and plenty of evidence to the contrary, what benefits, beyond the sexual satisfaction of pedophiles would such a societal shift serve?
I find this comment a bit difficult to come to grips with. I mean to say:whose sexual satisfaction do the current societal standards serve? And how do we set those standards? Those who desire sexual contact with animals, or with inanimate objects (other than the wife and her dildo—general joke, not intended to be about you and your wife) are not served by our current societal standards. Furthermore, you seem to be assuming that children have no sexual interest to be served (preferably by someone the like).
I am firmly convinced, based on my own experiences as a child, based on cross-cultural studies, and based on the experiences of many who have told me about their childhood, that children want sexual contact (over and above a hug from Mummy and Daddy, and are more than willing to go get it when the opportunity presents. Of course, in our culture, children learn not to go there very quickly: Don’t touch that (dick/clit/arse-cunt hole; another persons dick/clit/arse-cunt hole);it’s naughty, dirty, bad…
I am aware that I have just been quite simplistic, but you simply have to accept that Tom would not appreciate a 5,000 word answer.
So, and lastly: I am not overly surprised that Cantor has gone quiet, especially as I suspect that he and Tom do not have an overly friendly relationship. But it is a pity, and I hope he comes back, because I would enjoy such an interview.
Tom, would it be too much to ask youi to fix my bad proof reading?
the spot where I am quoting Danny, and put ,em> instead of
cheers
>Tom, would it be too much to ask youi to fix my bad proof reading?
Sorry, but it would be too much trouble. My advice is to read things through before pressing the Send button. That’s what I do. If I get things wrong, well, too bad.
Fair enough. Unfortunately, I do read it through…. and then curse myself for all the things I missed!
Actually, this is why I print nearly everything: I make fewer mistakes on paper.
Sorry to be personal, Bruce, but is this increasingly as problem for you? If I remember correctly, your book, Unsent Letters, is entirely free of such errors. Admittedly that is a text you must have heavily invested time in, and probably checked a number of times. Even so, I would expect a writer of your quality to make very few errors when in good health and feeling alert.
I guess it depends on how much there is to say. But yes, things are a little out of balance at the moment, having become homeless (an interesting experience which I hope to end in the near future), and needing some healing which I will be getting tomorrow. In other words, I don’t think it is an ongoing problem, just a temporary glitch. In any event, I don’t often use biomedical practitioners, whom I do not entirely trust, especially as I have severe philosophic disagreements with much of their practice. But, that is another story, based around the fact (and it is a fact) that no one is yet able to define disease. (One must begin such a discussion with Georges Canguilham, then flit away to the Scandinavian countries …)
In other words, all is well, truly.
Sorry to hear you have some quite serious current problems. Glad you can see light at the end of the tunnel though. Good luck!
Yes i have to admit that my grammar is not the best but as long as people get the gist of wat i am saying im not that bothered.
Not to worry, Daniel. I was talking about Bruce, after he asked me to correct his posts for him. See post just above yours.
Tom ive managed to get out of the house im at friends house now so thats got me doing something else “woo hoo” sorry to read that bruce is homeless hope i he gets on his feet.
>Tom ive managed to get out of the house im at friends house now so thats got me doing something els
Good! Well done!
Thanks Tom and Daniel, for wishing me well. It all will be fine.
First of all, Danny, I want to thank you for your courage – to interview a pro-contact (even if simultaneously abiding existing laws) paedophile in a current “climate of opinion” requires some real fearlessness.
Than I have to disagree with you. You said:
“…the fact that pedophiles are the only ones arguing in favour of adult-child sexual relations…”
Sorry, Danny, but this is objectively false – even now, with intergenerational sexuality being *the* greatest taboo of the modern Western society, there are a few non-paedophiles who dare to support it – for example, BJ Muirhead and me here, as well as a few bold young academicians like Brian Martin Cash:
https://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/brian_cash_thesis.htm
And just a few decades earlier – especially in 1960s and 1970s, and, to a lesser degree, even in 1980s and 1990s, there were a lot of prominent people both from academia and general public who openly argued in favour of consensual child-adult sexuality. In the 1970s, a petition expressing such support was signed in France by some of the leading intellectual and public figures of the time, such as Michel Foucault, Jean-Paul Sartre, Gilles Deleuze, Roland Barthes and Simone de Beauvoir (none of them being paedophiles themselves):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws
It is important to remember that the degree to which public figures dare to challenge particular dominant positions strongly depends on the level of social enforcement and persecution accompanying such positions: for example, hardly anyone supported homosexuals in the 1950s. Yet, when the ban starts crumbling and critical voices become widely heard, a lot of previously silent people suddenly take a stand in defense of a new rebellion.
All that it takes is a few bold people who will dare to become the first defenders in the times when it is really dangerous for their reputation and public stance…
Fair point Explorer. I should have been clearer in my definitions. My point was intended to highlight the lack of activism on the part of children themselves. See my reply to Nick Wilde’s comment for further elaboration.
I responded to this point in my own response to you, as did Tom. To reiterate in just two sentences: Underagers are in absolutely no position politically or legally to openly petition for such rights. Their civil rights for freedom of speech and right to assemble are not honored to that degree, and even adults are afraid of expressing such a contentious opinion, one that can cost them their job and professional reputation.
>Lack of activism on childrens part.
Children under the aoc have said in the past that they think the aoc should be lowered and we also have to remember that when we were children that we found sex embarrassing, i wanted to do the kind of things that grown ups did wen i was a child but didnt have the knowledge or full understanding of wat it was, u also have to consider the fact that parents never really talk about sex with their children, and even wen i was in school we did very little work on the subject and also that children are now being taught to abstain and because of this the child’s decision making process in hindered, but just like wen we wer children i bet todays kids do talk about it with other kids and just like wen we wer their age i bet they lie about loosing their virginity at very early ages.
“The fact that pedophiles are the only ones arguing in favour of adult-child sexual relations, and that there are no young people doing the same is hugely damaging to the cause and a blatant demonstration of the power imbalance inherent is this entire issue.”
There ARE young people who campaign for intergenerational intimacy, and always have been. Read this quote about the Stone Wall riots:
“The youths rioted; they threw bricks, stones and bottles. They threw themselves against the locked door of The Stonewall Inn. They were mad as hell. They declared their manifesto in Kansas City after the riots demanding, “the removal of all restrictions on sex between consenting persons of any sex, of any orientation, of any age, anywhere, whether for money or not, and the removal of all censorship.”
Source: Page 55 of “The Gay Militants” by Donn Teal
Read about the history of NAMBLA, arguably the most famous pedophile organization. Daniel Tsang and Bill Andriette are two of its most influential members. When did they join? At age 15 and 16 respectively.
Read about the history of pedophile organizations in other countries. In Germany in the 80s a party convention of the Green Party, the third/fourth most popular party in Germany, was interrupted by teenagers of the “Indianerkommune” who demanded abolishing age of consent laws.
Source: https://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/tid-32917/report-das-boese-kapitel-der-gruenen_aid_1068140.html
But I can already see what the next question will be: Why are there not more young people protesting? Perhaps the ones who do are all manipulated or confused.
First of all, when children campaigned for better working conditions during the Industrial Revoultion and eventually for a ban on child labor, they too were patronized. They were told they’re lazy and don’t know what they’re talking about.
Secondly, just because someone is unfairly treated that person won’t necessarily start becoming a protester. Not all women or people of color fought for a right to vote. Some thought protesting wouldn’t change anything so they kept silent. Some were too afraid to speak up. And some had internalized prejudices so much that they even believed themselves that they shouldn’t have a right to vote.
Children and teenagers are oppressed in many ways. And the reason that not all of them speak up and become activists is simply the same why not all people in general speak up about the unfair treatment they experience: Because it’s dangerous and takes a lot of strength. Not everyone is able or willing to pay this price and take such risks.
“I think there’s a good argument to be made that if anybody is retreating to emotion on this issue, it’s pro-contact pedophiles who are ultimately seeking legal access to other peoples children for what appears little more than self-serving sexual gratification.”
Is that a good argument, though? Were women selfish and retreating to emotion when they demanded their right to vote? Were gay people egoistic for not wanting to be killed for “self-serving sexual gratification”?
The average age of a sex offender in the US is 14.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2iV3Gf0lVA , TedTalk bei Professor Elizabeth Letourneau, minute 3:24)
Many pedophiles look at something like this and think that if age of consent laws were abolished, those children and young teenagers wouldn’t have to be put into prisons and could live happy lives instead of being branded for all their life with the terrible label “sex offender” just because they loved a child who was a bit younger than they themselves.
There will always be children who fall in love with younger children, just like there will always be adults who fall in love with children. You cannot prevent love. You cannot seperate 10 percent or more of the population from young people. So the only option you have to prevent suffering is to start listen to children and to stop equating rape with love.
There is NOTHING selfish about hoping age of consent laws will be abolished. To hope this means to care so deeply for children that your empathy overcomes one of the strongest stigmas in existence of today’s Western World.
Great stuff, Nick! I do hope Danny reads this and other posts in response to his own latest one.
Hi Nick,
Excuse my brevity on most points. I’m engaged in another topic this week, but wanted to quickly address a couple of things.
Even if I grant you the minimal involvement of adolescents advocating for a reduction in the age of consent laws, I’ve seen pedophiles admitting attraction to children as young as 4. What about those children? Where is their involvement? Where are the examples of their demands for “intergenerational intimacy”? There are none. In which case, when it comes to pre-pubescent children in particular, it seems we have one set of people (pedophiles) campaigning for the right to exercise they’re own selfish desires over another group of people (children) who are demonstrating no indication whatsoever that they themselves want this power exercised over them. A disturbingly similar dynamic as the relationship between plantation owners and slaves in the pre-abolition era.
“Secondly, just because someone is unfairly treated that person won’t necessarily start becoming a protester.”
I don’t think disallowing children to play with the genitals of adults counts as them being treated unfairly.
“Not everyone is able or willing to pay this price and take such risks.”
I suspect it’s more likely the case that children aren’t campaigning for it because having sex with adults simply isn’t the top priority for children that it is for pedophiles.
“In Germany in the 80s a party convention of the Green Party, the third/fourth most popular party in Germany, was interrupted by teenagers of the “Indianerkommune” who demanded abolishing age of consent laws.”
Indianerkommune. An anti-pedagogical community in which pedophile adults lived together with children primarily consisting of “treganger” (homeless, street dwelling) children.
How inspiring! What possible motivation could homeless, hungry, cold, lonely, vulnerable, dejected children have for co-habiting with pedophiles? That’s a laughable example of pro-pedophile activism enacted by children.
“Were women selfish and retreating to emotion when they demanded their right to vote?”
Women seeking the right to political self-determination in a society/economy in which they lived and contributed is in no way analogous to pedophiles seeking legal access to other people’s children for sexual gratification.
“Were gay people egoistic for not wanting to be killed for “self-serving sexual gratification”?
Firstly, this strikes as a purposefully reductionist representation of what it means to be gay and what gay people were campaigning for. But in short, gay people were campaigning for the right to be intimate with, and openly love EACH OTHER. They stood together, on behalf of not only themselves, but one another as well.
Again, where are the 5,6,7,8,9 year olds campaigning for the right to be intimate with adults? There aren’t any. And this constant appeal to citing examples of a minority of radical teenagers as proof that children are indeed fighting for “inter-generational intimacy” is not only disingenuous, but is actually a blatant demonstration of how truly one-sided and selfish the plight of the pedophile truly is.
>Again, where are the 5,6,7,8,9 year olds campaigning for the right to be intimate with adults?
Nor do we see little kids out in the streets marching with banners demanding later bedtimes and not being made to eat vegetables, but that doesn’t mean they do not passionately support such causes!
Not that parents should give in to such demands, because doing so would not be in the kids’ best interests. Sexual play is intrinsically harmless, though, unlike too many late nights or poor diet. I make the point just to draw attention to the absurdity of the demand for little children to demonstrate their wishes through political activism.
Also, desire does not arrive as an abstraction but in a context. A child is unlikely to demand (or nag for) the next family holiday to be at Butlins unless they have already been there and know they like it. Similarly with a friendship or a sexual relationship: they will know what they like, and would like to repeat, once it has happened. Nor do we rule out the very first Butlins holiday on the basis that kids do not know what they are letting themselves in for, so cannot consent. On that basis, all sorts of interesting new possibilities and personal development would be closed down.
You still don’t argue why discriminating on the basis of race, sex or sexual condition (except pedophiles, I suppose) is morally wrong and why age discrimination is morally right.
Pedophiles are selfish? Parents aren’t selfish? why do you have the right to forbid or force something on children and not the pedophile to use it sexually? What we seem to have is, we have a group of people (parents) who think they have a right to handle their children as they please, because they decide and they want to, according to them it’s why they’ve been “fathered” as if that validates something, reminds me of Nazi theories of supremacy for biological reasons (since we’re talking about comparing things that have nothing to do with each other like you say with black slavery).
You have no moral reason for your arguments, and even you come here to accuse pedophiles of being “selfish” and basically moral cretins, but you as an adult “non-pedophile” impose your will on children, whether you are wrong or not. Pedophiles do not impose anything, they just give freedom to do it, even if they are wrong or not.
Even if you were not a parent, you are a non-pedophile adult, so you are also a selfish adult who wants children and minors to do what you and other non-paedophile adults do what you say. Your position is called adultism, which is the oppression of adults by non-adults, and ageism, which is age discrimination, adultosexualism, the dogma of which sex is something for “adults” is the consequence of that.
Child-adult sex advocates as a moral group do not want to oppress anyone, but rather to give freedom of choice to children, whether they are right or wrong. Parents, and anti-child-sex adults, in the other hand, seek to control their children as they see fit, whether they are right or wrong. This is objective based in empiric observation. If you understand (I don’t, since I don’t allow a arrogant, misandric woman to castrate me by telling me that a man should not like and date girls under 18 or 16 because “muh power dynamics”) that “feminism” is the liberation of women from the oppression of “patriarchy”, then “pedophilia” is the liberation of children from “adults”.
“Why do you have the right to forbid or force something on children and not the pedophile to use it sexually?”
Use… It… IT…!!! Sexually.
Three words which sum up precisely the selfish nature of pedophilia that your yourself have just tried to argue isn’t the case. Honestly, laughable.
Good rhetorical riposte to a clumsily made point, Danny. But are you reading too much into “it”? Until quite recently, using this pronoun was a perfectly respectable way of talking about a child that avoided the cumbersome “he or she”.
I notice you have not answered, or apparently even considered, the poster’s argument on parental power. In the sexual debate it is always assumed that the adult’s power will be exercised in a malign way, whereas parents are always assumed to use power in a benign way.
But parents can be selfish, even towards their children. Just take parental murder. In the UK, one child dies at the hands of a murderous parent approximately every 10 days – so often that these cases rarely make the national news. Usually it is a man killing his kids after partner relationship has broken down, which is quite often described in reports as “tragic”, whereas the mildest of sexual interactions is deemed “monstrous”.
Sorry, Tom. It would be convenient for your side of the argument if I were reading too much into the choice of pronoun, but I think this is more likely a perfect example of the casual objectification of children inherent in the pedophilic sexual interest in them. If “he” or “she” were truly cumbersome – which, let’s be honest, they aren’t – I think “they” would be the most likely pronoun to spring to mind for anyone with even the slightest consideration for the humanity of the people to whom they refer.
Also, I think this disingenuous game of dressing up pedophilic sexual desire as some sort of benevolent effort to liberate children from oppressive parenting is just silly, and utterly transparent, which is why I’m finding it so hard to take seriously and/or engage with.
I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make by appealing to extremes like parental infanticide? So, because a tiny minority of parents kill their children, this somehow invalidates the legitimacy of the desire of the majority of parents to raise their kids in a manner which they deem most conducive to their physical and mental wellbeing, and as a result of this all parents should allow pedophiles to have sex with their children?
I don’t understand this objection to parental responsibility. Are parents supposed to just give birth to children and throw them into the streets to fend for themselves? No, because they wouldn’t survive. So if we grant that parents do have some responsibility for the wellbeing of their children, where does this responsibility end? And who gets to decides where it ends? Should it be the parents who have both a emotional and genetic interest in the flourishing of their children? Or should it be pedophiles, who just want to have sex with them?
I also find it interesting that the same people mocking me for suggesting a power imbalance between pedophiles and children in the context of a sexual relationship, suddenly consider power imbalances a serious issue when it comes to parents acting as a barrier to the people you’re trying to have sex with. How convenient, and utterly hypocritical that that pedophiles are so quick to recognize the “adultist” (the attempt by pedophiles to appropriate this term is comedy gold by the way) power of parents, but refuse to recognize their own, and the inevitable problems that arise from it.
I’m sorry, but this child liberation nonsense is a non-starter for me. It’s smacks of little more than horny men clutching at disingenuous political abstractions in a lame attempt to legitimise their attempts to wrestle innocent, naive children from the protection of their parents for the sole purpose of ejaculating inside them. How charitable of you all. And what terrible parents we are those of us who’d rather our children focus on activities that didn’t involve them being drenched in semen and saliva.
That some of you even attempt to dress up the desire to exchange bodily fluids with minors as some sort of charitable concern for the well-being and political liberation of children in general is precisely why discussions with pedophiles and the rest of society haven’t, can’t, and won’t even get off the starting blocks. You can’t even seem to be honest with yourselves about the true nature of your motivations, so how can you ever expect the rest of society to ever take you seriously?
I’ll focus just on your strongest point:
>I also find it interesting that the same people mocking me for suggesting a power imbalance between pedophiles and children in the context of a sexual relationship, suddenly consider power imbalances a serious issue when it comes to parents acting as a barrier to the people you’re trying to have sex with.
Power is always important just because it is, well, powerful: there is the power to do things, for good or ill. Like electricity it can kill us, but most of the time it is essential to modern life. What we are suggesting (or I am at least) is a bit more even-handedness is in order. If a parent can have benign intentions, so can a paedophile.
On this I would refer you to an article by the late philosopher Claudia Card, who was herself at the younger end of a paedophilic encounter when she was a child.
Here is an illustrative quote, and I’ll happily supply you with the PDF by email if you ask:
>I find it plausible that an adult might reasonably think that childish adult-child sex could be good for the child, or at least not harmful. And I must disagree that as an adult no one could look back on sexual activities, at least the more childlike ones, engaged in during childhood with an adult as a happy experience. I can only offer myself as a counterexample. Although the “sex” in my case was not adult-type sex and might even have “passed” as nonsexual had an observer been present, still, moral questions can be raised about it, which I will get to shortly. I certainly agree that an adults trying to engage in adult sexual activities with a child is outrageous. But adult-child sex need not be like that.
What’s Wrong with Adult-Child Sex?
Claudia Card (2002). Journal of Social Philosophy,Volume 33, Issue 2, Pages 170-177
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0047-2786.00002
>…a lame attempt to legitimise their attempts to wrestle innocent, naive children from the protection of their parents for the sole purpose of ejaculating inside them. How charitable of you all. And what terrible parents we are those of us who’d rather our children focus on activities that didn’t involve them being drenched in semen and saliva.
I urge you to look at what you have written here in the light of what Card says above. Your descent into emotive language and extreme suggestions tells me you are lapsing (not surprisingly, because culture shock is kicking in) into the sort of agitated desperation we saw so recently from Ethan.
Accordingly, I will refrain (unless there is a very succinct and apt point to be made) from engaging with you further for a while. You and others here can continue debating here if you wish, but I suspect the point has been reached, for the moment, where only heat will be generated, not light.
I’m happy to concede that pedophiles can have benign intentions, Tom, but intent doesn’t always correspond with results. So, again, who is best qualified to decide what’s in the best interests of the child. The parents who birth, raise, clothe, feed, educate, and love them… Or pedophiles who want to have sex with them?
As for my use of what you call a descent into emotive language, I think is more accurately described as a recognition – and one that seems to be a sort of conceptual kryptonite to pedophiles – of the true nature of the actual physical act of sex with children and the sexual motivations behind them that are being debated here; physical acts and sexual motivations which are being talked about in silly philosophical abstractions, in what I can only guess is a conscious attempt to completely strip the dialogue around pedophilia of its baser reality in a shameless and disingenuous attempt to frame it as some kind of fluffy, heartwarming civil rights issue, when it’s actually nothing of the sort.
I think what’s going on here is that the dialogue of pedophilia has shifted primarily to this higher realm of abstraction partly as some sort of quasi-intellectual legitimization attempt, partly as a refusal to acknowledge the nitty gritty, emotive, reality of your situation and the potential damage it can cause, but mainly as a result of the recognition that there is no place for pedophilia to thrive in a real, nuts and bolts, material world that wants no part of it.
I can’t help but suspect that the reason pedophiles don’t like the nature of their engagement with children being described in real terms, is because it forces them not only to recognize the shallow selfish nature of their true motivations and the disingenuous claims to be fighting for childhood liberation, but that it also forces them to stare the shameful nature of their behaviour directly in the face. So, in order to avoid doing so, let’s dismiss every description of what we are actually doing as “emotive” and instead only talk about our positive intentions and highfalutin political concepts and philosophical abstractions.
It’s pure avoidance of reality, which is, I suspect, why your cause isn’t making any progress whatsoever in the real world.
Anyway, I too need a rest from this subject so won’t be responding to any more comments here.
I said I might comment further if I could do so succintly, and I will do so given that your latest post seems more measured.
Briefly, then, you have a strong point about high parental “investment” and I am happy to agree that most parents (including my own when I was a child) do a good job. But I know from my own personal experience that paedophiles and good parents need not be enemies. And sometimes paedophiles have a really important, even vital emotional support role to play when parents squabble and break up, or in the event of other domestic problems such as parental violence and/or neglect. Sadly, chaotic and dysfunctional families are no great rarity.
>… the true nature of the actual physical act of sex with children and the sexual motivations behind them that are being debated here; physical acts and sexual motivations which are being talked about in silly philosophical abstractions
No, this is absolutely getting the wrong end of the phallic stick. We wish for more discourse on the available, researched facts as to the (typically mild) sex acts paedophiles engage in, etc. It is the moralists who prefer abstractions and presuppositions.
I believe that I have already demonstrated in another forum – in an article accepted very recently for publication in a prestigious academic journal – our wish (well, mine, but I know it is shared) to get the emphasis away from abstractions and onto facts. I intend to focus on this “hot news” development in my next blog. So let’s both take a break until then.
I don’t think there’s anything a pedophile can offer in such situations that cannot be adequately fulfilled by an aunty, uncle, grandparents, family friend, etc. The pedophilic aspect, that is, the sexual attraction to the child, is surplus to requirements. Interesting that I’ve heard this same role suggested by multiple pedophiles, which seems yet again to belie predatory motives; the pedophile exploiting situations such as family breakdown, a time when a child is most vulnerable, in order to take advantage of the situation for their own sexual ends, and then legitimize this with claims of “emotional support”. It not much different to the horny beta male seeing crying drunk girls as an opportunity to get laid.
I’m interested to know what role sex has to play in helping a child through emotional upheaval, exactly. Again, there isn’t one. And if the sex isn’t useful, what use is a pedophile specifically to such situations? They’re not. Even if you stretch your example to the most tragic of situations, a common tactic of liberals (see abortion debates revolving around the <1% of rape cases), where we have a child with no extended family or friends, and ONLY the pedophile to be there to offer emotional support. This still doesn't justify the sexual nature of the pedophiles intent in such a situation. If anything it makes it even more exploitative.
Anyway, Tom. If you want to have some of these debates in a podcast at some point, maybe later in the year, let me know. I have to bow out from here for now, just because too many points of debate have been opened up, and as lone ranger among maybe a couple dozen people, I'm being challenged from too many angles by too many people. Many interesting points to answer and challenge, but with a podcast that changes theme every week, I'm afraid I simply don't have the time.
Sorry, but there are a couple of points here I should not leave hanging:
>It not much different to the horny beta male seeing crying drunk girls as an opportunity to get laid.
Nothing wrong with that either, if it’s a decent guy who helps the girl home and leaves the sex till she’s sober, on another day. Is it emotional exploitation to be kind and make yourself useful in such a circumstance? Perfectly valid way to start a relationship, I’d say. And don’t tell me it wouldn’t happen like that. As a desperate young teenager I was once on the receiving end of that sort of help. I was extremely grateful then and remain so, because he saved me from a very dangerous situation. It was a short “relationship” as I wasn’t sexually interested but I don’t blame him for trying his luck.
Also, as an alternative way of being rescued, I don’t remember any Good Samaritan coming to my aid out of pure goodwill, with no “selfish” sexual motive.
>I’m interested to know what role sex has to play in helping a child through emotional upheaval, exactly. Again, there isn’t one.
As you have instantly answered your own question, it doesn’t really sound as though you are that interested in having an answer. But I’ll give you an example, anyway, in the form of two paragraphs from my recent writing. You may still see the sexual aspect as unnecessary, but note that the “victim” does not appear to see it that way:
>The psychoanalyst and theorist Heinz Kohut, for example, who grew up in Vienna in the 1920s, was a boy of 10 when his parents’ marriage was deteriorating. He felt he “survived the fragmentation of the family quite well, in no small part due to the lucky presence of a warm-hearted tutor named Ernst Morawetz, who entered his life just as his mother left it” (Strozier 2001, p. 23). The relationship became sexual, at first kissing and hugging, then tender mutual fondling, and mutual oral sex.
>Far from damaging his capacity for intimacy and emotional connection, the relationship expressed both. He idealized this tutor, who was a “‘spiritual leader,’ able to share his ‘almost religious’ love for nature, as well as teach him about literature, art, and music” (ibid., p. 24). Kohut later entered what appears to have been a long and happy marriage—his wife, Betty, was reportedly devoted—and father of a son, Tom. Of his relationship with Morawetz, Kohut would say: “…it was in some ways psychologically life-saving for me. I was very fond of the fellow” (ibid., p. 24).
[Strozier, C. B. (2001). Heinz Kohut: The making of a psychoanalyst. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.]
About the PDF version of Claudia Card’s paper… Tom, if it is possible to send it by e-mail, can you send it to me this way, please? I’m interested in it…
Just sent it. Check your mail!
I’m sorry, but this child liberation nonsense is a non-starter for me.
It might be interesting for you to look up the history of discussions about children’s rights. There is a long history of child rights discussion, both non-sexual and sexual. I first read a book on this subject in the 1960s.
I must disagree that wanting to have a romantic relationship that is natural for us, and may well be desired by some younger people, is anything akin to “selfishness,” Danny. Making this contention is concluding in an a priori fashion that it’s an absolute, intrinsic given that this is inherently “bad” for kids who express a desire for similar relationships or such a connection with an individual adult. It also makes the common assumption that if there is a sexual component to your overall attraction base, then love and respect somehow cannot also be present. Do adult romantic couples not often experience tender and caring emotions between each other “despite” the presence of a sexual attraction? Yes, hence it should not be considered beyond the pale by any means that the same can readily be true for adults and younger people who share the same type of attraction. There are adult fetishists who focus solely on the physical attraction, no doubt, as there are fetishes for just about everything among human beings (including for inanimate objects). However, genuine MAPs/Kind people do not have a fetish, and have the full spectrum of romantic attraction for children and/or young adolescents, including the entire range of emotional, social, and aesthetic attractions.
Trying to pigeonhole the orientation as some type of raw lust-driven fixation because you cannot understand it, and because you want to present it in the worst emotional light possible, does not make it true.
“Where are the examples of their demands for “intergenerational intimacy”? There are none.”
You’re right, there are none. However, that alone does not necessarily mean that therefore sex below a certain age or between people with a certain age difference would be harmful. To show how sex in itself might not be inherently harmful, regardless of age, let me quote Gisela Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg, a famous sociologist, ethnologist, and sexologist who writes in her 1985 book “The paedophile impulse: Toward the Development of an Aetiology of Child-Adult Sexual Contacts from an Ethological and Ethnological Viewpoint”:
“The preponderant opinion among primitive peoples is that child sexuality manifests itself differently from that of adults: it is more playful and less goal-directed. Heterosexual and homosexual play among children, but also of adults with children, occurs and is hardly noticed, is smiled at, or is so common that it is a theme of ordinary conversations. Sexual contacts between parents and children (especially between mothers and small children), which we would designate as “paedophile” were not rare and are probably still not today in places where the culture of the white man has not become the model or where its influence is in the process of disappearing again.”
Source: http://www.itp-arcados.net/wissenschaft/paedophileimpulse.pdf
In addition, research shows that sex between humans and other animals does not harm the animal in any way: https://www.zeta-verein.de/en/sources/ as well as https://www.zeta-verein.de/en/zoophilia/the-case-against-general-criminalization/
So if humans and non-human animals can have sex without the latter being harmed, then why should sex be harmful for children, given that their cognitive capacities and ability to communicate are generally thought of as considerably better than that of non-human animals?
My point is: There’s nothing inherently harmful about protected sex. When in many cultures mothers masturbate their children to calm them down without these cultures (which includes European cultures during the Middle Ages btw) having higher rates of mental health problems and even sex between different species being shown by study after study to not have negative effects, then what internal mechanism is sex supposed to have that would it make, unlike pretty much any other human interaction, harmful for children but beneficial for adults?
And if we, just for the sake of the argument, now assume this premise of sex not being inherently harmful but even to be beneficial, then it’s not selfish to hope age of consent laws will be abolished one day.
“How inspiring! What possible motivation could homeless, hungry, cold, lonely, vulnerable, dejected children have for co-habiting with pedophiles?”
Because pedophiles were the only one’s who cared about these children? Because everyone else didn’t care at all if these children starved or otherwise would have had a horrible life? Shouldn’t it make one question society when apparently even in industrial countries in many cases the only people who actually care for children are the ones who are attracted to them? If they weren’t attracted to them, perhaps these children would have no one to give them food, no one to protect them from their abusive parents from which they run away.
Nice one, Nick! Lots of information. Unfortunately, Danny has gone into panic mode, starting to shout while covering his ears.
Can’t blame him. All this is too much to take in, emotionally, in a sort time span.
Surely you can do better than paint silly imaginary pictures of a victory that isn’t happening, Tom.
The more I witness you guys clutching at straws (the homeless German children living with pedophiles offered as proof of pro-pedophile activism on the part of children was my favorite… Comedy gold!), the more apparent it becomes to me how much I was getting carried away in even positing the idea that pedophiles have any chance whatsoever of having legislation passed in their favour.
Having read these comments, I’m more relaxed now about the strength of the conservative perspective than I ever have been. On the strength of these arguments, you guys don’t stand a chance. And the children are missing out on nothing as a result of this fact. So, yeah, I am in fact genuinely enjoying the view from here.
Danny, I apologized for the identity confusion, in case you missed it. You and I disagree on whether its proper for a journalist to dismiss VP as an unworthy source.
What you might have missed is what we agree on: that adult-child sex is wrong and always will be. I haven’t entered the fray this time on this discussion thread, but Tom and others will confirm that I have been making the same sort of arguments you are making (and more) for years now, on this forum and notably on GirlChat. I didn’t contribute this time because I don’t see see much prospect of changing the minds of Tom and Company, but do not take my silence as agreeing with them on this issue. Tom’s past posts include such catchy titles as “Virtuous Pedophiles Burnish Their Haloes” and “Virtuous Turkeys Vote For Christmas”, to which I replied vigorously and at length.
Perhaps you would think my views are an elaborate ruse — but if so it’s a hell of an elaborate ruse. And you can judge for yourself how likely it is that someone like me who can make dumb mistakes like conflating two different posters could keep up such a ruse for so long.
If you consider for a moment that we MIGHT all be telling the truth, Virtuous Pedophile accounts include 2,000-odd pedophiles who also agree with you that adult-child sex is wrong and always will be.
Here is the bottom line as far as people like Danny are concerned, Ethan: He doesn’t care about your ideology, and how it may mostly coincide with his own. He doesn’t like you, and he doesn’t trust you. Why? Because you’re a MAP, and that’s all that matters to him. Not your ideology. As you can clearly see, he alternately attacks and dismisses non-choicers and their non-MAP allies & organizations as quickly as he does pro-choicers and their non-Kind supporters. Antis will never be “natural” allies with non-choice MAPs, because their emotionally driven indoctrination will be more or less solely focused on our feelings, and those alone. This is why I think you sometimes seek out common ground in the wrong places, and why there is indeed a place for pro-choice and non-choice Kind people to work together.
Tom, ban this annoying autistic guy who’s only go here to leave propaganda of his virped cult. We’re sick of putting up with these jehovah witnesses in pedophile.
Whooah! Let’s think this through a bit Anon.
First of all the autistic jibe. I would point out that we have at least one genuinely autistic contributor here, or at least “on the spectrum”, who often makes very interesting and positive points. That contributor will be justifiably upset by your gratuitous, totally unjustified insult. Nevertheless, I think it is important to allow your post and give this answer.
And here’s a thing that will probably surprise you. One of the most brilliant contributors these comments have ever had, perhaps the most brilliant of all, was an autistic MtF trans person.
But it’s not just a matter of brilliance and well-made points; it’s a matter of respect and dignity for all – or for everyone, at least, who shows respect to us.
As for Ethan, your wish to be rid of him is a different matter, nothing to do with autism. When you say “We’re sick of putting up with these jehovah witnesses” you are really speaking just for yourself, rather than some sort of delegation. As a guess, though, I’m sure it is a good one. I certainly find Ethan’s repetitive line very tedious and irritating. In the past, when it has become too much, I have told him so and put a block on further posts of the same sort.
I am very reluctant to ban people, though, as opposed to particular posts. This is not foolish kindness on my part, nor does Ethan have any right to post here in particular. He has the general right to free speech and can speak all he likes on his own site, if anyone will listen. He would not allow us to post our views at VirPed’s site, though, so we owe him nothing in that regard here.
The reason I accept his posts is that even if we do not like them, they can be good for us, like horrible-tasting medicine. It is good for us to confront views different to our own on a forum where our answers will be accepted. And framing those answers makes us think, and keeps us sharp.
Hey, Dissident, the chances of getting through to Danny seemed low, to be sure, but it cost me very little to try.
You speak as if I hope to get through to people like Danny, but there is a whole class of nons that we have gotten through to, notably Sarah Goode, the late Margaux Fragoso, the ATSA director, the StopSO director, Klaus Beier (Dunkelfeld), Ray Blanchard, Fred Berlin, David Finkelhor, Michael Seto, Mike Bailey, and Paul Federoff — the last bunch some of the biggest names in mainstream sex research (all quoted on the VP “Our Supporters” page. They do not support the pro-legalization agenda, but they do support our agenda. We do not need to win over ideological social conservatives to make progress.
“Anon”‘s complaint is a curious one, as I made not a single argument against adult-child sex. His objection must just be that he is reminded that I exist, and have not recanted my long-held views.
“the homeless German children living with pedophiles offered as proof of pro-pedophile activism on the part of children was my favorite”
You misunderstand. I merely answered to your question why these children would want to live with pedophiles: Because they’d have starved otherwise.
What is selfish about saving children from starvation? Isn’t it rather that these pedophiles had more empathy for children than all the other adults who apparently were fine with letting them starve?
“So, yeah, I am in fact genuinely enjoying the view from here.”
Glad to hear you’re happy. Don’t let politics make you sad or angry, life’s too short for that.
How can you possibly claim that the conservative position is “strong” when there’s literally zero empirical evidence of consensual adult-child sexual relationships being harmful for children, and plenty of evidence to suggest that such relationships are often positive or even beneficial? You seem to be trying to skirt the essential issue of harm vs benefit by instead focusing on largely irrelevant arguments, such as whether or not 5-year-olds are out on the streets fighting for their right to have sex with adults.
The conservative position on pedophillia seems to be that it’s perfectly fine to imprison good people who have caused no harm, destroying their lives, tearing their family apart, and potentially making children parentless in the process, just because you personally find their actions disgusting and gross. To me that seems remarkably similar to the conservative position on homosexuality 50 years ago, which is now almost universally recognised as immoral.
I was actually going to comment on your video commending you for being so intellectually honest and open-minded during your interview, but your behaviour on here, and the fact that you’ve resorted to making sweeping assumptions about the motives of an entire group of people, comprising of millions of people worldwide, based purely on your own flawed interpretation of the motives of a small handful of pedophiles in a WordPress comment section, has made me think otherwise.
Long reply from Danny has been given greater “bandwidth” by relocating as a new post (24 April approx 15:15)
Danny is a feminist who supports hateful anti-male sex laws. This is not an ad hominen attack but a statement based on empirical observation. So there is nothing to discuss or negotiate with a feminist.
Young girls are missing men to date and marry. And men need young girls to be men. So a sensible man who is not dominated by women would at least support lowering the age of consent to 13 and abolishing the absurd “CP” laws to stop the crusher of men that is in place by the feminist system. That’s the minimum of all minimums of someone who defends himself and other men. Period. He is not, he is a feminist dominated by ugly and jelaous middle-aged women, who has taken the blue pill and lives happily in his fantasy world of “womyn liberation” and “child protection”.
Men are so good at obeying that sex is only with women over the age of 18 or any other ridiculous high age, that feminists in power reward them for their absolute submission with laws that allow them anytime to imprison a man on charges of rape or domestic violence with no more proof than the woman’s word, making sex with women over the age of 18 virtually as dangerous as with those under the age of 18. Sorry if it sounds cruel, but you and all other men got it coming, same as you say “I am in fact genuinely enjoying the view from here”.
But hey, good news, Male sexualists are not like those “liberal” pedophile activists, we do not negotiate or debate our male sexuality. Society will never accept us, that’s why society must be opposed and combated. Take your blue pills and have a good night.
What an adorable little temper tantrum ?????? “Men need young girls to be men”. Such an inspiring vision of what constitutes masculinity. I would have thought things like meaningful work, building, creating, providing for one’s family, and community engagement would have also been important aspects. But no. Just shagging schoolgirls. I think it’s more likely, in your case at least, that your masculinity is so deeply defined by sex with prepubescent girls precisely because they’re physically, socially, politically and economically unable to dominate you. Your sense of masculinity is so weak and fragile that you’re incapable of rising to the challenge of dominating an adult woman whose strength of character and intellect is so vastly superior to yours that you have no other option but to aim low and prey on the only people naive enough to mistake you for actually being a man.
If you want to make headway, Danny, you need to address the strongest arguments and facts presented here, not waste your time chasing the small fry.
Ah, so your side can psychoanalyze and make spurious assumptions about people’s motivations, but I must refrain from doing so? Got it.
Here’s the problem, Tom. I genuinely don’t know what your camp considers the strongest arguments. For all I know, you guys take seriously this “male sexualist” nonsense and the ensuing pseudo-psychological assessment that accompanied it. I’m still flabbergasted by the lame example given the other day of a gang of homeless German kids, who on one occasion, thirty years odd years ago protested on behalf of their pedophile cult leaders being cited as a worthy example of pro-pedophile activism on behalf of adolescents. If that’s considered a strong argument surely anything goes.
I don’t know. Maybe because the original source was written in German the poster was hoping I wouldn’t look into it, which is why they conveniently left out the obvious duress under which these children were protesting and the cult like setting they were living in. I can’t help but suspect many “strong” arguments in favour of pedophilia are in fact little more than proverbial sheep in wolves clothing, esoteric to the point that people like myself who, unlike the dedicated pedophile activist, simply don’t have the time to examine more deeply.
Besides, Tom, your own conditions for comments is that they remain courteous and content-rich. If this comment managed to pass moderation, then by your own standards it was a worthwhile contribution to the discussion, therefore why wouldn’t I see fit to engage with it?
>Ah, so your side can psychoanalyze and make spurious assumptions about people’s motivations, but I must refrain from doing so? Got it.
On the contrary, feel free to “psychoanalyze”, but don’t expect me or others to be impressed by that alone. There needs to be substance, not just ad hominems. Your tone and content reflected that of the writer you were talking about. It took you down to his level so that you seemed more like each other than you might wish.
>Here’s the problem, Tom. I genuinely don’t know what your camp considers the strongest arguments.
A lot of stuff has been thrown at you and I can understand some confusion. Bear in mind that I allow all sorts of people to comment here with all sorts of views. It wouldn’t surprise me to find you and I have more in common in terms of our approach to a number of important issues (free speech, for instance) than either of us does to the poster you were responding to. So it doesn’t make much sense to talk about “my camp”. Yes, we call ourselves heretics, and have an inclusive community spirit in that respect, but our heresies are by no means all the same.
>For all I know, you guys take seriously this “male sexualist” nonsense and the ensuing pseudo-psychological assessment that accompanied it.
I don’t, as should be obvious. That line has little support here. But some who start from that position when they arrive at HTOC tend to become less extreme after being exposed over time to my posts and many of the comments here. I do believe HTOC has an educative function in that regard.
It would not be a great idea to send the extreme misogynists packing, in my view. That’s the way guys end up going berserk and massacring strangers with firearms. Social isolation is a killer.
>I’m still flabbergasted by the lame example given the other day of a gang of homeless German kids …Maybe because the original source was written in German the poster was hoping I wouldn’t look into it, which is why they conveniently left out the obvious duress under which these children were protesting…
I agree it wasn’t the strongest of arguments given the small scale and relative obscurity of the events in question. I don’t know enough to comment further but I would like to see your source, if you would kindly supply it.
>Besides, Tom, your own conditions for comments is that they remain courteous and content-rich. If this comment managed to pass moderation, then by your own standards it was a worthwhile contribution to the discussion, therefore why wouldn’t I see fit to engage with it?
See above. Just because I allow a comment does not mean I feel it has merit. Sometimes I will even allow outright personal abuse against myself if the post has the redeeming merit of being unintentionally hilarious. Fortunately, very few of the comments received here are simply crude, content-free abuse of the kind that dominates so much of the social media. In that regard I am proud that we have a much higher class of participation than generally prevails elsewhere.
Several people have answered Whittaker’s claim that “pedophiles are the only ones arguing in favour of adult-child sexual relations.” I would add to the already mentioned counter-examples the radical tradition of opposing the AOC, inherited from the early gay movement, which survived in some Trotskyist (e.g., the “Spartacists”) and anarchist tendencies.
Now the second claim, that “there are no young people doing the same, ” reminds me of what Seto wrote in one of his article, that he has never heard of a child who wants sex with an adult. To me, this is like saying “nobody in Saudi Arabia campaigns for gay rights or for religious freedom,” from which one would infer that such demands are only “self-serving” Western propaganda. Children, like subjects of the Saudi monarchy, soon learn that there are things that may not be done or said in front of authority. Any child expressing the desire of sex with an adult would immediately provoke a strong reaction from parents and teachers, and could even be sent to a psychotherapist. It is nearly like a grown-up avowing to be attracted by children.
Finally the accusation of “self-serving sexual gratification.” Frank Furedi also called paedophiles “self-serving,” he who campaigns for the right of parents to educate children as they like without interference from the State, including the right to inflict corporal punishment; of course, his defence of his own “rights” as a parent is not “self-serving!” Society has always been organised around orthodoxy, claimed to be for the good of everyone, and dissenters defending their equal rights have been accusing of pursuing selfish anti-social interests, so suffragettes were pretentious women, gays were just sex-obsessed perverts, trans-women were pervert men wanting to be seen as women, and Calvinists told that Miguel Servet (burned on the stake by Calvin) was arrogant while Jean Calvin was humble.
Good points, Christian.
Actually, to dismiss an argument solely on the basis that it is self-serving (even if it is) is a form of ad hominem attack: it focuses on the person making the argument rather than the quality of the argument itself. So whoever makes this kind of attack may sometimes “defeat” a strong argument without that argument ever being examined on its own merits.
If an argument is self-serving, this fact alone gives ground for suspicion that the argument may have been a weak one, put forward only because of self-serving bias. But that is as far as it goes: suspicion. To defeat the argument on a sound basis also requires a reason that is independent of the ad hominem charge.
Circumstantial ad hominem points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. It constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).
– Wikipedia, citing Walton, Douglas (1998). Ad Hominem Arguments. University of Alabama Press. pp. 18–21. ISBN 0-8173-0922-5.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Thank you for your response, Danny. Please note that nowhere in my coming response do I have the intention of being rude, abrasive, or to take sarcastic digs at you, but I will be frank at times, and online this can lead to misunderstandings of tone. I appreciate the degree of fairness you gave to Tom. Finally, I cannot make this a 5,000 word monstrosity as Tom is sole moderator here, so do understand I cannot do full justice to the enormity of the discussion we could have on this subject.
Even if Tom “won” the debate against me in the sense that he was better informed of the studies and statistics, a victory of what is essentially general knowledge facts and figures against somebody lesser informed is hardly a victory of any substance.
In all fairness to Tom, Danny, I think the degree of understanding of what the facts and figures entail may also be weighed in someone’s favor, as opposed to just simple memorization of data points. That said, I do think knowledge of facts and what good peer-reviewed research has to say is very important if one’s stated points are to have full merit.
So too the idea that I was going to convince Tom to not be attracted to children anymore is about as realistic as him talking me out of being attracted to women my own age.
I sincerely thank you for at least understanding that pedophilia and hebephilia are NOT choices. Many non-MAPs still do not “get” this important fact. Note, for example, the unnamed questioner elsewhere in these comments, who appears to have assumed that very thing.
I don’t feel I did this. I was merely acknowledging the reality that pedophiles face which is a general public which is, and I suspect will continue to remain, completely unmoved by science and statistics.
Which I think is a tacit admission on your part, whether intentional or not, that feelings and emotions tend to trump both scientific data and empirically observable facts. That is a very problematic aspect of human psychology that we need to seriously address when dealing with this and pretty much every other contentious topic of note. Otherwise, we will have an endless series of Satanic ritual abuse-like scandals, with millions of people believing it and too few people with the courage to challenge it on the basis of sound evidence.
But even so, I don’t find the facts themselves very compelling. The Finnish study for a start merely asks about persons “5 or more years older”, but doesn’t account for actual age discrepancies, nor the age at which the encounters happened (or if it did, I couldn’t see this data as I could only access certain sections, but happy to be corrected). I suspect the wider this age gap gets, the more likely it is to be a negative experience.
There are many studies which refute that contention of yours, Danny. This includes the Rind Report, the data of Riegel, Tromovich, Kirkpatrick, Okami, Green, Sandfort, Burns and many others. Also, and I understand that this is anecdotal, but nevertheless compelling: Those of us who have spent a lot of time in the MAP community have met numerous mesophiles of various ages (mesophiles are younger people with a sexual/romantic preference for significantly older people — the term was coined in a study published by Michael Sato in 2016, though the attraction base has been acknowledged prior to that, including by Blanchard). These mesophiles have often made it clear that desired contacts with adults (which I strongly discourage regardless of the intrinsic harm issue due to the laws) does not have negative effects if full respect is honored by both parties. Further, as a hebephile, I have often dated much younger women who were mesophiles of legal age, and have met others on a professional basis in the youth liberation movement that exists outside of the MAP community entirely, and they have often made the above quite clear. You really should interview mesophiles in the future, because this is something that no researcher other than Marshall Burns over on the Consenting Juvenile site resource has yet begun to do.
The huge discrepancy between the boys and girls who found it a positive experience just made me feel even more protective towards girls specifically.
This discrepancy was explained in the main body of the Rind Report beyond the abstract, when the researchers checked over the initial data to see why that should be the case. It was then discovered that instances of consensual and non-consensual contact with adults were conflated by respondents since the initial questions weren’t designed to effectively differentiate. All it ended up proving is that girls are victims of actual coercive sexual abuse much more often than boys, particularly in the home. Once the questions were modified to account for the factor of consent, the correlation of responses between boys and girls became “much more homogeneous.” I excerpted that entire passage on TOC Heretic about two years ago.
Further, as Christian noted elsewhere in this blog’s comment section, girls are much more severely stigmatized by having pre-marital sex in general. The quick rush to “slut-shame” by peers of both genders will obviously result in considerably more negative feelings about sexual contact after the fact in a general sense. Hence, it’s my opinion that rather than wanting to be more “protective” towards girls, you and the rest of society should consider empowering them and opposing slut-shaming and judging girls and women for being open about their sexual desires and encounters. I am not saying that you ever indulge in slut-shaming yourself, but your above response was very protectionist without in any way taking into account this glaringly obvious gender-based double standard in our society. Such a pervasive societal attitude is bound to cause girls and women to potentially view any of their sexual experiences as negative.
I haven’t yet heard a convincing argument for a child’s ability to give informed consent. In fact, my conversation with Tom and his answers to this question left me even more reassured by this argument.
The youth liberation movement has collected a lot of data making it clear that kids in general are very capable of making intelligent decisions under extremely trying circumstances. With the advent of YouTube and social media, we have numerous examples of kids, sometimes as young as four or five years of age, who have made very intelligent, literally life-saving decisions in situations of such a dire nature as home invasions, medical emergencies, fires, a drug-addicted parent passing out while driving when her young daughter was in the passenger seat, etc. If so many children can effectively weather these situations, then it stands to reason their potential is far greater than our adult-dominated society allows them to achieve, and we should not think sexual choices should be an exception compared to these other, far more serious situations.
Also, to be frank, Danny, I do not believe anything Tom may have said would have convinced you otherwise, because it’s exceedingly difficult to convince someone with such a powerful, life-long emotional investment in a certain belief system with any amount of facts. In other words, I honestly believe you do not want to be convinced otherwise. You are under too much pressure from too many directions to be genuinely open-minded about this topic. As you yourself noted elsewhere here, your professional reputation could suffer if you let it be known that any amount of factual data began to sway you to the pro-choice and youth liberationist camp, and I credit you for admitting you are mindful of this. The number of sexual abuse prevention based resources you have on your site, in place of links to general information sites about pedophilia/hebephilia on the page for Tom’s interview, makes it clear that you feel you must pander to this very powerful focus group of “abuse survivors.”
The fact that pedophiles are the only ones arguing in favour of adult-child sexual relations, and that there are no young people doing the same is hugely damaging to the cause and a blatant demonstration of the power imbalance inherent is this entire issue.
BjMuirhead largely covered this in his response, so you already know by now that this is not true. Look at Marshall Burns’ site on Consenting Juveniles as just one prominent example. Look at Bj himself, and Explorer, two non-MAPs who have overcome a pedo-hating past to come out in support of both the pro-choice stance and youth liberation in general.
Now, as for young people themselves taking the picket route and demanding this change, making such a statement is to willfully overlook the precise political situation that underage youths are actually in. They are not granted anything resembling freedom of speech or right to assemble, and any of them who spoke out on such a contentious issue would immediately be censored and likely dragged into therapy, just as they are if they are caught in an intergenerational relationship and refuse to recognize themselves as a “victim.” Youths are just now becoming aware of themselves as a distinct oppressed minority, and increasing numbers of them are joining the youth liberation movement to fight for their rights, which is why several U.S. municipalities are now arguing to lower the voting age to 16. Progress occurs in steps like that. This is why walkouts from high schools are now becoming popular again, and students are often severely punished for this as well… unless they happen to do so for a cause that many adults approve of.
Ask yourself this honest question, Danny: How often does society listen to what kids have to say on issues, unless the kids happen to tell them what they want to hear?
The trauma by society problem is a HUGE moral problem. Since societal judgement will lead to trauma for some children as we transition to a more “sex positive” society, how many children is it acceptable to write off as collateral damage during this period?
How about the “collateral damage” that the current hysteria causes to many MAPs, who have such a high rate of suicide and other emotional issues, because of all the horrifically negative statements made against them every single day in every facet of the media? Is our lives worth nothing? Is the fact that we are so terribly hated and stigmatized even when we are fully law-abiding mean nothing? Keep in mind that many young teens are now coming to the realization that they are pedophiles, and likely have a much higher suicide rate than vanilla LGBT kids. Is there not a better way of doing things than a moral panic and repressive laws? I think there is, because looking out for the emotional well-being of others need not be a zero-sum game where one group has to sacrifice themselves on a moral altar for the perceived benefit of another.
Finally, since there is no evidence to suggest that children who don’t engage in sex at an early age end up worse off than those who do (though there is arguably plenty of evidence to the contrary), what would be the point in parents and/or wider society being open to allowing it?
Since no kids are allowed to admit being sexually active at an early age, there is really no way to tell that reliably. The “arguable” evidence to the contrary is based on the huge amount of stigma geared towards the very idea of child or even young teen sexuality, and ignoring this fact when making statements like that do not bolster any arguments. Such arguments are only accepted so widely because they are telling the majority what they want to hear.
Sure, there’s some self-reported anecdotal evidence that some people found a paedophilia relationship positive. But how are we supposed to guess for which child this retrospective analysis will indeed be the case?
Ask them without any fear that they will suffer consequences of any sort if they do not tell the interviewer what he/she wants to hear. Right now in the U.S., it’s illegal for professionals to discover something like that and not report it to the police. Allow kids who realize they are mesophiles not be afraid to discuss it, along with their needs. Treat every kid on a case-by-case basis, give them the education and support to make the best decision for themselves as individuals rather than relying on “erring on the side of caution” blanket assumptions.
Children fare better with an education.
My point exactly. But it has to be an all-encompassing education, not limited to only what adults want them to know, and under specific standardized conditions that all are expected to adhere to.
They fare better under a two parent household.
Perhaps if both parents are non-abusive, and do not force them not to engage with the community at large.
They fare better with good nutrition. There are incentives for parents and wider society to pursue these aims for children as they demonstrate, statistically, a net positive.
Yet the huge amount of evidence that the greatest degree of actual abuse of all kinds, including sexual, occurs within the home is routinely ignored and the fear externalized, all to protect the integrity of “the family.” The problem is not due to the institution of parenthood, but very likely due to the extremely insular nature of the nuclear family unit and the fact that kids are treated like property, with the assumption that parents will handle such power better than any other demographic.
But since there is no reason nor research to suggest that children grow to be more well rounded individuals due to having had sex with an adult, and plenty of evidence to the contrary, what benefits, beyond the sexual satisfaction of pedophiles would such a societal shift serve?
This evidence to the contrary has been refuted in many studies, but those studies are often conveniently censored and marginalized, thus resulting in they’re being very easy to completely overlook, either accidentally or on purpose.
I think there’s a good argument to be made that if anybody is retreating to emotion on this issue, it’s pro-contact pedophiles who are ultimately seeking legal access to other peoples children for what appears little more than self-serving sexual gratification.
“Other people’s children” = Children as property due to genetic factors. I’m sorry, Danny, but to me, children and young adolescents are people, not property. Sexual and romantic pleasure are basic human needs that are fully capable of being conducted with respect and mutual satisfaction. Such romantic desires do not make someone inherently selfish, and one can argue that treating kids like property and forcing them to submit to authority as third class citizens is what is actually selfish.
Anyway guys, thank you for listening to the episode. I’m sure this page will continue generate interesting dialogue, and I hope you felt it ultimately worthwhile despite the seeming unbridgeable chasm that lies between us ideologically.
It was worthwhile, and I thank you for engaging us despite our differences of opinion.
“Such an inspiring vision of what constitutes masculinity. I would have thought things like meaningful work, building, creating, providing for one’s family, and community engagement would have also been important aspects. But no. Just shagging schoolgirls.”
Do you know how this sounds to a sane person? It’s like saying I doubt being a man includes drinking water… Yes, it does, dude. And so does being attracted to girls over 11 years old. It’s just how male sexuality works. If yours doesn’t you’re fucked in the head and much more likely lying to make yourself feel better.
“Your sense of masculinity is so weak and fragile that you’re incapable of rising to the challenge of dominating an adult woman whose strength of character and intellect is so vastly superior to yours”
Hahahaaha, holy shit. And women who are above 18 are somehow mature? Some of the least mature women I went out with were 30+. The least mature was 35. Women don’t tend to mature after the age of 14. Schopenhauer said this best.
“have no other option but to aim low and prey on the only people naive enough to mistake you for actually being a man.”
Stopped reading here even if you continue your comment. You’re fucked in your damn head or trolling us. I hope it’s the latter for the sake of anybody interacting with you.
You make some points of substance, Marjan, so as the moderator here I’ll allow your post. Also, you are replying to someone who was somewhat abusive, so on this occasion I won’t send you to the trash bin for that.
You are new here (welcome) but please keep personal abuse out of further posts. Just focus on your arguments.
I thought that the interviewer struggled conceptually. In fact, he all too often appeared lost within the ideas, and had difficulty thinking through them.
I also found his constant repetitions, interspersed with guttural “ums”, and silences between those, incredibly irritating.
Was he fair? Perhaps, although I would better describe it as a somewhat strained politeness coupled with a determination to get through this fucking interview no matter what. When I say this, I am not putting him down so much as I am noting the difficulties he faced when he took on you, Mr O’Carroll.
Mind you, if he stumbles around this way in his other videos, with conceptual difficulties and the occasional conceptual incoherence, with multiple repetitions per “sentence”—he got so few complete sentences out—then he would be unworthy of any further attention. (I was too lazy—or busy, as I prefer to say—to look at any other videos to see if he lived down to the conceptual clutter and incoherences I had already witnessed.)
Yes, I know I am being incredibly, and almost certainly unjustly, harsh on Danny, but dear god he annoyed me with his stumbling attempts at sentences, and his apparently weak grasp of the applicable concepts.
Yep, I am being a mean arse about him. Forgive, if you feel like doing so. I am feeling sufficiently arrogant to not give a damn, though that may change tomorrow.
Also, I couldn’t help but be amused by the Taxi Driver mini-poster behind him as he spoke. The irony was all but unbearable.
Hi BJ, I’m sorry you found my interview skills lacking. It’s tricky at the best of times to formulate questions on-the-fly, particularly when you’re interviewing somebody who more often than not has years of specialized knowledge versus my more general knowledge of psychology and the meager one or two days (at most) of research I can afford to dedicate to each conversation.
This is the case for a “typical” interview. Now imagine an interview in which the consequences of a misworded question risks more than the appearance of an inarticulate performance; where it’s possible to inadvertently offend your guest and sabotage the interview, or to accidentally accuse/misrepresent them in a way that could have real world legal ramifications for them; where one risks being accused of sympathetic leanings where none exist; where nuance is of the utmost importance; where your audience consists of many people who consider themselves victims of sexual abuse; where we live in an era where one comment taken out of context is all that’s required to destroy somebody’s reputation… That should give you some idea of conversational minefield I felt I was tip-toeing around, and I’ll be the first to admit that my performance reflects this, as I did so in the intro.
I’m too old and anti-social to be concerned about whether or not I irritate people, but I do apologize if people feel my cautiousness degraded the quality of the interview.
Speaking of irony, I’m equally amused that subsequent to accusing me of “struggling conceptually” you couldn’t detect the blatant self-deprecation in a mental health podcast host proselytizing before movie posters of black comedies about mental illness. Seems we’re both a little slow on the uptake, hey BJ ??
Hi, Danny, good to have your input! I would have answered this critical commentator myself along similar lines but for the fact that as the host here I prefer to gives others the first shot where possible rather than leaping in myself all the time. I fully expected you would have other defenders, and I think that could still happen.
I thought you did well. It was good to hear you retreat from your principles and retreat to instinct at the crux, but you remained equanimous and more or less unruffled throughout the rest of the interview!
Most of all, you have my gratitude for choosing to engage with Tom in the manner you did. As you say, it is a topic that demands a careful choice of words.
Hey, thanks for having a go back at me!
Your questions, when you got to them, were fine. I’m sorry if said they weren’t. No, what was unfortunate, and generally irritating, was your constant repetition of really basic, sometimes silly sentences and fragments of questions, which often, to my ears, left you sounding as though you didn’t have a clue. BUT:
where one risks being accused of sympathetic leanings where none exist; where nuance is of the utmost importance; where your audience consists of many people who consider themselves victims of sexual abuse; where we live in an era where one comment taken out of context is all that’s required to destroy somebody’s reputation…
I do not have a reputation to worry about, or, if I do, I really don’t give a flying fuck about it. (I wish I knew what a flying fuck was; and I want to have one, one day.) This doesn’t mean that I don’t understand: most people want to preserve a good reputation; most people want to be sure that other people know that they aren’t sympathetic to those awful child fucking ….
But I won’t go into that, because after interviewing Tom, and after doing at least some research, you know that the vast majority of child lovers are NOT monsters.
I’m sorry if I seem like an absolute bastard toward you; especially when Tom and many others are justifiably proud of the interview.
But, hey, I don’t have a reputation to protect, and your quote above admirably explains why you did the very things I was complaining about. And, let’s face it, because I don’t have a reputation to protect, I don’t care if I support non-abuse, non-violent, and et cetera, adult-child sex; I don’t care if people think I’m a dirty bloody paedo. I defend, and will continue to defend, the paedophilic sexual orientation, even though I am not of that persuasion.
Wait, I had best admit that I do have quite a substantially good reputation in some places, and a bloody awful one in others. So what? Why do you care? …Oh, wait, really, don’t answer that question. Don’t answer it for at least one reason:
There was so much in the interview, including your input, that was fantastic.
It is just a pity that your worry (self admitted, above) got in the way of clear expression.
Lastly, in this over long post, I am really glad you did this interview. Not only is Tom well read and lucid in thought, but it may help other, even you, come to the realisation that sympathy for the devil ain’t the worst thing in the world. I say that because, as most people who have read my comments here already know, I used to be an absolute hater of paedophiles, and wished them all dead… and et cetera. An awful lot of research changed my mind.
Yeah well, the devil may or may not wear Prada, but the fact, remains that the vast majority of “paedophiles” are good people. (So are those people who just can’t pass by a dog without getting randy’ nd those crazy buggers who like leather and whips and…)
Taxi Driver, yes. I wasn’t thinking about the mental illness. But I now understand your use of it, and say, cool.
Tom: feel free to not post this if you think I am being unfair; I merely think that the clumsiness and repetitions were unfair.
And, in any case, I might be totally wrong again. Must try to be more right, if you know what I mean. (Must try not to piss off people also, but it may be too late for that.)
My apologies for the occasional comment intended to be humorous. But really, a flying fuck! Woohoo!!
Hello Danny, I was alerted to this podcast by Tom’s SEXNET post which mentioned your decision to interview him instead of one of us virtuous pedophiles. So I listened carefully to your 38-minute introduction. I do appreciate your willingness to go to uncomfortable places and to consider a topic in depth.
I’m one of the two co-founders (with Nick Devin) of Virtuous Pedophiles. Your portrayal of our group is badly flawed, for reasons I will lay out. But I’m not sure the best forum to do that. Tom’s followers here have much fault to find with VP, but they attack from the left rather than the right. I’d love to talk about it somewhere where conservatives on this issue gather with an open mind, but I don’t know of such a place.
You might be interested, for background in my own blog. It’s more a series of essays than a traditional blog. There’s a lot of meaty arguments there. The index by topic is the best place to start: http://celibatepedos.blogspot.com/2017/03/index-of-posts-by-category.html.
(I tried to make this post 3 times and it didn’t “take” due to some technical glitch. So I’m trying it with somewhat different wording.)
>they attack from the left rather than the right
These terms really have become quite meaningless, I think. Or perhaps it is just that for many people they do mean something, but current usage is utterly different to what once prevailed, even to the extent of 100% opposite.
We have a similar problem with the word “liberal”, which used to mean “permissive” or “tolerant” but is now more often used to imply “censorious” and “intolerant” of anything deemed politically incorrect by the so-called left, or liberal/left, which takes its inspiration from the feminist “social purity” faction – and this in turn, especially over the issue of pornography (think Andrea Dworkin & Catherine MacKinnon), tends to find support among traditional conservatives of the anti-sexual Pauline (i.e. St Paul) persuasion.
My use of “left” and “right” wasn’t thought out in great detail, but I meant them with regard to this one particular issue. On the right are those who bellow for pedophiles to be snuffed out just for existing. To the left, a larger group are those who say, “people should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else”. That’s what I would call “social liberals” and they are potential supporters of VP, once they are educated. Describing pro-legalization folks as left of that is a bit tenuous, since it hinges on a separate question of the nature of children and what is good for them and what isn’t.
I was going to consider suggestions for the best place to rebut Whittaker on VP, but I realized my internet access will be limited for the next week or so, so it was best to get this out. The argument is on my blog here:
http://celibatepedos.blogspot.com/2018/04/reply-to-danny-whittaker-on-todd.html
For highlights, Whittaker lambasts VP member Todd Nickerson as a devious opportunist, and generalizes about the entirety of Virtuous Pedophiles based on this. In fact, Todd has been open and honest throughout. Todd always acknowledged a pro-contact phase. Whittaker takes his highly speculative post about sex with an eager girl (if it was legal and accepted) to dismiss him as lacking in virtue. And yet Whittaker himself recognizes after interviewing O’Carroll that the data isn’t so clear that adult-child sex is harmful. He congratulates himself on open-mindedness in considering this himself, but when Nickerson toys with this in the depths of despair he is given nothing but condemnation.
No one can prove he doesn’t molest children — not even Whittaker himself. But singling out Virtuous Pedophiles for suspicion is totally unwarranted.
You know, Ethan, despite all my theoretical differences with the VP position, I have to agree with you on this one.
I think it’s fair to say Ethan that you’re sore Danny didn’t interview you, Todd or perhaps Gary. Obviously, like Nick, you are not out and dribble on about being the founders of Virped, yet we don’t know who you are or what your history is, certainly important in regards to virtuosity. However, not one of you could have performed as well as Tom, but if you think you can, perhaps we’ll be able to see that in the not too distant future. You simply don’t have the knowledge or coherence on topic, and to make it worse your view is clouded by a fruitless adherence to erroneous laws and cultural attitudes.
In this respect, it’s also fair to say that Danny has precluded correctly. Why trust people in what they say regarding ‘offending’, or the lack thereof, if you don’t suffer the conviction to stand up and say this out loud, particularly as you and Nick are the ones that started the ball rolling?
Of equal importance here is the fact that you see fit to stand up on Todd’s behalf. The one thing I may have respected Todd for, ie his bravery, seems to have now disappeared, to the point whence you feel the need to speak up for him, without anyone knowing for sure whether your defence has been authorised by Todd himself? Are things that bad Ethan? Todd lost his voice? Or his balls?
As for Todd being a ‘devious opportunist’, that’s yet another tick in the book for Mr Whittaker. If we are to believe you are actually a paedophile Ethan, after all we have no proof of this, then it’s fair to say you would have likely experienced very dark times. Very few of us don’t. That is life for us. Yet for you to say that Todd cries on about this as being the reason for his period of being ‘pro contact’ in his life is absurd. You are icing a cake made of shit. Use as much icing as you like, it’s still a turd.
When all is said and done, we are, as pedos, sexually attracted to children. We don’t ask for that. We’re stuck with it. To deny it is foolish, and to deny child sexually is equally so. You batter on about being virtuous, and yet we all know if society looked more favorably on intergenerational relationships, like it ought to, you’d be in like Errol Flynn.
I’m not saying Todd should have been singled out for this (he shouldn’t have), but more often than not, it’s pro-choicers who are singled out for such accusations, with bogus claims that the pro-choice stance automatically means we encourage breaking the laws, or do not recognize the possibility of harm due to all the iatrogenic and sociogenic factors that come into play, yadda yadda yadda. This simply proves that being non-choice does not guarantee support and well wishes from journalists and researchers tackling the subject, just as I have found being pro-choice is not an automatic deal-breaker for respect in the eyes of non-MAPs as long as you recognize all the possible dangers of acting on such an attraction in today’s political climate and non-youth liberated society (and most of us do). All of us, regardless of our ideology, have made mistakes and missteps along the way, so none of us should be judged too harshly. And there are many pro-choicers who have had a non-choice and even self-hating stage, as well as some non-MAPs in our community who are supportive of the pro-choice stance while having started out as virulently pedo-hating.
Triple whammy today! Yo, go Dissy!
Hi Ethan,
Thanks for commenting. However, I can already tell from the quality of this comment alone that my intuition to steer clear of VirPed was probably correct.
“Whittaker lambasts VP member Todd Nickerson as a devious opportunist”…
Ignoring the rather mellow-dramatic use of the word “lambast”, I never said Todd was a “devious opportunist”, those are your words. My point was that two contradictory accounts exist as to what Todd’s views may be, and the potential for misrepresentation inherent in this has the potential to undermine my desire for an honest conversation.
“Todd always acknowledged a pro-contact phase.”
The acknowledgement of his pro-contact phase in the Salon article is glossed over like an empty aside, with the implication being that he was at one time merely engaged in shallow ideological pandering to peer pressure. The posts themselves certainly don’t read that way. And note the plurality. I cited one of Todd’s posts in my intro, but came to my conclusion based on reading many.
“Whittaker takes his highly speculative post about sex with an eager girl (if it was legal and accepted) to dismiss him as lacking in virtue.”
Again. Potentially lacking in virtue. I’m an interviewer, Ethan, not a detective. It’s not my job to conduct a thorough investigation into the ideological evolution of people you allow to represent your organization and then follow this up with a forensic analysis as to how and to what extent their thinking may have shifted. Sure, that could be a conversation worth having in isolation, but it’s not the conversation I wanted to have here.
Since I’m assuming VirPed is partly a concerted effort to rectify what you consider blanket misrepresentation of pedophiles in the media, I would have thought it obvious, especially considering the severity of criticism that pedophiles are subject to, that the best way to meet that goal would be to only allow yourself to be represented by people with impeccable reputations.
There are two ways one could go about this. One is to be represented by somebody who’s reputation is impeccable in the sense that they possess an immaculate past which adhere’s precisely to the standards that VirPed claims to represent, with no potentially damaging material waiting to be unearthed about them.
Another is to have a representative whose reputation is impeccable to the extent that they take full ownership of their past and speak about it in an open and honest manner without resorting to euphemism or obfuscation. In my opinion, whether or not Todd Nickerson is indeed “virtuous”, his reputation falls short of both these standards, whereas Tom falls squarely in the latter. In other words, why wouldn’t I choose to interview Tom over a member of VirPed, if only for the sake of cautious self-preservation?
Sorry Ethan, but if this post you’ve published on your blog is some sort of long-winded Talmudic parsing of my introduction with this same poor level of analysis applied throughout, I have neither the time nor the interest in engaging with it.
Furthermore, the fact that you’ve decided to criticise what you consider a misrepresentation of VirPed on my part by misrepresenting what I actually said does nothing but make me feel even more secure in my decision to avoid engaging with your organization. When the founder himself resorts to such tactics, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that maybe the problem is indeed systemic.
Hey Danny… let me start over. Most people in society think pedophiles are evil. “Virtuous Pedophiles” is a name chosen to challenge that perception. As our home page says, “Virtuous doesn’t mean we think we’re better than the average person, just that we’re not worse.” The pro-legalization people (including Tom) howl as they think this is meant to exclude them — it’s not, it’s meant to exclude child molesters. The anti-pedophile right seems eager to pounce on the term to expect all our members to be worthy of sainthood. When Todd’s article came out, a post titled “Why Salon’s Virtuous Pedophile Isn’t So Virtuous” pointed to the same sorts of posts you do, Danny, similarly implying that he would abuse kids if he could get away with it. There is rarely any chink in the ideological armor to indicate any openness to reason. You suggested some openness, which is why I took the time to reply to you.
You think virtue would require Todd in the limited space of an article to confess his sins (as you see them) in advance and in detail and his failure to do so makes him a fraud as a virtuous pedophile.
In fact, many of us have toyed with the idea that maybe adult-child sex would be OK — within the scenario that the enthusiastic child would not be harmed later either. Thinking about that is entirely within what you would expect of a decent person coming to grips with their own sexuality. You and others on the right don’t get how that is distinct from molesting a child if they could get away with it. The core members of Virtuous Pedophiles (capitalized, the organization) have rejected the pro-legalization position, but some of us considered it.
Replying to my blog post, someone named “Agapeta” appears to be you, and says, “Another motivation for interviewing O’Carroll rather than a VP, is that his controversial views will make a sensation; on the other hand, interviewing a VP will lead to commiseration, not controversy.” So, despite the long introduction about needing to face difficult issues, the motivation is sensation! Perhaps it fits in with a web presence that prominently invites people to give money. Commiseration might not be fun but sounds like the sort of step that could lead to dialog, understanding, and reducing child sex abuse.
You’re free to interview whoever you choose, but your portrayal of Virtuous Pedophiles as people serious journalists must shun remains completely unfair.
You had me fooled, Danny. I thought you might be an open-minded, clear-thinking individual. It turns out you just play one on TV.
>The anti-pedophile right seems eager to pounce on the term to expect all our members to be worthy of sainthood.
Which is one reason I feel the “virtuous” title was ill-judged.
>Replying to my blog post, someone named “Agapeta” appears to be you,
I find things to agree with in Ethan’s post up to this point, but it goes astray from here on. The assumption as to authorship is not well-founded.
Honestly, Tom. This is getting ridiculous, to the extent that Ethan’s paranoia and/or indignation over my choice to eschew engaging with VirPed has reached the point at which he is engaged in schizophrenic confrontations with imaginary versions of me on the internet! I don’t know whether to be annoyed, or genuinely concerned about him.
I don’t think I have ever defended Ethan, Danny, and I am not about to start now. But I will say this highly paranoid turn seems to be something new. I can only suppose you’ve really hit a nerve. The mania is merely temporary, I hope.
My mistake. I apologize for the identity confusion. As I said, I am on the road, with limited tools and time and access — though that is the sort of dumb mistake I sometimes make anyway, I freely admit.
So the showmanship claim is not justified.
The rest of my critique stands: “You’re free to interview whoever you choose, but your portrayal of Virtuous Pedophiles as people serious journalists must shun remains completely unfair.”
For a minute there Ethan, I was tempted to respond to some of your points, until your bizarre accusation that have I been communicating with you via some sort of pseudonymous web presence.
Having read the comment to which you are referring on your blog, it seems patently obvious that this is somebody accusing me of being motivated by self-interested sensationalism, and being biased to the extent that I wouldn’t want to interview somebody where the outcome might be sympathy for pedophiles.
The fact that you’ve come to the conclusion that rather than being a third-party criticism, but is in fact me choosing to out myself via some sort of internet alter-ego does nothing but speak to the level of paranoia under which you operate.
If you’d actually bothered to go to the effort of clicking on the profile of my so-called alter-ego you’d have noticed that this person has their own WordPress blog (https://agapeta.wordpress.com/), which appears to be laced with some sort of pedophilic sentiments, written in two different languages, with posts stretching back to January 2015. Sorry, Ethan, but you’re really not worth that much effort.
Further investigation (about 30 seconds worth), actually points to a person who has commented in this very blog post: Christian. Same profile picture, with the same link, to the same blog!
Jesus Christ, Ethan. I wouldn’t usually skirt so close to ad hominems, but this behaviour you’re displaying is genuinely pathetic. How you expect me to take your criticisms of me seriously with such a barrel-scraping level of investigative prowess on display is beyond me. God help Virped with somebody as hysterical and deluded as you at the helm.
Hey, Ethan, you are talking nonsense: “Agapeta” is ME, not Danny Whittaker. If on my comment to your blog you had clicked on my name, you would have found out. And click on my name here, it is also “Agapeta”. And worth reading!
I guess thus that the hypothesis I proposed there for Danny’s psychological motivation for the interview was plausible.
Or maybe you got upset because I said that “O’Carroll is a witty man, while the very little VP literature I have read looks drab, boring and unimaginative.”
Plausible, but inaccurate, Christian. I’m not interested in courting controversy. At this stage in the game for me, such attention is more likely to bury me than elevate me.
There are several people who have spread suspicion on Todd Nickerson after his Salon article, see for example: https://medium.com/@harperreginald1/salon-writer-todd-nickson-in-his-own-words-why-pedophiles-are-better-qualified-than-you-to-teach-21781e6329b4
Maybe Whittaker has been influenced by such “literature”.
But I’m not sure the best forum to do that. Tom’s followers here have much fault to find with VP, but they attack from the left rather than the right. I’d love to talk about it somewhere where conservatives on this issue gather with an open mind, but I don’t know of such a place.
I’m also not sure what you mean by attacking from the “left” as opposed to the “right”, Ethan, as you have described yourself as Left, and as Tom noted, these terms seem to take on a very nebulous connotation lately, with either side just as likely to allude to fascist attitudes. The target of such fascist leanings are the only things that tend to differ between “right” and “left” reactionary tendencies… when they do differ, that is. These days, “Left” can mean as many different things as words like “pedophile” or “socialist,” depending on who is using them and for what purpose or cause, with the classic definitions discarded whenever convenient. I think we both know that.
As for a place that conservatives can gather with an “open mind,” that seems more for a call for those squarely against the pro-choice position to gather together without having to deal with the alternative opinion getting “in the way,” doubtless with the belief that common ground can always be found between fellow conservatives. Common ground can also be found between pro-choicers and non-choicers, it should be noted, if we choose not to stick almost solely to the “hot button” issues that create so much contention and emotional antipathy between the two ideological camps. If Danny chooses to do what you suggested, that is up to him, but I urge him to stay here even if they goes elsewhere to talk to you away from us pro-choicers, so he is always exposed to both sides of the debate, not just the mainstream side. The end result of doing this will be a greater understanding on his part of every aspect of the issue, regardless of whether or not he ever comes to agree with or sympathize with any aspect of the pro-choice stance. I’d like to think he is amenable to that.
Another good one!
the best thing about the interview wen he got his ass kicked cos by his own logic he need to be ostracized for being bigoted,and when Tom won at the end he must have found it very difficult to keep a cool head (shall we say)
I ALSO HOPE SOCIETY STARTS CHANGING COS SO FAR HERETIC TOC IS THE ONLY SUPPORT/SOCIAL OUTLET THAT I HAVE IN LIFE TBH
like tom sed its not about sexuality anymore and sexual abuse cos i COS I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW AS A SEXUAL ABUSE SURVIVOR, “YES WHAT HAPPENED TO ME WAS BAD BUT IT IS NO WER NEAR AS BAD AS BEING TREATED IN THE SAME WAY AS WHAT SOCIETY TREATS A SEX OFFENDER OR A PAEDOPHILE FOR THAT MATTER”
Yes, you may be right, although I don’t think he was at all convinced by anything Tom said. I may be wrong about that also. Perhaps Danny will answer, and tell us….
I have downloaded the vid, and will watch it again on the weekend, at least partially to see if I still feel critical of the same things.
BTW, and NB: My comments are not intended to be critical of him as a person, merely of some aspects of his questioning.
I do think he understands now he has listened but weather or not he will come to our side or not is another matter cos he does have a career/reputation to protect, he doesn’t have to protect it from me and im sure he doesnt have to protect it from us but he does have to protect it from the rest of society that doesnt have a clue what they are talking about.
Danny Whittaker, maybe there is a comparison who knows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilm_Hosenfeld