Desmond is truly amazing – and hot!

Child drag artist Desmond is Amazing is indeed amazing.
And hot! Just check out this introductory video on YouTube. No wonder 11-year-old Desmond Napoles and other kids daringly diving into drag culture right now have provoked right-wing reactionaries into paroxysms of moral outrage.
Let’s face it, when a pretty young boy tells the world he is gay and dances sensuously in front of grown men, wearing vampish dresses and makeup; when “she” strips off items of clothing or goes on stage scantily clad right from the off; when dollar bills are accepted as “tips” from an audience apparently wild with excitement; when all this is going on we are getting far more than just a celebration of gender diversity or an innocent display of precocious performance talent.
And that’s great. It is wonderful that a rare niche has been found in the modern, developed world within which at least a few kids can truly be themselves, in ways that deny neither their gender feelings nor their sexuality. Being a drag queen, or a drag princess if you will, puts it right out there, in the open for all to see. It says, loud and proud, “I am a sexy kid, with sexy feelings. It’s totally cool for grown-ups to get turned on by me. I love it. That’s why I do this stuff. It’s great. It’s fun. It’s me!”

Red hot! Amazing Desmond Napoles

Panicky conservatives, needless to say, spin it differently, desperate as they are to pretend that kids have no erotic dimension, or at least none that is self-generated. In their telling, performances such as Desmond’s and those of fellow artists such as “Queen Lactacia” (Nemis Quinn Mélançon-Golden) are a travesty in the worst sense: these are kids, they claim, who are being “sexualised” by exploitative adults hell bent on corrupting their supposed natural innocence.
In Desmond’s case the criticism began long ago, following his drag performance at age eight during the 2015 New York City Pride Parade. At that time, Desmond and his parents were defended by Rutgers University professor Michael LaSala, author of Coming Out, Coming Home: Helping Families Adjust to a Gay or Lesbian Child. He rejected the notion that such performances were due to parental influence.
Within the last year, though, the attacks have become much more fierce, persistent and vicious. Stirred up by the right-wing media, angry complainants have made over a hundred allegations of child abuse against Desmond’s parents with the child protection services and police.
American LGBT fashion, entertainment, and lifestyle magazine Out explored this phenomenon in an article earlier this year. Out reported that these attacks against the Napoles family escalated after a drag performance at a bar in New York last December. This show was at 3 Dollar Bill, a queer, multifunctional performance space in Brooklyn. Desmond’s mother, Wendy, is quoted as saying Desmond “was not allowed anywhere but on stage and in the dressing room. I accompanied him in these areas. His father was in the audience.”
Out adds that that “like any other queen, Desmond was tipped by audience members”. Tipping drag performers is customary, we are told, “but adults outside of the community are attempting to label something so innocent as imitating one’s favourite celebrities as stripping”.
While nobody seems to be suggesting that Desmond stripped naked, it has been claimed that shows are being permitted in which kids have stripped off at least some of their clothes. And in at least one of Desmond’s shows he isn’t wearing a lot to start with: quite a bit of his slight, slender, little body is on provocative display.
In a less sexy form of provocation, The American Conservative brought out an article accusingly titled “Desmond: The Bacha Of Brooklyn”. Its author, Rod Dreher, begins with a heavily loaded, prejudicial comparison with Asian boy dancers. He says “Bacha bazi is a traditional practice in Afghanistan and some other central Asian cultures, in which boys and adolescent males are compelled to dance for older men, usually as a prelude to pederastic sex.”
Note that “compelled” bit. Whatever may be the practice in Afghanistan and elsewhere, I see  absolutely zero evidence that either Desmond or any other drag kids in the western world are being forced to perform. This is just a smear – a tactic regrettably par for the course on the “fake news” Right, as I know to my cost: Dreher was among the traditionalist, mainly religious, scribes who loudly and libellously denounced my article “Childhood ‘innocence’ is not ideal” last year. See Lording it from the wild margins.
But there is fake news on the so-called “liberal” Left, too, a prime example of which we are treated to in the Out article. The author, identified only as “Devin-Norelle” (no forename), cited Dreher’s article and wrote:

These arguments are dangerous; conservative media has associated Desmond’s performance of drag with sexuality simply because he transgresses the binary and opts to express his femininity. Newsflash: gender identity and sexuality are not one and the same. Desmond’s exploration and toying of gender is not a discovery of his sexual attractions, nor is it a tactic to invite the sexual desires of others. Drag, whether performed by an adult or a child, is simply a means of gender play and expression. It is not a sexual event. Their arguments also recklessly imply that the mere presence of gay men watching a child sing creates an atmosphere with sexual undertones. Yet men frequently watch male adults and children play sports. Is it only sexual when gay men take part? No – it’s all blatant homophobia and transphobia.

Spot the fake news? How about this: “Drag, whether performed by an adult or a child, is simply a means of gender play and expression. It is not a sexual event.”
Big, fat lie! Drag is not “simply a means of gender play and expression”, though that is obviously a significant aspect of it. Sure, drag can be performed with wholly non-erotic intent and often is: Dame Edna Everage, for instance, the classic creation of Australian comedian Barry Humphries, is played entirely for laughs: “she” is all about wit and satire. Likewise, my namesake Brendan O’Carroll’s “Mrs Brown” does something similar in considerably cruder terms: there’s plenty of smutty innuendo but no one would accuse O’Carroll of being sexually hot – actually, that goes for both of us! 🙁
But when a kid declares himself to be gay, as Desmond has, he is talking about sexual feelings: “gay”, after all, refers to a sexual orientation not a gender identity. If his interest in wearing girls’ clothes was an expression only of his gender identity he would see himself as “trans”, not “gay” – a girl in a boy’s body and perhaps with ambitions to transition physically into a woman later on.

Trump that! Nemis opts for the Lolita look

So why all the denial? Why the coy insistence that kids’ drag performance has nothing to do with their sexuality? Hypocrisy, basically. For decades now, gay politics has revolved around respectability, and that has meant aping hetero-normativity: gay couples with committed relationships, marriage, and parenthood, have become the promoted model; the old, carefree “promiscuity” of the gay life is frowned upon (if still a reality for many) and any cross-generational sexual contact with youth is now far more taboo than it ever was in the “bad old days” when homosexuality was a discretely practised underground phenomenon.
Hypocrisy is detestable for its dishonesty; but on the other hand it works. Politically, it makes sense. Denial of the sexual element in kids’ drag performances has recently resulted in them being perceived as on the “respectable” side of the gender revolution, despite all the excitable right-wing huffing and puffing. While It cannot have been much fun for the Napoles family to be subjected to official investigation for child abuse, it is now becoming clear that they have gained a measure of support from the authorities.
A report in Gay Star News cites information posted on Instagram by Desmond’s mother. She is quoted as saying the Administration for Child Services (ACS) “has investigated us thoroughly… Our family was probed more intensely than any other case before. All allegations were ‘unfounded’.” Even better: “On the plus side, ACS has been offering us many support services.” Other official agencies including the police have also given the family a clean bill of health.
Thanks to the strength of gay community support, and sympathy from feminists (always keen to promote challenges to gender stereotypes), it may be that even quite risqué expressions of kids’ drag are now able to pass under the radar. Notably, an outfit called “Trump Army” demanded to know “Why no arrests?” after “10-year-old drag queen photographed with naked adult male”, as their headline put it. This was a reference to “Queen Lactacia”, who has already been mentioned above. Huck magazine ran a photo shoot featuring young Nemis. In a shot that didn’t make the magazine, Nemis is seen posing in drag with adult drag queen Violet Chachki. In “the shocking photo”, as Trump Army calls it, Violet is naked but for the flimsiest of genital coverings. While nakedness is no big deal to anyone with a body-positive attitude, it is interesting that the boy’s mother, Jessica Melancon, is said to have “conceded that drag has a sexual component and is unapologetic about her young son wearing sexually suggestive clothing if it ‘makes him feel beautiful’.”
Good for her!
Gay activist Peter Tatchell wrote an obituary in the Guardian last month which began as follows:

Across five decades the American psychiatrist and lawyer Richard Green, who has died aged 82, contributed to landmark achievements for gay and trans rights, risking his reputation and career to advance the understanding and acceptance of sexual and gender minorities.

I can personally vouch for the man’s courage in this regard. You won’t find anything about it in Tatchell’s otherwise excellent account, but Richard was also strikingly bold and brave in attempting to bring paedophilia in from the cold. While this aspect of his work was far less successful than the rest of his glittering career, the fact that an internationally renowned expert with much to lose would even think of such a project tells us what a fearless fighter he was.
My introduction to Richard was through the International Academy of Sex Research (IASR), of which he had been the founder and first president in 1975. Twenty years ago, in 1999, when he was about to take the annual presidency for a second time, he boldly went out on a limb, inviting me to speak at the academy’s Paris conference in 2000, to give a paedophile’s perspective. This was in keeping with his pioneering other work for sexual minorities as outlined in his memoir Gay Rights, Trans Rights – which I commend as admirably concise and characteristically witty.
Back in the 1970s Richard published a groundbreaking paper calling for the removal of homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental disorders, “despite being advised that it would ruin his career”, as Tatchell says. The following year he reiterated his call at the APA annual meeting and the organisation removed homosexuality from the list.
It was a fantastic success, paving the way for gayness to be considered normal and acceptable. In what may now seem a madly ambitious bid to replicate this success with paedophilia, in 2002 he published an article in the journal of the IASR, the Archives of Sexual Behavior. Titled “Is pedophilia a mental disorder?”, the paper presented strong empirical data and cogent arguments so show that paedophilia, like homosexuality, should not be considered pathological. This time, though, he was up against the full weight of the most powerful taboo of all and his ideas did not find favour.
But he had a go, that’s the point, and he was very supportive towards me personally. After we met in Paris we continued to see each other whenever I was in London, where he was a professor of psychiatry until his retirement, after which he stayed on in the capital, moving only from Fulham to Hampstead in his final years. He successfully proposed me for membership of psychologist J. Michael Bailey’s cross-disciplinary Sexnet forum, wrote to the court on my behalf when I was in trouble with the law, and gave a glowing pre-publication endorsement of my book Michael Jackson’s Dangerous Liaisons.
Most of all though, I will remember with pleasure the many times we shared a convivial drink and a meal together, usually at his expense. He behaved like a friend, in other words, not like a shrink with a dangerous “convicted paedophile” as part of his caseload. I was never his patient and never felt like one in his company.
All those years ago in Paris, Richard and his wife Melissa Hines, a neuroscientist, put me at ease immediately, joining me on a conference-organised canal-boat excursion, where they introduced me to their ten-year-old son, Adam. More than anything else they could have done, this friendly gesture (fully visible to other conference participants on the trip) convinced me that neither of them shared the popular prejudice that paedophiles must be shunned as pariahs.
A summary of Richard’s paper “Is pedophilia a mental disorder?” is to be seen here, at Ipce, along with details of the wider debate in the Archives of which this article was a part. There is another obituary of Richard here, in the New York Times.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jeffrey Griffy

Not in the Genes, Somethings Wrong With The Wiring


there was a time when this sort of thing would have disgusted and outraged me, but as long as Desmond does it of his own free will and his parents fully support him, who are we to say otherwise?


LGBT people existing does not result in victims, peadophilia does


Yes yes make pedophilia the new progressive orthodoxy, this will work out GREAT, no way it results in a backlash with injuries to the rights of gay and lesbian adults, to say nothing of kids, WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG

Gabriel A. Brooks

Pedophiles must lose for society to win.

Kill Yourself

You’ve been arrested for distribution of child pornography. Do you know where most children in pornography come from? Fucking sex trafficking you goddamn predator. Do not even begin to tell me how “ethical” yours is and they “consented” when a child can’t even decide whether they want chicken nuggets or fries at the restaraunt without breaking down crying. Anyone versed in child development and child psychology understands that children do not have the maturation to understand what predators like you are doing no matter how sweetly you want to dress it.

No Business of yours

Pedophiles are not an oppressed minority.
You’re a despised tribe of sexual deviants, hurting children. It’s not wrong to hate harmful deviancy. In fact I recommend it for a healthy society.

[…] has been the subject of an admiring profile on “Good Morning America” as well as a celebratory blog post by a convicted pedophile. When is a child fully capable of autonomy? Age of consent is inevitably […]

[…] has been the subject of an admiring profile on “Good Morning America” as well as a celebratory blog post by a convicted pedophile. When is a child fully capable of autonomy? Age of consent is inevitably […]

[…] has been the subject of an admiring profile on “Good Morning America” as well as a celebratory blog post by a convicted pedophile. When is a child fully capable of autonomy? Age of consent is inevitably […]

[…] an excerpt from the article, O’Carroll admits what many advocates of child drag shows try to hide; that the events are […]

[…] they have done it again, in spectacular style, weaponising my recent blog Desmond is truly amazing – and hot! They have used it to attack boy drag queen Desmond Napoles and his family, all child drag acts, and […]

[…] Back in May in a blog post for his WordPress site – which is openly pro-paedophile – O’Carrol declares that “Desmond is truly amazing — and […]

[…] blog post for his WordPress site — which is openly and proudly pro-pedophile — O’Carrol declaresthat “Desmond is truly amazing — and […]

Humble anon

There’s literally nothing wrong with pedophilia.

[…] an excerpt from the article, O’Carroll admits what many advocates of child drag shows try to hide; that the events are […]

[…] an article entitled Desmond is truly amazing – and hot! – O’Carroll writes, “Child drag artist Desmond is Amazing is indeed amazing. And hot!…. No […]

Kimberly A Bledsoe

Seriously? You an adult male is referring to a male child as hot is repulsive! No child should be performing for an adult. It reeks of pedophilia! Not lgbtq.
I am an ally of the lgbtq community. I have tons of gay friends & close family members that are gay. I am not a conservative politically and I am totally against this. Shame on you!!


You… you just cannot be serious with this article.

[…] an excerpt from the article, O’Carroll admits what many advocates of child drag shows try to hide; that the events are […]

leonard sisyphus mann

What I find astonishing and revealing are the number of Twitter comments expressing shock and amazement that a paedophile might find Desmond ‘hot’.
Paedophiles find sexually provocative children ‘hot’!? Who’d have thought it!?
Their reaction reveals that the people writing these comments have failed to join some very simple dots on this issue. What did they imagine paedophiles feel towards (attractive) children?
I suspect that they imagined that paedophiles, when faced with a child (any child) experience not attraction, affection or love, but something akin to the emotions felt by teleiophilic (adult-loving) rapists, sadists, pimps, serial philanderers etc – impulses to dominate, destroy, corrupt or control.
I think their outrage stems from the fact that your article implicitly disabuses them of this delusion – paedophiles experience much the same common-or-garden feelings towards an attractive and charming child as they (normies) feel towards their partners. And, yes, ‘desire’ is one of them.
And I think that for them, that is a more shocking thought than the grotesque assumptions they previously held.
This may not be surprising since nowhere in the dominant narrative, the msm, are real paedophiles or real paedophilia depicted – the 99.9% of paedophiles who feel towards children much the same feelings of tenderness, awe and respect as (I’m sure) the outraged Twitterers feel towards those whom they love.
I’d invite them to imagine what impression a martian would have of THEIR love if all they had to know it by were the reports in the the crime pages of the scandal sheets and shows like Jeremy Kyle… if whenever heterosexual teleiophilia (adult loving) were mentioned the only narratives that sprung to mind were Harvey Wienstein and rapist/murderers on Death Row.


” outrage stems from the fact that your article implicitly disabuses them of this delusion – paedophiles experience much the same common-or-garden feelings towards an attractive and charming child as they (normies) feel towards their partners. And, yes, ‘desire’ is one of them”
Yes indeed……Another example is youtube with their disabling of comments, even non sexual, mundane kids videos are comments disabled. The sheer number of compliments some kids would get also destroys that myth. So the moderators do what they do best: close down debate.


It is obvious that the writer of this article is completely oblivious to the grooming tactics used in pedophilia as well as the ways in which child sexual exploitation works. Children who are groomed and learn to respond to the accolades of influential adults will eventually do things for said adults even if they’re uncomfortable.
Rather than spend an entire article accusing everyone who expresses concern for these kids as being less accepting and progressive as yourself maybe do some serious research on the behaviors of predatory relationships and the psychological science of pediatric neurology as it pertains to the development of the child’s brain and emotional pathways.


>If, as the post’s author, I know so little about it, then obviously I cannot possibly be a paedophile, can I?
No, it makes it unlikely that you’re an active child molester. You’ve expressed quite clearly that you’re comfortable with adults embracing sexuality towards children in other ways, which makes it sound a little like you might very well be a pedophile. The difference being (for those who are unaware) that if you have sexual attraction to children, you’re a pedophile – acting on it and engaging in a sexual act would make you a child molester. You do seem to think it’s normal for adults to be attracted to children, and it isn’t. But it’s not a crime.
Pedophilia is a condition (that should be attended to for the sake of making sure you don’t hurt anyone), and molesting children is a crime. I don’t know whether intentionally watching scantily clad children try to be sexy on stage is a good approach to attending to that condition that can be used to satisfy a pedophile’s needs without further engagement, or whether it tempts them to try to create a situation where they can engage in sexual acts with children. I’m open to the idea that there could be a different answer to that question for different pedophiles.


And YOUR “Child Protection” nonsense, so-called millennial adults who cannot handle a different opinion and are nothing but NPCs, is going to lead to the collapse of the USA, when the precious Baby Boomers retire and take all the money, leaving the rest of us with nothing.
One good thing with the collapse, is society resets to Zero. And real pedophilia, sex with kids under 9 years old will stay the same, but teenagers and tweenagers will be adults.


What is a “tweenager”? Is this some brand new category of human? Something we should all look out for?
Thank God my kids went straight from primary school to adulthood, none of this tweenager twaddle.


Some just believe anything that feels good is ok and are leaving discretion to a child. Children learn from adults what is right and wrong. The adults provoke behavior from a child by giving their attention or is seen by the child as excited or aroused it is only because the child is needy of approval, acceptance and attention. It is a performance and the child’s reward is the attention. Without direction and morals, humans become self centered ego driven monsters that like the story of Lucifer, desire to be worshipped and adored.


I have difficulty with the concept of “grooming” simply because there is no realistic way in which we can distinguish between paedophilic “grooming” and non-paedophilic “friendliness”.
That this is so is discussed rarely, but Craven and Gilchrist do give the problem a short discussion in their paper “Current responses to sexual grooming: Implication for prevention.” (doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2311.2007.00454.x) If we cannot in fact distinguish between paedophilic and non-paedophilic behaviour, how are we to talk about grooming in any coherent sense without evidence of later sexual contact?
Why this difficulty is not mentioned more often is something I do not yet understand, but it is a difficulty which deserves to be mentioned more often.
If a non-paedophile comes to know a child and their parents, and gives gifts and takes the child out on excursions, is this paedophilic behaviour? This certainly is what is described as “grooming” but it is not clear that is is grooming. The only thing that could make it grooming is if the person doing this in in fact a paedophile, but without an admission of paedophilia (or actual proven sexual contact) we cannot know.
The problem is that “grooming” behaviour is a backwards matter: if/when paedophilic sexual contact occurs, then we look back and see how the paedophile behaved, making no distinction between that paedophile’s behaviour and a non-paedophile’s behaviour (or the behaviour of a paedophile who does not engage in sexual activity but keeps it all as non-sexual friendship).
Sorry, cannot be bothered re-writing this to make it clearer.


Thanks, I am glad it is clear. I just wasn’t sure I had said enough.


Someone once said ‘grooming’ is a seduction pejorative, That pretty much sums it up in a nutshell. Weasel, umbrella and catch all also come to mind. I also read that PDF on ‘sexual grooming’.I forgot about that article, It was on the old HD that fell victim to a Drill.


Hope you caught the Drill! 😉


Anyone with common sense should know this is child abuse. Poor child robbed of her childhood.

Julie Falkengren

This kid is awesome and so are his parents! Get lives and leave them to theirs!! This child is an intelligent and talented activist (.) And his parents doing excellent job at offering him the love ?? and support that he needs to grow and develop!! He is not being exploited or abused, he would not allow that nor would his parents, and it doesn’t take much research to find this out. This article is full of hot air, it’s a bunch of people spouting off just for the sake of spouting off, come on find something productive to do in this life before it’s too late !!

Lynda Zimmer

So you’re saying you’re a pedo apologist. Duly noted.

Gil Segarra

There is something seriously wrong with people thinking it is ok to have this kid be put into that kind of world. He is a child not an adult and shouldn’t be subjugated to anything sexual in any way.


This is a very well written, and fair, article ! Having said that, my personal opinion is that this young man needs better guidance in his life. It’s great his parents have an open mind, but there have to be lines drawn in the sand. These situations are very sexual situations, ones that ARE NOT for children. Period.
Deep down, I think even the ones cheering him on and tipping him even know he shouldn’t be there. Is nothing sacred any longer? You wrote about his parents being reported to CPS, I’d like to know what their (CPS) position on this may be? What have they done, if anything? Have they (CPS) released a statement? Have any law enforcement popped up at all regarding this yet?
Thanks !

Victor Cypert

As a gay man I find this deeply problematic. For decades we have maintained that Anita Bryant was lying when she said we would come for the children.
Drag is a mature form of art. It provides a vessel for emotions that men aren’t otherwise allowed to express. This circumvents so much of what we’ve worked toward and what drag represents for so many of us. End this madness; let the kids be kids and let them grow up into who they are.


Thank you!

Al Hartman



I feel like the silence in the gay community is actually damaging. Being gay doesn’t make a person predatory-the two are completely unconnected however if more people do not point out, at the very least, the concerns that children in these adult situations is inappropriate, than it looks like the gay community has accepted it as not even debatable.
I think your comment is spot on Thanku!

Victor Cypert

I have spoken to several of my friends about this and the general concern is fear of being labeled intolerant. There are a lot of issues that horrify many gay people but the current political climate insists we not only tolerate but celebrate. Efforts to include pedophilia to the gay movement are being made by ignorant college professors in humanities departments in the UK and US. These must be resisted and refuted at every turn.

Victor Cypert

Pedophilia is not an orientation because age is not gender. But one proponent has already given a TED talk on the subject without bona fides in psychology, biology, or medicine.
As for my own credentials, I hold an MA in liberal studies, an MFA in writing genre fiction, and am completing my thesis for my MS in psychology. I can state with more than a small measure of authority that PhDs in literary theory seldom know any science let alone the biology and psychology involved in human sexuality. This is why a whole generation of young people erroneously believe there are 30+ genders.


Conservatives are “panicky?”. Is it strange I have a problem with an 11 year old being described as “hot” and stripping off his clothes for tips like he’s at a strip club?


Apparently so-according to this article if we think that is maybe inappropriate we are horrible close minded unaccepting bigots?

Lynda Zimmer

Not strange at all. In fact you are quite brave for stating the obvious with how quickly one will get attacked for not falling in line with the pushing of this agenda. Which is to blur the lines so that anything goes, fitting their satanic, upside down beliefs. This makes me think of all things trans being pushed are to lighten the news of which will be coming in the future. Some social engineering/conditioning maybe?


You know, I would love to reply to you in detail, but I’m not really sure what you are saying, except that it is intended to comfort you. Nonetheless, I think one of your points is that children are not sexual.

nobody thought of children as sexual beings except for child molesters

This is just factually wrong. It is a failure of the news media, primarily, that people such as yourself think this. Childhood sexuality has been known to exist forever, plus a day. Psychologist, historians, and philosophers research this subject, and have been doing so since at least the 1800s. As I said to someone else on this particular post, go to and you will be surprised by the number of results. Often the researchers cannot agree on exactly what is normal, but they all agree it exists. With the exception of those who wish children to be sexually ignorant so that their research on paedophilia in not put to shame by reality. Here is a link to the search I just did. Please look at it and note the number of articles on childhood sexuality.

Once child hood is gone it’s gone forever and there’s no going back that’s one thing in life besides death, taxes and laundry that we can count on so why all this?

I, personally, am very glad that childhood disappears, never to return: I can get up to much more fun as an adult. But the issue here is ignorance. Do you really believe that children deserve to be left absolutely ignorant? Such that they believe sex is ….? I don’t know what you think, so I must leave an ellipsis to stand for your thoughts.

Why do people feel the need to push their wants and needs on children like it’s their problem?

I feel no such need, and I very much doubt that the majority of people who come regularly to this blog feel such a need. Most, paedophiles and non-paedophiles, are deeply concerned with child welfare. And this is something you need to be aware of: A large proportion of the people, including myself, who come to this blog regularly are not paedophiles. But we do seek to understand and learn, which is something you are not willing to do, it would seem, which is a great pity.

…my son is just barely beginning to be ok with hanging around girls let alone anything else.

I feel very sorry for him but on reading your comment, I am not at all surprised. I have the misfortune to know many women who raise their children ignorant of sex and relationships. Fortunately my wife was not one of these, and our children grew to adulthood without fear and worry about the opposite sex and having a good fuck. (I threw in “fuck” just to annoy you; my apologies.)


Thanks, I have no idea how it appeared there either. I certainly was replying to Camille.


I know I’m not the one you are replying to…but…
Oh the “good fuck” didn’t annoy me, more like triggered my sexual anxiety (trauma) with certain phrases specifically…feels kinda like a jumpscare when it happens.


You can be gay. You can be Trans, you can put a flower in your ass at night, but that doesn’t make it ok to promote pedophilia OF ANY SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

Lynda Zimmer

Thank you and you’re 100%


As someone who had “their sexuality” realized as a child, I can honestly say that this is a devastating ideal to promote. It destroys personal boundaries and teaches unhealthy, narcissistic ideas to a child about where his worth lies. I hate this as much as child pageants and even more so.


I have no idea what your experience was, although I assume it was sexual contact with an adult because of the context of this entire page.
But, I would like to say that adult-child sexual contact is not the only type of childhood sexual contact that can result in damage to a child. In my instance, the sexual contact was mutual and as I remember quite deep play with a girl of the same age of 4 years. Because we were caught by her mother, I was verbally abused and threatened with death and eternal punishment (because it always is the man to blame, even in consensual contexts). This is the type of situation that occurs when (i) we live in a sexist society in which the male is always at fault sexually, (ii) when parents do not accept that children are, in fact and in action, sexual.
You may think that this was not very much at all, that it wouldn’t devastate a child, but: (i) I became fearful of and avoided all contact with men for 20 or more years, (ii) it ruined my relationship with my father for many years, (iii) I cam to loathe, at a very young age, all authority, especially that represented by men, (iv) The rest of the details are too private for this pubic space, although (v) I avoided sexual contact as often as possible, never attempted to seduce a woman (well, a couple of times, which I regret enormously, as anxiety kept me from being very good at it, and the experiences were good for neither of us), always waited for women to seduce me. (I still wait for women to seduce me, but this no longer happens, which is a bit of a pity—too old and ugly, I presume. :D)
My point is that the sexual acts I engaged in, at 4, with a 4 year old girl, freely and playfully but seriously, caused me no end of trouble for many many years after we were caught in the act, so to speak. I got over it, got married a couple of times, had kids, and made many male friends, and have had a jolly good life. Everyone can get over it, if they but try!
Of course, it also sent me on a lifetime of philosophic and psychological research, trying to understand humanity and all it’s behaviour, especially sexual and moral. And that, in all honesty, strikes me as a good result for a bad experience.


Absolutely, and it seems to e getting worse rather than better.


About sex shaming: “It’s getting worse.” Proof? The truth is opposite – You’ve studied history, right? Current day, very few cults teach children to hate their sexuality, and teaching them to save it for the one they marry is simply reverent towards sexual potency – when done well. AND many parents, Christian or otherwise, do this well.
Regardless, those problems you bemoan happen in parents of all social extremes, conservative and liberal. Girls raised in a strict household that treat puberty with disgust or liberal “follow your emotions” homes can both equally end up knocked up and sexually abused; and if their sexuality is what they value most they are going to suffer more. Chances are, it is, because neither or those children had good parents who respected them enough to believe said child could use their brain to draw boundaries with knowledge, and put parental boundaries in place to teach them how. Peers’ exposure in school was their “education.” BOTH social backgrounds are denied the education to know that they are worth more than their flesh (they are the sum of All their actions and parts), and the self-value to not give away their flesh so lightly in mind of statistical consequences. Neither of these homes teaches statistics about sexual proclivity, addiction, issues, STDs, birth control failure, abortion, and why abstinence is the healthiest route. One says “because God says so” and the other is afraid to restrict said ‘sexuality’ and perhaps believing the child cannot do something the parent did not. Hypocrites fear retribution.
Stats show the liberal home that says “do what you feel” are more common than such extreme conservative homes you say are increasing. Redirect your ire. Parents need to parent.


Kat, your reply to my comment addressed something I did not actually say, so I will not attempt a reply to what you did say. In fact, I just went back and re-read your comment,and those before it, and although your comment veers close to what I was talking about, it does not address anything I said or intended to say. So, enjoy your life.


In my case, I had two sexual assaults at age 6 and 10 both by teen girls. The first one was actually two teen girls. Also, my dad exposed me to a lot of sex: masturbating in the same bed as me, having sex in the same room, watching porn in front of me, bringing over girls while I was staying with him, having sexual conversations in front of me and even talking to me about how he thought a girl at the gas station was hot.

.My dad and all of this has completely messed up my life. I am fucked up because of it. I can’t handle many sexual things now. Sex scenes send me off with an extreme fear response, as well as songs and sounds…just anything. I will most likely never not be this way. I have been torn apart over and over again.

I am demisexual/pansexual so I’m not against it, but I am on the asexual scale. But, I just panic at most sexual things.

Victor Cypert

So right you are. This is deeply problematic on many levels.

Thomas Cloyd
Would you happen to be this same Tom O’Carroll?

Tom pizzol

“Yes, it is disgusting, by definition, to those who find themselves disgusted, as you evidently do. But that is an expression of your personal feeling. It does not amount to an argument as to why others, including me, should feel the same way.”
Imagine thinking just because you personally don’t find it disgusting that that makes it ok to do. purely because you think hes hot, you should be allowed to sexualise a child because what? You personally think its ok?
This is some insanely reprehensible speech your spouting. You’re absolutely saying “It’s ok to sexualise a child because I personally don’t think its disgusting”
That’s some paedophile reasoning you’ve got there.

Anthony Lamb Jr.

It’s not sick or disgusting. It’s presumptuous and controlling.
Stop sexualizing those who can’t legally consent.


this has to be fake

Daniel Woods

Your blog comes across as one of those sites which churns out articles to be shared on social media and rile up the right wing. If your intent is to make the right hate the left even more then… good job, I guess? If this article is genuine (as I suspect it is), then you clearly need to rethink a few things in your life….


If your intent is to make the right hate the left even more then… good job, I guess?

I don’t think Tom has ever purposely done that, in fact what he has done is stand his ground and try to explain his views thoroughly, even to the “right”. And he does a very good job of that.
To explain why I say this, I will add the following.
I was researching for a PhD on the nude in photographic art, a subject which fascinates me philosophically as much as it does creatively in my own photographic work. On the suggestion that some of the photographers I was looking at were paedophiles, I began researching paedophilia, and came across Tom’s book and this blog.
Now, I am not a paedophile, and I have said many things that Tom, and others, paedophile and non-paedophile alike, have disagreed with. I have never been insulted or in any other way put down for my opinions, although there has been a lot of soundly reasoned disagreement.
Did Tom change my mind about paedophilia and paedophiles? Yes, he did. I was a firmly horrified hater of paedophiles who thought they should be jailed forever, even if they didn’t touch a child. Tom, and the people here, taught me to rethink my emotional and ignorant beliefs. Do I approve of adult sexual contact now? Yes and no, because the answer to that would take thousands and thousands of words.
What I do now, if nothing else, is recognise that all paedophiles are human, and their sexual orientation is not a reason to hate them. But a full explanation of this also is far too long to include here, and I admit that I wounder if you would even bother to think through what I would say with careful thought, or would you just react with prejudice?


My pleasure Tom, though I would say it is accurate rather than generous.


Peadophelia is perversion not an orientation and no children are not sexual beings they’re children. You know I’m 37 and growing up none of this stuff was around and everyone in the 80’s and 90’s managed to do ok nobody thought of children as sexual beings except for child molesters and now the world today acts like that’s normal and it’s always been a thing, but in reality it’s not. My son is 13 and my daughter is 9 and they’re both at different stages of their puberty development and neither of them are curious about exploring anything, my son is just barely beginning to be ok with hanging around girls let alone anything else. Why does society feel the need to push children to grow up? Once child hood is gone it’s gone forever and there’s no going back that’s one thing in life besides death, taxes and laundry that we can count on so why all this? Why do people feel the need to push their wants and needs on children like it’s their problem? I get that this child in the article enjoys doing drag and it’s freeing for him I get it, but to place him in a club where he is objectified and treated like a piece of meat is inappropriate and i don’t care if you agree 17, 18, 19 yrs old is one thing but not 11 that’s not ok that boy is never going to know the difference between love and lust because he’s too young to know the difference so when he gets old who knows if he’ll ever learn.


Interestingly, I have know quite a few teenagers, via teenage sons, who identified as asexual. They all were female, and they all engage in the most outrageous sexual activities now—if I am to believe their parents, who keep me up with their children’s activities.


Dear Tom Carroll, May you be blessed and saved by God, because if normal men ever get there hands on you I genuinely fear for you. Writing stories that idolise such behaviour puts you into a category that needs a great deal of protection from regular human beings that despise the demons within your mind, body and pen. This poor child needs to immediately be removed from such a brain-washing [dirtying] environment and brought into a loving foster family where he will be safe. For you to suggest ‘zero evidence’ clearly identifies your wilful blindness towards the criminality and the insanity of those maintaining influence over and around that poor boy.


According to his sister the parents are negligent AND pressuring desmond into the role. Obviously for money. And describing an 11 year old as “hot” is disgusting if you are any older than 13.
I’m gay but I view what is being done there to be highly destructive to that child’s mental health, the statistics on people growing out of a trans phase back that up as well as the communications from his sister that leaked out back it up, and the statistics on suicide and other mental disorders back it up.


Yes, agreed. This is sensationalist pedophilia. Children are incredibly vulnerable and he is being put in an incredibly compromising situation, being told that it’s good to be sexy to adults. It would be extremely easy for him to be molested, if he hasn’t already, and think that it’s perfectly normal.
Extremely unhealthy personal boundaries are being taught to him at a very young age.


Describing an 11 year old as ‘hot’ and approving of them flaunting themselves is tantamount to paedophilia


How closely have you looked at this site, Tawers? The point you make will not be taken as being much of a criticism by most people here. As well as reading some of the posts, I can also recommend the video ‘A Decent Life’, which you can find on the right-hand side under the blog roll.


This may be interesting to some. An academic approach to trans history; author of book interviewed.


Have a good train trip!
And yes, it is quite fascinating. Wish I could afford the book.

DJ TRASHporn !

“desperate as they are to pretend that kids have no erotic dimension, or at least none that is self-generated.”
And its way overdue to smash this myth to smithereens once and for all!


I was looking at the BBC listings the other day and I saw there was going to be a documentary with Naomi Wolf on a sexual theme including a reference to John Addington Symonds. I haven’t watched it yet. But when I tried to find it again in the listings, I couldn’t. Does anyone know what I’m talking about?


Oh, it was the RADIO! I was looking at the telly. Thanks, mate.-:)


It turned out to pretty interesting, actually. Of most interest, I think, was the discussion of convictions of boys for sodomy in England in the latter half of the nineteenth century. When Matthew Sweet challenged Wolf’s claim that these boys were executed, it felt like an extraordinarily high quality program in which the presenter had done some original academic research on a little known topic. On the negative side, however,, there was the usual determination to avoid recognizing the possibility of consensual sexual contacts between young boys and older boys or men.
There were other interesting revelations, but I’d recommend you listen to the broadcast yourselves, as it is readily available via the link provided by Tom.


I’ve been accused of “indecent images”, and they were quite cruel in their treatment of me. Not sure I can cope with this, seeing as I am a tortured soul and that includes the sexual violence (child ritual circumcision) inflicted on me by the system (something they all condone). I’m struggling to focus on anything except for how to sleep and not wake up. Is there anyone I can talk to? The so-called “help” offered by the system is useless to me.
Please help me.


I’m very sorry to hear about your current situation. You will certainly find understanding here. But I think you should also visit this site:
and particularly look at the options under the ‘For MAPS’ tab. They include a peer support group which you can ask to join and where MAPs discuss matters of mutual concern in a supportive way.


Thank you for your reply, although I believe that site is based in the USA. I am in the UK and was hoping that I could find someone to talk to who has been in the same situation… recently. I have a secure email set up, but won’t include that here unless you approve of that. I am totally on my own with this, and I don’t feel comfortable asking the duty solicitor for advice. They’ve torn my very sad world apart, and all I can do is worry every time I hear a door open/close or people using the stairs thinking they are coming for me again. I honestly feel like living on the streets so they can’t terrorize me again. The took my computer and a bunch of other stuff. When the police force entry to your home and tell you you’re “suspected of paedophilia”…that is persecution. When they treat me like this over the alleged viewing of internet images while condoning the sexual butchery of boys, it makes me feel I am living in a twilight zone. I have a bunch of paperwork I can’t bring myself to read, so I am just trying to numb the pain with drink waiting to be traumatized again.
This is not justice.
Thanks for listening


OK, Perhaps I will try that forum, but I feel I need help right now.
“>while condoning the sexual butchery of boys
What do you mean by this?”
Ritual circumcision of boys is genital mutilation. Philip Davies Conservative MP recently stated it’s a crime according to OATPA1861, amounting to “grievous bodily harm”, and no one can disprove his claim. Therefore, that the police ignore this blatant abuse of boys means they condone it. When you think the boys become semi-erect when being fondled with the cutting clamps while strapped to boards, then they start to cut without anesthetic, I find it hard to argue this is not sexual torture and butchery. We all understand it’s a serious crime upon girls. The proof is clear when “female genital mutilation” is entered into the GOV website resulting in 2,500 links, but use the word “male” instead, and you get zero results. It’s almost like males are not believed to possess genitalia or can physically be victims of genital mutilation.

Here are some more drag kids:
And some articles (positive and negative):
‘Drag Kids,’ Canadian Documentary About Young Drag Queens, Screens At Hot Docs
Pre-teen “Drag Kids” highlight just how fast our culture has crumbled


I think some of you will find this enjoyable:
BTW, I seem to post a lot of links involving boys. Maybe a GL on here (or a biped like me) can redress the balance. I myself will keep an eye open for girl videos.

leonard sisyphus mann

Yes, I’d watched that WILTY episode (is WILTY the best comedy show on TV?) and found the relationship between Acaster and that boy quite interesting.
You bemoan the fact that there are too few GL links being posted. But I think we should also bemoan the fact that Tom has hitherto never touched on the the all-important issue of heterogorillagorillagorillapaedophilia.
To fill that lacuna I offer the following clip.
Do you see what I am seeing?
Or am I just a dirty-minded anthropocentric?

leonard sisyphus mann

Interesting to compare two articles on Buzzfeed – the first supportive of preteen drag-queens, the second a hit-piece against a “right-wing…anarcho-capitalist” 14-year-old girl called ‘Soph’, who has a popular Youtube channel.
It appears that Buzzfeed consider one act of provocation as laudable (Desmond’s) and the other as reprehensible (Soph’s).
Is it that Desmond (et al) push Buzzfeed’s identitarian/fragmentarian narrative and ideology, but Soph opposes it?
And, if Buzzfeed are going to rate the ‘offensiveness’ of these two cases, why do they rate the WORDS of an adolescent (who is less than two years from being an ‘adult’ according to certain criteria) as MORE offensive than the acts of a pre-adolescent boy who’s been coached into ACTING in ways that would be distasteful if they were acted out by a grown man or a grown woman?
I’m a (slightly) homosexual paedophile, and I don’t know about other paedophiles, but I find this kind of thing a turn-off – this is the male equivalent of the ‘toddlers-in-tiaras’ – a performance devoid of sexuality (which is why Normies and paedophobes can approve of it). Ironically I can’t ‘stomach it’ – if I’m a paedophile it’s because I like my children to be children, not caricatures of adults aping some of the worst aspect of adult sexuality.
Here’s an interview with Soph from the Alex Jones Show .
It makes me question the suggestion that ‘Soph’ was ‘coached’ by her parents (or other adults) – I can’t imagine how she can fake on an interview the same articulateness, lucidity and edginess that appears on her videos (but I suspect that she may be Ben Shapiro in ‘kiddy drag’ – she looks like him and talks like him!).


The opposite reactions by Buzzfeed to the two cases is understandable:
– A pre-teen drag queen attacks only stereotypes about gender and childhood, his performance mocks only pre-conceived opinions, but does not insult people.
– This ‘Soph’ insults and mocks people on the basis of their creed, sexual orientation, etc.
Hate is present when you insult people for what they are, while in mocking social principles there is no hate.
BTW, LSM seems to have changed not only his opinions, but also his attractions, from GL to “(slightly) homosexual paedophile”.

leonard sisyphus mann

Why is it fine to attack, criticise and mock people’s fundamental beliefs about gender roles and the nature of childhood, but not fine to attack, criticise and mock their fundamental beliefs about sexual roles and the supernatural?
Shouldn’t anything and everything be open to criticism? Isn’t that a sine qua non of being a Radical Paedophile?
But I do not question the RIGHT of Desmond (or his parent’s) to question gender roles – I just think that their ‘answers’ are misguided, and that the parents are wrong to use their son’s sexuality and gender identity for their own ideological ends.
I believe children’s sexuality is a private realm, and that adults intrude in it as GUESTS of the child. Child sexuality should essentially be ‘playful’ – that is non-committal, exploratory, spontaneous, disinterested, changeable, consequence-free, exploratory and free. If we are lucky enough for a child to invite us to participate in their sexuality we must be careful to do it on the child’s terms, to keep it as ‘play’.
I suspect that none of these these qualities is applicable to Desmond’s case.
Moreover I have nowhere expressed ‘hate’ towards Desmond, his parents or even the ideology he is being made to represent. It is sinister that what was merely ‘criticism’ should be so readily elevated to the status of ‘hate’.
>”BTW, LSM seems to have changed not only his opinions, but also his attractions, from GL to “(slightly) homosexual paedophile”.”
I have never made a secret of also being attracted to little boys.
As to me ‘changing my opinions’ – could you be a bit more concrete on this?
I’ve nothing against people changing their opinions, on the contrary – it’s a natural consequence of ‘learning’ and of being intellectually honest and curious and open to new facts and ideas – but I’m not aware of having expressed anything in my comment that represents a change of opinion.
If you could identify the opinion-change you have detected in my comment and post me a ‘before’ and ‘after’ quote – I would be very happy to confirm, clarify or refute the alleged change.

leonard sisyphus mann

>”Desmond identifies as male, and not trans. Are you saying he should not be allowed to tell people he is gay?”
Yes, he should be allowed to tell people he is gay.
>”Do we actually know what their “ideological ends” ”
Can we ‘know’ anything?
I’m not saying that the parents are CYNICALLY promoting ideological ends. I don’t doubt that they are well-intentioned…
Let me put it this way – their actions are profoundly informed by a particular ideological stance, and their commitment to that ideological stance has led them to act in ways that, I suggest, are indulgent, excessive and unwise – it’s one thing to encourage your child to take the limelight because he or she is exceptionally gifted (at, say, playing an instrument), it’s another thing to allow your child to take the limelight because he embodies your ideology spectacularly well.
I wonder…has he got a sister? And if she had wanted to dress up the same way as Desmond and parade on stage with half-naked men – would they have been happy with that?
I wonder…if Desmond had been heterosexual and a very masculine child – do you think the parents would have encouraged/allowed him to become a poster-child for, say, the NRA? or for MMA (mixed martial arts)?
Of course, we don’t know the answers to these questions, but I think we can make pretty accurate guesses.
And ask ourselves what that tells us about the parents’ probable ideological biases.


Does Demond’s mom, and various news sources, like Buzzfeed, then hate conservatives and pedophiles?
Soph is a longtime social critic, who has made apt observations on the
conditions for American kids for years and, on occasion, slightly mocked the Holy cows of the censorious and Indentitarian “Left”. Assuming our goal was freedom for
all kids, should we not be supportive of kids thinking for themselves and using whatever sliver of free speech and access to information still available to them?

Man in Black

The difference is that BuzzFeed and the rest of the MSM don’t actually care about children. In the Desmond video they don’t even see a little boy vamping it up, let alone stop to consider whether that might be a good thing or a bad thing. All they see is a pawn in their great gay rights game. And similarly with the little girl. All they care about is that she’s contradicting their message, so she must be vilified and demeaned.


The denial of sexuality already begins with the trivialization of the concept of a child. The idea of an asexual child is idealized and then the concept of a child is trivialized to include adolescents.
The WHO defines as children only those who are less than 10 years old. From the age of 10 the person is adolescent, not child.
Americans are calling people of 17 (or more) “children”, except at the time of punishment, there they want to give even the death penalty to young people.
No one sexualizes anyone. Sexualization is natural for the human being to be a sexual being.


> in attempting to bring paedophilia in from the cold.
Did Green not claim adult-child sex involves harm – which he denied for the homosexuality he and, by mob rule, the APA supported? I also see no indication he’d take issue with the conviction of pedophiles for (alleged) child/adult sex.
Did he ever go on record as supportive of even a minimal case of pedophile rights – a pedophile bringing happiness (of her choice) to an Alice in reality, rather than merely in an imagined Wonderland?


Regarding Green, I based my statement on own your blog, reviews of therelevant paper and my recollection of it. I read both it and the radical case years ago – why assume otherwise?
My doubt, as you call it, is due to the consistent framing of the relevant issues. Attempts at a consistent standard are considered attacks, be it onGreen, drag-kids or non-heterosexuals etc. With an emphasis on freedom for all, why celebrate the dual standard, according freedom to the select few while leaving the vast majority, both adults and children, in the cold with even less freedom than before?


“from an an audience apparently wild with excitement”…..For a moment I thought you were talking about the Bacha bazi boys from Afghanistan!
But we know that stuff is not consensual.


>But we know that stuff is not consensual.
Do we? None of it?


Sure some may have consensual relations. Suppose I was making assumptions based on that I have read. I concede that any BBC report would have the usual CSA mantra. From what I read, they line up to watch these dancing boys, take their pick. Another documentary I saw showed a guy just calling in on a family and offering to ‘mentor’ their son. They will get him back in ten years or something. From our perspective, that sounds like paradise; but consensual, all I will say is, there is probably a mixed bag. But just like the boarding schools of old (I was in one) when power is top down, some will abuse that power.


Not at all the blog post I expected, given the earlier hint. Desmond came to my attention by way of Steve Diamond, so the case is not new to me.
The only thing amazing is the hypocrisy.
Girls have done some of what Desmond did, with vastly different consequences for themselves and their families.
Thylane Blondeu, like Desmond, posed for Vogue, but she was “sexualized” and bullied.[1][2]
The families of some dancing girls went on Good Morning America. Strangely enough, scantily clad girls dancing their little hearts out weren’t worthy of praise, unlike Desmond. [1]
Girls models, with very tame poses compared to Desmond, were misrepresented and shamed by Oprah.[3]
Some years later, there were legal changes, resulting in men being sent to prison for admiring little girl models, a fate which also befell fathers/photographers of some of the models. The girls, now old women, are still fighting to set the record straight, their exploitation was at the hands of the state.[4]
These days, even mild videos of girls are removed from Youtube and comments are disabled on ordinary videos of kids. Desmond’s stripping, however, is untouched by the Google overlords.

Man in Black

Is “divisive” quite the right word? Desmond can get away with it because he’s sheltering under the giant rainbow (exceptionally well funded) LGBT umbrella. And of course being “trans” is even more woke than being gay. But straights don’t have that protection.


>Rather than begrudging the freedom accorded to Desmond and other drag kids
Assuming you did care about the GENERAL case, as opposed to the special case(s), criticism of the dual standard would be an excellent start.
Are you opposed to drag kids being held to the same standard as kids in GENERAL?


The mentioned cases were the ones that made the news, even on an international scale. With the possible exception of BLs being hit by the stricter CP laws later, I’m not aware of analogous cases involving boys, and I welcome such input.
I find myself very confused as to how you construct my two comments, the essence of which is a plea for consistent treatment, regardless of sex etc, as an attack on non-heterosexuals?! Would you mind spelling it out?


While I don’t think the general conclusion is wrong (and I’ll discuss it later in this comment), I do think some of the impressions you gave are perhaps limited in scope.
The argument that drag is inherently sexual isn’t incorrect, but as someone super into the drag scene and also a youthlover, I think that the cries of “it’s sexual!” vs. “it’s exploring gender!” are a false dichotomy. To me, drag is a way to explore one’s being; it is to put on a mask (and wig) and play with sexuality, gender, and personality. It is a form of art (I suppose you could call it performance art) where one’s body is the canvas, a form of art which often ties up with ideas about sexuality, sex, gender, identity, and even humanity. Famous drag queen RuPaul has described drag as a “very, very political” act because it “challenges the status quo” by rejecting fixed identities: “drag says ‘I’m a shapeshifter, I do whatever the hell I want at any given time’.”
Also, the idea that children (and potentially adults) only have an interest in cross-dressing and playing dress-up if it’s either a) sexual or b) a sign of being trans is in my eyes completely false. Being trans is not the same as having fun putting on make-up and outfits – which is something that someone of any gender can find pleasure in doing. Exploring gender, and especially gendered states of being, does not 100% correlate with feeling like you are not the gender you were born as. Because of the stigmatization of male effeminacy, drag has traditionally been a safe haven for men with the desire to perform femininity and as an assertion of gay existence. There are, in fact, straight cis men who do drag but who don’t derive any sexual pleasure from it. There are trans women who have first played with their femininity (and thus their gender) through drag; there are trans men who say “fuck it” to the gender binary and continue to be femme and fabulous by wearing drag. There are cis women who use drag as a way to explore and reclaim their femininity and sexuality through exaggeration and good-spirited fun.
In addition, there’s plenty of drag which goes beyond looking “fishy” (aka lady-like); just take a look at some of the “drag supermonsters” on The Boulet Brothers Dragula to see that drag goes beyond just playing with gender and into the realm of the theatrical.
So no, there’s nothing wrong with much of what you said about drag. Sex and sexuality is often used either for sex’s sake or to explore gender performativity and contest heteronormativity. But I did want to point out to others that drag can be a multi-layered, complex endeavor, especially when you add in the existence of drag kings. If anybody wants to read up on drag queens and their relationship with gender and sexuality, Rupp and Taylor have done a few studies into the subject which give plenty of space for the queens themselves to talk.
So onto the actual argument at hand. I think what we’re seeing is that theory and reality are colliding in a way that many in the LGBT community were not ready to handle. Many (but not all) agree that youth have a sexuality; many are even aware of the fact that this sexuality can manifest itself in ways that are sexual or sensual. However, I think they believe that this sexuality should only manifest when a youth is by themselves, and sometimes when they’re with another youth. In other words, they can talk the talk but cannot walk the walk and accept the ways that youth sexuality is displayed.
It also seems to be a defensive measure. Many queer people in the 70s and into the 80s began to mount a more complete theory as well as foster debate and discussion of youth sexuality, but this unfortunately never became a cornerstone of queer theory that persists to this day. Instead, the left’s almost total silence on the issue cedes power and authority to the right-wing sexual agenda which runs on emotion and moralism. When the right-wing screams about homosexual molesters and “recruiters,” it’s easy for the left to point to statistics concerning the heterosexuality of the majority of child molesters. However, a topic such as drag kids has no statistics, no fast-and-easy facts to point to. Thus, the left is put on the defensive and has to respond with something easily understandable and which cannot be argued with. I think there is plenty of good work (both scholarly and not) done by the queer community when it comes to the topic of youth sexuality, but such work is not openly spoken about or celebrated, which is a shame.
I also wonder if, similar to the splitting of the queer and pedo community, the silence on the topic of youth sexuality has to do with the better support and community that queer youth now have. It’s not perfect, of course, but there exist many more GSAs and organizations like PFLAG where queer youth can find help and meet other gay youth – which means that there is less urgency in understanding youth sexuality and especially queer youth sexuality. Many older works about youth sexuality discuss how the author languished in their sexuality during youth because support for queer youth was next to nonexistent, and it was dangerous to attempt to be openly queer or find other queer youth, so the author now wishes to speak of their experiences and the feelings they couldn’t express at the time. That’s what you would hear a lot, is that queer youth got involved with queer adults because those were the only openly queer people they could find. Or perhaps I’m just completely wrong.


>Instead, the left’s almost total silence on the issue cedes power and authority to the right-wing sexual agenda which runs on emotion and moralism.
Wouldn’t the Left’s virtual surrender to feminism and shallow identity explain the observation better? When feminists scream of “exploitation” or “sexualization” of girls, much less “molestation/rape”, does Leftists even dare to question their “logic” anymore?
As for homosexual molesters, should a Leftie suddenly redefine molestation and ignore statements from homosexual men about having sex with men as boys, to say nothing of Bayes’ Theorem?


From Peace’s claim, if having sex with a girl makes a man a heterosexual child molester, would he still be considered heterosexual if it had been a boy?
There are studies, as well as personal accounts, from homosexuals describing their early sexual experiences, as boys, having sex with men. (You have mentioned some on this very blog)
Given such information, I’d expect an intellectually honest and consistent Leftie to consider the conditional probability. Hence, the mention of Bayes’.


I think perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. I was not giving a personal opinion, but discussing the fact that the Right’s claim of “homosexuals recruiting boys” or “homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters” tends to be met with the Left’s reasoning that since most CSA is man-on-girl, CSA is therefore not a “homosexual problem.” This makes it very easy for the Left to deal with discussions in which the main argument is that child molestation is a homosexual phenomenon. What’s harder for the Left are discussions surrounding less clear-cut topics such as child sexuality in general and personal experiences with intergenerational relationships, since these don’t have a single, easy fact or statistic to rely on. Because the Left and related movements (queer, anarchism, etc.) never mounted a successful defense or theory regarding child sexuality in general (and intergen relations in particular), it’s much easier for the Right to use moralistic and emotional speech to make their point and convince people to agree with their position.


Oh, I understood the relevant part. The “defense” is tribal, based on indentity politics – there’s no reasoning involved in redefining molestation or raping logic. Feminist “reasoning”, its use of moralistic and emotional speech, is integral to this process.
A Left worth defending would not demonize heterosexuals in order to defend homosexuals. For the “Left” you describe, it would be impossible to extend the freedom they defend for the few, like homosexuals, to MAPs and minors in general.


Sad to hear about Green, yet another one of the “good guys” that passed away in the recent years (John Money, Preben Hertoft, Thomas Szasz, Robin Sharpe…). And that means, unfortunately, that the sexology world is being even more taken over by all these wimps with a fixation on plethysmographs, and whose main scientific concern is whether people will “offend” or not. Let’s at least hope that Rind & co. will live a long and fruitful life, so that the wimps will be constantly reminded of the difference between scientists and mountebanks.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
Scroll to Top