-Part 2

Paedophile Ideology

Vorige Start Omhoog Volgende

My Background 
What are the definitions? 
The Life Cycle of a Paedophilic Love Affair 
The Life Cycle of a Paedophilic Love Affair Continued 

My Background

The whole of the previous section was on ways that you can avoid the pitfalls of prejudice, but I said nothing about the possibility of prejudices of my own. Obviously, I cannot tell you what my prejudices are because if I knew what they were myself then I would know to correct them, so I wouldn’t then have them! Instead of telling you my prejudices, I would like to start this section with a brief word on the development of my thinking. This way, you will be able to judge possible inaccuracies in my writing due to my prejudices for yourself.

I was born into an upper-middle class household, and had a very happy childhood, as my mother was always at home to spend time with me doing activities and to develop my intellectuality as well. Unfortunately sexuality was totally taboo in my childhood and so my sexual activity, like that of countless other children, amounted to no more than fantasies in my own head. Although I had had fantasies about girls much younger than myself since my earliest memories, it was only when I of course hit puberty I discovered concretely I was a paedophile. I had been brought up with all the sex-negative messages of a western family so I was very ashamed and guilty about this. Becoming culturally aware at 13 I was also still very impressionable, so I believed the media hype and the consequent public opinion that had emerged at that time. I almost believed that my place was with the child molesters who raped and tricked, for the simple reason that I had never heard anybody ever say that being a paedophile could be about anything else. Paedophiles do not get appropriate sex education.

Luckily, it was only a few years before I finally realized that it really was love that I had felt compelled to give to children. Gone was the battle within myself between my love for children and hating myself for desiring sexual activity which I really thought was about rape. I thought I was torn between the prospect of a life of torturous abstinence, or one of raping little girls to satisfy my pleasure in activity that they could not truly comprehend. But I got over it. Paedophilia is love of children, be it with an erotic element, coincidentally like it is in the dictionary (or was.) For me the new fight had begun. I now ignored the venomous anger of my family, acquaintances, teachers, and later colleagues. I developed the courage to stand up for what I knew was right when people were having a go at me for my sexuality. They could no longer deceive me into thinking that my sexuality was about anything I needed to be ashamed of. It was around this time too that I first discovered concrete proof that I was not alone. I discovered Tom O’Carroll’s now incredibly dated book ‘Paedophilia – The Radical Case.’

So now, after having lived the psyche of both worlds of paedophilia, and after having researched all sides of the wider debate over child abuse and paedophilia, and after having had contact with other paedophiles for their stories, I write this essay to you, and hopefully one to the rest of the world someday.

What are the definitions?

To introduce new concepts, we must have some clearly defined starting points upon which to base them, otherwise, assumptions on behalf of the reader will be rife. What is a paedophile, a paedophobe, equality, or even right and wrong? What is the objective of the essay?

A paedophile is literally somebody who has a sexual instinct directed towards children. They fall into two main categories, just as ‘normal’ people who fancy adults do. There are those who manipulate or outright rape children, and there are those who feel an emotional affinity with children, which includes the erotic. I belong to the latter category. Of course, paedophiles are individuals too, so I cannot say that this essay speaks for all of them, but for all intents and purposes you may assume that when I say ‘paedophile,’ I am referring to the majority of the people who fall into the category of the latter definition.

A paedophobe is somebody who has an irrational fear of, and who therefore irrationally persecutes paedophiles. Such people range from members of the general public to police and government officials.

In all of my writings, I make some proposals for social change which could never occur under present social conditions. Everything I propose is about the way the world should be if it were totally fair. It is about what society should work towards. It could take 100s of years. When I say that this should change or that that should change, people sometimes scoff and say ‘you really expect people to accept THAT!’ No. I don’t. Not under present conditions. But that is not the point.

I often get complaints about my beliefs. Sometimes people will tell me I’m talking rubbish. They will say that children are scared of paedophiles and back it up with accounts of their own, tales such as ‘I remember being little and being nervous if pervy old men were looking at me.’ For this essay you must remember that this is all irrelevant. Some people may have had experiences like these, but this essay it to show that by no means all children have, perceived paedophilic experiences in this way. (Or at least not all could have perceived the experiences as negative if society were different.) This essay is not about child abusers, for whom current legislation is more than adequate, but about the forgotten minority group – paedophiles.

A ‘victimologist’ is a ‘professional’ who deals with child sexual abuse and ‘abuse.’ Victimologists can be psychologists, therapists, child abuse authors or child interrogators for the police.

So what is fair? What is equality? The definition that I use for what is ‘right’ is as follows: "Any activity which is not perceived as harmful to the parties directly involved, when both parties are in possession of the full facts of the situation, and when the activity in question does not have to adversely affect anyone who is not directly involved."

For example, it is right (more precisely ‘not wrong’ as to be ‘right’ implies that the activity should occur, not that it is simply O.K. to occur,) for a sadist to consensually whip a masochist for sexual pleasure of both parties. The activity may cause pain, but this is consensually desired so cannot class as harmful in the perception of those involved. Pain may lead to physical damage, but both parties will have been aware of this from the beginning. It is the perception of those involved which counts. We personally may feel compelled to feel discomfort at sadism, but that does not mean that our opinion of pain is not just that – an opinion. It does not have to have anything to do with us what two people do consensually behind closed doors.

Also lets suppose that the next-door neighbour of this sado-masochist couple discovers what sexual activity has been going on between these two people. This may cause discomfort to the next-door neighbour. The neighbour may feel uncomfortable in their presence, and may even bear a grudge. However, this does not make the couple wrong. If they are not intentionally displaying any of the behavioural characteristics of their sexual orientation to their neighbour, then it is purely the fault of the neighbour for making it his business when it doesn’t have to be. Nobody else is necessarily being objectively harmed by their activities, so the neighbour has no duty to intervene on grounds of ‘protection’ either. After all, maybe the couple thinks that the neighbour’s private life is inappropriate for being ‘normal.’ For the sake of equality, would it be appropriate for the couple to bear a grudge on their neighbour for his ‘normal’ sexual orientation? This point becomes relevant with regards to paedophilia in the context of ‘parental wishes,’ raises questions about the child’s right to a certain measure of freedom and of sexual education and the right for a child to develop her powers of independent thought.

Now, perhaps at a later date the physical damage caused by sadism causes those involved to change their minds about the desirability of what they had done. Since both parties had been aware as was possible of the possible consequences, and seeing as any change of mind cannot be foreseen, and seeing as at the time both parties agreed, neither party can blame the other for the later discomfort. The change of mind was by no means inevitable. The significance of the pleasure at the time was more likely to have been of more long term benefit to the psychological well-being of the subjects involved than the discomfort of the physical damage. All in all to attribute blame to the situation is inappropriate. 

This point becomes relevant with regards to puberty and societally induced perceptions of the past. (It will be explained.) Change of opinion does not change the past.

Am I right to assume that, when a paedophobe discovers the existence of paedophiles who believe that their actions are a sign of love, the paedophobe takes this to mean something like… "paedophiles disregard the child’s misunderstanding of sexual situations, because the paedophile has some sort of mental inhibition, a cognitive distortion, which allows him to ignore the truth in order to continue believing that his abusive actions are in fact a sign of love. His belief in love enables his conscious to continue to be clear despite the consequences of his action." From reading the reports of psychologists who are aware of the existence of paedophiles (of the latter definition remember,) this is the impression I get.

The Life Cycle of a Paedophilic Love Affair

The life cycle is obviously different from person to person as we are all different, so I cannot give an account which is anywhere near as straight forwardly stereotypical as those given in the newspapers, but all relationships seem to have elements of the basic pattern given below. I’ve numbered the steps for convenience of annotating them later on, not because there are special rules and procedures to go through. True love is spontaneous, of course.

1. Paedophile meets child. Could be his next door neighbour or simply some girl who struck up a conversation in the park. Anyone. There are no specific ‘signs of mental weakness’ or some rubbish like that to look out for in girls, and there are not special sinister meeting spots or sex rings (obviously.)

2. Surprisingly, if you’re a paedophile, be yourself. Be at ease with the little girl, allow her to feel at ease with you. It’s the way paedophiles are with all children. Have fun. They join in with their games and their social life and they’ll treat Mr. Paedo like an ‘honorary’ child. Its not a deliberate ploy to ‘gain trust’ with a ‘sinister hidden agenda.’ To analogize, you probably have friends. You probably go out for a drink with colleagues of the opposite sex with no ulterior motives in mind. For me playing with the local kids is the same. It’s a way of getting to know them. Its about not treating kids with arrogance like ‘normal’ adults tend to.

3. So, if that girl whom he met and thought was pretty cute turns out to be a loving caring individual, and not the brat who tore up your flower bed on mischief night, he might just find himself falling in love with her. Naturally, her looks made her more likely that she’d be chosen, but that does not mean she’s only wanted for her body.

4. So, if you’re a paedophile, spend time with her. Take her to the sweet shop that her mum always screamed at her for asking to go in. Let her jump around and play noisily when her mum would have told her off for being ‘naughty.’ Not that children from bad backgrounds are necessarily of preference, (the stereotype,) because a child may simply respect the fact that you can spend time with her when others can’t. As a paedophile you may be unique and special to her in that you are the only adult she knows who takes the time to do what she wants, even if its whimsical, so long as its not doing anyone any harm. Of course, children have educators and parents, but as a paedophile you are fulfilling a different part of their emotional needs. A teacher doesn’t do one to one special tuition because he prefers her (unless he’s a paedophile!) and a parent is more concerned with moulding its offspring to prepare her for life rather than letting her be herself. Basically, the paedophile treats her as a human being. It is another essential role in the child’s life.

5. Naturally if he cares about her, he lets her know that if she ever needs a friend in times of crisis that he’ll be there. For a child, this usually means understanding about something like "My brother told on me when I didn’t clean my teeth so my Mummy got angry and now I hate them both and I cried." Yes, petty things like that will be forgotten by the next day, but to the child the feeling of betrayal is very real at the time. Other people would laugh off the child’s anguish for its puerility or would get angry at her for causing a ‘scene.’ As a paedophile this attunement to the child’s emotion demands is what develops into what can only be described as true love. The two lovers will probably end up in prolonged embraces regularly, looking into each other’s eyes and whispering ‘I love you’ into each other’s ears. (Not that it sounds like I have any personal experience of this, naturally.) The little girl will probably end up worshipping the ground he walks on, and he will of course feel the same about her. I remember one girlfriend who used to eat her tea about 15 minutes after me. I would be finishing mine as she was starting, so so as to have that extra time with me she would not eat her tea. She’d say she wasn’t hungry. It was becoming an unhealthy obsession so as soon as I had worked out what was really going on I forced her to start eating again!


I intended to make this part stage 6 of my relationship phase list. This topic though is so wrought with the misgivings of public opinion that I’ve decided to give it a separate heading, then to carry on with the list later. I hope that what I have already said in part 2 has given you a taste of the way that paedophiles feel emotionally about children, and has allowed you to see that it is not just about sex. It should have been obvious that with paedophilia being a sexuality like any other, that it includes the romantic bonding between the two lovers like in any other relationship. A good normaphile husband takes care of his wife’s emotional needs as part of the package. It’s all part of being in love, as opposed to simple lust.

Some paedophiles will be content to satisfy their sexuality’s need for love with children with romance only. The right hand can be a great companion to this lifestyle! These paedophiles may be too embarrassed or may have a phobia of sex, while others may simply volunteer for this lifestyle for reasons that will be gone into. 

There is no reason to treat these paedophiles with a ‘better keep them away from kids anyway because you still never know’ attitude. Why, just because someone is a celibate paedophile, would he be hiding some secret desire to rape? There are plenty of us who have lived our lives totally celibate, and died virgins (famously Lewis Carroll.)

There seems to be a paedophobe school of thought which states that unless you are sexually active with the inclusion of full intercourse, then you will become so desperate that you will end up raping someone. 

The attitude was very alien to me until I realized just how much the normal heterosexual views things in terms of sex. It is considered ‘normal’ by a heterosexual to have sex, including intercourse, a few times a week. 

It must be hard for such people to comprehend the fact that a lot of paedophiles have to adapt to the prospect of never having a sexual experience in their entire lives. That in itself becomes a way of life. It is even harder for paedophobes to comprehend that, when paedophiles do have a sexual experience, vaginal and anal penile penetration is practically never included. In the same way that vaginal penetration is not part of homosexual sex, the above described sort of penetration just isn’t naturally included in paedophilic sex (for reasons that will be explained.) 

For someone to commit rape, they also have to have some sort of sexualized anger. They have to feel some sort of pleasure in dominance and demeaning of the sexual object. If you are a paedophile who loves children then it would still not satisfy your urges if you raped someone. Perhaps one has fantasies of sexualized violence due to the example set by a physically abusive childhood. 

All paedophiles I know are artistic and intellectual. While most did not have physically abusive childhoods (but may have had ones abusive in a way which you are not yet familiar with), some of them of course did. Perhaps their intellectuality has caused them to realize and survive the trap of the cycle of abuse. They have the intelligence to realize ‘it happened to me, and never again.’ Finally, don’t get me wrong, there are the non-intelligent probably rapacious types of paedophiles around, just I never met them, and believe they are in the minority.

And then there are those paedophiles that do have sexual experiences with children. (When I say sex from now on I do not mean penile penetration.) This still does not mean that there is any danger of rape. Consensual sex with children can be harmless as I will explain. Although it is debatable whether or not the harm is the paedophile’s fault, it can also be very harmful under certain circumstances, (which is why some don’t have sex. Explanation very soon.)

After the first 5 steps I’ve described, the paedophile or child may take the initiative to experiment sexually. Some paedophiles believe that the initiative should only be taken by the child. If the child never asks for sex then that is one reason for celibacy. Others believe that because sex is a two way activity, it’s setting a right example for the paedophile to take the initiative too. They believe that it is only society making them paranoid about doing something the child is not ready for that makes paedophiles leave everything to the child. After all, nothing will happen without the agreement of both parties.

Remember to remember that there is no specific agenda. A natural relationship is a continuum. There will be no set date when the two decided they are ready for sex. Sex will probably follow on naturally from the light flirting or romance described in stage 5. Before anything serious happens however it is the paedophiles duty, as the more ‘responsible’ (though perhaps less sexually experienced) party to have ‘the talk.’ The sex may be light hearted and casual, or deeply emotional and binding. First I need to say a bit more about the topic of societal attitudes towards sex before enlightening you further as to the justification of allowing children to say ‘yes’ to sex.

Children DO have sexual thoughts. I did. Everyone I’ve talked to (without telling them its for paedophile research!) has admitted to having graphic sexual thoughts from an early age. Some, naturally, cannot remember. You dear reader may personally think you’ve never fantasized as a child but that is no reason to impose a prohibition against others doing so. Herein lies the last unrevealed bastion of child abuse. It is an unrecognized form of emotional abuse called sexual neglect. This is a hampering of their development. Before you jump on the bandwagon, this is not a cryptic way of trying to say that children should be forced into sexual activity ‘for their own good.’ As you will see the stamping out of sexual neglect, seemingly ironically, has its roots in the new paradigm as pioneered by Alice Miller, rather than the old paradigm of parental domination through pedagogy. You may be familiar with her work.

Alice Miller’s book ‘Thou Shalt Not be Aware’ does not deal with ‘true’ paedophilia, although it contributes a valuable source of modern ‘official’ written backing to the paedophilic ideas which have no doubt always existed. Alice Miller believes that infantile amnesia has for thousands of years been the mandate to parents to dominate their children physically, emotionally and sexually. Easily moulded children are stamped upon emotionally to satisfy the emotional needs of their parents. This is fulfilling a desire for dominance that was not granted to the parents when they were children. Without an understanding of the vicious cycle when the children themselves become parents they are conditioned too to believe that it is ‘for their child’s own good’ to unquestioningly obey them and to put up with their parents’ own emotional instabilities. It is the paradigm whereby humanity teaches itself to unquestioningly follow parent like authority. Unquestioning obedience of God instilled by religion and modern deceptions, such as Hitler’s ability to manipulate a whole population by his preposterous ideas of domination are manifestations of the ancient paradigm.

Alice Miller’s aim is to wipe out the old paradigm, of which pedogogy is the main component. She, like paedophiles, wants it replaced by one of truth, and using one’s own mind.

It may be a good idea at this point for you to read the book ‘The Sexual Life of Children’ by Floyd M. Martinson for a broader background on the normal sexual activities of children. Freud, despite showing the obvious existence of childhood sexual impulses, is more interested in showing why certain impulses develop they way they do and their relation to psychological disease. So how does all this fit into the theory of sexual neglect? Well, its obvious.

Its true that most children are embarrassed about talking of sex in front of their parents. If there’s a sex scene on the T.V. an 8 or 9 year old girl is likely to go red, or even cover her eyes, while her parents shift uncomfortably. If you ask a child in general what she thinks of sex she’s likely to tell you she thinks its absolutely disgusting. If you overhear a little girl talking of boys she fancies its most likely to be in a very innocent non-sexual way. However, as paedophiles we see a different side.

Toddlers and children up to the age of about 6 are essentially without shame. They will giggle when they’re being little exhibitionists. They will play ‘show and tell’ with their genitals or experiment with kissing and touching ‘games’ or may even go further than that. They may touch themselves in public and people think nothing of it because it is ‘innocent.’ But not all children are this way up until this age. Some find such activities disgusting long before.

I personally have been flashed by two different five year old girls (and no that’s not criminal. It was nothing to do with me.) One just wanted to because she found it funny. The next day one of her more zealously curious male peers asked her to do it again. She refused saying ‘No! My Mummy says that’s disgusting!’ I have seen a 3 year old girl severely berated for spreading her legs and saying ‘look at me!’

Moving up the age range from 3 to 5 years old to between 6 and 7, I was in a conversation between a six year old girl and another of her male peers. The girl said when asked that she thought kissing boys was absolutely disgusting. I asked her why she thought that. After long thought she said, a little relieved, that it was actually because her mother made her think that way. She then said it was because she had wanted to kiss me. Another seven year old gave a similar story when she refused to kiss me in public, "only when we’re upstairs!" she insisted with a beetroot red face, even though I kissed her in all innocence! (in the traditional sense of the word innocence.)

After the age of 8, I have known children to flirt, and maybe still behave in a sexualized manner, but by this age I have never know a child to verbally admit, even in private, any form of sexual fantasy. They tend to talk more cryptically about ‘it’ and usually in the context of what they think it would be fun to see done with others, despite their tendencies to initiate sexual activity (I did not say that this is from personal experience remember) between themselves and the paedophile. They are intensely curious about sex, but they have equally intense conflicting feelings of shame and disgust which lead them to become confused about what the other side of their conscious desires. They could be described as being confused with themselves, leading to very erratic behaviour in relation to situations involving their lover.

At puberty this total hiding of sexual emotion gives way in the wake of the intense hormonal surges, but the feelings of shame imposed by a learned ‘morality’ never disappear. I have talked to many women who talk of the loosing of their virginities as being an experience that made them unexpectedly burst into tears afterwards. Could it be some subconscious resistance to the feeling of pleasure?

Hence the relation to the old paradigm. While it seems perfectly sensible to me to believe that there are subconscious barriers to sexual pleasure erected by forgotten memories of childhood sexual trauma caused by sexual abuse, it seems ludicrous to ignore this factor of sexual domination in another, probably much more widespread way. 

This is the way in which parents tell their children off for the slightest behaviour indicative of sexuality. Parents feel it is their duty to pass the age old taboos (probably born of religion) onto their children at all costs. Any sort of symbol of a child’s nascent sexuality is stamped upon. Sexuality is seen as an ‘adult’ attribute only. It’s not considered ‘natural’ for children to behave in a sexualized manner. 

Funny, isn’t it, that when a child exhibits spontaneous signs of sexuality the child is considered ‘unnatural’ until the child has it explained to her that what she is doing is wrong. An older child is aware of the fact that its parents are probably uncomfortable in the presence of sexual activity. I remember feeling intensely embarrassed at watching a film with a sex scene in at 12 when my parents were around. They told me to fast-forward that bit. I wouldn’t have blinked an eyelid if they hadn’t been around. The uncomfortableness rubs off.

For an account of the way in which a defining sexualized event in early childhood which has become associated with punishment contributes to the development of masochism, read ‘Vandalized Lovemaps’ by Dr. John Money. Children who engage in sexual activity may find themselves severely told off for their ‘naughtiness’ by their parents. The association between sex and punishment can stick if the event occurred at a particularly impressionable point in the child’s life.

So, isn’t this sort of sexual prohibitional domination on the part of parents, reinforced by the teachings of schools and social work and ‘morality’ campaigners really another form of child abuse? It does not leave the child to develop naturally. It is an infringement of children’s rights on the way that it takes away the child’s ability to experiment with its surroundings, and to learn to make decisions of a sexual nature. 

In all my personal experiences and readings of professional literature I am lead to the conclusion that children’s admittances to, and aversion with, sexual activity gradually declines with age as the effects of a sexual repression imposed upon them from without takes hold. All children still think about sex, but usually it is only paedophiles who are able to unlock the secrets. A child knows that even to mention sex in the presence of adults is taboo, so adults probably (except paedophiles) are not aware of this forgotten part of childhood. With a paedophile though children are able to open up and to admit their carnal desires. A ‘normal’ person cannot see or chooses not to see the natural sexual part of childhood.

At long last let’s return to the justification of allowing children to say ‘yes’ to sex. Apart from the irrelevant argument given by parents that sex is ‘unnatural’ (read Floyd M. Martinson,) they also claim that sex is wrong for children because they do not ‘understand’ sex. This statement has become a catchphrase. Lets pull it apart, and see what it actually means.

Instead of ‘children shouldn’t have sex because they don’t understand it,’ wouldn’t it be more sensible to ask the more probing question "what is it about sex which is so bad that the child needs to understand." In other words, what are the inevitable consequences? Which consequences are avoidable, or the product of societal ‘norms.’ What attributes are specific to sex which set sex apart from other areas of emotional development? In Part 3 I will also be dealing with the question of what evidence there is that sex leads to inevitable trauma.

Put simply, there is nothing innately bad about sex that the child needs to understand. Sex is a natural biological process, and learned resistances to sex include morality, disgust, and fear. As we have seen these resisting factors are not innate, but are a part of cultural awareness. They are learned responses. They are not necessary to society’s survival, and as such are not a required part of societal norms. 

These norms are not only unrequired, but damaging to minority groups. Seeing as a society in which paedophilia is accepted will have to be one in which taboos against sexual activity are relaxed, the eradication of nonsensical taboos is one context in which I am referring to paedophilia as being ‘O.K.’ In psychological terms, when people pass puberty their sexual hormonal needs outweigh their disgust conditioning of childhood, yet because the subconscious still feels aversion to sexual activity the adult cannot help but express (or ‘abreact’) these feelings of shame onto his own children. Children are naturally to be protected above all else, and so they are the inevitable choice for adults to teach to. A parent will teach what he or she feels, somewhere along the line, is shameful.

Now for the consequences of sex. These include pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, and the risk of emotional hurt of rejection by the adult after a relationship. For paedophiles, who mostly like pre-pubescents, the issue of pregnancy is irrelevant. Sexually transmitted diseases are preventable with a condom and the issue does not pertain to any reason as to why sex is bad in itself. There are risks to child sex, such as the possible shock of first rejection or having been used by the adult for her body, who doesn’t really love her. Again though, these are not issues which relate to why child sex in itself is a bad thing. ‘Normaphile’ relationships include cheating and manipulating too. I agree that manipulative paedophiles are evil people, and need to be stopped, but that does not mean that ALL paedophiles need to be stopped! The consequences are situational, not inevitable. Besides, learning to deal with consequences, real life, is part of growing up. If you don’t learn gradually in childhood you get the shock of your life when you blunder into adolescence. Look at the teen pregnancy rate!

Sometimes people say that it is obvious children are not suited for sexual activity because their bodies have not developed sexually. This argument is irrelevant too because while children do not have the capacity to reproduce. ‘God’ endowed children with an incredible physical capacity for sexual pleasure. The scientific fact that kids can orgasm is carefully censored in the U.K. A book pointing the fact out would be refused publication nowadays or would be ‘discredited’ by a public outcry of ‘morality,’ not science. The point of sex is not merely as a reproductive tool. It is to promote bonding and love between two individuals. Children have the biological and mental capacity to have sex, and as a learning process. Children may not have the hormone level that requires them to have sex but it may still be beneficial for emotional development or at least do no harm.

Young children are at their lifetime’s peak of its capacity to take in new information about their surroundings. Children are taught social interactions through example. They are taught about every aspect of emotional behaviour - except, curiously, about sex. 

What is so different about sexual development that means that it should be neglected in childhood? No answer springs to mind. Modern society is plagued by problems with sexuality. People cheat, they fight, they don’t respect each other’s sexual needs etc. Perhaps the reason for this is not just the example given by a sexually abusive upbringing, but just as much the result of no sexual upbringing at all. In this ‘ideal world’ I am working towards though, as a practical consideration, I am not saying that it is the job of parents or educators to have sex with children. Perhaps their role would be as sex educators, with paedophiles (if circumstances were to bring about a relationship) fulfilling the role of the ‘hands on’ development. This essay is full of examples of parental arrogance, but ideally paedophiles would not have to work against parents at all.

In argument people like to use analogy. A popular one is the analogy of children’s naïveté causing their lack of competence in the adult world being to the danger of actually having sex. For example I will be told that little girls are given toy cookers and pans to play house with because to le them loose on real cookers would cause a fire. Fair enough. But why does that mean that it is dangerous for children to engage in actual sexual activity as opposed to simply being verbally educated about it? (and some parents don’t even agree with verbal education!) The little girl who plays with her toys is acting out what will become essential in later life. She doesn’t use hot rings and won’t burn the house down, but similarly a child acting out her sexual fantasy with an adult is not going to become pregnant either. The use of these analogies still originates from the failure to recognize the emptiness found in the answer to the question "what is it about sex which is so bad that the child needs to understand?"

What is the danger of sex education? It only answers the question that is basic to humanity’s existence. Why should there be a specific age that it becomes appropriate to answer the questions of sex? There is nothing to define any specific age. A child does not grow up automatically on her 16th birthday. In fact questions about sexuality occur spontaneously throughout childhood (read ‘Freud – On Sexuality.’) A child may be naïve of sexual matters as a result of the denial of knowledge but there is no reason to assume that because children are naïve that they should stay that way. Nobody can know what sex is until they are informed. It is not something which just ‘comes naturally.’

 There is plenty of proof for this. I’m sure you yourself can remember the time that you were told what sex actually is. A woman of 18 may still be naïve of sex, but why at this age is it any less harmful to inform her? Why should we consider children to be too young to understand what is going on? What is there to understand? Child sex is about coming to understand, in an appropriate environment of love, free of dangers, with consent as informed as it can or needs to be as appropriate to the child’s age, with age appropriate activity.

I will leave you on this section with a conversation between two men in which one paedophile (H. Pierce) argues the point that a pre-six year old child should not be allowed to engage in casual sexual activity, to possibly loose her virginity, because she ‘does not know what she is doing.’ He is against the idea of children having casual sex with adults, or if they aren’t ‘too young’ to feel the emotions that ‘should’ accompany a sexual activity, he is against it because a child will not ‘understand’ these emotions. He is replied to (by paedophiles ‘Carrollingian’ and ‘Warrior’) with sarcastic arguments to demonstrate the futility of this ambiguous statement in relation to its stupidity when applied to other real life examples.

H. Pierce says:

The key here is SEX ON CHILDREN’S OWN LEVEL. Yes they will play doctor. "show me yours, I'll show you mine". Yes they are sexual in that if they touch themselves its pleasurable. I remember playing that game. After about 5 minutes seeing what girls look like and they see you, there is a giggle, everyone pulls their pants up and off you go playing whatever you were playing before.

Enter the adult. The adult will be content FOR AWHILE to be at the CHILD'S level. Over time an adult wants more. The adult is NOT a child. Even though they love the child and the child loves him/her, they are going to gently persuade the child to go beyond their own level. This is the point where we differ.

Now the child is responding to sex on the adult level. Forget that it makes her feel good. That’s an excuse to justify the seduction. The child being raised to think that sex is ok only benefits you.

It is IMPORTANT for any being to have a basic awareness of what is happening to them, even if it feels good. Look at the example below: 

A 5-year-old girl shows you a brand new 10-dollar bill. The adult shows her 5 new crisp 1 dollar bills and asks to trade her single $10 bill in exchange for his 5 single dollar bills. She accepts smiling that she got 5 pieces of money when she had only 1 before. She is happy. The child lets this happens because she trusts you and doesn't yet have a BASIC understanding of what just transpired. You want to try that on an 11 year old or a 25-year-old female? Yeah right.

Lets relate this back to sex with a 5 year old and maybe you will see what I'm driving at. The child is content with touching you, and you touching her. You begin in a loving manner to persuade her that its alright for you to penetrate her vagina with your finger. Ohh, to be sure it will feel good to her and you. Does she understand that you’re finger-fucking her? No. Lets take it a step further and lets say your finger breaks through her hymen. "Ahhh no sweat" you tell the little girl, because you love her. Does the girl understand that she just lost her virginity? No. If you tell her that will she comprehend what that means. NO. Not at the age of 5 she won't.

Time moves on and lets say at the age of 11 she sees you again and thinks back on that day. She now knows that she has lost her virginity before she even knew what it meant. She doesn't see you as the nice adult who introduced her to sex. She sees and hates you (and trust me she will hate you) for taking advantage of her. I guarantee that is how she will view it.

Carrollingian replies:

H. Pierce misses the point. He talks of the 5 dollar bills for a 10 dollar bill exemplifying a way to trick a child analogous to the greater sexual pleasure felt by an adult. But sex is not taking anything away from her, except virginity which has artificial societal importance attached to it. Virginity is simply the valuation of the absence of something good. What is the point in that? Surely what should be valued is the absence of sex which was a bad experience, not of sex itself. So so what if the adult's pleasure may be greater. Who’s measuring? H. Pierce you sell us out without just cause.

You also talk of the adult inevitably loosing control. You must be talking from some sort of experience. I know I'VE never lost control. If its consensual and the child thinks is good then yes, it IS ok.

…(Carrollingian adds [edited]) Nobody is saying that we should make the decision for the child about whether or not she has sex. Merely that if she decides it would be a good idea that that decision should be respected. A child may not understand any emotions she feels along with the sexual activity, but again so what? People are entitled to feel emotions without understanding them aren’t they. Emotions are something you just feel. Can most adults even explain what the emotions they feel actually are objectively described as? Is there any objective way to describe them? For this reason allowing the child to say ‘yes’ is NOT under the condition that she is being kept in the dark.…

Anyway, have you not read the literature? (Paedo AND 'phobe) Almost 90% of paedophilic sexual activity isn't penetrative anyway. Get real. We don't go further than the child's level. Are you the one who makes that other 10%?

On the topic of virginity the Warrior sarcastically adds:

I guess we can take your argument further.
Perhaps non of us should ever hug a child. Hugging can produce a strong emotional bond. Since many of us like to hug children that we rarely see, this could prove to be harmful to the child. Perhaps strangers should be forbidden to hug children below a certain age group because those children may not fully understand the consequences of hugging a stranger. After all you may not be there next time the child needs you to hug them. Worse yet, a child may even learn to expect a hug. 

Certainly, we should move to place a ban any adult hugging a until a child until said child reaches the age where he/she fully understands the consequences of hugging. After all, we don't want to impose our emotional need on a child by coercing them to hug us, despite how natural it is to hug one another. After all, we still don't understand all of the consequences of casual hugging.

I guess the same goes for roller coasters. Ever been on one? Even if you haven't, ever seen people who ride on them? There is an intense emotion response of fear, excitement, joy, and the eventual disappointment that the ride is over. After a few moments, the "high" experienced by riders diminishes and the rider is left with a bit of depression after the adrenaline rush vanishes. Perhaps we should ban this for children under the age of 18 because they may not fully "understand" the consequences of the "highs" and "lows" of casual riding of roller coasters.

Thank you for enlightening me on the dangers of doing anything casually. I certainly will be more careful when I hug a child. I will consider all of the possible emotional outcomes when I perform this basic human task.

H. Pierce replies to Carrollingian:

You say: "virginity which has artificial societal importance attached to it. ."
Thank you for making that choice for her. So much for caring about her well being. Do you like being taken advantage of? I bet not.

You say: "You also talk of the adult inevitably loosing control. You must be talking from some sort of experience. I know I'VE never lost control. If its consensual and the child thinks is good then yes, it IS ok."
Some of you must have a problem in reading comprehension. I clearly stated that a 5 year old child will only go so far. Anything else is going to be what you (and I'm not talking about me) lead her into.

Ohhhh so that’s all it takes for you? Just to get that magical consent. Don't care that she hasn't the foggiest idea what she consented too... you're just happy you can get your rocks off.
So lets see, if you came upon a girl drunk on her ass... and in her drunken condition she gave her consent for you to fuck her then from your warped logic above, it would be ok. After all she consented and she thinks its good. How pathetic. What you described above is called child molestation. If that’s what I sold out too in your mind then I'm fucking glad I did!
The only experience I know is one including love and dignity for the girl.

Carrollingian re-replies:

I did not make any decision for her.

…(edited) I agree that a 5 year old will only go so far. I have always maintained only doing what a child wants. If she does not decide to go further that’s her decision, not mine. I will not push anything just to get my rocks off. I've never said that. In fact, I've NEVER had my rocks off with an LG [= little girl] before! They've never asked. But, if a child asked me to finger her, I would. There is no clear cut definition as to what is 'natural' for 5yo girls…

It is not manipulative either to inform a child about the possibility of having sex. (see essay) So long as she is not bored stiff by being given too much information at once! So long as she is not directly asked. It needs to be her question to remain on the child’s level, and it also needs to be part of her sex education to know that it is HER decision, not something that she should do to make others happy because she loves them.

I believe that we both agree though that kids should get sex ed. As you say, it can start very young. This is purely neutral information as far as promoting the idea of sex goes. Why if, acting upon this information, the child asks an adult for sex, is this the child being manipulated? 

I think that the first lesson in sex ed should be that 'sex is for you, the child' and that they should not say yes to sex to make someone else happy. Like I said, I will not manipulate a child to have sex with me. I've never had sex. But there are plenty of reasons why a child might get the idea to have sex and I don't therefore think its wrong to grant her wish, or if it would word it better in the context of such young children, I don't think its wrong to satisfy her infantile curiosity. Perhaps you believe that children that young will not ask for sex simply because in our society children are not given the knowledge for the opportunity to ask.

The Life Cycle of a Paedophilic Love Affair Continued

I hope that the length of the previous section did not introduce so many new ideas that you did not manage to take them all in. One common reaction to the taking in of so many new ideas is that the difference between what the reader previously assumed to be true and what they are now faced with the possibility of being true is very great. They do not believe that things could be so different because the shift in thinking is too much to take in. They try and defend themselves against this.

 Therefore, instead of trying to deal with the issues raised in the text they tell themselves ‘oh, well, paedophiles can rationalize anything.’ They think that paedophiles will try arbitrarily to rationalize the opposite of what society considers acceptable because, to the paedophobe, that’s what the daunting array of new information must seem like!

I do not feel that is my duty to persuade children to have sex ‘for their own good.’ I feel that it is the child who should be in control. What I feel is that a child should be aware of the possibility that she can have sex, and if she picks up on that then it’s her choice. The awareness can come from sex education or simply from a paedophile informing her of the possibility.

There is some controversy amongst paedophiles themselves as to whether or not it is implanting artificial ideas of sex into the child’s head to ask and to not let her be the one to ask. The one nearly universal belief held by all the paedophiles (whom I’ve met) is that any sexual activity between an adult and child should be on the child’s level. The activity will relate to the sexual fantasies as expressed by the child. Paedophile sexuality is naturally in the interests of mutual compatibility between partners (as in any sexuality.) Paedophiles tend not to want sex that is in the traditional sense ‘adult.’

On one side of the divide there are those who feel that all sex should be left to the child’s request. This isn’t really a ‘problem’ though as with the inevitable closeness between paedophiles and children one thing usually flirtatiously leads to another. The child tests the water by doing something flirtatious, recognizes the forthcoming playfulness or lack of hostility in her childhood ‘crush’ and takes it further. Inconsequentially though the paedophile may be just as nervous as the child may be (if she is an older child) about the sexualized situation developing which will prevent anything going any further.

On the side of the divide there is the belief that due to the unnatural draconian enforced sexual repression in childhood that it is the paedophiles duty to question the child’s revulsion for all things sexual. This is probably true with older children who have been through the squashing effect of a ‘civilised’ upbringing, although not all children have a revulsion to sex by any means.

What I mean is that the paedophile may do the right thing to explore the reason behind the revulsion with the child in conversation, as I did with the little girl in the example where she admits to her mother enforcing her revulsion for kissing. I do not mean that a paedophile should just up front ask a visibly uncomfortable and reticent child to have sex with him (or her.) That would inevitably be experienced as abusive by the child. What I mean is that in the case of older children (lets say 8-11) it may be an idea to playfully suggest sex when the child is in a situation that she is aware that the usual conventions of taboo are not operating. Talking of which I also understand the need to not confuse a child’s friendliness or playfulness for sexual desire! The child should always be at ease.

So. Step 6. At last.

6. A sexual relationship may or may not develop. If it does it will be age appropriate and experienced as positive by the child. She will not be coerced, and her decision is final. There are no strings attached and no obligation. There is no set rule for the tone of the experience. 
The benefits and dis-benefits and the reasons and rights to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will probably have been a topic of conversation at some time in the past. Sex may simply be casual and free of the constraints of pointless taboo. It may be that the child does not want or would not be prepared for the confusion of first deep emotion attached to her nascent sexuality, and may just want sex for fun. And why not? Others may be more loving. 
They may value the closeness of the romance and passion of the sexual bond over and above the simple act of being pleasured sexually. Older children may appreciate this aspect more than younger ones who more playfully ‘live for the moment.’ And why not? 
The nature of the actual sex acts will be determined by the phase of development of the child’s sexuality. For a brilliant take on what drives the sexual fantasies at different stages of childhood read ‘Freud – On Sexuality.’ Despite the fashionable nature of modern criticisms of Freud’s theories I have seen every evidence in my day to day life of the truth of what Freud says. I hadn’t read any Freud when I noticed the things he points out!

7. The child remembers the times with her adult friends as the best and most formative of her life. Puberty will dampen the flames of passion because puberty changes everything. I have heard older paedophiles say that their young lovers, when all grown up, stay in contact with them and occasionally phone them for advice or pop round for a chat every now and again and they regard their ex-lovers as uncle figures, maybe until the paedophile’s death. This was certainly true rather famously with Lewis Carroll! Or…

Step 8...

8. This part is one portion of the explanations of situations which may arise to turn a relationship pear-shaped. What follows is one of the most painful things that a paedophile may feel obliged to explain to a child about their relationship.

 I personally was asked playfully by a rather cheeky 9 year old. I felt very uncomfortable as she demanded "WHY!" She had wanted to know why people around her looked upon her with such distaste for her attachment to me. It must have been baffling for her but in her innocence she did not understand the significance of it all. And she should never have had to. 

It is hard to explain to a child that natural childishness of the feelings of her instincts for affection and sexuality are condemned by society and are considered unhealthy, to be squashed at all costs. For those couples who get into sex the importance of the child’s understanding of these concepts can be what makes or breaks the relationship.

It is important from the point of view of child protection that the child learns that she needs to keep quiet about what is going on. It is vitally important that the child DOES NOT feel that this is a silence which is enforced by threat from the paedophile.

If the child does not fully understand the concepts of societal sexual repression and paedophobia then she will end up feeling that the reason for her silence must be that she has reason to feel guilt about what is going on. To a child keeping quiet about something is usually implies that it is a secret to be ashamed of. 

It is important that she realize that the need for silence, although regrettable, is vital for her own protection. If she reveals that sex is taking place, she will loose her lover. That will be the first devastation for her.

Secondly she will be grilled till kingdom come by those adults in authority over her about what sexual activity did or did not take place. This will happen even if none took place (as happened in the case of the girl I just mentioned,) but adults tend not to care what the truth is. All they care about is getting evidence to nail the ‘bastard’ paedophile with. They will grill her until she gets the idea of what the paedophobes want to hear. 

This attention, along with being given conflicting messages of ideology from paedophiles and paedophobes will leave the child confused and scared. This will be the second devastation. It will be especially hard if she was not prepared for it by having the situation of paedophobia explained to her. 

If the child is older, she may also dislike being pressured to reveal what is essentially her business anyway. Here there is another split amongst paedophiles. 
Some believe that the near inevitability of this situation arising means that the pleasure of the relationship does not justify the intense anguish of both paedophile and child. 
Others believe that because it is all society’s fault, paedophile couples are justified to do their own thing and it is up to the rest of the world to change, to make a stand against injustice. Perceptive children themselves understand this viewpoint. (mm... intelligent kids!) 

As I was saying before, what makes a parent think that it has the right to interfere with its child’s private life unless there is some reason to think that, in the interests of child protection, the paedophile actually is a manipulator or rapist? A child may have a duty to respect its parents for the upbringing it receives but the child does not ask to be brought into this world and does not choose its parents. The parent does not have the rights to ownership of the child’s soul. This is an issue concerning children’s rights (or total lack of them) in modern western societies.

Step 9

9. Outcome number 1: 
And so, if the child is intelligent and perceptive she will probably have the mental willpower to resist the crushing effects of adult’s restrictions on her relationship with her lover upon discovery. The two may continue to see each other in secret. She will probably refuse to tell anything to the paedophobic inquisition, as uncomfortable as she may feel in their grip. 
Unfortunately her silence will lead paedophobes to think that she is just too traumatized to reveal what ‘really’ went on.

Outcome number 2: 
If the child is not able to resist the brainwashing that will befall her from the paedophobes, she may actually begin to believe that the relationship she had was wrong. She probably won’t know what to believe anymore. The conflicting messages that she is receiving from all around her will leave her with a shattered confidence in adults. 
After the confusion, she will probably end up hating and despising her lover. She will grow up to believe that she actually was abused, and will probably become a withdrawn sort of person, without confidence in the world, and may even need counseling to recover. 
When victimologists observe this odd sort of behaviour in children or adults, they assume it to be the result of sexual abuse. It can be, but it is also the result of abuses at the hands of the inquisitors themselves. Paedophiles know that children do not act withdrawn at the time of the relationships. It only happens when the Victimological psychologists get their hands on the children, but of course, these inquisitors will have no way of knowing that the trauma was not previously present, and the last thing that’s going to happen is that they’re going to believe what a paedophile is trying to tell them the situation really is!

To further explain the last step, children really do change once the relationship is discovered and other adults start asking questions. They often lie. Like I said, they become confused, so they try to appease their inquisitors by telling them what they know they want to hear (and children are very perceptive!) Children are more unsure of the world than adults, so when confused they tend to try and go along with what they perceive they are expected to do. 

Most paedophiles (that I’ve met) understand the need to be attuned to the child’s thought level so as to avoid inadvertent manipulation. Paedophobes on the other hand cannot understand this. Their aim is to discover that nasty paedophiles have been raping innocent children and as such their techniques revolve around this aim.

For example.

 The girl I mentioned before, the one who asked me "why." I was very attracted to her, probably because she was so demanding and forward and liked to be in control (I like that in a girl.) She used to demand I buy her sweets, which I was always willing to do for her! We were not lovers, just friends, although I fancied her and she picked up on it when I was flirting. So one day I was milling around when she and two of her friends came to see me, despite the fact that she had already been told off for seeing me! She had come to ask me, bashfully, if I fancied her. What made it worse was that she was meant to be in class! I told her to go away, but she wouldn’t, so I let her speak.

Her friends, later taking an exception to the subject matter of the conversation which ensued, decided to persuade the little girl to ‘tell.’ When I was questioned myself about what had happened the paedophobe, (who happened to be my headmaster,) started the conversation with something like "this rather frightened little girl came to my office and claimed that you had come to her and propositioned her. You teased her with sweets!" Well, she had come to me, the word ‘propositioned’ sounded very much like the language the headmaster would have used to describe what her perceived the situation to be, and the little girl had asked for the sweets, not been ‘teased’ by them by me. So how did it all become so twisted?

Firstly, being aware of the taboos, she would have changed the story so as not to incriminate herself. A little girl would never dare admit that anything to do with romantic relationships were her idea! Children are aware that adults have a distaste for romance in childhood. She would have been frightened of being in trouble for her naughtiness, not realizing that person in trouble would actually be me. Children also see their interrogation and separation from their lover as a punishment. That may be another reason why they change their stories to satisfy what they believe the other adults want to hear.

The problem is, especially with the practiced of the child abuse ‘professionals’ (or victimologists) is that they are operating without the knowledge that children are sexual and aware of societal taboos (after the age of about 6 or 7.) In this sense the ‘professional’ is innocent of childhood. They do not take into account the reasons why children say and act the way they do in questioning or therapy situations. The ‘professional’ simply accepts what children say as gospel truth, and operate from the presumption that abuse tool place and this is the reason for the child’s trauma.

Anyway, enough on that subject, for it belongs in part 3. I will leave this part with some true life accounts of relationships gone wrong written by the people directly involved. (And not by those who feel that it is their business to be involved without due reason, such as parents and ‘professionals’ from whom we usually are only allowed to hear!)

The first two are about boylove, but the principles they exemplify are pertinent to girl-love as well.

Posted on the ‘Kids Speak Out’ forum:

"My father and I made love for years - he is now in jail...

Hello. I put this story in this section because I guess it's considered abuse.

My father molested me from the time I was two till I was 15. We would lie

naked and he would play with my penis. Then he would give me oral sex. When I

was old enough I then started sucking him too. He never hurt me or tried to

have anal sex with me, even though I wanted him to. I had anal sex with him,

a few times, once my father decided my penis was big enough. My father and I

would plan things around the times where we could meet and make each other

feel good. My mother found out and two months ago my father was sent to

prison. What my father did to me was not rape, at all. He never hurt me. In

fact, I looked forward to spending the time with him but my mother and the

police don't seem to listen.

My father does not belong in jail for what they say he did. He does not

belong in among the murderers, rapists and theives. What should I do or say

to make them release him...?

Kevin - Male - 14 - 16 - United States - 07/10/2001"


From ‘Ghost Tales’ by aBLcop:

"Not too long ago I was covering a shift for a guy I work with. My job was a desk job and to oversee some holding cells. Only one guy was in there {We will call him Tom}. He was arrested for violating parole. Since I never do this kind of job I was curious and pulled his arrest report and file to read it. Now I will throw in a few errors of fact, but they won't take from the story. It is so neither one of us can be traced.

He's 32yo he was arrested when he was 29yo, three years ago for sucking off a 14yo boy. The boys name will be "John Boy". The report says how John his neighbor came to his door and Tom carried him to his upstairs bed room and did what he did. He served 3 years in prison and was released on parole. His arrest now was for violating parole which said he wasn't supposed to be around kids or work with them. His PO found him working in a counseling job with kids and keeping it a secret from him.

It was an overtime shift for me because of the national disaster. Many of the officers out in cars were busy listening to news on their radios. I spent half the shift talking to Tom. I told him "I see you were picked up for parole violation, what happened?" I guess he didn't think I had his whole file just his arrest record because he told me he wasn't supposed to see his girlfriend and he violated a restraining order and was picked up. I asked him what his original charges were and he said "statutory Rape" and was quick to add "I was 18 and 'she' was 16, but she lied about her age to me"

I said, When you were 18 ?.. but you were arrested three years ago when you were 29"
He said It took a long time for it to go to trial
I also noticed he had a wedding band on, so I asked him if he was married when it happened. He said he got married to a childhood friend right after it happened and he was awaiting trial.

Now I’m not that stupid I know that people don’t go to trial 11 years after their charges {unless you are a Kennedy relative} I have spent my entire career so far avoiding investigations and bls [=boy lovers] in the system so this was a rare occasion for me to work this kind of job and have custody of this guy. I was curious if this guy was what I'd call a boylover or a sex offender. I did know he sucked off a 14yo when he was 29.

I said to him, look, I'm here for 9 hours you are here for longer. Anything you say to me wont make a difference because your parole is already violated. If you feel like company, how about we make a deal, You tell me what happened straight-up and I won’t sit in judgment and treat you with respect"?
He said ok, So I said I know about John
His eyes dropped to the floor and he said "Did you know his family or something ?" I told him I didn’t, but I knew the whole story about that case and asked what his side of things were. First he told me "I'm not a diddler, I was just confused at the time and though I was gay. He said that the boy was really quite big and had the pysich of a man.

Ill try to record our conversation as I remember it. There is a lot of thing that you can get from this. It shows how badly bls [= boy lovers] in the system are treated, the levels they have to go to to protect themselves and how badly some of them are in need of support.

Blcop- so how did you know this kid?

Tom- He was my neighbor

Blcop- He didn’t just come to your door and you took him into your bedroom!

Tom- No I knew him for two years but I know that doesn’t excuse me destroying his life, I was the adult I know that

Blcop- Did you force him?

Tom- No, he came over to help me with a couple things around the house and I noticed he was excited

Blcop- Excited?

Tom- I could see he was hard through his pants so I mentioned something about it, and he made a favorable comment about it and I did it right there behind my front door. He lied in his statement saying I carried him to the bedroom and wrote me a letter in prison saying he was sorry, but the DA told him to say that, said it would look more like seduction.

Blcop- That doesn’t surprise me. So he was a friend of yours right. How long did you know the kid, and if you didn’t force him to do anything, how come he told and you ended up in prison?

Tom- I don’t know the circumstances of what happened I was just arrested two weeks after. We were good friends for two years He was like the son or brother I never had I took him to ball games, camping, to the races, I helped his parents out. His dad didn’t have shit to do with him and his mom was always fucking around with different guys. His parents didn't give a shit about him.

Blcop- So did he seem to mind what you did?

Tom- No, in fact he was coming around after like it was no big deal and we were still close

Blcop- So did you love him or something?

Tom- No man ! Like I said I'm not a diddler. I like women. I was just confused like an identity crisis thing.

Blcop- Well if you married during your court time and you’ve been in jail for three years, then you and your wife don’t really have a real relationship I bet. You sure you didn’t just do that to have a wedding ring to wear to cover up that you like boys?

Now he hesitates and he looks like he want to cry

Blcop- Hey man its not a big deal to me even if you are a diddler, woundn't be the first time I talked to one gross irony for me here. Just tell me the truth, have I called you names or been less than honest with you?

Tom- No

BLcop- Have I made any judgments of you or made you feel bad?

Tom- No, .. its just I haven't told the truth about this in a lot of years

Blcop- Do you think you ruined his life by what you did?

Tom- No

Blcop- What was said about it in court

Tom- It didn’t go to court cause I pleaded so he wouldn’t have to testify

Blcop- I may be more open-minded about these things than most cops, but I know some 15yos can be very mature, while I know some 50yos who are infantile, further I know it’s illegal but it sound to me like maybe he didn’t mind what was going on, and then I cant ignore that in some cultures 13yo get married and have sex. You ever think about finding John and talking to him about it?

Tom- I have but I’m married now and she just thinks I had mental problems and was confused at the time

Blcop- That’s what you told me basically, so if you like boys just say so

Tom- I guess I do.

He begins to cry

Tom- It feels so good to finally talk about this- shakes his head - .. I cant believe to a fucking cop

We both give a half smile.

Tom- Oh shit, you have to promise me you wont tell anyone about our conversation

Blcop- Under one condition

Tom- What?

Blcop- 'You' don’t tell anyone about our conversation, I'm a cop, remember.

Tom- Of course, thanks man

Blcop- One more question, one that I already asked before

Tom- Anything

Blcop- Did you love him ?

Tom- he chokes, and cries bitterly - Yes ! God yes, he was my world

I turned my head to leave quickly, said over my shoulder to him that I thought I heard someone at the desk.

Its been a sad week for all of us

From the GC forum:

[=Girl (lovers'?) Chat]

Dear Infinity -

Although, I have just recently gotten back on this board after about seven months, I've read many of your posts, and they've all been so thoughtful, sweetly intense, and they've contributed tons! It would be a shame if you decided to leave, but like Eeyore said too, sometimes it's better to take a little break. To not get so wraped up into a life on-line, where things are real ... but not that real. It's nice to know that you have friends in such a place though ... that's always comforting.

I know I'm not as young as the girls you talk about, but I am a girl who's under 18. It might be true that little girls don't really know what they're doing in such situations, but if they are consenting to it, they know how their body is feeling. True, maybe they're just trying to do what they think is pleasing you. They're doing what you've been taught them (about relationships, about love ... but in a simpler sense), and if they haven't been brainwashed by their parents or society yet, then this is not wrong to them. Little kids can love someone just as they love their parents. It's the kind of "fluffy" love, but it's still love.

Anyway, I apologize if this didn't make very much sense or if I have any of my facts wrong. I don't know much about the inner workings of a little girl's mind, but from my heart, most girls aren't just playing along, hoping that what their doing is making you happy. If they enjoy it, and keep coming back, then it could be love, especially if the man sets an example or helps her to understand what she is going through/feeling ... I think all of that is true, if however, it is a relationship with more than just sex. I guess this applies more for girls who are like eight and older though. Because I know when I was eight, I could definitely think for myself. Of course I have grown older like almost all kids do, but I had desires when I was eight ... just like everyone else.

Love always,


To conclude, bearing in mind what I have said, paedophilia needs to be understood by the wider public so that young paedophiles can be allowed self esteem and to better. understand their budding sexuality. 

If it is understood then children and adults who engage in paedophilic relationships would not have to carry the fear of being discovered, and such relationships could flourish in healthy surroundings free from the confusion of repression and persecution. 

Society needs to change to be free of pointless taboo and to embrace paedophilia as well as all consensual sexualities. This would also enable parents to better monitor their child’s relationship if it is not hidden, so that molesters can be routed out from the paedophiles. 

Also, it will give children a better understanding of sexual matters, so that puberty will not feel as though they’ve been thrown in the deep end with no prior knowledge. Keeping children artificially apart from their sexual instincts is a form of child abuse. It will in a way be a benefit for society. Children with a knowledge of sex will be better able to recognize sexually manipulative situations as well, and can learn to resist them. On top of all this, paedophiles who want nothing more than to love children will not run the risk of loosing their jobs, their friends, and facing suicide.

Look out for Part 3, on the child abuse industry, ‘professional’ assumptions and the true psychology of the paedophile.


Vorige Start Omhoog Volgende