Saturday, December 30, 2017

Q&A from a HereticTOC thread

There is a thread in Tom O'Carroll's blog criticizing Virtuous Pedophiles. Several questions in the later comments were directed at me, but I no longer felt comfortable answering them in that blog. So I'm answering them here. I welcome replies here to continue discussion about them.


@Ethan Confused Edwards You accept ‘close-in-age expectations’ I am only assuming, why? Please explain what makes it positively different from age disparient ones. I hear this seldom by anti individuals and they never offer any reason, so assess to me why.

In this post I set the stage with many things I suspect you'll agree with.

In this post I explain why age-discrepant relationships warrant different treatment. It's a matter of competing costs and benefits, not some grand moral absolute.


Mr. Ethan Confused Edwards, How on earth is sexual activity even remotely related to smoking crystal meth? Like really? I have heard some dumb comparisons from antis and anti contacts, mostly from the former, but this is really taking the cake on being dumber than virtually all of comparisons made by dolts on the internet. (aka antis)

This question is in reply to a post I made on GirlChat: . You can search for "crystal meth".

I raised it in a particular context to make a particular point.

I was reacting to "Whether we should allow children the freedom of to choose where to invest their energies is the point of contention." This is a fairly strong children's rights view. I personally think adults rightly put limits on some children's behavior. My reply was, "I wonder if you'd feel any impulse to intervene when a child chooses crystal meth or heroin." I hoped to get the reader's support that a prohibition on children using crystal meth would make sense. It makes a person feel good and energetic. Lots of adults enjoy taking it for extended periods. I presume kids would react the same way. In those respects it is comparable to sex (though partner sex for kids is typically far less exciting). But it is addictive and has long-term negative effects. IF you accept that children having sex may have long-term negative effects (even if they are willing), then it seems to me that the situations are parallel. Arguing the long-term effects is a different part of the discussion.

So if you think it is a ridiculous comparison, I put the ball in your court to explain what is ridiculous about it.


I once read an article about VPs, describing some of their recruits; the latter were basically people who had been addicted to CP and were struggling to overcome it. It reminded me of Alcoholics Anonymous. Often people who have emerged with efforts out of an addiction become more puritanical about drugs than those who did not fall into addiction in the first place.

This may be true, but I'm not sure what the point is. When I hear people anguished about CP consumption, it usually does contain a strong element of self-hatred. But there are excellent legal reasons to abstain from looking at CP, which would apply whether a person is morally bothered by it or not.

I also noticed that some VP leaders said to be attracted to little girls aged around 4 or 6, a very young age at which consent cannot be informed.

I'm the prime example of this. I try to keep the older kids in mind too and think I mostly succeed. Yet some pro-legalization people think kids that young can consent. They know whether something feels good or not, so why not? That's the argument.

My ultimate fall-back position is, "Let the ordinary folks (teleiophiles) decide the appropriate age of consent." It's a matter of trade-offs and statistical patterns, not some absolute morality. It's easy to imagine that in some far future they would say 12-year-olds can give valid consent while 4-year-olds cannot. I understand that.

I guess that there are not many “virtuous” hebephiles, since in reality a 11-year-old can normally understand basic sexual information.

There are a great many hebephiles in VP. They presumably disagree with you that understanding basic sexual information is the criterion for adult-child sex being OK.

(cf. the studies on mentally handicapped adults, those who succeed in validating their sexual education and are thus judged competent, have in average a mental age of 10.5).

This is an interesting comparison group. A big difference is that the adults typically will have a strong sex drive, and the question pertains to whether their life-long experience will include sex or not. I suspect I would support a more lax standards for such adults.


If someone – say, VirPeds – still fails to comprehend that the war on (pro-contact) MAPs is actually the war on (sexually active) kids, there is some more info to consider.

There is a strong temptation in any argument for people to latch onto the most extreme views of their opponents. I hold a much more moderate view. I fully agree that there is a sex panic and would like to end it. Criminalizing selfies is terrible, as are making sex play between children of similar age illegal, or calling a kid under age 12 a sex offender as if he was an adult. Also terrible are sex offender registries, mandated reporting, residency restrictions, and civil commitment. As are criminal penalties that are far harsher than for other crimes that cause similar harm. But I'm against making adult-child sex legal. Good policy draws the line somewhere.

... authors who are smart enough to acknowledge the absurdity and atrocity of the CONSEQUENCES of the child and intergenrational sexuality supression, such as Satanic Panic or modern teen sexting panic, are still unable (or, maybe, unwilling? or just afraid?) to recognise this very supression as the CAUSE of these consequenses. Without accepting – and eliminating – the cause, fighting consequences is an endless and hopeless struggle.

You are implying some sort of inherent unity in this suppression -- all or nothing -- and I don't see any evidence for that.


In the discussion about the VirPeds on the GirlChat, initiated by my post accusing them of defeatism, another post on the topic was made by me – yet too late, since the debate were ending already. So, it was left largely unnoticed – or, at least, not replied to.
It would be useful to provide a link to it here:
It is an attempt to describe the reasons why societal acceptance of consensual intergenerational sexuality will lead to decrease in real (not “statutory”) rape of children (as well as of adults).
What do you think about it?

My reaction in brief was that it was largely irrelevant. You address why actual pedophiles might be less likely to rape children. There are lots of details we could argue about. But the large majority of such rapes are done by non-MAPs, that is where I would expect to see the large increases due to a much wider "she changed her mind" defense, and as I recall nothing you say addresses that.

Sunday, July 9, 2017

Virtuous Pedophiles For Dummies

There are bad guys and there are OK guys.

There are guys who think kids are sexy and guys who think adults are sexy.

They're separate. There are four combinations and they all exist.

Bad guys who think adults are sexy are rapists.

OK guys who think adults are sexy are just about all the guys you meet.

Bad guys who think kids are sexy are child rapists and child sex abusers.

OK guys who think kids are sexy are -- completely invisible! If you think kids are sexy and you haven't gotten caught doing anything wrong, you wouldn't tell anyone about it, right?

You've only heard of three kinds of guys: the normal guys, the ones who rape adults, and the ones who molest kids. So all the pedophiles (ones who think kids are sexy) you've ever heard of are child molesters. Naturally you would think they are all molesters. But you'd be wrong, because the others are all hidden.

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Practical advice on "coming out"

Pedophiles often feel a desire to come out -- to have their sexuality known. Here are some practical considerations.

Coming out to the world at large is very risky today for most people. But coming out to individuals is possible if done carefully.

One thing to consider is that you are placing a burden on the person you tell. If you expect them to keep this a secret, then they have to be alert to what they say to others -- to constantly monitor themselves. People who care about you a great deal should be willing to take on this burden. But consider this cost if you consider telling people who aren't so important to you.

Sound the person out first for how they feel about pedophiles who don't offend. You could give them a link to the Virtuous Pedophiles, or any of a number of sympathetic articles and ask them what they think.

Be prepared for the question, "What, are you a pedophile?" Practice a smooth "No" or "No way!" You have just as much right to say "no" as a closeted Jew living in Hitler's Germany in 1944 when asked if he was Jewish. You will surely want to use this answer if the person's reaction to the concept of celibate pedophiles was disbelief and recommending a bullet to the brain. It's a good idea to practice this even if you're not planning to come out.

It helps a lot if the person has known you a long time. They then know your character and can intuitively feel that you're not the sort of person who would molest children. If you have known your soul-mate (romantic or platonic) only a few weeks, then they know far less of your history.

People are worried that pedophiles molest children. To the extent you have children in your life, your bar should be higher on telling people. If you are the special uncle who takes camping trips alone with your niece or nephew, even people who knows you well are likely to become alarmed, even if you know nothing bad could ever happen.

Of course, if you are in serious danger of molesting a child or are molesting a child, then the situation is entirely different and beyond the scope of this post. Obviously, don't do it, and if you are doing it, stop immediately! If you can't within your current life, consider moving a thousand miles away. There are circumstances where turning yourself in to police would be the right thing to do.

It's tempting to write a long confession and hand it over instead of telling. If you really need to come out to someone and that's the only way you can do it, then I can't condemn it. But if at all possible, tell them face to face. If not, use the phone. Text messages, emails, and pieces of paper are all hard evidence. If your judgment turns out to be wrong and the person decides to "out" you to others, don't give them clear proof to show others.

One special category to consider is <romantic partners>. It is understandable if you want to get this out of the way early because you don't want to invest in a relationship which they might well end once they learn your secret. But here it is especially important not to leave any evidence. People are often hurt when romantic relationships break up. We've heard of revenge porn. You don't want their revenge to be outing you as a pedophile. If all the person can do is talk, then you can deny it and others will consider that your ex may be making it up for revenge purposes. If they have hard evidence you're sunk.

Another special category is psychotherapists. You need to be aware of <mandated reporting laws>. Once again, it is best to sound them out on the subject before admitting anything. "I understand what I say here is confidential. What are the circumstances when I might say something and you wouldn't keep it confidential?" If you live or work with children there is a higher risk, especially if you admit any attraction to them.

Finally, try to judge your desperation. It's true that if you've made a plan for suicide, it's better to tell someone who maybe can maybe help you out despite the risks. But don't post it on Facebook. Still use your judgment and start with one or two carefully selected people before you are truly desperate.

I'm not a professional and cannot give professional advice. But the advice is based on online communication with hundreds of pedophiles and my life experience.

Monday, March 6, 2017

The IQ deficit of pedo abusers may not transfer to the celibate

Research on pedophiles has suggested that <we differ from ordinary people in a variety of non-flattering ways> . The implications of being short or left-handed are obvious and not very serious for a person's self-concept. But IQ is more central to a person's self-worth, and the claimed deficit bothers some pedophiles a great deal.

Researchers cannot locate non-offending pedophiles in sufficient numbers to support research studies, as most of us go to great lengths to stay hidden. Instead, they are limited to looking at sex offenders and comparing those who are attracted to children with those attracted to adults. We might expect criminals (and criminals who are caught) to be less intelligent than the average person, but by comparing criminals to criminals, the researchers control for that. If pedophilic sex offenders are less intelligent than teleiophilic sex offenders, then we would expect that non-offending pedophiles would also be less intelligent than non-offending teleiophiles. The burden of proof falls on those who would deny this extension to offer some relevant difference.

I have a suggestion: Pedophiles who become offenders may have an imagination deficit, and imagination is strongly correlated with IQ.

Some scientists observed that while non-human animals do sometimes masturbate, only humans seem to masturbate to orgasm. The speculation was that we humans can imagine a scenario of sex in our minds that is compelling enough to cause orgasm. There are also significant differences within humans in the ability to construct compelling images.

Next consider why people commit hands-on sex crimes. In general, a large number are explained by some form of psychopathy combined with desire and a lack of self-control. This would be true of pedophiles and teleiophiles both. That's the population that is common to both.

Consider teleiophiles who do care to some extent about the well-being of the adult women they would like to have sex with. They can usually find willing adult women partners, or can engage the services of prostitutes. They can satisfy their desire for sex directly.

Pedophiles do not have these options -- they cannot find consenting child partners, and prepubescent child prostitutes are also hard to find and carry a legal risk far beyond that of engaging an adult prostitute. Nonetheless, they have a strong sex drive, and some people will satisfy it in illegal ways.

I claim that more intelligent pedophiles will be more likely to find legal substitutes that are somewhat satisfying. They can masturbate to an imagined attractive child and be less likely to offend against a child. The offenders against children will be disproportionately those who are less intelligent.

Pornography would present an intermediate case. Teleiophiles have access to a wide variety of legal pornography, and looking at it will not make them a sex offender. Being caught with child porn will make a pedophile a sex offender. The better the imagination, the better satisfied a pedophile could be with less extreme pictures or with legal pictures. So pedophiles who get significantly more sexual satisfaction from CP than from imagination would be more likely to download it and get caught downloading it (and maybe also less likely to properly use measures like TOR). The <Diamond et al studies> suggest that the availability of CP reduces hands-on crime against children, and that would fit with this picture -- pedophiles will substitute looking at CP for hands-on offenses against children.

One of my fellow Virtuous Pedophiles members summarized my idea like this: "More child abusers on average offend because they're not intelligent enough to fantasize fulfillingly. Whereas teleiophilic rapists on average offend for some reason other than inability to fantasize, because they wouldn't have to fantasize anyway; they could just have legal sex. What you end up with is the teleiophilic offenders being on average more intelligent than the paedophilic offenders but not necessarily higher than non-offending paedophiles who would have on average benefitted from a better imagination and intelligence to help them not offend."

This hypothesis leads to a number of predictions.

One is that in studying sex offenders, a direct measure of imagination would also distinguish pedophiles from non-pedophiles and perhaps be even stronger than the IQ difference.

We might expect more remorse among child sex offenders than rapists of adult women, if there are fewer psychopaths in the mix.

If child rape went down in Japan, Denmark or Czechia when child porn became widely available, we could predict that the average IQ of the remaining child rapists would be lower, as only the least imaginative pedos were left without satisfying material (though this study would probably be impractical).

We could do a simple study of ordinary people asking for frequency of masturbation solely to fantasies in a person's mind compared to ones involving visual pornography and looking at the relationship to IQ.

We could also look for this effect in other cases where people are trying to be celibate -- teens from conservative religions, for instance. Would more intelligent ones be more likely to stay celibate? I found <this on the web>: "A 2000 Study by University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill concluded that more intelligent teenagers are more restrained about sex, and are much less sexually active on the whole than their less-intelligent classmates. In the experiment, 12,000 students between the 7th and 12th grades were polled (confidentially) about their sexual activity, and then given a basic intelligence test…."

Perhaps there are other crimes where imagination could substitute somewhat for the benefit of the crime, and we could look for an imagination difference there too.

At a subjective level, we pedophiles might observe this in ourselves too, perhaps varying over time -- feeling more temptation if our imagination fails us.

I am not especially bothered by the IQ deficit in pedophiles, and believe resolving it is a scientific question. My suggestion is made within a scientific framework, it makes testable predictions, and it can be evaluated scientifically.

The other deficits pedophiles have suggest that something went wrong in the brains of many pedophiles by an early age, and that makes an IQ deficit likely too, so I expect my hypothesis would at best explain part of the effect.