Sunday, July 6, 2014

Fundamental Beliefs

Child sexual abuse is wrong. Just plain wrong. Dead wrong. When I read about it, my stomach turns. It is especially horrible when a child is brutalized, or when a stepfather coerces his stepdaughter into sex for years at a time. Less extreme cases are also highly repulsive. For instance, in the most benign scenario, sometimes a child is genuinely affectionate towards a friend of the family. He then introduces sexual touching into their relationship, and maybe she doesn't object, or says it is OK or even enjoys it. Those make my stomach turn too. She is likely to be harmed when she later learns the broader context for what happened.

Those views would not be in the least bit remarkable if I weren't also romantically and sexually attracted to small girls. I have never done anything inappropriate with a child, and I never will. It is unthinkable. But I do feel the attraction. 

What should I call this side of myself? I wish there were a better term, but the most accurate one available is "pedophile". I will probably devote a full entry or more of this blog to the term -- its original meaning, its newer meanings, and all the connotations and baggage that follow. I qualify for the original meaning: A strong, persistent sexual attraction to prepubescent children. I will immediately put "celibate" in front of it. "Celibate pedophile", to deny the worst misunderstandings. I am attracted to children, but never act sexually with children. There are a lot of us celibate pedophiles, and we are seriously misunderstood.

I am more than celibate, however. Many  <NAMBLA> members are celibate, for fear of legal repercussions, or for fear of what the legal system and social services will do to a boy if it discovers a sexual relationship. But unlike them, I do not seek to change society so that adult-child sexual activity is more accepted. I don't want that change and would speak against it if it ever became a subject for serious debate.

These are my twin defining sides: Number one, a revulsion towards and total rejection of any adult-child sexual activity -- it is called child sex abuse. Number two, a romantic and sexual attraction to small girls.

To some this sounds like a contradiction, but it is not. Others may accept the two sides but think it implies that I hate myself. I do not.

I am one of two co-founders of <Virtuous Pedophiles>. Since the site went live in June of 2012, I have been handling the bulk of the email correspondence. The experience has shaped my views of pedophilia and given me a unique perspective on the subject.

3 comments:

  1. This is a nice way to explain things. I too am attracted to children, though it's certainly not something I would have ever asked for. No one would choose to be so hated and vilified. I think that most people don't understand that what we feel for children is in addition to everything else that anyone has. All of the paternal protective instincts mix right in with the sexual ones. Everyone feels revulsion at the abuse of a child. In some cases, for some people, this revulsion can cause such a deep seated self loathing (by proxy, even if no abuse exists) that can be difficult to crawl out of.

    Just so everyone out there knows, Ethan and Nick started the first anti-contact community ever, and their contributions to prevent child abuse are very real, albeit highly unorthodox.

    From personal experience, suppressing my sexuality by pretending it doesn't exist bleeds out in unexpected and potentially dangerous ways. It is so much easier to deal with a problem when you're looking at it directly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Many of these things are very cultural. While my fundamental beliefs are remarkably different, I am also anti-contact and support the current protection age of 16 years of age.

    ReplyDelete
  3. meh. "Child sexual abuse is wrong"

    anyone but a sociopath would agree with that. the question is: does sexual conduct with children constitute abuse? to insist this is necessarily true is drawing a long bow.

    for instance, the scenario presented in sue miller's novel "The good mother" is a useful test case. Is the child in that story sexually abused? I believe not. Are the child and her mother abused by the state and the law? Quite obviously.

    The child's welfare must always be central. If the official response to sexual conduct damages a child, while the conduct the itself is benign, then it is the official that is the abuser, whatever the law might say.

    ReplyDelete