Monday, April 13, 2015

Pro-contact and anti-contact pedophiles

There is among pedophiles a major division. The pro-contact pedophiles feel that adult-child sexual contact is fundamentally OK. The anti-contact pedophiles feel it is fundamentally not OK.

I am anti-contact, and it would be tempting to argue against an extreme and caricatured version of the pro-contact position, but not ultimately very helpful if the goal is understanding. I will describe the common pro-contact view in the most sympathetic and neutral terms I can.

The pro-contact view is about transforming society. They feel society should repeal laws prohibiting adult-child sexual activity and change its attitudes so that it is accepted. They feel that people's revulsion would go away if they were educated on the subject.

Proponents are not in favor of sexual activity unless the child is willing. They recognize that lots of children don't want to engage in sexual activity and assume (feeling it goes without saying) that this choice must be honored. They believe some kids are willing, and this willingness is consent that should also be honored. Prepubescent kids may not understand sex in the same way as adults, but they understand it in their own terms and that is enough. Proponents oppose anything that would be physically damaging or painful for the child, and so they oppose penetrative sex involving prepubescents. Many think primarily of the case where there is a preexisting relationship of friendship and deep caring.

So, if you have set aside your gut-level revulsion at the very idea of adult-child sex, this is a more reasonable position that needs serious rebuttal.

The anti-contact position hardly needs an explanation. It is what just about everyone in society believes. Prepubescent children just aren't inherently interested in sex, they don't understand it, they are likely to regret it later, adult pedophiles have the power to manipulate or coerce them into it as a secret activity, etc. However, no position deserves acceptance just because it is widely believed. Some widely believed opinions on the subject are wrong, for instance that all children involved in such activity are profoundly damaged and traumatized. In upcoming posts I will show why some of the arguments associated with the anti-contact position are wrong, leaving the few that really stand up to scrutiny -- they are enough.

Evaluating the merits of the pro-contact and anti-contact positions is complicated and will be the subject of many posts.


  1. No, there is no major division. You might consider yourself anti-contact, but that does not mean that everybody else who does not conform to your ideals, is the exact opposite. Pedophiles are a diversity and it is wrong to sort them into 2 boxes.

    I'm not sharing your view, that adult-child sexual contact is FUNDAMENTALLY not ok. But i'm not sharing the view that adult-child sexual contact is FUNDAMENTALLY ok either. So what am I, Mr. Virtuous Pedophile?

    Children don't have the experience adults have. For them the term sexuality is void of any content. The related term intimacy is important. Children want and need intimacy, and they need to be treated with respect including respect for their opinion and wishes. If i want to change society, then it is with respect to the emancipation of children. This is a view shared by many i encountered in discussion. This is a point i'm missing in your "fundamentally ok" distinction.

  2. "Intimacy" is a word that covers a lot of ground. Of course children deserve affection, understanding, physical touch that they want, etc. I have my doubts about the wisdom of romantic intimacy, though making it illegal is probably going too far. Sexual intimacy is going too far. As I see it, the key question pertains to the limits of the emancipation of children. No one wants to emancipate toddlers to have the freedom to cross streets exactly when they want. Anti-contact pedophiles also do not grant the freedom to small children to consent to sexual activity with adults. It is the adult who is liable for the penalty. At some age the child crosses the line into the ability to consent.

    The world can always be sorted into categories in all various ways. This pro-contact/anti-contact distinction is important to me and I think to society. If you believe small children should be emancipated to allow them to choose sexual activity with adults (and thereby hold the adults harmless against later regret, for instance), then I would say that indicates a pro-contact view.

  3. The toddler argument is more of a red herring than a strawman!

  4. My stance on the contact issue is this. I believe the harm is irrelevant Child sexual abuse is a crime of intent, not a crime of action.

    If you spank a child, or look at their genitals, and you do it to achieve sexual gratification, you are committing child sexual abuse...Anything done to a child for sexual purposes is sexual abuse. Children are not there to be a sex object.

    With the issue of harm, I would have to say that the pedophile is biased in that respect. They don't want the child to be harmed. They want the child to enjoy the abuse.

    That is my position on the subject. I am a hardline anti-contact pedophile. Child sexual abuse is never okay. It is always wrong. It is always immoral.