NOTE: This is a chapter from my book ‘Born in the Right Body‘, and it is based on my 2019 critique of “virtuous paedophiles” activism.

Pro-paedophilia activism has always been a problem on the internet. The dark corners where men who seek to abuse children meet and organise, are not rare in such a vast digital space. The little regulation that does exist can easily be evaded by locating servers in places where laws are lax or by relocating servers while the content remains live. 

Paedophiles are notorious for operating in secret. They meet up – either in real life or online – to share fantasies, child sexual abuse (CSA) content and tips on how to procure victims. They also traffic children away from prying eyes. 

Paedophiles are relentless in trying to legitimise their proclivities and are experts in the grooming of adults, particularly those in positions of power or authority such as parents, therapists, prison staff and even politicians. 

Throughout history, paedophiles have found ways to legitimise their abuse. Here are a few examples:

• pederasty in Ancient Greece, which allowed adult men to sexually enslave and exploit boys. (The Free Library, 2014)
• “Bachabaze” in Afghanistan, which allows wealthy men to sexually abuse boy dancers as young as 12 (Quobil, 2010)
• rape of boys by adult warriors as an initiation ritual of the Sambia tribe in Papua New Guinea (Anderson, 2018)
• UK government-sanctioned Paedophile Information Exchange (De Castella & Heyden, 2014)
• Berlin authorities deliberately placing homeless children with known paedophiles, under the assumption that these child molesters would be “ideal foster parents” (Deutsche Welle, 2020)
• The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), which still campaigns to allow paedophiles to sexually exploit children (DeYoung, 1989)
• Child abusers such as priests, politicians and celebrities, who were not only tolerated but were actively protected by the authorities and those around them (Laville et al, 2013).

Paedophilia, or a sexual disorder in which an adult, or older adolescent, is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to prepubescent children, is found almost exclusively in men. Therefore, it is unsurprising that paedophilia has been particularly pernicious and difficult to stamp out. We live in a patriarchy, which prioritises male sexual desires and other privileges above all else. Enabling men with sexual perversions is part and parcel of living in such a system. 

One of the enduring myths about paedophilia is that it is a “sexual orientation like any other”. On this basis, some have argued that paedophilia should be “destigmatised” and that paedophiles should be included under the LGBT+ umbrella. 

Is paedophilia a sexual orientation?

Paedophiles, just like anyone else, already have a sexual orientation depending on whether they are sexually attracted to members of the same sex (homosexual), opposite sex (heterosexual) or both sexes (bisexual). Sexual orientation, by itself, is not abusive. What is abusive is when sexual activity is inflicted on someone who either didn’t, or couldn’t, consent. 

One of the primary purposes of sexual activity is sexual reproduction, which occurs between males and females. This is why heterosexual orientation is the most common. However, because there are other benefits to sexual intercourse besides reproduction – such as pleasure and bonding – homosexuality and bisexuality, are also natural, albeit minority, sexual orientations.

It needs to be said that sexual coercion in humans, like in all primates, is not uncommon. To mitigate this, some primates have evolved to require female orgasm for conception. In this way, females ensure that they are in charge of mate selection, even when stronger males rape them. Unfortunately, this is not the case in humans and, throughout history, men have been able to sexually coerce or trick women and girls into sexual intercourse, in order to pass on their genes.

In this era of overpopulation, it is easy to forget how long humans have struggled to produce enough offspring to overcome high mortality rates. However, the argument that rape – by violence or deception – is a good method to ensure the survival of the human species has never been convincing. 

Women, like men, are born with a biological imperative to procreate and they are instinctively equipped to choose males that have a chance of producing the fittest offspring, either due to superior/compatible genetics or a willingness to help raise the young. Taking this choice away from a woman undermines the basic process of mate selection and ultimately works against the survival of the species. 

Selfish males who sexually coerce women seldom make good fathers and providers. Their violence, neglect, and abandonment create significant psychological and physical trauma, which is passed on to the next generation, creating a cycle of despair and destructiveness.  

Therefore, while our patriarchal culture assumes that the way our society had developed in the context of endemic male violence must have been “for the best”, it is equally if not more likely that the effects of this (such as neglect, abandonment and violence directed at women and children) has created a society stuck in a self-perpetuating cycle of destructiveness.

Paedophilia is even further removed from a sane evolutionary strategy than the rape of women is, because it serves no biological imperative whatsoever. Prepubescent children can neither produce offspring nor cope with being sexually exploited by adults. They, overwhelmingly, suffer in such encounters and they and their caregivers need to be tricked, deceived and coerced to submit to the abusers. Even more than adult rape, child sexual abuse traumatises and harms the victims, and it causes severe physical and psychological injuries that are rarely seen in any other context. Therefore, while it’s hard to comprehend how a man can derive pleasure from rape, it is even more incomprehensible how he can find pleasure in sexually assaulting a defenceless child. 

One aspect that could possibly be explored is the fact that research suggests rapists and paedophiles are plagued by intrusive sexual abuse fantasies and strong, almost irresistible, compulsions to act on them. The discrepancy between paedophiles who seek treatment before they offend, and the sheer number of child sexual abuse victims, makes it unlikely, however, that obsessions and compulsions alone are the salient feature of paedophilia. Instead, I see sexual sadism, lack of empathy and narcissistic entitlement as core drivers, which makes paedophilia a criminal predisposition rather than a sexual orientation. 

Child sex dolls and the myth of the “virtuous paedophile” 

In 2019, one of the biggest platforms where pro-paedophilia activism has thrived – Tumblr – introduced new rules regarding sexually explicit content. This caused a mass migration of paedophiles, or MAPs (“minor attracted persons”), to Twitter and other social media platforms. Familiar with the old trope of a violent and obviously creepy paedophile, the readers were suddenly faced with well-groomed images of the “virtuous paedophile”, a tortured and conflicted man who claims to have never harmed a child and who is begging society to allow him to pacify his intrusive, unwanted child abuse fantasies in “safer” ways. These ways never seem to include voluntary incarceration or chemical castration. Instead, these men and their enablers are proposing online support groups for paedophiles, unfettered access to child sex dolls and child sexual abuse content, and the inclusion of paedophiles into the LGBT+ community.

It’s not just the average, uninformed person who risks falling for the paedophile sob story. Paedophile rights are being championed by some reputable professionals, who may be very pleasant and empathetic when discussing the difficult predicament paedophiles find themselves in, but are quick to accuse women who question them, of “moral panic” and “ideologically driven rants” (Harper, 2018).

In my discussions with “virtuous paedophile” activists, I have found that they angrily demand citations which prove that “virtuous” paedophiles, child abuse images and child sex dolls are harmful to children. When the evidence is provided (Meridian et al, 2011; Pessimism about pedophilia. There is no cure, so the focus is on protecting children, 2010; Brown & Shelling, 2019), they either refuse to believe it, dismiss the source or shift the goalposts, never answering difficult questions that would make most people stop and consider the pitfalls of what they’re promoting.

“Virtuous paedophile” advocates also like to assert their authority and claim that “most therapists agree with them” (which is demonstrably untrue), that they are “entirely free of bias” (yeah, right) and that they should be the sole authority in conversations about the dangerousness of paedophiles. In contrast to their assertions, I have found them to be professionally disinterested in discussing the harms child sexual abuse inflicts on victims. They have no answer, either, for the fact that pornography and child sexual abuse images have existed for centuries, and that this has done nothing to reduce the numbers of children who are being sexually exploited by adults, which remains at endemic levels throughout the world. 

The sense I got was that they believed they were pioneers and on the cutting edge of their fields, while their opponents were conservative and ignorant. 

In reality, the idea that paedophiles should be enabled to satisfy their urges in “safer” ways isn’t revolutionary at all. The belief that a man not being able to orgasm in whatever way he wants is a tragedy, and something – no matter how drastic – must be done about it, is in fact the bread and butter of male supremacy. To this end, men have created prostitution, pornography, sex dolls and even the oppression of women, which includes expectation that women will do whatever it takes to satisfy male sexual urges, and take responsibility for male sexual offending. 

This approach has the same effect on eradicating rape and child sexual abuse as pouring gasoline has on putting out a fire. It gives people an opportunity to say that they did something, even if they have to avert their eyes from the results of their intervention. 

Paedophilia treatment programmes

There is an argument for scientific curiosity in all this, of course. Clinicians have vowed to try and help anyone who is suffering, regardless of who, or what, they are and a degree of empathy is warranted even for those who are a threat to others, because they did not ask to be “born this way”. 

I might think that allowing paedophiles to use child sex dolls for practice runs of their molestation fantasies is a supremely stupid and dangerous idea, but there is a way to scientifically interrogate that hypothesis. For example, by doing a study on incarcerated paedophiles, who would be given supervised access to child sex dolls so that the effect on their fantasies and risk could be assessed in a controlled environment and without endangering children. Experimentation on prisoners might be prohibited for all kinds of ethical reasons, but the alternative – free sale of child sex dolls – is even more unethical, considering the potential harms.

So far, and not for the lack of trying, paedophilia is considered incurable and treatments that focus on harm prevention, such as chemical castration, incarceration and supervision in the community, work best to reduce risk to children. 

On the other hand, group therapy for sex offenders has shown to increase that risk.

In the UK, the Ministry of Justice suspended the Core Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP) in 2017, after it was shown that it led to more reoffending. Offering group therapy and psychological help to high risk sex offenders, whilst a reasonable idea on the surface, showed that “group treatment may ‘normalise’ individuals’ behaviour. When stories are shared, their behaviour may not be seen as wrong or different; or at worst, contacts and sources associated with sexual offending may be shared.” (Casciani, 2017)

There might be some modest evidence for the benefit of various psychotherapies such as psychoanalysis, cognitive-behavioural therapy, aversion therapy or even attempts to redirect the sexual focus of paedophiles to more appropriate targets, such as adult women. I don’t see how inflicting men who are aroused by sexually abusing non-consenting partners, onto women who are already vulnerable to physical and sexual abuse by men, is safe or progressive at all. Furthermore, I am concerned that some paedophile treatment centres are enabling abusers, due to policies to not report clients who disclose a past history of abusing children, and even in cases of clients disclosing current plans to harm a child, contacting authorities is seen as the last resort (Smith, 2021).

If our aim is to reduce harm to children, and free paedophiles from the fantasies and compulsions that drive them to sexually abuse children,  it is hardly an unreasonable leap of logic to say it is dangerous to encourage them to organise via online clubs and support groups, where they can share their fantasies, experiences and child abuse images. Indeed, doing this and then providing them with extremely realistic looking, yet completely passive and compliant, child sex dolls, would in all probability increase rather than decrease their likelihood of offending. 

Does P belong in LGBTQ+?

Some paedophiles are low IQ individuals who suffer from sexual immaturity and poor impulse control. Others are intelligent and have made it their life’s work to find a way to make their fantasies a reality, and to do it without getting caught. When they are caught grooming, molesting, or using child abuse images, they protest their innocence despite all evidence to the contrary, claiming to be falsely accused and painting their victims as perpetrators. They also groom adults into ignoring red flags, which enables them to abuse children more easily.

Throughout history, paedophiles have taken advantage of the laws that allow men to gain unrestricted access to children – such as in the context of marriage, adoption, fostering and servitude. 

When applying for jobs, paedophiles typically don’t disclose their fantasies about child molestation or their history of offending, not because they “fear discrimination” but because they fear being denied access to children. 

Any pedophile who has insight into the potential dangerousness of his fantasies, and the compulsion to translate them into real-life acts, wouldn’t apply for a job that brings him into close contact with children in the first place. However, despite all the talk about “virtuous” and “non-offending” pedophiles and ongoing attempts to reduce their risk of offending using various psychotherapies, many pedophiles gravitate toward professions that give them a cloak of respectability and access to children, such as judges, doctors, teachers, priests, social workers, and charity sector employees.

This is such a common way for paedophiles to procure victims that society has had to develop safeguarding frameworks in order to prevent anyone with paedophilic proclivities from working with children.

Imagine now if paedophiles were added to the LGBTQ+ rainbow and given the same rights and protections as gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-identifying people. For paedophiles, marriage equality means ability to marry children. Anti-discrimination employment laws would make refusing to employ a paedophile in a kindergarten a case of “discrimination based on sexual orientation”. Objecting to paedophilic proclivities could become a “hate crime” called “paedophobia”.

Pro-paedophilia activists also claim that anyone who opposes adults sexually exploiting children is being “ageist” and “denying children autonomy”. They assert that “not all sex with children is harmful”, and “if no harm has occurred then adults having sex with children should be legal”. These claims go hand in hand with portraying paedophiles as “misunderstood” and turning a blind eye to the coercive tactics they use to gaslight and discredit their victims.

The history of pro-paedophilia activism among postmodern theorists, who have birthed the “queer” and “gender identity” movements, has also led to the re-vitalisation of the pro-paedophilia movement. In a brilliant four-part series, a feminist historian known on social media as Dr EM, explored how postmodernists and queer theorists have variously supported lowering or abolishing the age of consent, legitimising “consensual sex” between adults and minors and the legalisation of child abuse images (Dr EM, 2019)

Queer theory, which is rooted in the transgression of boundaries, relativisation of evidence and the acceptance of self-identification “without exception”, has eroded existing safeguards. Children are being given puberty blockers, which are designed to arrest their development in the pre-pubertal stage, while institutions are telling us “when people tell you who they are believe them”, which includes men claiming to be women or even little girls (James, 2015). Sexual fetishes and sexually explicit content have been embraced during ostensibly child-friendly Pride parades. Incidents, such an employee of a child charity making rubber fetish videos at work, are now more likely to result in support than sanction from the employer (Bartosch, 2019).

With the LGBTQ+ movement already steeped in queer theory, the addition of paedophiles is unlikely to bode well for the safety and rights of children. A cursory glance at the pro-paedophilia activism content online, illustrates this in chilling detail. 

Paedophile manifesto

In 2018, Dr EM posted an insightful thread on twitter, analysing an anonymous Paedophile Manifesto titled After The Fall: A Beginner’s Guide to Destroying Pedophobia in the 21st Century. (Dr EM, 2018; Anonymous, 2015).

This manifesto is hosted on “Boy Wiki”, which describes itself as “an exciting opportunity for us, as boylovers, to record and preserve our own history, culture, and heritage. If it’s of interest to boylovers, it belongs on BoyWiki, so feel free to explore what we have to offer: you can read anything on the site without signing up, and most entries are freely redistributable under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License” (Boy Wiki, 2015).

In this manifesto, pro-paedophilia activists demonstrate various strategies – including forced teaming of their cause with LGB activism – they intend to use to groom and subvert society and its laws and norms.

I will now include some quotes from this terrifying document, to illustrate just how detailed and well thought-out these sinister strategies are. All emphasis in bold is mine.

From the outset, the manifesto likens paedophilia to same-sex attraction, claiming that, “as late as the 1970s adult-child relationships were no more controversial than same-sex ones” and they blame “conservative administrations” and “sex-negative radical feminists” for “restrictive bills that liken a serious crime (the abuse, rape and torture of children) to something completely harmless (nude photos)”.

They use linguistic sleight of hand to reframe the rational fear of paedophiles as “pedophobia” – by which they mean an “irrational fear or hatred of child sexuality” – and claim that “while pedophilia is natural, independently appearing in several modern and ancient societies across the world, pedophobia isn’t”.

They seek to expose children to adult sexual behaviour by creating a so-called “sex-positive society” where “clothes become the exception, not the rule because the only way to destigmatise the genitals is through frequent social nudity”. Once nudity is normalised, pro-paedophilia activists propose “adding another body” to normalise sexual activity in public. “The message needs to be pushed” they say “that you are every part of you, and every part is normal. It is ok to touch yourself or others in public (if you get the permission, of course!).”

They refer to this as a “cascading effect of loosening boundaries” which should eventually lead one “to respond to someone playing with themselves in the same way you would if you saw them eating a hamburger”.

In order to safeguard this “fragile” cascade, the manifesto instructs activists to encourage public support for those who go nude by referring to them as “brave” and “bold”, and they believe that “social media and advertising campaigns will play a large part in the push to make nudity normal”. 

However, ubiquitous nudism is not the endgame.

In the section titled Strategies For Acceptance: Psychological the author(s) propose a slow “boiling a frog” method to normalising paedophilia:

“We must seek realistic, common-sense reforms. On the surface, our appeal isn’t radical at all: Just treat sex like we treat any other activity, and require parental consent for children to engage in it. If something happens or the child catches an STD, we can hold the parents (and the one who transmitted it) liable…At the end of the day, what happens should be the child’s choice because it’s their body.”

“But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. We mustn’t shock and repel the public with the mental imagery of kind sex in the beginning of our campaign. Instead, wherever possible, pedosexuality must be reduced to an abstract question and vague feelings of love, kindness and nurturing.”

The word “kind” references the German word “kinder,” i.e. child. Therefore, the phrase “kind sex” refers to “child sex” while simultaneously utilising the meaning of the words “kind” and “kindness” in the English language.

The manifesto goes on to describe the process of grooming in disturbing detail:

“Dull the public sense of panic and fear whenever the subject of children and sexuality comes up. The principle behind this is clear. Any behaviour becomes more acceptable the more people talk about it or see their friends talking about it. This is accomplished by a large groundswell of open and furtive talk about pedosexuality in a natural or positive way….A chain reaction occurs where more and more people come out. Bring up your sexual orientation as much as possible in a humorous manner to break the ice…Discussion moves the idea from ‘unthinkable’ to ‘controversial’ in the Overton Window, and that’s one step toward ‘normal’.”

They advocate for widespread media campaigns about paedophile rights:

“Where you talk is important. Internet comment sections are helpful, but they aren’t places to have a debate…Better places to speak include local newspapers, magazines and television. While you won’t be able to openly support pedosexuality at first, you can support sex-positive and pro-nudity initiatives in your area.”

And they propose to exhaust the population as well as shame them about not being progressive enough:

“The main point is to talk about kindness until the issue becomes thoroughly exhausting. People should come to view being kind the same way they do liking a certain flavor of ice cream. The process of desensitization can be sped up by making comments which allude to the matter being settled when someone very emotive appears. ‘Dude, why do you care so much? It’s just sex.'”

“(In response to ‘children can’t consent’) ‘I’m so tired of this stupid myth still being spread around’ (link to a better source or explanation). ‘You’re behind the times. Nobody cares anymore.'”

Paedophiles are also advised to operate in groups, in order to give an illusion of mass support:

“Never go alone during desensitization efforts. Always bring backup. There’s nothing worse than being the only person in a comment section battling against hordes of bigots. If you see someone trying to fight ignorance online, don’t just stand there, help them out!'”

“Desensitization is important in real life too. You have to come out and be completely normal. If you live among straights in peace, while they might find you annoying they will eventually get used to you. Flooding culture in a wave of kind-positive advertising and media inevitably leads to changes in social values.”

They refer to the process of guilt-tripping, shaming and ostracising those who oppose child sexual abuse, as “jamming”:

“We want to shut down the thought process which leads to pedophobic remarks in the first place. Most of us know that people make those tough-guy statements for a quick shot of self-righteousness or social approval. ‘Jamming’ implies the addition of a second, mutually exclusive emotion. Guilt. Most people feel shame when they make a lame joke or say something deemed socially unacceptable. With enough jamming, the pedophobe’s mental state can be worn down to meagre acceptance.”

“The easiest way to ‘jam’ is to call out people who say prejudicial things. Tell them it’s not okay, make videos about it online. On youtube in particular, take the worst comments, do dramatic readings and laugh at them. When people see the ingroup rejecting their mean-spirited comments, most will stop saying them. Remember how calling things ‘gay’ used to be cool? Let’s do that for us.”

Young and hip people are an essential part of this strategy. They are to be manipulated to “call out the bigots”:

“Jamming is even more effective when a bigot sees people like him disapproving of his statement. If our target audience is young, teenage progressives, then pictures and videos must be made of hipsters ridiculing people making fun of kinds. If our target is parents, show parents AND children correcting them.”

Anyone opposed to child sexual abuse is to be ostracised:

“All we have to do is make pedophobes believe that they are unpopular. Jamming works by defining the limits of acceptable speech and shifting them. By repeatedly labelling opposition ‘pedophobes’ or ‘anti-sex’, a hostile environment is created for pedophobic speech.“

Pro-paedophilia activists aim to recruit “true allies” who would help them normalise paedophilia:

“Long term, we are safest if we sincerely ‘convert’ those against us into true ‘allies’. We can spread stories of confessions, testimonials and other straights who ‘evolved’ their views on pedosexuality.”

They hope to achieve this using a media strategy to liken their opponents to “racists”, while portraying paedophiles as “victims”:

“The ultimate reward for prejudice is a feeling of self-righteousness and acceptance from a bigot’s ‘crowd’. Ads that conflict with this self-image as a well-liked person lead to guilt – cancelling out this reward. For this reason, pedophobic bigots must be treated in the media as crude loudmouths and assholes who use all kinds of slurs long-gone (‘nigger’, ‘fag’, ‘kike’, ‘lynching’).”

“We can depict kinds experiencing terrible suffering as a direct result of his pedophobia – the kind most reasonable people would be ashamed to cause. Link pedo-shaming to all kinds of disliked attributes. Show pedophobes being hated, shunned and criticized.”

In the section titled Strategies For Acceptance: Social pro-paedophilia activists are encouraged to: 

Come out

“You need to come out and encourage others to do so, especially if you haven’t ‘offended’ yet. Start saving money for a ‘coming out fund’ just in case you get fired. Organise a massive ‘coming out day’ where large groups of kinds agree to make coming-out videos and release them on youtube at the same time…Hiding only helps further oppression.”

Portray “kinds” as victims

“Kinds must be portrayed as victims of nature, not people who willingly choose their attraction. Who would actually choose to be a part of the world’s most hated group anyway? As far as you know, you were born kind and you cannot change it.”

Liken therapy for paedophiles to conversion therapy

“Efforts at ‘therapy’ must be considered harmful and damaging to your identity. Frequently compare it to bleaching blacks or reformation camps.”

“By appearing as victims, the majority is instinctively inclined to protect and defend.”

Give allies a just cause

“You need a ‘just cause’, and in your case plain legal equality leaves too much to be desired since children can never have all the legal rights of an adult. A just cause answers the question ‘I’m not one of you, so why should I care?””

Force-team paedophilia activism with other, more socially acceptable activism

“Our causes are sex-positivity, anti-ageism, bodily autonomy and the right to privacy. The government shouldn’t have the authority to tell people what they can and can’t do inside the bedroom or dictate how parents must raise their children. If no physical or emotional harm is being done, there is no excuse to ban an activity.”

“You also have an excellent just cause in religious liberty; childhood innocence and harmfulness of sex are religious beliefs you shouldn’t be forced to believe. Morality should never be backed by legislation.”

Rewrite history

“Make kinds look good.”

“We know this trick is old as dirt, but kinds must also be portrayed as pillars of society. Using historical figures is excellent because they are no longer living and can’t sue. Anyone who’s even believed to have had the slightest attraction to or relationship with someone under 18 will be considered a pedosexual for our purposes. Elvis anyone? We understand that that’s not the medical definition, but confusing social and medical definition is actually helpful in this case.”

“Make pedophobes look bad.”

“At a later stage of the media campaign for kind rights – long after other ads have become commonplace – it’ll be time to get tough with remaining pedo-bashers.”

“The public should be shown images of ranting pedophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that kinds be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs and convicts speaking cooly about the ‘pedos’ they have killed or would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where kinds were tortured and gassed.”

“Loudly and constantly compare pedophobic bigots to segregationists, WBC klansmen, hypocrites and gay-bashers. Make the contrast clear: Either you’re for social tolerance, or you’re for gruesome violence.”

*  *  *

Reading this manifesto, I was struck by how much it mirrors the arguments transactivists use to enable men who claim to be women to enter female prisons, rape crisis shelters, women’s sports, and women’s toilets. 

Feminists have been fighting this trend in law, with ethics and logic. However, it has been an uphill battle because many bend over backwards to prioritise male needs for sexual gratification and validation over the safety of women and children. Now we have a new contender in the fight – paedophiles and their enablers.

Worst of all is the misogyny responsible for society routinely dismissing women’s safeguarding concerns while buying into bad faith arguments which pro-paedophilia activists assert with impunity. For example, just because there are some paedophiles who haven’t, allegedly, molested a child yet, doesn’t mean that they haven’t abused children by proxy, by using child abuse images. I can’t see how anyone can prove that a paedophile is “virtuous” or “non-offending”. The only thing that can be proven is the absence of a conviction, and that really doesn’t count for much, not when child safety from sexual abuse is at stake. 

Therefore, my position is that nurturing the myth of a “virtuous paedophile”, facilitating their access to child sex dolls and giving paedophiles the same rights as other members of LGBTQ+ community, would not only normalise child molestation and put state power behind paedophile grooming tactics, it would further dismantle painstakingly built safeguarding frameworks. Additionally, it would make it near impossible for victims to discuss what was being done to them, without them being accused of “bigotry” and “pedophobia”. Instead of racing to embrace any and all social transgression in the name of progress, tolerance and inclusivity, we need to strengthen the existing laws that prevent paedophiles from manipulating their way into easier access to victims.

References

The Free Library. (2014). Sex between Men and Boys in Classical Greece: Was It Education for Citizenship or Child Abuse?. (n.d.) https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Sex+between+Men+and+Boys+in+Classical+Greece%3a+Was+It+Education+for…-a072684381

Quobil, R. (2010). The sexually abused dancing boys of Afghanistan. BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11217772

Anderson, C. (2018) ‘Not all sex involving children is abuse’: Gay Rights activist Peter Tatchell is forced to deny ‘advocating paedophilia’ after 1997 letter about Papua New Guinea tribes emerges. Mail Online. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6374467/Peter-Tatchell-forced-deny-advocating-paedophilia-1997-letter.html

De Castella, T. Heyden, T. (2014) How did the pro-paedophile group PIE exist openly for 10 years? BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26352378

Deutsche Welle. (2020) Berlin authorities placed children with pedophiles for 30 years. https://www.dw.com/en/berlin-authorities-placed-children-with-pedophiles-for-30-years/a-53814208

DeYoung, M. (1989) World According to NAMBLA: Accounting for Deviance. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare Volume: 16 Issue: 1 Dated: (March 1989) Pages: 111-126. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/world-according-nambla-accounting-deviance

Laville, S. Addley, E. Halliday, J (2013). Police errors left Jimmy Savile free to ‘groom the nation’. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/11/jimmy-savile-police-report

Harper, C. (2018). Let’s Talk About Sex (Dolls). Medium. https://medium.com/craig-harper-essays/lets-talk-about-sex-dolls-50f9be2e6198

Meridian, H.L. Curtis, C. Thakker, J. Wilson, N. Boer, D.P. (2011). The three dimensions of online child pornography offending. Journal of Sexual Aggression. DOI:10.1080/13552600.2011.611898. https://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/id/eprint/4838/1/3dimensions_final.pdf=

Pessimism about pedophilia. There is no cure, so the focus is on protecting children. Harv Ment Health Lett. 2010 Jul;27(1):1-3. PMID: 20812410. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20812410/ full text available on http://adam.curry.com/art/1561299099_kCYxfaNb.html and https://web.archive.org/web/20220816224232/http://adam.curry.com/art/1561299099_kCYxfaNb.html

Brown, R. Shelling, J. (2019). Exploring the implications of child sex dolls. Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 570. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi570

Casciani, D. (2017). Sex offender treatment in prison led to more offending. BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40460637

Smith, J. M. (2021). Can a Radical Treatment for Paedophilia Work Outside of Germany? Science Wire. https://science.thewire.in/health/can-a-radical-treatment-for-paedophilia-work-outside-of-germany/

Dr EM. (2019). The Trojan Unicorn: Queer Theory and Paedophilia, Part I. Uncommonground Media. https://uncommongroundmedia.com/the-trojan-unicorn-queer-theory-and-paedophilia-part-i-dr-em/

James, E. (2015). ‘I’ve gone back to being a child’: Husband and father-of-seven, 52, leaves his wife and kids to live as a transgender SIX-YEAR-OLD girl named Stefonknee. Mail Online. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3356084/I-ve-gone-child-Husband-father-seven-52-leaves-wife-kids-live-transgender-SIX-YEAR-OLD-girl-named-Stefonknee.html

Bartosch, J. (2019). NSPCC Employee Films Himself Masturbating at Work. Uncommon Ground Media. https://uncommongroundmedia.com/nspcc-employee-films-himself-masturbating-at-work/

Dr EM. (2018). Analysis of Paedophile Manifesto. https://mobile.twitter.com/PankhurstEM/status/991258043366232064

Anonymous (2015). After The Fall: A Beginner’s Guide to Destroying Pedophobia in the 21st Century. https://archive.ph/7c6pR 

BoyWiki (2015). (Boylove Essays) – After The Fall: A Beginner’s Guide to Destroying Pedophobia in the 21st Century. https://www.boywiki.org/en/(Boylove_Essays)_-_After_The_Fall:_A_Beginner’s_Guide_to_Destroying_Pedophobia_in_the_21st_Century