My Response to the “DRAFT Guidelines on the implementation of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography” of the Committee On The Rights Of Children

Please be aware that today is the last chance to submit a response to the the draft that is mostly have been known for the controversy it has caused with it’s proposal to include fictional “child pornography” as a material that it’s illegal to produce and possess because random lines on paper somehow also hurt children now too.  You either make your own responses and e-mail it to them in a Word document (no more than fives pages) or you could use this to just send a generic response (you can edit it as you wish, and probably should) concerning the proposal presented in this draft:

Now, the following will constitute to what my response to the draft was:

14. The Committee emphasises that measures of implementation of the provisions in the OPSC should fully comply with the CRC and, in particular, with its general principles contained in articles 2, 3, 6 and 12, as well as the child’s right to privacy. It also requires that the child is informed of her/his rights in an age-appropriate manner, that the child has the right to express her/his views freely in all matters affecting her/him, and that such views are given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

– Concerns of privacy of children should also involve respecting the boundaries they establish themselves. Disallowing this and encouraging children to understand the concepts while constantly infringing on their rights of these is not something you can call a right for them at all, can you? It is hypocritical we say encourage ildren’s “rights” when most of what this article seems to be dealing with is taking further rights away from them.

15. Hence, States parties should make efforts to include child participation in the drafting process of legislative and policy measures ensuring that the views of children – including girls, boys and children of other gender/sex identities, children with disabilities, and children in vulnerable or marginalised situations – are considered, and that adults consulting with them have the necessary training and resources to carry out the consultations in an age-appropriate and gender-sensitive manner. Moreover, measures to implement the OPSC provisions should include a gender perspective.

– These are definitely measures children should have a lot of say in. However, when this same article is the one suggesting children cannot consent, how are they possibly going to be able to participate in these and how are they going to be taken seriously? It seems contradictory.

33. In preventing the sale and sexual exploitation of children, States parties should pay attention to root causes underlying these problems, such as harmful social norms, particularly with regard to complex notions related to masculinity and gender, which may contribute to perpetuating the problem, and which require specific awareness raising measures. An important aspect underlying these offences lies in the demand that exists, both among sex offenders and economic profiteers, of children for purposes of sexual exploitation and abuse.

– And no addressing ageism? Part of the harmful social norms is also that we seek to control children more than we allow them to be themselves and to participate in experiences they might want and to not force them to do stuff they don’t. Are we really listening to them? The more I read into this proposal, the more double-standards I see, the more harm I see, the more children are being objectified. It becomes to the point where it’s no longer about ensuring these folks have rights, but about how to protect them from getting harmed in any way and somehow call that “rights”. However, one must consider that experiences and accessibility to knowledge are also essential to the development of a child. To ignore this is also as harmful, if not more.

42. While there is often a general expectation that adults, e.g. parents and teachers, supervise children to mitigate online risks, the Committee recalls that States parties also have obligations to protect children from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. This is particularly important in light of research showing that family members and persons within the child’s inner circle of trust are often involved in the sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children.1 In particular, States parties should:

b. Ensure mandatory school education on online behaviour and safety to enhance children’s capacity to better protect themselves (and their peers) from harm, by helping them to avoid and adequately react to risks they may encounter, including privacy risks and risks of sharing self-generated content, and to use online reporting tools where necessary;

– Part of ensuring they aren’t abused is to also reinforce the fact that they consent, not to diminish/eliminate it. Laws saying certain group of people cannot consent does not mean they do not possess the capability to do so, to he extent in which they can. Recognising this rather simple reality can help us bring about actual laws that tually protects what should be actual rights for children.

You can cannot call something a right when they don’t really have a say in what their options are. Them avoiding situations where they can be exploited and being able to tell these things apart is a good thing. But what are we going to do about the children/teens that are aware of these and still choose and want to, say, share self-generated content of whatever nature? Are we also going to punish them? Are we going to intervene and potentially introduce iatrogenic harm in cases where otherwise wouldn’t have been harm because of our fear that they somehow cannot decide things for themselves?

How is not allowing them to not think for themselves in certain situations going to allow them to learn things? How is shielding the youth from life, instead of allowing and guidng them through life is going to contribute the necessary tools they need in order to grow as individuals?

43. Considering that child sexual abuse material, such as images and videos, can circulate indefinitely online, the Committee alerts States parties to the fact that the continuous circulation of such material, in addition to perpetuating the harm done to child victims, contributes to the promotion of a subculture in which children are perceived as sexual objects, and risks strengthening the belief among persons with a sexual interest in children that it is “normal” since many others share the same interest. The Committee therefore urges States parties to ensure that internet service providers control, block and, ultimately, remove such content as soon as possible as part of their prevention policies.

– While the seriousness of child pornography when produced in an abusive circumstance is indeed harmful, one must understand this argument could also be used to attack all forms of pornography and that all forms would essentially promote seeing individuals as “sexual objects”. However, despite this, research also shows that pornography in general serves as a reducer of further abusive situations by consuming what is already available.

One could make the argument that illegalization would prevent more child pornography, but, considering the fact that child pornography is still produced and is even more potentially harmful in nature due to the context we force for it’s production to take place, that argument is destroyed. Part of preventing abuseful situations is to understand that not all of the production of child pornography is even abusive by nature, such as other parts of the articles makes reference to, sucha as self-generated pornography. Calling it CSEM is misleading and assumes children cannot consent.

Regardless of the legal circumstances revolving this content, one must not make a correlation between law, morality and what we know from evidence. They are not the same. This means that the mentioning of “sexual interest in children” as being abnormal is a legal and relative moral stance solely.

There is nothing wrong with being sexually interested in children and suggesting otherwise leads to stigmatization of not only those with the sexual interest (even if they break no laws), but also stigmatization of children themselves by suggesting that sexual representations by the child should be criminalised, as if implying young folks themselves are not also sexual beings, as all and every human are. Consequently, the emphasis on “sexual objects” here, but the same argument not used on other forms of pornography seems to also invite the belief that children somehow lack sexuality and that if they express it in any form, even if by their consent, then it’s wrong and should limited/investigated to by default.

According to the DSM-5, Pedophilic Disorder is defined as “The diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder are intended to apply both to individuals who freely disclose this paraphilia and to individuals who deny any sexual attraction to prepubertal children (generally age 13 years or younger), despite substantial objective evidence to the contrary. Examples of disclosing this paraphilia include candidly acknowledging an intense sexual interest in children and indicating that sexual interest in children is greater than or equal to sexual interest in physically mature individuals. If individuals also complain that their sexual attractions or preferences for children are causing psychosocial difficulties, they may be diagnosed with pedophilic disorder. However, if they report an absence of feelings of guilt, shame, or anxiety about these impulses and are not functionally limited by their paraphilic impulses (according to self-report, objective assessment, or both), and their self-reported and legally recorded histories indicate that they have never acted on their impulses, then these individuals have a pedophilic sexual interest but not pedophilic disorder.

Another aspect I find relevant mentioning here is that until recently, the lack of pedophilic disorder in those with pedophilic traits was categorised as “pedophilic sexual orientation” instead. However, due to social criticism of this, it was urged that it was changed to not cause controversy. There is a slight problem with this approach though, and that is that it was based on social criticism and not evidence, as it should have been. This itself brings into interrogation whether we are actually putting barriers as a society to treat these issues or if we are actually breaking them to help with these problems. Judigng from the approach this draft seems to be taking, I am inclining it actually supports the very same structures that currently allows for children to be exploited in the way they do, but the creators do not realise this.

Allow me to me explain myself better, as I have mentioned briefly above. Giving protection to a group, but no liberty for them to have decisions and them being handed over to others equal to not having rights, period. This means they become even more vulnerable, as they are to the mercy of those that have control over them. This allows for abuse of the “rulers to take place, and for them to easily get away with these by giving an excuse.

What I have described is the reality in many cases of domestic abuse, neglect and sexual abuse in family circles. I truly believe that the way we should address these things is not by giving more control to parents and to assume children “have rights” that can be violated by their parents on a whim, but by providing the liberty for children to experience things, to have a genuine voice to make an impact on things by not allowing parents to control every aspect of their lives all the time.

63. The Committee is of the view that “simulated explicit sexual activities” should be interpreted as including any material, online or offline, that depicts or otherwise represents any person appearing to be a child engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit conduct and realistic and/or virtual depictions of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Such depictions contribute to normalising the sexualisation of children and fuels the demand of child sexual abuse material.

– Prohibition of current legal alternatives that do not in any way actually use children for it’s production should not be enacted. Research has shown that providing non-exploitative options for those that would otherwise be prone to sexually act against children actually helps preventing these acts, not encourage them. There is absolutely no reason to not offer this outlets to folks if that keeps them from actually offending against real children, which I will remind you, it is the main and only priority you folks should be having here in defending. Random drawings on papers and plastic dolls are not children. Stop trying to defend a concept of what you think a child is rather than actually protecting those who actually are children.

Please review these references in order to understand my statement:

Diamond, M., Jozifkova, E., & Weiss, P. (2011). Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(5), 1037–1043.

Diamond, M., & Uchiyama, A. (1999). Pornography, Rape, and Sex Crimes in Japan. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22(1), 1–22.


Debunking: “Why pro-contact pedophile arguments are bullshit (by a pedophile)”

Debunked article:

This article was one of the articles that were formerly hosted on the Medium platform, where several Anti-Contact once called their home for blogging purposes.  When this entry was hosted, there were exchanges that came with it.  One of the individuals who started this exchange was a “Pro-Contact” pedophile themselves that chose to de-mystify the various erred statements and out-sourced statements of the many that were made in that article.

On this blog entry, I will repost part of those responses that were provided to me via an Internet Archive service.  I will post the archive’s link itself on the end of this entry:

I don’t really expect this to stay up, but I may as well attempt it:
>“If you think about it, animals are sexual beings, but that doesn’t make it OK to be sexual with them because they cannot consent.”
This idea of verbal consent is an incredibly human thing and doesn’t exist in the animal kingdom. It’s also weirdly only applied to sex which is something that comes from living in a society that casts sexuality in a negative light. When it comes to sexual contact, the word consent has no coherent meaning. The question now is, what makes a person or being capable of consenting to an action, or, phrased more usefully, what disqualifies a being from consenting? My personal belief on the matter that the likelihood for harm or unforeseen negative outcomes would disqualify consent, and, in the case of sexual contact with animals, that doesn’t exist, so non-verbal consent should be enough.
>“Most pre-pubertal children are primarily sensual and want to explore that in all kinds of ways. We all had desires to explore our own bodies, and even to masturbate, but this happens long before our ability to understand what it means to have an adult sexual relationship.”
The distinction between sensual and sexual is a false one. We as a society have just decided that sexual contact is somehow different than other kinds of touching. The idea that all relationships or all sexual relationships function the same is a misleading and incorrect one. An adult who wants a sexual relationship with a child isn’t going to desire the same kind of sexual relationship that an adult would want with another adult.
>“And most of us didn’t want physical sexual attention from an adult, period. Maybe a few of us did, but probably more for attention and love than from a desire to be used for sex.”
“used for sex” is such a biased way to frame it. Anti-contacts often do this, they frame it in the worst way possible and extend the least charitable view of a situation imaginable. Who are you to say that most children probably didn’t want that kind of attention from an adult? Why does it matter if most didn’t if some did? Consent means that a child can say no if they don’t want that kind of attention.
>”Certainly, children have some rights: the right to protection; the right to be safe and happy; the right to make choices that are appropriate to their age. The younger they are, the more they will need adult help and guidance in exercising those rights.”
The debate that could be had here is whether sexual contact is age appropriate or not. I see no reason to limit children from having it with those they choose to and instead that it’s a violation of their human rights.
>”The fact that something feels pleasurable doesn’t mean that there aren’t consequences or negative after-effects, nor does it make something morally right.”
All research I’ve seen that actually separates for consent shows that children who feel that they were a willing participant are statistically indistinguishable from the no-sex group in areas of mental health and that negative outcomes are practically non-existent for that group (Arreola et. Al, 2008; Arreola et. Al, 2009; Rind & Tromvich, 1997; Rind et. Al, 1998; Rind, 2001; Dolezai et. Al, 2014). All the evidence that exists to show sexual contact is harmful is research that uses clinical samples. Clinical samples use entirely or a disproportionate amount of therapy patients than is would be representative of the population and can only speak for the likely experiences of therapy patients, not any random person in the general population. It’s a fraudulent tactic to extend the findings of these studies to the general population.
>”Children are often afraid to speak up and risk an adult’s disapproval or rejection, and they’re used to going along with an adult’s ideas and suggestions, trusting they will not be landed in a confusing world of concealment and lies.”
Children are only like that towards adults with unreasonable adults who lack the ability to be understanding and don’t value their agency and freedom. Pedophiles are naturally inclined to be interested in and care for children, so it isn’t hard to believe that their relationships, tangible and those of fantasy, would be different than a regular adults. There isn’t any reason for an adult to lie to child or to force a child to lie if the world recognized a child’s ability to consent.
>”Children can be hurt with manipulation, self-blaming, shame, physical pain from size differences, chemical changes in the brain, sexually transmitted diseases or infections and other factors.”
Not all pro-contacts are going to believe the same on this, but I think there should be an age limit for acts like penetration, and that highlights a point; all people consider sexual contact to involve penetration, when it doesn’t. A child’s only capable of being manipulated when they aren’t given information and they can’t legally consent, otherwise, it becomes straightforward and any sort of lying stops being practical or desirable. What source of shame or reason would there be to self-blame if the child felt that they consented? I’ve never seen anything to suggest harmful changes in the brain, but if they did happen what would make them not happen when masturbating or with peers, but only happen when with adults? That’s a big claim to make. Diseases and physical injuries are things that mainly occur with penetrative sex, but are rare/non-existent with touching or oral sex so why not just set a limit for penetrative sex while not or having a lower one for others? They aren’t all the same after all.
>”[…]there would still be people who would happily take advantage of the benefit of the doubt in a world without clear-cut age-of-consent laws, and might get away with acting abusively.”
There would be clear cut laws though. Consent is good, rape is bad and illegal. A system that doesn’t value a child’s consent doesn’t incentivize people who are willing to act to value the child’s consent either because consensual sex and rape are prosecuted the same. A nuanced system would incentive even people not inclined to care to value a child’s consent because it’s the difference between a legal act and 20+ years in prison.
>”All the same, some studies have found examples of certain people who say on record that they had sexual contact with an adult as a child, and that years later they did not feel like they were traumatised by it. But not so fast, just because this evidence seems to support pro-contacters, let’s look further and more widely at the whole of the evidence available. Plenty other studies provide plenty of examples of people who say the exact opposite about their experience — i.e. that it was traumatising and felt wrong.”
Studies that show that sexual contact (willing or not) is especially harmful are all studies that use clinical samples. Studies that use non-clinical samples show that sexual contact without the presence of violence or other types of abuse isn’t likely to cause long term trauma or harm to a child and a study that looks at the effects of abuse shows that other combinations of abuse types are way more harmful to a child than sexual abuse (Rind et. Al, 1998; Ney et. Al, 1994). That isn’t to say that I advocate for rape of a minor — consent is still important — just that our beliefs about sexual abuse doesn’t hold up to evidence.
>”The studies that pro-contact MAPs like to quote (usually only the first kind) do not study enough people to get an accurate idea of how the majority of children respond to exposure to sex.”
and Anti-contacts don’t seem to realize why clinical samples can’t be used as evidence for non-clinical populations. We’ve seen the other studies, they simply don’t apply to the population we care about (general society) and because of that, they useless given what we care about.
>”Maybe it’s something to do with how all human brains are wired to try and get sexual satisfaction, even when it’s a pretty terrible idea.”
The only thing that makes it a terrible idea is the social climate and laws, which pro-contacts advocate to change. Sexuality isn’t a one-sided thing either though, the other person enjoying it and being a willing participant is incredibly important for most people involved in sexual situations.
>“When you think about it, the child has far more power in an intergenerational relationship because their word could jail the adult, whereas they would be protected.”
I would like to expand on this a bit. I don’t think it’s just the law that gives them the power, but the pedophile’s mental processing itself. Pedophiles care about children and because of that they want validation from the child. They want to be cared for, wanted, and beneficial to the child, sure there are probably some that aren’t like that but they’d be a minority. I think the child has a lot of power over a pedophile that loves them.
>”The older person in these situations is often someone who has won the child’s trust over a long period of time, only to betray that trust after years of grooming.”
I hate the word grooming. I’m not sure how you mean it, but it easily slips its way into contexts it doesn’t belong. If you win the child’s trust over years, care for them, and are generally there for them, if something sexual comes out of that it isn’t grooming. It’s a natural evolution of a relationship. Grooming implies that every action done was done in the pursuit of sex which simply isn’t true in a lot of cases.
>”Just because some adolescents feel they want sexual love from an adult, doesn’t mean everyone else does, or everyone of any age would.”
I can rephrase this to counter your argument, “just because some adolescent feel they don’t want sexual love from an adult, doesn’t mean everyone doesn’t, or everyone of any age wouldn’t.” This is such an incredibly bad argument. The only thing I have to say to refute it is “let them fucking choose for themselves.” Stop enforcing your worldview on children and idealizing them to behave how you’d want them to. Let them choose for themselves what sexual adventures they want to partake in and which they don’t. Pro-contact pedophiles don’t do that. We think it’s important for a child to be able to say yes or no, while anti-contacts just think they can’t mean yes and that their subjective experience is invalid so “let’s just say no for them”. It’s stealing away their ability to define their own experience and incredibly sickening to me.
I don’t actually expect this to stay up. The anti-contact MAP community is an echo chamber completely content refuting half-baked arguments instead of actually engaging. The best course of action for them in a lot of cases is just to report the twitter accounts of people who disagree instead of actually dissecting the arguments posed at them, so I fully expect this post to suffer the same fate. That may seem a bit harsh, but if anyone’s read this far, thanks.
Many of us are familiar with these forms of exchanges and, sometimes, mutual misunderstandings that can happen among communities that insists on divisive tactics.  I have made reference to this article in hopes that not only do we get more understanding of our circumstances, but also to know that, at the end of everything, dishonesty will not serve as the way in which we will solve the many issues that we are currently facing, actually discussing these aspects will.
Archive’s link:

The Change from Pro-Contact to Pro-Consent

I mean, some would suggest it is the same, and perhaps they’re right on that.  The Pro-Contact stance never meant anything like being for rape, and even less did it meant on ignoring the many factors that do affect the development and dynamics currently observed in inter-generational relationships.

So then, why did I still opt for changing how I describe my stance in these sorts of relationships if the terms are basically interchangeable? 

Around the time my second Twitter account was banned, I was starting to consider the stigma that has been allocated to the term “Pro-Contact” and to the misconceptions of it even among MAP communities.  I was exploring on how I could present my position on subjects more clearly and leading to less assumptions about what my stances are from people that know nothing of what I advocate for.

In this journey I was also been involving myself more with youth rights communities in an effort to get a better understanding on issues directly involving the youth outside of the context of being attracted to them.  After all, one important thing to consider as that not everything involving children in these circles should even be limited to just the concept of sexuality in the first place.

I find the idea of focusing on just sexual liberation as actually damaging, if I’m quite being quite honest myself.  Bringing about changes in AoC without changing the perspective we have to children as individuals that deserve to have rights and autonomy is something that strongly concerns me.  This is especially true when I see some folks advocate for changes in AoC or things like parental consent while completely ignoring youth rights issues and/or straight out dismissing the fact children are an oppressed portion of society as per current sociopolitical conditions.

Going back on the youth rights communities, I have read a comment concerning the presence of MAPs that care about ideas belonging to youth rights.  Said comment also involved the use of Pro-Consent Pedophiles rather than the one most are used to, Pro-Contact.  Seeing this term used by a Non-MAP (as far as I’m concerned) and how it also was around the time when I was considering what way I should label myself better to avoid deliberate and mistaken interpretations for the things I stand for, I started taking a liking to the “Pro-Consent” tag as a better alternative to my overall position.

As my interactions have also been increasing much more than I was initially expecting across Twitter so have some ideas and perspectives been explored when it comes about, not only my stances on contact, but also on how I would intend to achieve what I claim to be for.  In this process it also comes into question the potential difficulties and impediments that will face the ideas I would propose, especially depending the socio/cultural context in which the propositions would impact.  With this comes to mind to how our views of children plays an essential play into the laws we determine to place to deal with them, whether that be in the form of rights and/or protection laws.

I’ll be honest, I’m surprised that my current Twitter account seems to be handling itself well.  One thing I have noticed is that, because of what I mentioned earlier, the “Pro-Contact” is used as a keyword on Twitter for hunters and people with a general bias to these terminologies to find target profiles to then attempt to take them down (something on which they are annoyingly often successful).  However, I gotta give them credit where it is due…  It if was not for them to be doing these kind of things, in the situation it was, and in the way they did, I wouldn’t have come with feeling the urge of changing the label I opt for identifying with, nor would I have not approached to not using any label at all on Twitter to just outright avoid assumptions when that’s the opposite of what I’m looking for anyways.

For the sake of being interpreted for what are actually my ideas, instead of what people think are my ideas is what led to this post to be written and also explaining the rather “not really relevant to some” subtle change but, nonetheless, important one to me for the reasons described above.  For me, rather than being identified with being something, I be acquainted for having this and those interpretations about, not only certain relationships between people of differing ages, but all forms of relations.  This would also include letting myself be open to be approachable by everyone, regardless of their stances in inter-generational relationships, the last thing I wish is to cause further division within an already stigmatized community, and yes, that also includes children when it comes about youth rights.

It would be wise to remember that measures taken against MAPs (even the term itself since the stigma led to it’s creation, but I’ll talk about that at a later occasion) also tend to affect children.  Consider that the more pedophobic individuals are, the more protection for children is advocated, and protection is often depriving them of otherwise things they could at some point enjoy.  This is the opposite of giving them rights, protection should never be analogous  with rights because it isn’t.





Making Pedophilia Respectable (Again, right?)

The American Conservative has recently made an article going by the title of “Making Pedophilia Respectable”.  This article mostly takes excerpts from another article titled “The Pedo Apologist” in where a professor called Justin Lee attempts to criticize Tom O’ Carroll from a philosophical perspective.  The American Conservative also brings into even more attention the presence of MAPs on Twitter and, recently, there was also videos like this one talking about the Tumblr MAP Community mass-migrating to Twitter, calling it “The Pedo Caravan” in attempts to prioritize concern over this “caravan” to the Mexican migrant caravan in the U.S. borders.

I do realise it has been a while since I have posted seriously in this blog, but I get annoyed over so many stupid comments and allegations made on these threads and of lately almost everywhere I have been when it comes to pedophilia and inter-generational relationships.  Then again, I also wish not to waste my time by arguing with everyone that comes to declare over showing genuine interest to debate and also be open of the possibility that they might be incorrect.  This is important because it also helps determine which approach is perhaps more achievable in order to convince as many people as one can and/or at least make them notice not everything is in white/black scenario like most antis think these situations are.

Anyhow, there are a few things I want to clarify in case individuals are referred to this blog entry (especially if they are related to individuals that choose to strawman the DSM-V and other details I see of importance when it comes about pedophiles, mostly.  First of all, no.  The DSM-V does not say pedophilia per se is a disorder.

Screenshot from 2018-12-09 02-00-57

Repeating the last sentence, in case some individuals are literally this blind: “However, if they report an absence of feelings of guilt, shame, or anxiety about these impulses and are not functionally limited by their paraphilic im­pulses (according to self-report, objective assessment, or both), and their self-reported and le­gally recorded histories indicate that they have never acted on their impulses, then these individuals have a pedophilic sexual orientation but not pedophilic disorder.”  For the sake of subjecting myself to the same expectations I demand from others into being very accurate when it comes to these topics, I should and will make the clarification that the most updated version of the DSM-5 actually says this at the end (I will also include a copy of the most current DSM in the beginning of the article): then these individuals have a pedophilic sexual interest but not pedophilic disorder. 


This clarification still does not, in any way, counters my claim against the misuse individuals seem to have when it comes to the DSM in general that’s explained in the next paragraphs.

Another thing I want to remind individuals not that versed as they think they are is that the DSM is not a final determinant on what is and it is not a disorder.  Choosing to denounce pedophilia by quoting the DSM is already a mistake itself and really leads to nothing relevant, at least not beyond from the purpose the DSM actually serves as, which is as a diagnostic tool.

“The later versions of the DSM (from DSM-III-R and later) were designed to be atheoretical, to be acceptable to clinicians and researchers of many theoretical persuasions. Instead of various theoretical principles, the concept of mental disorder itself in the DSM is thought to provide the direct and exclusive intellectual justification for deciding what is a disorder (Wakefield, 1992). Wakefield (1992) has raised serious criticism concerning the conceptual validity of the DSM when it comes to discriminating disorder from nondisorder. Two fundamental principles guide the DSM’s definition of mental disorder. The first is that a disorder is a condition that has negative consequences for the person and the second is that a disorder is a dysfunction, defined as failure of a mechanism to perform a naturally selected function (Wakefield, 2001). Consequently, these two principles can be incorporated into a conceptually valid definition of disorders as ‘‘harmful dysfunction’’ according to Wakefield (1992). However, there are many statistically deviant conditions that cause distress and other harms, but that are not dysfunctions. The V codes in the DSM provide a good illustration of instances where the DSM correctly goes against its own definition of mental disorder, while in other cases (e.g., adjustment disorder) any reaction to a stressor that is above the mean in intensity is classified as a disorder. This is incorrect because it fails to distinguish disorder from normal variation (Wakefield, 1992; Wakefield, Pottick, & Kirk, 2002). The inclusion of V codes in the DSM and the problems with the definition of mental disorder illustrate the need for a system that can take the normal variation into account and at the same time provide clear guidelines for when and how to intervene. The DSM system has failed as much in providing such guidelines, as the functional analysis in providing a functional classification system. In some places, the DSM diagnosis has already become a thing in itself, the main goal of clinical practice (Tucker, 1998). The patient’s history and context might be lost in this process. As Tucker (1998) suggested, the time has come to merge the empirical psychiatry of DSM-IV with the story and actual observation of the patient, which we assume is much closer to what clinical psychologists and other clinicians actually do in their clinical practice (Persons & Davidson, 2001). The circular nature of mental disorders (e.g., Goodman & Poillion, 1992), as diagnosed by DSM, and the lack of a contextualistic view that helps to identify the factors maintaining mental disorders discourage further inquiry and might act as a barrier to genuine understanding and effective treatment.” (Andersson & Ghaderi, 2006).

The former is important to be kept in mind to understand the true nature of the DSM and other diagnostic tools in general.  You cannot claim to know everything about a topic by just deciding to go to Wikipedia and quoting (the poorly redacted, by the way) entry it has on pedophilia.  Also, as shown, you cannot go and deliberately quote the DSM in order to “support” your fragile position against pedophilia because you don’t really even know anything about it.

Here’s an example of what pedophilia really is, while also being approached and criticized for how the DSM limits the extent one can approach it as in former instances of the manual (and also referencing and comparing for when homosexuality itself was in the DSM back in the days):

“In sum, there is little conclusive evidence that pedophilia has clear and direct physiological causation. Rather, contributory elements appear to promote or inhibit manifestation of this disorder. There are many who argue that sexual orientation is not a choice. The removal of homosexuality as a disorder from DSM may reflect some consensus on this point [13]. It has been posited that pedophilia, like heterosexuality or homosexuality, represents sexual arousal to a particular identifiable group, and is not voluntarily decided, but biologically determined [14]. Extending the sexual orientation argument to pedophilia is an unsettling prospect, as it could then become morally contentious to hold offenders accountable for their behavior.” (Studer & Scott, 2006).

However, it is worth to be noticed here, again, that pedophilia is but an attraction and not an action.  It should indeed be morally contentious to hold “offenders” accountable for their behaviours, if said situations are of consensual nature with a minor.  Inter-generational relationships have already been proved to not be intrinsically harmful (Rind & Welter, 2014) either way.  From a legal and moral perspective, this “unsettling prospect” (assuming it would be according to what Studer and Scott suggested) would potentially allow for better and proper classification and distinction from abuse situations and consensual interactions (Rind & Tromovitch, 1998).

On another hand, despite all this, there still remains the fact that most sexual offenders that abuse children aren’t even pedophiles:

“The word “pedophile” is often used synonymously with the term “sex offender,” though not all people convicted of sex crimes against minors meet criteria for pedophilic disorder (APA, 2013), and not all people with pedophilia have sexually abused a child (Kingston, Firestone, Moulden, & Bradford, 2007; Seto, 2008).” (Levenson & Grady, 2018).

So this begs the question:  What is even the use of discriminating against pedophiles then when it comes about these traits that are not chosen by them?  Why do people persist on discriminating as evidence suggestively proves that these methods aren’t exactly bettering the prevention of child abuse, let alone it being justifiable to mix up everything and simple classify them as abuse, regardless of the implications?  Why are individuals so stagnant when it comes to this issue as conditions actually get worse but somehow retain the same mentality, not acknowledging they could be mistaken in the approach?

There are theories and observations as to why it is so that are beyond the scope I desire to go in this entry.  I will postpone that for another occasion.  Nevertheless, these questions, and even more of them, should be contemplated by everyone that actually desires to address the current problems in our society revolving these topics.  In order to do that it is required to be able to identify problems in the system itself.

One book that makes an interesting claim on issues, including similar to the ones I mentioned, is a book of James Kincaid called “Child-loving: the erotic child and Victorian culture”.  To have an overall better understanding of the current sociological perspective of pedophilia, I think this book would prove to be of value.  Admittedly though, there are some of the claims Kincaid makes in the book that I find intriguing, even as a child lover myself (but this is also something I will not care to elaborate on here).

The article The Pedophile Apologist, which I mentioned in the beginning and was used as a source in The American Conservative article, presents itself with many holes and assumptions made on elaborate strawmanning from the position O’Carroll attempts to actually portray in his journal article “Childhood ‘Innocence’ is Not Ideal: Virtue Ethics and Child–Adult Sex”.  Among these, the one that seems to predominate is the sense of denial that there aren’t such things as “virtue ethics” based on belief systems and rather limits it to the collective deciding “the right” thing which seems as an extremely ignorant take on both society and the development/variation of ethics in the first place.

“But I have to give credit where it’s due: O’Carroll is right that, in order to be logically compelling, the case against pedophilia must be grounded in an anthropology that sees human sexuality as sacred. Any ethic premised in liberal individualism will inevitably leave room for the acceptance of adult-child sex. How could it be otherwise, when the arbitrary exuberance of the human will is held to be the highest good? We’re left with only the will-to-power of the individual or the intersubjective will-to-power of the collective. Either way, we’re left with nihilism.”

It is fascinating how the author of that article can recognize this, yet not make the connection of this conceptualization of human sexuality as sacred with traditionalism.  Another aspect I found highlighting there, but that openly mentioned, was the idea of children not being conceived as capable of self-agency in general.  This can seen with the comment: “One suspects there are better ways for women to stick it to the patriarchy than to offer up their children to the ravages of male desire.”  This also makes one wonder who really is the one trying to really push to their own agenda.

What evidence, other than personal attacks, are to bring a genuine criticism to the position Tom O’Carroll made (I’m very curious of what are the potential responses to this)?  It is perhaps true that there were more factors involved in the development of virtue ethics, as Justin Lee says.  Nevertheless, that does not constitute a rebuttal to suggest that the factors mentioned by Childhood ‘Innocence’ is Not Ideal: Virtue Ethics and Child–Adult Sex are not also implicated in the construct of the current perception of human sexuality, of child sexuality and of inter-generational relationships.  Stating otherwise would also be quite far-fetched to do, not to mention, doing the same thing the author denounces against the journal article.


American Psychiatric Association, & American Psychiatric Association (Eds.). (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5 (5th ed). Washington, D.C: American Psychiatric Association.

Andersson, G., & Ghaderi, A. (2006). Overview and analysis of the behaviourist criticism of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Clinical Psychologist, 10(2), 67–77.

Levenson, J. S., & Grady, M. D. (2018). Preventing Sexual Abuse: Perspectives of Minor-Attracted Persons About Seeking Help. Sexual Abuse, 23.

O’Carroll, T. (2018). Childhood ‘Innocence’ is Not Ideal: Virtue Ethics and Child–Adult Sex. Sexuality & Culture.

Rind, B., & Tromovitch, P. (1998). A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples, 32.

Rind, B., & Welter, M. (2014). Enjoyment and Emotionally Negative Reactions in Minor–Adult Versus Minor–Peer and Adult–Adult First Postpubescent Coitus: A Secondary Analysis of the Kinsey Data. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(2), 285–297.

Studer, L. H., & Scott Aylwin, A. (2006). Pedophilia: The problem with diagnosis and limitations of CBT in treatment. Medical Hypotheses, 67(4), 774–781.

Conversation I had with Wehr on my Translation of “The MAP Starting”, as requested

I was waiting to see if the conversation with Wehr and myself would have prolonged more, since the take, in my perspective, was an interesting one and I appreciate Wehr for contributing that opinion on my blog.  However, it seems the exchange has ended, as of today, and I will proceed to translate our exchange, which went like this:



Da igual que no lo hayas escrito tú. Este texto no es mas desinformación y mezclar cosas que no son. Están todos los conceptos de principio mal, mal.

Llamar “atraccion a menores” a la “atraccion a niños” no tiene sentido, no existe ninguna atracción a menores, la minoria de edad es un concepto legal, lo que estais es atraidos a niños prepubescentes que es algo biologico, si lo confundis con estar “atraidos a menores” solo pone como una filia rara y extraña el simple hecho de estar atraido a uno de 17 que no es niguna atraccion a menores ni efebofilia.

Lo que nos lleva a que no existe la hebefilia ni aún menos la efebofilia, no existe ningún tipo de atracción aparte a los adolescentes, los adolescentes son adultos jovenes con algún tipo mayor de desarrollo sexual, ningún hombre de la tierra que encuentre atractivas a chicas de 16 años es “efebofilo”, todos los que están atraidos a adultos lo están por adolescentes, de hecho la adolescencia es un constructo social, son adultos, y si te gustan adultos de 20 te gustan adultos de 15. En cuanto a la hebefilia, los pubescentes tienen almenos algun tipo de desarrollo sexual por lo que como minimo habrá interes sexual en ellos. La hebefilia y la efebofilia son intentos de psiquiatras y otros pseudocientificos de patólogizar la atracción sexual normal a gente joven. No es más que ciencia basura de toda lógica y conocimiento de biologia, que los autoproclamados “MAP” están reproduciendo por su sindrome de estocolmo con los psiquiatras en busca de aceptación de la psiquiatria, creyendo falsamente que aceptar sus majaderias les hará caerles en gracia.

Para que veas el sinsentido:
“adolescentes es llamado hebefilia, atracción a adolescentes luego de la pubertad es llamado efebofilia”

Como narices va a ser una filia como la pedofilia si ser simplhombre heterosexual significa estar atraido a las mujeres, es decir son mujeres desde la pubertad que dejan la infancia, y lo de despues de la pubertad es de risa, despues de la pubertad ya TODAS son iguales, no hay diferencia entre una de 18 y una de 15 y una de 16 con una de 20.

Cuandoun hombre heterosexual te diga que no les gustan las adolescentes te ESTAN MINTIENDO. No es un efebofilo en negación, es un hombre heterosexual normal que se oculta por que está mal visto socialmente gracias al Feminismo (la ideologia de odio al hombre).


Translation: It is the same that you are not who wrote this.  This text is nothing more than disinformation and mixing things that are not.  All the concepts, from the beginning are bad, bad.

Calling “attraction to minors” to “attraction to children” doesn’t have sense.  An attraction to minors does not exist, minority of age is a legal concept.  What are you attracted to are prepubescent children, which is something biological.  If you confuse it with “attraction to minors” you only put as a weird and odd philia the simple fact of being attracted to 17yos which is not any kind of attraction to minors nor is it ephebophilia.

This is what leads us to no hebephilia existing and even less so, ephebophilia.  No other attraction, aside from attraction to adolescents.  Adolescents are young adults with some kind of major sexual development, no men in the world that finds 16yo girls attractive are “ephebophiles”.  Everyone that’s attracted to adults are also attracted to adolescents, in fact, adolescence is a social construct.  They are adults, and if you like 20yo adults, you like 15yo adults.  Concerning, hebephilia, pubescents at least have some kind of sexual development for what minimally there would be sexual interest in them.  Hebephilia and ephebophilia are a psychiatrist and other pseudo-scientists attempts to pathologize normal sexual attraction to young people.  It is not more than just trash science of all logic and knowledge of biology, than self-claimed MAPs are reproducing with their Stockholm syndrome with psychiatrists in search of acceptance with psychiatry, falsely believing that accepting their rubbish will lead to benefiting them.

How in the hell will it be a philia, like pedophilia, if being simply a heterosexual male means being attracted to females, which is to say, they are women since puberty where they leave their childhood.  And what after that is only but laughs, after puberty, all of them are the same.  There is no difference between an 18yo with a 15yo, and there is no difference between a 16yo with a 20yo.

When a heterosexual male says that they are not attracted to adolescents, THEY ARE LYING TO YOU.  They are not an ephebophile in denial, he is a normal heterosexual male that hides because he is seen in ill ways thanks to Feminism (the ideology of hating men).


“de hecho la adolescencia es un constructo social(…)”

Empiezo con esto. Como he dicho, yo no escribí esta guía originalmente y solo la he traducido. Sin embargo, sí puedo proveer respuestas a tu comentario. De hecho, diría desde ahora que concuerdo con tus ideas, en la mayoría de ellas, aunque yo iría a una milla más al decir que ni la pedofilia debería de ser una filia. El concepto de las filias en sí son medias pendejas y en fin redunda en la idea que solo son expresiones sexuales que a la gente no les gusta y pues por ende son patologizadas (como lo fue con los homosexuales no muy atrás en la historia).

Pienso que es obvio lo que dices sobre la adolescencia ser una construcción social, pero también me aventuro a decir que el niño en sí es una construcción social al echarles todas las características que los intenta aislar sobre la realidad y el hecho de que uno, antes de nacer, ya es un ser sexual, como humano. Por ende, entiendo gran parte de tu comentario e inclino, personalmente, en estar de acuerdo con ello pero pienso que a su vez ignoras cómo los pedófilos buscan poder re-integrarse en la sociedad y poder decir sus opiniones de manera que sean efectivas. Muchos no tienen opciones que de intentar que la psicología moderna vea que en realidad no hay nada malo con esta atracción.

No puedes pretender que se queden callados y que la censura que ha tenido la comunidad hasta la actulidad no haya tenido un efecto en cómo se acercarían para poder llevar a cabo sus ideas y tratar con los problemas que se presentan en esta sociedad en cuanto se trata como los casos sexuales son manejados y en cómo nosotros estamos siendo representados.

Otra cosa que te comentaré es que la idea de prevención que tienen muchos como los pedos que son Anti-Contactos es contra-productiva y ayudaría en nada en mejorar la imagen de nosotros como no reduciría los casos de abusos sexual, pero siento que ya me estoy aventurando a otro tema y dejaré eso a un lado.

En fin, como ya he dicho, estoy de acuerdo con tu comentario, aunque piense que no te estés aventurando la milla extra que necesita porque patologizar a los pedófilos es igual de in-productivo que patologizar la atracción a adultos jovenes, algo que ha sido comprobado y criticado por muchos estudios y casos de abusos (por la manera en que escogen tratarlos).


Translation: “In fact, adolescence is a social construct(…)”

I’ll start with this.  Like I said, I did not wrote this guide originally, I have only translated it.  However, I can provide answers to your comments.  As a matter of facts, I will say since now that I agree that I concede with your ideas, in the majority of them, but I would go the extra mile to say that not even pedophilia should be a philia.  The concepts of philias themselves are kind of stupid and in the end relies on the idea that they are only sexual expressions that people do not like and, consequently; they are patologized (like homosexuales not too long ago in history).

I think that it is obvious what you said about adolescence being a social construct, but I also venture to say that the child itself is a social construct by attributing to them all the characteristics that isolates them from reality and the fact that individuals, before they are born, are sexual beings, as humans.  Because of this, I understand the large portion of your comment and incline, personally, to agree with them but at the same time I think you are ignoring how pedophiles are looking to re-intergrate into society and be able to tell their opinions in a way that is effective.  Most of them do not have any other option than attempting to show to modern psychology that there is nothing wrong with this attractions.

You cannot pretend that they remain quiet and that the censorship the community has been met with until now have not had an effect on how they will approach the subject to be able to execute their ideas and manage with the problems that society brings concerning how sexual cases are handled and in how we are being represented.

Another thing that I will comment to you is that the idea of prevention that many have, like Anti-Contacts, is counter-productive and will help in nothing in bettering the image about us as it wouldn’t reduce incidences of sexual abuse, but I feel like I’m jumping to another topic and I will leave this aside.

In the end, like I mentioned, I agree with your comment, even if I think that you are not going the extra mile because pathologizing pedophiles is equally as unproductive as pathologizing attraction to young adults, something that has been proved and criticized by many studies and cases of abuse (because of the way of how they choose to present the concepts as).



Guía Introductoria a los MAPs (Personas Atraídas a Menores)

Guía Introductoria a los MAPs (Personas Atraídas a Menores)

PDF Version of this guide (Versión en PDF de esta guía):

Una “Persona atraída a menores” es cualquiera con intereses románticos o sexuales hacia personas que no han alcanzado la edad de consentimiento. La categoría es lo suficientemente amplia para incluir a los mismos menores de por sí, si ellos desarrollan sentimientos y prácticas que se puedan considerar sexuales, en su tracto general, entre ellos. Sin embargo, esta categoría es bastante nueva y la mayoría de las personas no ven la diferencia entre atracción a menores y pedofilia, que es, de por sí, cargada con una gran cantidad de estigma. A causa de eso, el autoestima de las personas atraídas a menores es severamente lastimada, se esconden y desarrollan odio a sí mismos. Es importante a las personas atraídas a menores entender que ellos no son amenazas a los menores, que la atracción de ellos está bien en otras culturas y que, poniendo las cosas de esa manera, la atracción a menores no es una enfermedad en sí, sino que es hecha así por la sociedad. Eso debería ayudar a las personas atraídas a menores a que se acepten incondicionalmente, que vean el fenómeno cultural como un cambio pasivo, aumentar el entendimiento de ellos mismos y buscar ayuda, si es necesitada.


Intenta buscar la palabra “pedofilia” en línea ahora mismo. Lo que más probable veas es un número de artículos de noticias sobre casos de violación infantil, abuso infantil o peor. Para un grupo de personas, eso es un punto de vista muy angosto. Yo estoy hablando de personas atraídas a menores. Estas personas reconocen que tienen sentimientos por los menores, y pues están en posición de juzgar los que las personas dicen sobre ellos. Para mucha de las personas atraídas a menores, las noticias no reflejan lo que son realmente.

El fenómeno de la atracción a menores es tan diverso para ser adecuadamente descrito por los medios. Hay personas atraídas a menores que son pedófilos, pero también hay nepiófilos y hebéfilos. Hay personas atraídas a menores que sienten que su atracción, a pesar de ser ilegal, no necesita ser ilegal, pero otros prefieren que las cosas se mantengan como en el presente. De más interés, hay menores que están atraídos a personas aún menores que ellos, sin mencionar a los menores que están atraídos a los de su edad.

El problema es los medios, al esparcir desinformación, hacen a cualquier persona atraída a menores, aislada o desesperada. Ellos no se ven en los monstruos que presentan en las noticias. Entonces, si usted sigue las leyes y te atraen los menores, pensarías que eres uno de los pocos o que pronto acabarías rompiendo la ley. Eso causa sentimientos de desesperación. No obstante, ese desespero está basada en una suposición falsa: que todos las personas atraídas a menores son activamente o criminales potenciales.

Dicho eso, buscar información sobre la atracción a menores en general y de la pedofilia en particular puede ser muy doloroso y una actividad sin frutos. El objetivo de este texto es proveer información precisa sobre la atracción a menores a ellos mismos, en orden de hacerlos sentir más tranquilos, al recalcar la necesidad de mantenerse siguiendo la ley. La primera sección trata de definir la atracción a menores, la segunda intenta explicar la diferencia entre pensamientos y acciones. Con esperanza, después de leer esto, tú puedas dormir bien. Como el texto tiene a las personas atraídas a menores como audiencia, yo voy a escribir en segunda persona.

Atracción a menores.

Ser atraído a menores es tener un apegamiento erótico a personas que aún no son adultas. Porque “menores” es un término cultural, y no uno biológico, como lo es “niño”, no hay una edad universal para uno ser llamado “menor”, a pesar que, en la mayoría de las sociedad del Oeste, tú eres solo un adulto a la edad de 18. Atracción a bebés es llamado nepiofilia, atracción a niños prepubertos es llamado pedofilia, atracción a niños pubertos y adolescentes es llamado hebefilia, atracción a adolescentes luego de la pubertad es llamado efebofilia. Fuera de esos, solo pedofilia (y por extensión, nepiofilia) son considerados un desorden mental, de acuerdo a la Clasificación Internacional de Enfermedades y El Manual diagnóstico y estadístico de los trastornos mentales, pero solo al pedófilo ser distresado por los sentimientos o si ha actuado de acuerdo a los impulsos. Un pedófilo no está necesariamente trastornado, dependiendo de cuán bien el pedófilo maneja sus sentimientos. La razón por la que hebefilia y efebofilia no son considerados desórdenes, incluso cuando se actúa por él, es porque son más comunes y aceptadas, como verás en la sección de edad de consentimiento y cultura.

Mientras que personas atraídas a menores difieren en “edades de atracción”, ellos también difieren de acuerdo a posiciones políticas. La edad de consentimiento es una ley. Posicionándose como favorable o en contra de una ley es una posición política. Hay pedófilos que están a favor de la reforma de la edad de consentimiento y hay otros que no. Personas atraídas a menores que están a favor de bajar o abolicionar la edad de consentimiento son, a menudo, llamados “Pro-Contacto” o “Pro-Consentimiento”. Aquellos que favorecen dejar la edad de consentimiento como es o incrementarla son, frecuentemente, llamados “Anti-Contacto”. Estas etiquetas no son indicativas de estado de ofensor: una persona puede ser Pro-Contacto y seguir las leyes. Seguir las leyes es constantemente llamado el ser “Inofensivo”.

Uno podría preguntar por qué usted, por ejemplo, adoptaría cualquiera de las posiciones particulares en la edad de consentimiento. Mientras aquellos que son Pro-Contacto argumentan que algunas relaciones entre adultos-niños, sexuales o no, podrían ser no dañinas e incluso de beneficio, de una manera que sería más justo si esas relaciones fueran juzgadas caso por caso (mire cita por “Trevor” en Rivas, 2016, página 92), esos que son Anti-Contacto argumentan que daño pasa de todos modos y que podría ser devastador o que, siquiera si esas relaciones pudieran ser inofensivas y recordadas positivamente, siguen siendo inmorales, al consentimiento dado por el niño puede ser siempre cuestionado. El mero hecho que tal debate existe entre las comunidad de personas atraídas a menores debería de servir para disipar el prejuicio que las personas que son sexualmente atraídas a menores son siempre inmorales. Porque la sexualidad incluye varios elementos interpersonales y una dinámica entre la persona que desea y la persona deseada, algo que es observado hasta en adolescentes (si hay adolescentes atraídos a menores, entonces lo que está en Drury & Bukowsky, 2013, página 128 y 129 también aplica aquí), es seguro decir que la atracción sexual es un rasgo de una respuesta erótica más amplia que incluye los sentimientos de amor (por una cuenta personal por un pedófilo, mire O‘Caroll, 1980, Capítulo 1). Es improbable que defiendas cualquiera de las posiciones desconsiderando la seguridad y los sentimientos de los niños.

Es importante recalcar que las personas atraídas a menores no siempre son adultos: la mayoría de las personas atraídas a menores sienten su primera atracción a niños a la edad de 12. Esto significa que hay menores que también son pedófilos o hebéfilos, por ejemplo. ¿Cómo una persona que odia a personas atraídas a menores por consecuencia del deseo de proteger a niños responden a esto? Proteger niños asume proteger niños y adolescentes atraídos a menores también. Odiar a personas atraídas a menores en general no es algo que puede ser conciliado con el deseo de proteger a los niños en general.


Las causas a la atracción a menores no es clara. Parece ser primero notada durante la adolescencia y resistente al cambio. Considerando que los niños son seres sexuales y que ellos tienen juegos sexuales entre ellos (para ejemplos de actividad sexual infantil, mire Campbell et al, 2013, páginas 154 a 157), uno podría pensar que el problema en cuanto a la atracción a menores residiría en el hecho que la persona, cuando crecía, continuaba siendo atraída a los niños, pero no es siempre así: algunas personas notan que ellos están preferiblemente atraídos a los niños tarde en sus vidas al igual.

Por un tiempo, se pensaba que tener contacto sexual con un adulto causaría que el niño crezca a ser un pedófilo. Esa línea de pensamiento es conocida como la “teoría del ciclo abusado-abusador” y está, actualmente, siendo disputada. Parece no haber, necesariamente, una conexión entre tener relaciones sexuales en la niñez con el crecer siendo atraído a niños, especialmente si tal contacto fue considerado como negativo.

Lo único que puede ser dicho es que la atracción a menores en general y la pedofilia en particular no son elegidas, con una cantidad de investigadores afirmando que la pedofilia podría ser una orientación sexual. Mientras que eso no amerita que las relaciones entre adultos y niños debería ser legalizada, eso sí significa, si los pedófilos no escogen su condición y que tal no puede ser cambiada, odiarlos por solo eso es injusto. Tú no eres responsable por los sentimientos que tienes, mas solo por tus acciones.


Las personas atraídas a menores notan sus primera atracción a niños alrededor de los 12 años. Los sentimientos que tienen vienen en tres niveles: cariño, romance y sexual. En el primer nivel, puedes tener necesidad de cuidar a los menores, ofrecerles consejo (mire artículo encontrado en New York Post, 2007, citado en Rivas, 2016, páginas 113 a 115), protegerlos y estar disponible para sus necesidades. Eso ayudaría explicar por qué mucho de los escándalos sexuales envuelve personas en posiciones de orientación, como los curas o maestros. En el segundo nivel, el impulso de tener un lazo emocional (Rivas, 2016, página 264). En el tercer nivel, los deseos son guiados a lo que nosotros llamaríamos “abuso sexual”, en términos legales: tocar, acariciar, manosear, actos que son más a menudo centrado en el niño (mire cita por D.J.West, en O’Caroll, 1980, capítulo 3). Ha sido mencionado en literatura que, al menos cuando se trata de pedófilos (sin incluir a los hebéfilos y efebófilos), la penetración es un factor in-común en el contacto sexual con niños. Considerando que esos sentimientos sexuales pudieran coexistir con sentimientos de amor, parece natural que los pedófilos, al ser personas atraídas a niños prepubertos, se abstendrían de la actividad penetrativa, como sería ambos doloroso como, probablemente, degradante para el niño (mire O’Caroll, 1980, capítulo 6, donde él explica por qué debería de haber edad de consentimiento para ciertos actos de penetración).

Sin embargo, como es implícito por las dos primeros niveles de atracción (cariño y romance), usted probablemente no sienta gratificación si el niño o el adolescente es indispuesto. El lego puede luego preguntar “¿y qué de los casos de violaciones sexuales a los niños que vemos en televisión?” Es ahora evidente que la mayor cantidad de las personas arrestadas por relaciones con menores no cumplen con los criterios de diagnóstico para pedofilia. En términos de profano, esto significa que la mayoría de las personas penalizadas por tener relaciones sexuales con los niños ni siquiera son pedófilos desde el principio. Hay varias razones para una persona tener relaciones con menores y pedofilia es solo una de ellas. La persona podría tener relaciones con un menor para experimentación, venganza, deseo de causar dolor, intoxicar, “jailbaiting”, desorden mental o, en extremo, casos raros, menores violando a mayores. Si solo una minoría de esas personas en televisión son los verdaderos pedófilos, los legos deberían de estar más preocupados de personas “normales” abusando a sus niños. Si un abusador en realidad puede ser “cualquiera”, es ahora conocido que raramente es un pedófilo.

Finalmente, considerando el impacto social de esas relaciones y el cariño y los sentimientos románticos que coexisten con los sentimientos sexuales, no es una sorpresa que muchas personas atraídas a menores escogen mantenerse célibe hacia los niños y adolescentes (el ejemplo clásico es la relación entre Alice Liddell y Lewis Carroll, como visto en Rivas, 2016, páginas 247 y 248). De hecho, incluso entre aquellos que sostienen una posición Pro-Contacto, tener una relación sexual con un menor es visto como inmoral, al poder exponer ambos al adulto y al niño a la tribulación de las intervenciones sociales. Entonces, los pedófilos que tienen sentimientos de amor sinceros a los niños deberían de permanecer célibes, incluso si es intencional no causar daño, al menos hasta que el clima se vuelva más aceptable a esas relaciones (Rivas, 2016, página 271).

¿Hay un tratamiento o una cura?

Independientemente si la atracción a menores es una orientación sexual o un desorden mental, es resistente al cambio. Sabemos que las terapias de conversión, en un tiempo usadas para cambiar la atracción homosexual a una heterosexual no funciona. Para decir más, la terapia de conversión fue equivalente a un castigo, de la naturaleza cruel e inusual, por Leinwand. Tal castigo también fue aplicado a los pedófilos en el pasado. Las técnicas de terapia de conversión incluyen electrocutamiento, inducciones a vómitos, sonidos de zumbidos de alta de alta frecuencias y otros estímulos incómodos cuando, al mismo tiempo, es también dado a la persona algo que sexualmente los estimula (mire notas de pie en O‘Caroll, 1980, capítulo 4).
Si la atracción a menores no puede ser cambiada, lo mejor que podemos hacer es ayudarlos a mantenerles siguiendo las leyes mientras se mejoran la calidad de sus vidas. Cuando tú eres aislado o tienes el sentimiento “de que no hay nada que perder”, eres más propenso a ofender. Eso significa que el aislar a las personas atraídas a menores de la sociedad no ayuda para los fines de la sociedad, ni las metas tuyas de mantenerte sin ofender. Con esto en mente, el grupo terapéutico B4U-ACT no promueve por tratamientos que apunte hacia “curarte”, especialmente porque B4U-ACT no ve la atracción a menores como una enfermedad.  Los terapeutas que trabajan con B4U-ACT se supone que se mantengan con tratamiento éticos, enfocados en tu bienestar, los cuales minimizan las probabilidades de ofender.

Sentimientos y acciones.

Sentir atracción a menores es diferente a actuar por ella. Para hacer una analogía, varias personas tienen el urge de hacer cosas ilegales: matar o golpear una persona que disgustan, experimentar con drogas ilícitas o participar de juegos ilícitos. Sin embargo, tener esos sentimientos no garantiza que una persona actuaría de esos impulsos. No obstante, las personas tienen derecho a sus fantasías. Lo mismo va para ti.

En Japón, la pornografía infantil animada, en la forma de lolicon/shotacon manga, es tolerado. A pesar de eso, la disponibilidad de tal pornografía (como con toda pornografía) no parece incrementar los casos de de abuso sexual infantil en Japón de ninguna manera (Diamond & Uchiyama, 1999, página 10). De hecho, ambos los Estados Unidos y el Reino Unido, dos territorios que invierten mucho en pelear en contra la pedofilia, aparecen en la lista de los cinco países con mayores índices de abuso sexual infantil. ¿Cómo puede ser?

En un estudio sobre la presencia de pornografía y su correlación a las tasas de crimen sexual, encontraron que en la República Checa había bajado las tasas de abuse sexual infantil después de legalizar la posesión de pornografía infantil (Diamond et al, 2011, página 1039). Mientras que eso no amerita que la pornografía infantil debería de ser legal, podría significar que la presencia de pornografía infantil hace que los pedófilos en particulares sean menos propensos a incitar encuentros con niños reales. Esto explica por qué los índices de abuso sexual infantil son menores en Japón, pero alto en los Estados Unidos: Japón permite a los pedófilos de sacar sus sentimientos, dándoles descargo seguro. Proveído que tales medios son el manga, los niños reales no tienen que participar en la producción de ninguna manera. Por eso, e está haciendo estudios en el sujeto de la pornografía infantil virtualmente realístico, que ayudaría para el mismo propósito.

Aunque no se provean maneras de satisfacer estos deseos, nadie puede quitar el derecho de ellos de fantasear. A medida que puedas encontrar una manera de tener alivio sexual legalmente, la probabilidad de que violaras la ley sería menor. También hay otras formas de expresión que no son sexualmente explícitas. Por ejemplo, una novela “boy love” fue publicada en el 2018. No fue el primer libro de su tipo y probablemente no sea el último. Otro ejemplo sería la película I Love You, Daddy, lanzada en el 2017. La existencia de ficción legal trabaja con tales temas que la sublimación de los deseos a través de obras artísticas is incluso posible y también pueden ser hechas de una manera aceptable, legal y quizás hasta lucrativa. Es, además, importante notar que tales trabajos pueden de buen manera ser elaboradas por personas que ni siquiera son atraídos a menores.

Edad de consentimiento y cultura.

La edad de consentimiento no siempre ha existido. No ha sido siempre tan alta o tan baja. Podría ser mayor o menor. Podría dejar de existir. Las leyes volátiles la hacen inadecuadas para definir lo que es enfermo y no es enfermo, aunque ellas puedan dictar lo que es socialmente aceptable o lo que no es. Esto es un asunto importante que tocar por el bienestar de las personas atraídas a menores, porque parte de la vergüenzas que sienten acerca de sus sentimientos es del hecho que muchas formas de atracción a menores son ilegales en sus territorios.

La edad de consentimiento varía entre las culturas, eso es, a través de tiempo y lugar. Las primeras edades de consentimiento fueron bastante bajas. En los Estados Unidos, la edad de consentimiento solía ser 7 en Delaware. Movimientos sociales, especialmente el feminismo (mire, para ejemplo, Sandfort, 1987, capítulo 1), jugaron un rol en cambiar esa imagen. Pero incluso hoy en día, las edades consentimiento pueden ser muy bajas en otros lugares: porque la de edad de consentimiento más baja en Japón es 13, la edad de consentimiento en Brasil es 14 nacionalmente y es 12 en las Filipinas. El caso de Brasil es especialmente interesante porque la edad de consentimiento en Brasil era 16 en 1920, y actualmente es 14 y habían propuestas para bajarlo a 12 en esta misma década, siguiendo, entre otras cosas, el descubrimiento que estaba interfiriendo con el romance entre adolescentes. De los países que mencioné, Brasil muestra una tendencia de bajar la edad de consentimiento mientras el tiempo pasa. Hay también países sin edades de consentimiento, pero tienen una edad mínima para casarse, las cuales también pueden ser bien bajas. Esos países frecuentemente imponen restricciones a la actividad sexual en orden de mantenerlo dentro del matrimonio. Entonces, en algunos países, si estás casado, la diferencia de edad no importa. Por último, en las culturas de los indígenas aislados, tales leyes pueden estar ausente (para varios ejemplos de tales tribus, mire O’Caroll, 1980, capítulo 2).

Esto significa que tener cosas románticas o sexuales con menores no es siempre ilegal, dependiendo tu contexto. Si has nacido en el lugar indicado, en el tiempo correcto, tu atracción sería tolerada, aceptada o hasta apreciada. No es probable que estén enfermo; solo nacieron en la cultura equivocada. Poniendo las cosas de esta perspectiva, si te sientes mal por tener urgencias de hacer cosas ilegales, a pesar del hecho que muchos de nosotros tenemos sentimientos de esa naturaleza, puedes considerar mudarte o apoyar a la reforma de la edad de consentimiento. La única iniciativa para la reforma de la edad de consentimiento que yo conozco es el programa del Partido Comunista de Gran Bretaña (CPGB-PCC), que lista, como una de sus demandas inmediatas, la abolición a las leyes de la edad de consentimiento y la elaboración de una legislación alternativa en contra del abuso sexual infantil. El partido argumento que las personas deberían de tener el derecho de entrar en relaciones con su propia voluntad, un derecho que los niños también deberían de tener.

Estadísticas y anécdotas.

Pero edades menores de consentimiento implican que relaciones a ciertas edades pueden ser sin violencia. Eso trae la pregunta sobre si el contacto sexual antes de la edad de consentimiento es siempre dañino o no. Pueden las relaciones entre adultos y niños funcionar? Evidencia estadística y en base de anécdotas muestra que las relaciones ínter-generacionales no son consistentemente dañinas. Si el contacto sexual precoz fuera siempre dañino, la edad de consentimiento sería menos variada. Más, si ese fuera el caso, la edad de consentimiento sería una ley mucho más vieja. Como las leyes en contra del asesinato, violencia, violaciones y robo.

La consideración de casos de contacto sexual precoces recordada de manera positiva no estaría incluida en este documento si no fue grabado en la literatura que el saber de tal información puede subir el autoestima de las personas atraídas a menores. Pero tal discusión sobre experiencias de intimación positivas entre adultos y niños no puede ser realizada sin considerar las razones por la prohibición.

La evidencia falla en demonstrar la creencia que la intimidad entre adultos y niños es siempre dañina. Algunos de esos contactos son recordados de manera positiva. Uno de los libros usados para referencia de este texto es Las Memorias Positivas, de Rivas, la cual compila anécdotas de contacto sexuales voluntarios entre menores (no mayores de 15) con adultos (no menores de 18) recordadas de manera positiva (Rivas, 2016, página 9). Estas anécdotas fueron extraídas de otros trabajos, como biografías, artículos de noticias, escritos científicos y otros. Las fuentes pueden ser encontradas en la bibliografía del libro. Otras compilaciones están disponibles en otros lugares.

Algunos estudios que podrían ser usados para probar la existencia de relaciones ínter-generacionales están por ahí.  Algunos de ellos que puedo mencionar es Arreola et al, 2008; Arreola et al, 2009; Bauserman & Rind, 1997; Carballo-Diéguez et al, 2011; Condy et al, 1987; Dolezal et al, 2014; Kilpatrick, 1987; Lahtinen et al, 2018; Leahy, 1996; Mulya, 2018; Rind, 2001; Rind, 2016; Rind & Tromovitch, 1997; Rind & Welter, 2013; Rind & Welter, 2016; Rind et al, 1998; Sandfort, 1984; Sandfort, 1987; Tindall, 1978; Ulrich et al, 2005-2006; Wet et al, 2018.  Podrías percatarte que muchos de estos estudios son recientes, mientras que otros son viejos.  Sería interesante verificarlos si interesara leer más del tema.  No es mi meta exponer los datos que fue recopilados por estos investigadores.  Es también importante mencionar que ninguno de estos estudios toman una posición definitiva a pro-legalización (apesar de tomar en cuenta el hecho que algunas de las relaciones son recordadas como positiva por los niños y que no fueron lastimados por el contacto, lo cual a veces causa a que los niños no revelen el incidente.  Lahtinen et al, 2018, solo concluye que la revelación de experiencias deben de ser más estimuladas , no que las relaciones entre adultos y niños deberían de ser legales).

Si las relaciones ínter-generaciones pueden ser positivas, ¿por qué el contacto sexual entre adulto-niño sigue siendo ilegal?  La respuesta depende del consentimiento informado.  La creencia que los niños no pueden consentir parece ser la única razón por que estos contactos aún son considerados como siempre abusivos (mire cita por Archard, en Jahke et al, 2017, página 3). ¿Pero qué significa “el consentir” en este contexto, como mucho de esos contactos son considerados como “voluntario” por la supuesta víctima?

El consentimiento informado es requerido cuando un riesgo es presente: cuando vayas a hacer algo peligroso, usted tiene que estar al tanto de las consecuencias de un acto y tiene que serle posible el poder hacer una decisión libre en si asumir el riesgo o no (mire Lavin, 2013, página 5). El sexo es considerado como riesgoso, en el sentido que es potencialmente dañino. Si el sexo es potencialmente dañino, todos que participen en prácticas sexuales debe dar consentimiento informado, eso es, que debe de saber las consecuencias y poder tomar una posición en si tomar los riesgos o no. El problema con el contacto sexual entre adultos y niños es que, mientras que algunos adultos no están conscientes de las consecuencias de sus actos y mientras que el desequilibrio es inherente a las relaciones humanas, los niños son ambos ignorantes de las consecuencias y en una posición de desventaja social hacia la sociedad entera. El consentimiento informado es basado en información o dinámica de poderes favorables y ninguna de las mencionadas están presentes para el niño en tal relación. Esto también explica por qué la edad de consentimiento varía entre las culturas: países diferentes tienen actitudes diferente hacia el sexo, más o menos juventud informada, derechos de niños más amplios o estrechos. Así que, cuando alguien dice que “los niños no pueden consentir”, lo que están diciendo, en términos funcionales es:

1. los niños no están informados lo suficiente para proveer un consentimiento válido a las relaciones sexuales que son hereditariamente desiguales, y;

2. este asunto es importante porque el sexo es riesgoso, eso es, potencialmente perjudicial.

Porque dar consentimiento a un acto sin información a las consecuencias is una opción nula y porque dar consentimiento en una situación donde no puedes en realidad decir “no” (como un adulto peligroso podría intentar de forzar al niño si le niega) es también nulo, el consentimiento del niño es nulo. Esta es la racionalidad detrás del consentimiento informado y la razón porque las relaciones entre adultos y niños permanece ilegal. Incluso si el acto fuera realmente practicado libremente y aunque no haya daño, sino solo beneficio, resultado del acto, fue inmoral.

Aunque hayan casos recordados de manera positiva de contacto entre adulto y niño y aunque haya evidencia en anécdotas que enseña que hay menores deseando tales encuentros, el acto, cuando descubierto, causará daño a ambos participantes de la relación. Reitero que actuando a estos deseos en un contexto cultural que desaprueba de tal conducta es una muestra de irresponsabilidad. Los MAPs Pro-Contactos están interesados en cambiar las leyes (mire Sandfort, 1987, capítulo 3 para un ejemplo de intentos de reformas en la edad de consentimiento en los Países Bajos), pero no deberían de estarlo en desobedecer las leyes, no solo por su propia seguridad, sino que también por como el niño pudiera responder a la intervención (para una anécdota en cómo intervención por la sociedad de por sí puede lastimar a ambos el adulto y el niño, mire Rivas, 2016, página 27 a 32).


Si usted no va a necesariamente cometer un crimen, si la mayoría de los que perpetúan ofensas sexuales en contra de los niños no son pedófilos en el primer lugar y si tales atracciones han sido, son y podrían ser aceptables, dependiendo el contexto cultural, entonces no tienes ninguna razón para sentirte enfermo. Si eso es todo lo que necesitas escuchar o leer, puedes dejar el asunto por completo y dejar de preocuparte por ello, como es así la carga que está atribuido a los sentimientos, en vez de los sentimientos de por sí, que causan vergüenza y la culpa. Eso implica que la sociedad te hace sentir enferma, no los sentimientos presentes en tí.

Si es el caso, podrías usar compañía para al menos manejar con los sentimientos de aislamiento. Hay comunidades legales en línea y fuera de línea que las personas atraídas a menores pueden depender de, para intercambiar experiencias y tener guía de personas que comparten la misma atracción. B4U-ACT tiene un grupo de soporte, por ejemplo. Otras comunidades como BoyChat/GirlChat, Virtuos Pedophiles y el JORIS (este último en los Países Bajos) también son opciones. Fuera de estos, solo Virtuous Pedophiles tiene requerimientos estrictos para su membresía, al ser que las personas que se unan a su grupo también tienen que ser Anti-Contacto. B4U-ACT, BoyChat/GirlChat y el JORIS no tienen tales requerimientos. Como B4U-ACT quiere alcanzar la mayor cantidad de personas atraídos a menores que sea posible, tiene sentido que no empujarían visiones en particular en el asunto de contacto: cuando Intercambio de Información de Pedófilos operaba en los Reinos Unidos, su activismo Pro-Contacto empujó a algunos de sus miembros (O‘Caroll, 1980, capítulo 11). Cuando se llega a un tema tan delicado, los grupos de apoyo y el activismo político son difíciles de conciliar, si no imposible, especialmente cuando se trata de perspectivas Pro-Contacto. Dicho eso, si un grupo de soporte para personas atraídas a menores quiere alcanzar a la mayor cantidad de personas posible, ser “neutral en contacto” es una buena idea, para ambas personas atraídas a menores que son Pro-Contacto o Anti-Contacto asistan a ella, mientras que la organización en sí no toma una posición en particular en el asunto y se mantiene segura. JORIS and B4U-ACT también llevan a cabo reuniones en la vida real en ocasiones, pero, meintras el JORIS trata de ser un grupo de soporte donde las personas se introduzcan y hablen de sus dificultades para recibir apoyo grupal, las reuniones en vida real de B4U-ACT son académicas en naturaleza e investigadores también participan. Mientras que las personas asisten a las reuniones de B4U-ACT por ellos mismos, algunas personas son referidos por el JORIS por el sistema de justicia.

No mirar la atracción a menores como algo negativo y tener otros que entiendan y escuchen es crucial para el bienestar de una personas atraída a menores, evadiendo el temido pensamiento de “no tener nada que perder”, que haría que la persona sea propensa a acciones desesperadas, como el suicidio. Si las personas odian a las personas atraídas a menores porque es creído que ellos siempre están ofendiendo la ley y que todos esos que ofenden la ley es porque están atraídos a menores, entonces no hay razón para odiarlo, al ser esa creencia evidentemente falsa. Ellos no valen la pena ser odiados. De hecho, si no estás ofendiendo, podrías pasar como perfectamente “normal”. Muchas personas son probablemente amigos con al menos alguien como tú.

Para deshacer los prejuicios que existen en cuanto a las personas atraídas a menores, la mejor solución sería el salir de ellos. Es más seguro “salir con tu atracción” en línea, en cuentas dedicadas, y muchos lo han hecho en Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, WordPress, Tumblr, Medium, y sigue la lista. Si te declaras en línea, especialmente si sabes cómo separa tu identidad pública y real de una identidad aparte en línea, eso ya es de tu ayuda. El prejuicio en contra de las personas atraídas a menores solo existe porque las personas pueden decir lo que les venga en gana sobre una minoría en silencio. ¿Cuántas personas atraídas a menores hay por ahí? El estimado más bajo, de acuerdo a la página de datos de B4U-ACT, es 600.000 adultos, solo contando los Estados Unidos. ¿Cuántos más existen en otros países? ¿Todas esas personas son malas?



AGEOFCONSENT.NET. Highest and lowest ages of consent. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/10/18.
ARREOLA, S. ; NEILANDS, T. ; POLLACK, L. ; PAUL, J. ; CATANIA, J. Childhood sexual experiences and adult health sequelae among gay and bisexual men: defining childhood sexual abuse, in The Journal of Sex Research, july to september, 2008. Taylor & Francis, 2008.
ARREOLA, S. G. ; NEILANDS, T. B. ; DÍAZ, R. Childhood sexual abuse and the sociocultural context of sexual risk among adult latino gay and bisexual men, in American Journal of Public Health, supplement 2, volume 99, number S2. American Public Health Association, 2009.
BAUSERMAN, R. ; RIND, B. Psychological Correlates of Male Child and Adolescent Sexual Experiences with Adults: A Review of the Nonclinical Literature, in Archives of Sexual Behavior, volume 26, number 2. Plenum Publishing Corporation, 1997.
B4U-ACT. FAQ. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/02/18.
B4U-ACT. FAQ for MAPs. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/04/18.
B4U-ACT. Learn. Retrived from: < >. Date of access: 09/01/18.
B4U-ACT. Past workshops and symposiums. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/13/18.
B4U-ACT. Peer support. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/13/18.
B4U-ACT. Research ethos. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/04/18.
B4U-ACT. Youth, suicidality, and seeking care. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/02/18.
BRADSHAW, P. I Love You, Daddy review – Louis CK’s brazen comedy is a screwball success. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/09/18.
BROWN, E. N. Beyond gay and straight: new paper says sexual orientation is much more complicated. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/01/18.
CAMPBELL, C. ; MALLAPPA, A. ; WISNIEWSKI, A. B. ; SILOVSKY, J. F. Sexual behavior of prepubertal children, in Handbook of Child and Adolescent Sexuality: Developmental and Forensic Psychology. Elsevier, 2013.
CARBALLO-DIÉGUEZ, A. ; BALAN, I. ; DOLEZAL, C. ; MELLO, M. B. Recalled Sexual Experiences in Childhood with Older Partners: A Study of Brazilian Men Who Have Sex with Men and Male-to-Female Transgender Persons, in Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, pages 363 to 376. Springer Science+Business Media, 2011.
CASH, B. M. Self-identifications, sexual development and well-being in minor-attracted people: an exploratory study. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/11/18.
CLRESEARCHBLOG. Does sexual abuse cause pedophilia? Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/02/18.
CLRESEARCHBLOG. Pedophilia as a sexual orientation. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/02/18.
COMMUNIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN. Immediate demands. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/23/18.
D’AGOSTINHO, R. Tribunais absolvem acusados de sexo com menor apesar de nova lei. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/10/18.
DIAMOND, M. ; JOZIFKOVA, E. ; WEISS, P. Pornography and sex crimes in Czech Republic, in Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, pages 1037 to 1043. Springer Science+Business, 2011.
DIAMOND, M. ; UCHIYAMA, A. Pornography, rape and sex crimes in Japan, in International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, volume 22, number 1, pages 1 to 22. Elsevier, 1999.
DISCOVER THE TRUTH. Age of consent in European & American history. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/10/18.
DOLEZAL, C. ; CARBALLO-DIÉGUEZ, A. ; BALÁN, I. C. ; PANDO, M. A. ; MABRAGAÑA, M. ; MARONE, R. ; BARREDA, V. ; AVILA, M. M. Childhood sexual experiences with an older partner among men who have sex with men in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in Child Abuse & Neglect, 38, pages 271 a 279. Elsevier, 2014.
DRURY, K. M. ; BUKOWSKY, W. M. Sexual development, in Handbook of Child and Adolescent Sexuality: Developmental and Forensic Psychology. Elsevier, 2013.
GIELES, F. Helping people in the Netherlands with paedophilic feelings. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/13/18.
GOODREADS. “The Unorthodox Thing About Love, a novel”, by Jonas Boehm. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 11/25/18.
HENLEY, J. Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light. Retrieved from: < >. Access date: 09/02/18.
IACCINO, L. Child sexual abuse: top 5 countries with the highest rates. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/09/18.
JAHNKE, S. ; SCHMITT, S. ; MALÓN, A. What if the child appears to enjoy it? Moral attitudes towards adult-child sex among men with and without pedohebephilia, in The Journal of Sex Research, 00, pages 1 to 12. Routledge, 2017.
KATRIEN. Minor-attracted figures in history. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/10/18.
KILPATRICK, A. C. Childhood Sexual Experiences: Problems and Issues in Studying Long-Range Effects, in The Journal of Sex Research, volume 23, number 2, pages 173 to 196. Routledge, 1987.
LAHTINEN, H-M. ; LAITILA, A. ; KORKMAN, J. ; ELLONEN, N. Children’s disclosures of sexual abuse in a population-based sample, in Child Abuse & Neglect, 76, pages 84 to 94. Elsevier, 2018.
LAVIN, M. Choosing for children, in Handbook of Child and Adolescent Sexuality: Developmental and Forensic Psychology. Elsevier, 2013.
LEAHY, T. Sex and the age of consent: the ethical issues, in Social Analysis, number 39. 1996.
LEINWAND, S. N. Aversion therapy – punishment as treatment and treatment as cruel and unusual punishment. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/04/18.
MALLETT, X. Child sex abuse doesn’t create paedophiles. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/16/18.
MHAMIC. What’s wrong with adult-child sex (Finkelhor). Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 7/17/18.
MULYA, T. W. Contesting the Dominant Discourse of Child Sexual Abuse: Sexual Subjects, Agency, and Ethics, in Sexuality & Culture. Springer Science+Business Media, 2018.
MURIGI, E. Age of consent around the world, in Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/10/18.
O’CARROLL, T. Paedophilia: the radical case. London: Peter Owen, 1980.
PEDOSEXUAL RESOURCES DIRECTORY. The sexual interest of the pedophile. Retrieved from: < >. Access date: 09/03/18.
RIND, B. Gay and Bisexual Adolescent Boys’ Sexual Experiences With Men: An Empirical Examination of Psychological Correlates in a Nonclinical Sample, in Archives of Sexual Behavior, volume 30, number 4. Springer Science+Business Media, 2001.
RIND, B. Reactions to First Postpubertal Female Same-Sex Sexual Experience in the Kinsey Sample: A Comparison of Minors with Peers, Minors with Adults, and Adults with Adults, in Archives of Sexual Behavior. Springer Science+Business Media, 2016.
RIND, B ; BAUSERMAN, R ; TROMOVITCH, P. A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples, in Psychological Bulletin, volume 124, number 1, pages 22 to 53. American Psychology Association, 1998.
RIND, B. ; TROMOVITCH, P. A meta‐analytic review of findings from national samples on psychological correlates of child sexual abuse, in The Journal of Sex Research, volume 34, number 3, pages 237 to 255. Routledge, 1997.
RIND, B. ; WELTER, M. Enjoyment and Emotionally Negative Reactions in Minor–Adult Versus Minor–Peer and Adult–Adult First Postpubescent Coitus: A Secondary Analysis of the Kinsey Data, in Archives of Sexual Behavior. Springer Science+Business Media, 2013.
RIND, B. ; WELTER, M. Reactions to First Postpubertal Male Same-Sex Sexual Experience in the Kinsey Sample: A Comparison of Minors With Peers, Minors With Adults, and Adults With Adults, in Archives of Sexual Behavior. Springer Science+Business Media, 2016.
RIVAS, T. Positive memories: cases of positive memories of erotic and platonic relationships and contacts of children with adults, as seen from the perspective of the former minor, 3rd edition. Amsterdam: Ipce, 2016.
REID, R. Teen girls crave older male partners – an uncomfortable truth British society ignores. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/11/18.
REID, R. Teenage girls want relationships with older men – that’s why it’s men’s responsibility to say no. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 11/26/18.
RUTKIN, A. Could sex robots and virtual reality treat paedophilia? Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/09/18.
SANDFORT, T. Boys on their contacts with men: a study of sexually expressed friendships. New York: Global Academic Publishers, 1987.
SANDFORT, T. Sex in pedophiliac relationships: an empirical investigation among a nonrepresentative group of boys, in The Journal of Sex Research, volume 20, number 2, pages 123 to 142. Routledge, 1984.
SHORTLAND, G. Student, 14, raped and killed his maths teacher before disposing her body in a wheelie bin. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/04/18.
SOL RESEARCH. Cases in the research. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/11/18.
THOMPSON, A. Staff member at prestigious school had sex with boys “under duress”, court hears. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/10/18.
TINDALL, R. H. The male adolescent involved with a pederast becomes an
adult, in The Journal of Homosexuality, volume 3. Routledge, 1978.
TOURJÉE, D. Most child sex abusers are not pedophiles, expert says. Retrieved from: < >. Access date: 09/03/18.
ULRICH, H. ; RANDOLPH, M. ; ACHESON, S. Child sexual abuse: A Replication of the Meta-analytic Examination of Child Sexual Abuse by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998), in The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, volume 4, number 2. Center for Inquiry, 2005-2006.
VIRTUOUS PEDOPHILES. F. A. Q. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/01/18.
WET, N. ; ALEX-OJEI, C. ; AKINYEMI, J. ‘I’m in love with an older man’: reasons for intergenerational sexual relationships among young women in South Africa, in Culture, Health & Sexuality. Taylor & Francis, 2018.
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. International classification of diseases, 11th edition. Retrieved from: < >. Date of access: 09/01/18.


Original Document Translated From:

The Myth of Consent


When it comes to consent everyone becomes a champion for it to be acknowledged and promoted throughout modern societies.  Everyone becomes an advocate and agrees that each individual should confirm and feel comfortable with whatever situation they are exposed to.  Modern democratic systems also endorses that people should be alright with whatever it is getting done in their respective environments and also be allowed to complain if they do not?

How much truth does this when it comes to younger members of our society?  Are they partially allowed to some and/or given the illusion that they have some control over their life?  In children’s eyes, is democracy actually even applicable to them or are they forced to submit to authority regardless of what their opinion on the matter is?  How could this be changed?

According to the Dictionary Merriam-Webster, the definition of “Consent” is to “give assent or approval; to be in concord in opinion or sentiment”.  When it comes to consent in the MAP community, many individuals quickly jump to intercourse = sex, which is not always the case, in fact, I would say it is almost never the case to use that word to solely represent just that.  In spite of that, many still choose to misinterpret it into exclusively intercourse, when in reality, an ideal adult-child relationship would constitute into so much more than mere contact.  There are feelings, teaching, growth, communication, you know, like regular relationships, but not explicitly the same due to the nature of it being promoting growth, mentoring and love.

One thing people like to point out when it comes to these relationships are the “differences in power” as something diabolical and that all pedophiles will use in order to get what they want which, given the nature of such claim, it is entirely false in that context.  There is no denying that in current society there would be differences in power and trust implicated in adult-child relationships, but that does not mean that such elements should be exploited in order to take advantage of the child, rather it should be completely the opposite, using your position in order to maximize the growth of the young one, as well as introduce them to other things in life as they grow up.

b83e5871-3e11-4e48-861b-5c3de0d67aed The complex approach towards these relationships mostly emanate from the thought that these would emulate a regular adult relationship.  That statement couldn’t be further from the truth of what most adults, as well as children, want from these relationships.  Some people just want company, younger companions who make them feel more comfortable and make their lives perhaps more lively, as well as the same contributions for the child’s life.  This means having a stable relationship that doesn’t exactly consists of all the variables that are mostly present in other types of interactions of this nature.

There is also the fact that children are mostly taken for granted and their input never seems to be valued, unless it’s a reply from them confirming to blind obedience to their respective guardians.  Why choose to ignore what the child wants and preset the experiences they have to go through their entire youth?  Where is their agreement in this?  Why do you use your authority to over their will, sometimes not really in the best hopes for them, but to get them to do what you want, but then refuse to give them any freedom to do certain things without proper reason to do so?  In fact, why isn’t it immoral to prevent for children’s rights to have their own experiences fully?  Just like everyone, they learn from their mistakes, but also acquire from their experiences, and that’s part of them growing up.

Parents’ Perspectives on Parenting Styles and Disciplining Children

I mostly tackle current raising methods as being limiting and selfish when it comes about actually caring about the child.  Current methods goes against the child will at times and enables parents to have the absolute power in what children should say, think and what their general approach to life should be, amongst other restrictions, unfortunately. Where is their acknowledgement in all of this?  Are children your property or a life that should be taught to grow open to everything that there is to life, rather than keeping them from reality?

I really think a more open and less restrictive approach should be taken when raising a child.  One where the main worry is not getting the child to do what you tell them to do all the time, but let them explore what they wish to seek instead.  Society itself also needs to change it’s view towards children as the inherent to explicitly the current society that is now.  What if they want to go about it differently and create something to replace today’s society?  Schooling systems need to drastically be changed from just adapting children to work and obey to something that equips them with analytical thinking, allowing them to actually learn subjects and approach them in a logical/rational manner in order to truly appreciate their observations and perhaps even willingness to learn about more subjects, as well as explore them on their own, not just focusing on their memorizing capabilities, which aren’t certainly a bad thing, but it shouldn’t be the main focus of modern education.

Traditional Methods of Raising Children

The link above is an example of what constitutes indoctrination, in this case it would be Islam taken as an example, but it can be the case with any and all religions, including atheism.  While people appeal over pedophiles using “grooming” methods to manipulate children, many times against their consent (which I condemn when done so), they disregard religious folks doing the same in their given raising methods.  Children are subject to learn traditions and to behave in certain ways, but receive punishments if they drift out of their ways.  According to Islam, “Parents would marry their children off at a young age to ensure they did not commit any acts of disobedience.”, meaning that they are to be held to be married against potentially their consent just because they are not allowed to “commit any acts of disobedience”, but what if they want to follow a different path in their life?

It is hypocritical to think that implemented raising methods actually care about children, while thinking that MAPs in general do not care about them.  Most believe pedophiles have ulterior motives with them, bending them against their.  Same people who are also imposing these kinds of ideologies on kids that are currently growing, instead of valuing the liberty of them to explore different aspects that will eventually constitute their thoughts and general perspective towards life.  Children need liberty, not restriction.  They need guidance, not submission.  These variables will constitute into creating a child who can be more self-dependent, but also kind and open-minded.

Young Boy at School Raising His Hand to Answer in Class
Is blind obedience and confirming nods what you want from a child?  Or do you want a human life taking responsibilities for their actions, exploring life as it is, therefore creating a better understanding of it, and being able to analyze situations according to their capabilities?  What is more important to you?  Submission or Freedom? 



Shane Dawson and His Normie Battalion

Recently, there has been an uproar about the presence of the MAP community on YouTube, in particular to those that are probably a little more than watching meme compilations and video games trailers.  As you all know, YouTube is basically available for everyone to upload millions of videos per day.  Among those uploaders, it will also include minors who decide for that platform to upload the videos they love to make for different reasons.

All is well and good, the girls don’t complain, they enjoy the videos they upload and overall using the freedom the internet provides to them to do what they want (most of the time).  Certain MAPs also enjoy them, leave comments, some are decent, other perhaps very decent, but in the end of it all, it doesn’t result in acting against the uploader, making them feel uncomfortable and/or removing their videos, does it?

Well it does now, if not sooner, when Shane Dawson decided to attack pedophiles who were making comments in videos where little girls are featured, claiming as conspiracy and as if the innocent videos that those girls created were child porn.  I am not endorsing the comments some individuals did left there, if say the child or preteen in the video did not like them which might or might not be the case, but personally I wouldn’t enjoy having people making lewd comments in a regular video I happen to make, though I wouldn’t get offended by it either because I recognize individuals have the liberty to speak their mind, though I would filter spam comments for the sake of keeping discussion (Shane’s mentioning of YouTube videos).

Now the real problem is actually not the pedophiles who are being attacked by those who claim “I came from Shane” as their flags and then proceed to bash them because of their lascivious comments, it is not the insulting and further stereotyping the MAP community, though that’s still an issue but not the main one I wish to focus on in here.

What I really want to aim at here is to who exactly are they causing the harm here and why, and that would be to those they swear to “protect” themselves, children.  Ever since that video Shane made 6 days ago, people have been invading certain YouTube channels where, in some of them, they are monitored directly by children.  They claim to be hunting the pedophiles and “rescuing” the children from the harmful hooks of random, generally harmless comments from strangers over the Internet, but when it come to the actual thing, they also resort to attacking the child as well.

Here are some examples of how these “heroes” are really helping the children:



Yes, because nothing teaches children you want to protect them from “violence” while actually being violent them and killing their parents.  This is what fear-mongering brings, people who are afraid of what they do not know, but choose to think they know and approach on a general thought that is next to even slightly true.


Well this certainly does help the child be “safe” now, does it?  Insulting her, plus literally telling them otherwise things they are against saying to them in order to prevent them from uploading videos they enjoy because the person who wrote this comments demonizes all pedos, therefore the child must not have freedom whatsoever.


Calling a child disgusting and to die then in order to protect children from pedophiles?  How would that work out?  How is that caring for them at all?  So according to this comment, if a child is a teleiophile they simply must die along with the pedos these people are trying to protect them from(?)


As if these comments left by antis wouldn’t affect the children themselves as well as they read through them being constantly classified as incapable of making YouTube videos because they cannot control the comment feeds, being told to get out of the Internet, insulting them, leaving dislikes and reporting their videos.  Sure, there will be comments from MAPs perhaps, but are they really affecting the child?  No, they’re not in most cases at all, and if it were the case they would just turn the comments off and/or delete said comments.

In reality, how is any of this actually helping children at all?  Most comments are directed towards the child rather than pedophiles and even criticizing them in harsh ways that I doubt any of them would tell to their children over the net.  It is evident that for anti-pedophiles this is no longer about children, but just a fight to remain the status quo they conceive as “right”, nothing more to that and it is unfortunate because that means disregarding what the future generations might want to do with their own lives because they are being forced into accomplishing expected roles.  Censoring children in order to attack pedophiles will only make the situation worse for both parties and people will see that in the long run.  I will venture into saying even more, they are already experimenting the consequences of trying to restrict children from their liberties.

The Alt-Free Speech Social Media Website

Thanks to the privacy and security invading procedures adopted by most of the popular social media websites, individuals seek for alternative and less intruding options in order to preserve a sense of personal privacy.  You have social media giants, like Facebook, constantly threatening to censor individuals with different ideals and/or marking many things as spam or “fake media”, sometimes out of convenience, all while leaving other apparent fake media still up until this date.  When it comes MAPs they get censored almost everywhere they go in many different ways, and of course, popular social medias are no exceptions.  So how does alternative platforms comes in order to promote our movement?  Are those websites who claim freedom of speech actually live up to their standards?  Today I will focus on a social media site in particular, one by the name of Minds (Website’s Link).




Minds is an alternative social media site that has been gaining popularity for being a more privacy respecting site, in contrast to the privacy invading tyrant known as Facebook.  It combines Facebook, Youtube and Google + to make it’s site work, as well as some other added features, some which are pretty interesting, others that needs improvements, but Minds is still in Beta, so it’s fine in that aspect.  The real things to address here is how freedom of speech is convinced by Minds.  This website, like many alternative websites, have been adopted by those who are normally censored by other websites because of their controversial views and many who advocates for establishment of violent institutions and/or pseudo-scientific movements.  There are also those who merely wishes to socialize without having to sacrifice the comforts of privacy and security.

This particular website called attention to some in the pedophile community, given the stance it had on freedom of speech (or so it had), as they have as recently as 7/19/2017  changed it’s Terms of Services after banning a number of pedophiles from advocating for pedophilia, with the excuse of “inciting to violence against children” (Minds TOS).  Among those in such sudden banning actions, myself was included.  Unfortunately, this is the second time I get banned from Minds unfairly, so I was already disillusioned with it, but still decided to give it another second try for to this time advocate for pedophilia.  As it was common,  warm greetings were not the case and hateful comments were directed, but for the time being I was able to post and talk about my views without being exactly censored, because said site promoted freedom of speech.  Everything was mostly going good as to propagating the message was until incidents started happening in where individuals were claiming that pedophiles in the Minds community were promoting “child abuse”, while we made it clear in different ways that we advocate for law changes in current society, not promoting the breaking of laws while it still being illegal and definitely not “abuse”, because we’re pedophiles, and that’s not the same.

It is truly disappointing for websites to claim to respect freedom of speech, but then decide to deprive of such things to those groups who actually need them.  What would be the point of promoting such a thing in the first place then? (and cowardly change the TOS to cover their asses afterwards?)  Is alienating the MAP community from discussion really the right choice?  What possible benefits could be achieved in ostracizing a group people into such a situation in where technically not even freedom of speech (nor any type of freedom for that matter) is allowed to them?  Is censoring really more cherished than than embracing fierce and productive rational discussion?


“US law is Minds benchmark and all legal content will be allowed. These same channels and content are posted on several social media sites as legal content.”, John Ottman, Co-Founder of Minds.  Ironically enough, that was stated by John a few days before we all got abruptly banned for “offending speech”.  What is even more ironic were that the hate comments we received were by far more “offensive” and even graphic than anything any of the pedophiles in that platform, during then, ever posted.  It is truly sad that even websites that refuses to follow the path of social media giants, when it really comes to it, they also comply with the same censoring procedures as their competitors.  Here I will now end showing a few examples of some of the things that were posted to us in that website in general.



There were by far more graphic material posted against us in a lot of ways, but I do not want to make this entry a distasteful one.  Anyways, having shown these, it is truly unfortunate being disappointed by Minds for a second time, as it was a website stating to defend freedom of speech but resulted to be telling no more than lies, while letting real inciters to violence to freely advocate for our unjust persecution in their domains.  I am also aware that this post has become more than a ranting than usual, but this was something I really needed to get out of the system, as well as my duty to call them out for not really promoting what they advertise and then change their term of services to fit their convenience and not lose traffic.  So at the end, they are nothing more than any of the other websites, if anything they’re probably worse from what it seems apparent.