Distortions, manipulations, and bullshit from the Salon’s pedophile.

Recently (21/9/2015) Salon.com run an article title “I’m a pedophile, but not a monster” written by Todd Nickerson. There is nothing inherently wrong with a giving voice to, well, anyone, be it a monster or a non-monster, as long as they don’t bullshit you and you don’t swallow their lies. I have no problem talking about pedophilia (I said talking, not debating or opening a dialogue, whatever that means) but I’m not going to transform it into an identity issue or let pedophiles frame the discussion since the words they use (love, for example) don’t mean (and can’t mean) the same when we use them. Also, the “debate” isn’t about them and us, but between them and the children. We speak for the children since they can’t do it themselves. I’ve never heard an adult say “Damn it, I wish some 30-year-old dude had touched me when I was 8!” We are their guardians, and it would be immoral to forget our responsibility towards potential victims and believe it’s about us and our politics. And, you see, that (among other things) is what the shitty and immoral Salon article tries to do. Ignore that: It actually tries to make it about THEM, the pedophiles and their feelings. The article is so narcissistic it hurts.

The problem is this: monsters bullshit and lie since it’s necessary for their survival. They live in a world where the rest see them as predators, so they have to hide their nature and obfuscate. In fact, they do it so well most people refuse to admit they even may exist. Now, I don’t know if the writer is a “monster”, but by being a pedophile he is considered as such by many people, so he would have all the reasons in the world to hide that fact. However, unlike other non-sexual monsters, for a pedophile it is not that easy to hide that nature. A sociopath or sadist may hide in public, protecting his unbalanced mind behind a mask of sanity and ideological purity, but sexual attraction to children is not something so easy to mask behind something since sexuality is an end to itself. You can always hide your obsessive and everlasting desires for control and your narcissistic worldview behind some “public interest” or “revolutionary passion”, but your desire to have sex with children? That’s not easy.

Before continuing, remember this: Sex is about exchanging. I don’t care what or why you exchange, but that exchange is the basic element. Why you are attracted will vary according to your values (which don’t need to be fixed), but if the other person scores high on those (intelligence, cuteness, “hotness”, status, etc.), you’ll be willing to have sex with her or him. That is simple and applies to all sexual orientations. Except pedophilia. Pedophilia is predatorial since there is only one player dancing the seduction and exchange game. The child is being lied, since the predator sends signals about friendship or parenthood, but that’s not what the pedophile really is even if he believes it. A child cannot willingly offer himself or herself to the pedophile in exchange to anything, and if that sounds like prostitution, yes, that’s exactly the point I’m trying to make. Offering oneself, consciously, is exchanging something for something else, and it’s the foundation of free choice. A child cannot offer himself to what the pedophile really wants, therefore, all interactions with the child are predatorial, the same way all interactions between a wolf and its prey are. Remember that when you read the pitiful ramblings of the pedophile, talking about his feelings.

The Salon article, naturally, has provoked furious reactions, though the reasons are (I think) usually incorrect. I mean, the gut reaction is correct; the subsequent explanations, not so much. I blame the article for that since it’s actually brilliantly written… if your intention is to obfuscate. I don’t think most of the critics realize Todd Nickerson (the article writer) has obviously thought a lot about the article and that there is no reason to think he uses the words he uses in the same way we do. Also, he has probably reread the thing a thousand times, so the words he chose are not casual. Neither are casual the things he chose not to say or to forget.

The timing of the article is also curious since (this may only be known to some gamers, though) not so long ago Milo Yiannopoulos wrote a few articles about Nicholas Nyberg and his self-admitted pedophilia. Nicholas (or Sarah) later claimed he/she/it was trolling or being edgy, but in those logs he had used language typical of pedos and, well, it’s kind of obvious he wasn’t just trolling. The worst part is that Sarah is still tweeting at large, his fans still defend her, and no significant figure in his/her entourage has disavowed her. Also, there has been some issue with a soldier told to ignore pedophilia in Afghanistan. I’m not going to say that pedophilia is becoming accepted, but… it does not seem to enrage that much. Or, at least, its apologists are becoming craftier.

In any event, to give you an example of our problem, this is how the author describes his purported “abuse” at the hands of “Hans”. He is trying to explain a possible cause for his pedophilia (the abuse), but if you read carefully (and what he later writes), that’s nonsense. And if it were true and that had made him a pedophile, then we have a serious problem.

For long minutes we simply enjoyed each other’s company.  Then, out of the blue, Hans slipped a hand into my shorts, even though we were only about 30 feet from the poorly paved country road that meandered through this stretch of country.  This went on for several minutes.  I was confused but not frightened or troubled.  The only thing I could think to say while this was happening was “Peepee,” continuing the English lesson with my pet name for my genitalia even in the midst of my own abuse.  Hans chortled and repeated the word: “Peepee.”  Eventually this came to an end, and Hans, having gotten what he wanted, shooed me away. I can’t imagine why it didn’t occur to him that I would immediately rat him out; maybe he knew and just didn’t care.  Anyway, he could hardly ask me not to, could he?  I raced back to Grammy and promptly informed her of what had happened.  She deliberated over what to do, in the end asking me to keep it a secret from everyone, including my parents, and ordering me to stay away from Hans.  No authorities were called, and life went on as usual.  Hans stayed that evening with my uncle and aunt and left the next day.  I never saw him again.

Why “a serious problem”? Because it would mean that an unpunished crime that only confused him -and then life went on as usual- made him a pedophile. It’s like Hans threw him some sort of spell. Not that I believe that, by the way; but if it were true, he is just saying he could create pedophiles at an industrial rate and, probably, go unpinished.

However, this is how he had described the same event in another place, ¿years? ago:

After the garden tour, we sat together on the ground beside the garden and enjoyed each other’s company, and then, abruptly, he began to fondle me. I felt a bit confused but strangely exhilarated by this contact, as if it were simply another level of our friendship, or another part of the garden game. I taught him the English word for what it was he was touching — “pee-pee.” He smiled and repeated the word, which made me giggle. After he took his hand out of my shorts, I got up and left him sitting, running to brag about the experience to a relative, but she told we to stay away from him, which only made me feel guilty about the intimacy, and that I had done something wrong. Again, I internalized my feelings.

First of all, I doubt that even happened. I think it’s made up bullshit, a pedophile fantasy, but let’s assume it was a real event. You see the difference? In the rest of the Salon article, he describes that situation as “abuse”, but before he had described it as “fondling” and something “exhilarating” that made him “giggle”, just “another level of our friendship”. He said he ran back “to brag about the experience” and how he was shamed and then “internalized that guilt”, but in Salon he says “I raced back to Grammy and promptly informed her of what had happened”. So which version is the correct one? Both probably, since I suspect that never happened; however, both are horrible things for different reasons. The older one for obvious reasons, but the new one is not much better.

In Salon.com, he describes himself as a victim of something that “was a one-time event in my life and not a particularly traumatic one.” Worst of all, he describes why he liked the man.

Besides, even though I knew not a whit of German, I was very much at ease in Hans’s presence.  He was painfully thin, with a messy mop of hair and large glasses.  I should point out that the men in my life, including my father, were gruff blue-collar types who could intimidate me.  Hans was different: gentle, soft-spoken and appealingly awkward—a lot like me!

Don’t you see what he is doing there? He is saying: Yes, there was abuse (although it wasn’t all that bad, merely confusing), but I’m not traumatized. Also, he was like me, he wasn’t intimidating like your whoops my father. Consciously or not, he is signaling for grooming. He is saying to potential victims that he isn’t a bad guy, and that the whole episode wasn’t that bad at all! He is even saying to society: “Hey, even if I slip and commit some kind of abuse, that’s how it would be and, well, it’s not traumatic, eh?” In the article, he says better things about Hans than about his own father. Think about that for a moment.


Now, the source of the old version is, by the way, a rescued article in Encyclopedia Dramatica, but it has no direct link to the original source since the site was taken down. Nonetheless, if you compare an older (2014) version of the ED article, the quoted part is still there, months before the Salon article. In fact, both are written using very similar words, which makes me think the whole episode is a made up fantasy. Also, parts of his biography in the ED article contradict the information he gave in the Salon article. A very important contradiction is his stance about non-contact pedophilia.

However, that’s not the only bizarre part of the whole article. But first of all, this is the short version of my analysis:

tl.dr. Pedo tries to make himself pathetic, forgets about children and only talks about himself. He probably lies. Fuck you Salon.com

For those with more patience, the rest of my analysis begins now:

Now, it’s essential to begin with a quote from the author according to the ED article. I have no reason to believe the quote is incorrect or lacking in context:

I’m not worried about dying itself so much as dying before my time. I feel like I have yet to make my cultural impact, my legacy. In fact, I’m far more afraid of madness than of death. Creative people are more inclined to it, I think.

I doubt he is talking about his new philosophical paradigm that will revolutionize epistemology. Remember that quote when I analyze his article; you are reading something written by a man -a pedophile- on a cultural mission. I’ll quote the article in order, not all of it, though. This is how it begins:

I was born without my right hand. As a child, this deformity quickly set me apart from my peers. In public I wore a prosthesis, an intimidating object to other youngsters because of its resemblance to a pirate’s hook.  Even so, I wore it every day; I felt inadequate without it.

This is an odd way to start an article or to try to gather some compassion. If I’d had a hook for a hand that probably would have made me a cool kid, not an unpopular, but this must be a pedophile thing. I’m sure I would have made up a lot of stories about how I lost my hand. Speaking of made up bullshit:

But I was good at drawing and making up stories for my own entertainment, and I spent more and more time in my own head, being a space adventurer or monster wrangler or whatever character I could think up. These would ultimately prove to be useful skills, but for now they only served to further alienate me from other kids.  On top of it all, I still struggled with bladder control—likely due to my heaping pile of insecurities, to which this problem only added more—well into my elementary school years.

I was good at those things, very good in fact, and they didn’t alienate me, they actually helped a bit. Anyway, unless you are talking about your writing ability for conjuring sci-fi novels, I’m not sure this is a good way to start an article about yourself (“Hey, I’m good at making shit up”). Also, useful… for what exactly? Still, perhaps I’m just being paranoid. Let’s continue:

But none of this would compare to the final insult the universe would deal me.  I’ve been stuck with the most unfortunate of sexual orientations, a preference for a group of people who are legally, morally and psychologically unable to reciprocate my feelings and desires.

(1) I almost didn’t catch that one since it’s subtle. It’s not just that he describes it as a sexual orientation, that could be accepted using a very strict definition of the terms, but he uses the PLURAL and genitive case. He says, “The most unfortunate of sexual orientations” not “with an unfortunate sexual orientation“. He is saying it’s just one of the many sexual orientations that exist. This kind of linguistic trickery is more useful than people think. Anyway, his point is clear, he began the article describing himself as a disabled boy and then he says that, all of that, is nothing compared to his pedophilia. Therefore, if you are consistent and felt pity for him before, now you still should have pity for him… or more.

(2) Physically too. That’s a telling thing to forget. We are not talking about 16 year-old-girls that mature quickly or about a hot teacher banging a 16-year-old student. Legality can be changed, morality can be changed, and psychological readiness… Well, that’s why sophistry exists. But forgetting about the body when he later says he had been attracted to a young pre-teen girl is… disturbing. Also, let me put you this question:

“You are a pedophile, and you say you would not abuse children. Fair enough. Now, would you say the same if you lived in an era or place where this is legally or morally permitted (or at least it’s not frowned upon that much)? If you could get away with it, would you still refuse to have sex with them?”

That’s quite important since I’ve never seen a pedophile asking or answering that. Also, there have been historical eras and places where pedophilia wasn’t that hated (doesn’t mean it was approved, but not much could be done about it -e.g, Afghanistan-), and I’ve never heard of a pedophile saying “Yeah, we can have sex with children and I totally want to. But we shouldn’t“. Let’s continue:

Yeah, not many of us are willing to share our story, for good reason.  To confess a sexual attraction to children is to lay claim to the most reviled status on the planet, one that effectively ends any chance you have of living a normal life.  Yet, I’m not the monster you think me to be.  I’ve never touched a child sexually in my life and never will, nor do I use child pornography.

See how his pity quotient has been going up from the beginning, from disabled child to pedophile, and then to the most reviled class of people on the planet (the same, but not he is telling you how you should feel). Also, considering some of Salon’s articles and how Sarah Butts has been defended, I’d say gamer is the most reviled thing on the planet, but OK. Besides, no, it’s not the outing that ends any chance of you having a normal life… it’s you. It’s your own condition. You’ll never be able to live a normal life no matter what. Remember this since he will try to do it many times: he will try to instill the idea that it’s society reaction to his “affliction” the cause of his suffering, not so much as the affliction itself. ALso, note the present tense in “nor do I use child pornography“; compare it with “I’ve never touched a child sexually“. God knows what sexually means in his head, anyway.

Also, watch the trick he is doing with the “But I’m not a monster you think me to be“. He is trying to make you fill guilty because he assumes you categorize him as a monster after he has explained his disabled earlier years. He never defines what a monster is but, in this case, it probably means an abuser, and since he isn’t, he isn’t a monster. So, what is he, then? He doesn’t say, but he only has described himself in two ways, one as a monster and the other as a shy and awkward child. The first one has been removed as a possibility, so only the second is possible.

But isn’t that the definition of a pedophile, you may ask, someone who molests kids?  Not really.  Although “pedophile” and “child molester” have often been used interchangeably in the media, and there is some overlap, at base, a pedophile is someone who’s sexually attracted to children. That’s it. There’s no inherent reason he must act on those desires with real children. Some pedophiles certainly do, but many of us don’t. Because the powerful taboo keeps us in hiding, it’s impossible to know how many non-offending pedophiles are out there, but signs indicate there are a lot of us, and too often we suffer in silence.  That’s why I decided to speak up.

No, it’s not “that’s it.” Pedophilia is qualitatively different from any other sexual orientation for the reasons I described earlier. Homosexuality is “just being attracted to people of your same sex. That’s it”. but pedophilia isn’t just “that’s it”. That he object of desire is a child changes everything, and any direct comparison to other sexual orientations is misleading.

Now, about the second part, the one about the taboo. There is a problem with this argument. Why would speak up soften your suffering? In fact, it seems reasonable to assume it would make it worse since people will hate you. Also, who cares if you suffer in silence? Your feelings are not as important as children. You’d be much safer in silence. You’d suffer more if you speak up since your desires will never be “actualized” (remember this word). So, what is the point of this paragraph? The only logical conclusion is this: pedo acceptance. Otherwise, his intentions and actions are contradictory since they would only harm pedos, but he doesn’t want that.

Do you people realize he has not yet said he is ashamed of his “orientation” or that he would change it if he could? He has not said what would he do if he lived in Ancient Greece or Afghanistan. Would he be willing to convert to Islam just to have sex with underage girls? You see, he is not asking scientists to investigate what is wrong with him. He is only asking us to believe him because he is celibate and promises he will ever be. He wants us to trust him because he suffers; and he wants us to believe that. Also, no, that’s not why he decided to speak up, your name was already public, but this will be explained later, or you can read the ED article.

The Discovery of an Alternate Sexuality:

Many gays begin to recognize their sexual preferences sometime around puberty, if not before.  For me it was the same.

Alternate sexuality? Oh, OK, but when some conservatives said pedophiles would use the gay argument people laughed. I mean, you could have said, “most people begin to recognize” or “even disgusting zoophiles begin to recognize…” but you said “GAYS”. It’s the freaking subject of your sentence, just after “Alternate sexuality”.

 As I turned 13 it occurred to me that what I initially took as a phase had begun to solidify into something more troubling.  Even so, at this point I could still convince myself that I was within the realm of normalcy.  Then something happened that all but removed my ability to continue this self-denial: my Eureka Moment.

Is this some kind of Freudian typo? Eureka moment? The day you realized you are a pedophile? That’s how you describe that discovery? As EUREKA?! Well, OK.

He Touched Me:

So how had this happened?  Well, I have a pretty good idea.  When I was seven years old, I was fondled in the front yard of my grandparents’ home by a man I barely knew.  It was a one-time event in my life and not a particularly traumatic one.

No, you have no idea, you are bullshitting. In fact, there is not much of a mystery if you use common sense. Normal heterosexual males are attracted to females that show certain secondary sexual characteristics (breasts, curves, etc.), beauty (facial symmetry, certain proportions, clean skin, etc) and fertility signs (just being young, but not THAT young you pervert). When we begin to mature, we search for these characteristics; it’s a reflex we can’t control. Also, children become in our minds just that, children, not peers anymore; but also something special that needs protection. For some reason, neurological probably, in pedophiles these two things don’t work well: You don’t develop an interest in secondary sexual characteristics, fertility signs don’t mean anything to you, etc. So, if you had a child crush on a 7-year-old girl when you were 7, now you still can have it but with sexual interest, which makes the whole thing an asymmetric predatorial relationship (i.e. not cute anymore, just fucked up). And I’m assuming you are a perfect “virtuous” pedophile. Which I doubt. In fact, I’m not sure pedophilia doesn’t also affect other mental processes too (empathy or morality).

He then continues with the contradictory fondling story I’ve already explained. Next:

Another issue is the role feelings of inadequacy play in forming our sexuality.  Pedophilia may not arise from such fears (otherwise there’d be a lot more pedophiles), but those fears can certainly reinforce it.  I think it’s safe to say that many pedophiles have deep-seated feelings of inferiority in one way or another, or at least we did when our sexuality was forming, and this becomes a downward spiral during puberty and beyond.  Anything can be the trigger of this: disabilities, weight issues, or just general feelings of unattractiveness to peers.  These feelings can be influential on one’s developing sexuality, such that even the severe cultural taboo is not enough to override it.  Indeed, the taboo itself can negatively influence these vulnerable children.

Extraordinary claims without any (extraordinary) proof can be dismissed without bothering to refute them. I’m talking about his claim that feelings of inadequacy reinforce (or even create) pedophilia. Notice how later the feelings of inadequacy he mentions are almost universal. In other words, he is just saying that anything or nothing could create a pedophile, from being abused to just mock him for being fat.

Considering most teenagers have doubts about their sexuality, have self-esteem problems, and are fuck ups, this paragraph is dangerous to the point of being material for pedo converts (if that is even possible). Also, being fat may be disgusting enough, but I doubt it will make you a pedophile or reinforce it. What he is trying to do here is, in any event, worrisome. He is trying to jump into the discrimination and “but… my feelings!” wagon. He implicitly admits he has no idea why he is as he is, but hey, it may be because people made him feel inferior, and ANYTHING may trigger a potential pedophile. So… you should not make us feel bad, because “the taboo itself can negatively influence these vulnerable children“.

What he is saying, again, is that the responsibility for pedophilia lies in societies hands since it’s the taboo what actually influences negatively those pedophiles. The conclusion is obvious, remove the taboo and things will be better. Note that he hasn’t yet talked directly about abused children and how they are affected, he only hints to their existence. In fact, the only directly abused children in the whole article is himself, and he says it wasn’t that bad. I should note, again, that pedophilia is predatorial, so what he is saying would be equivalent of this: “I’m a wolf, and you are a sheep.You fear us, but there is no reason for that since I’m not a monster. Also, that fear? It’s making us worse, so you should stop fearing and shaming us, after all, we didn’t choose to find you tasty. Then, when we can talk about our desires in public, things will get better.”

And now is when the dangerous bullshit begins:

I recall an event from when I was 11, sitting in the family jeep with my dad and his friend Andy when a news piece on the radio reported the sexual abuse of a girl, to which my dad said to his friend something like, “They should take people like that and place weights on top of their genitals until they smash.”  Pretty horrific imagery for an 11-year-old to process, and I couldn’t help but sympathize with the abuser.  After all, I could recall my own molestation perfectly, and I hardly felt it warranted that kind of response.

That’s almost funny, as if he wrote that and didn’t realize some people actually can read and think about what they read. He just said he heard news about a sexual abuse of a girl (probably of his own age), and then about a possible cruel punishment. Which one horrified him more, the actual rape or the punishment? The punishment. And he sympathized with the abuser because, you know, “my abuse wasn’t that bad”. Yeah, you know, the abuse he said was done by someone who wasn’t as intimidating as your his father?

Also, “perfectly”? Of course, I suspect he has a stash of fanfictions about the event. Except the name of the abuser, he says he can’t remember it. That’s an odd thing to forget about an “exhilarating experience” you remember so perfectly. Oh, and he is comparing the “sexual abuse of a girl” (which could mean from touching to sadistic rape) with “my own molestation” that wasn’t that bad.

The bile has only multiplied since then, and I believe all that hatred just serves to reinforce pedophilia in youngsters predisposed to it.  It’s a form of cognitive bias called the Backfire Effect or polarization.  Everyone does this to some extent.  When challenged on deeply held beliefs, no matter how uncertain or incorrect they may be, we tend to dig in our heels.

See the progression? First he was a sad boy, then a misunderstood pedophile, but now, he is the victim of bile and hatred. This is so wrong it hurts. It’s the Islamophobia argument: “Your fear about jihadis only create more jihadis lol. You should accept us and we will behave better“. First, the “bile” and “hatred“? He is talking about the bile and hatred people like his father showed. His father, yes, you know, the man who was intimidating (unlike his good German friend hehe) and was offended because someone had “sexually abused” a girl? Yeah, that monster full of bile and hatred. Also, that’s not what the Backfire Effect means, but whatever. Still, it’s the logical conclusion to the argument he has been trying to build: We should not be criticized, bullied, feared, or hated because that will only make us worse. Remember: he still has not said he wants to be cured of his condition nor what would he do if the legal and ethical barriers disappeared. He has been always talking about HIS feelings, ignoring the ones of children. He is still hammering about the idea that pedophilia should be made a public debate, and that what matters are his feelings, and that we have the right to make decessions that concern children. In other words, he is manipulating you to stop acting as guardian to children so you elevate them and pedophilia to the ‘normalcy’ status.

After graduation I fell into the deepest pit of despair imaginable, one that lasted several years, and I’ve only just begun to pull myself out of it.  You can’t experience that much blind terror and pain for that long without being seriously impacted by it.  I still worked out every other day, so I was hurting constantly, since depression saps your brain of the feel-good chemicals that helps to counteract pain; but I felt something, and that was better than the emotional numbness that had overtaken me.

You were depressed, near-suicidal, and you worked out every other day because it hurt, and that made you fell something? Yes, I’ve never heard that pseudo-psychology cliche in any movie. Nope. Never. You didn’t make that up at all.

In the midst of that dark era in my life, I discovered an unhealthy pedophile forum.  Nothing illegal was happening there, but many of its most influential members were pro-contacters, meaning they believed that sex with children was theoretically OK and supported the elimination of age of consent laws.  That forum still exists and I won’t name it here, but suffice it to say, I found myself taking up the same pro-contacter chants, if only to feel like I belonged somewhere.

In the midst of that dark era in my life“? Oh, come on! Nobody in Salon read this shit or what? Anyway, a forum you won’t name, where you held dangerous opinions, and that still exists? Mmmmh. I have to add here that the ED article gives a different chronology of the events. But both articles lack dates and references, so I’ll stay neutral here.

Over the ensuing years, though, I was often at odds with the pro-contacters and flitted in and out of their clique; I wanted desperately to be friends with people who shared my sexual orientation, even if they held crazy beliefs, but I could never quite reconcile with their viewpoint.

Fair enough but ¿”ensuing years”?. He spent years in there. Years. And he held certain opinions that legitimized abuse and rape just to fit in. Think about that for a moment; I mean, imagine this non-pedophile excuse “You know, I wanted to be friends with them, but I could never quite reconcile with their ideas about rape being OK BUT I COULD NEVER QUITE. Hey, Salon, do you realize the shit you just published?

Not long after I self-outed, a group of web vigilantes called Perverted Justice showed up.  You’ve probably heard of them; they’re the people behind the now-defunct TV show “To Catch a Predator.”  I was no predator, but that mattered not one iota to these guys; they lumped me together with the child rapists and internet creeps just the same.

Lies. He didn’t self-out, he was outed by people who had to work to discover who he was. According to his own words, he had been years in a forum, expounding pro-contact arguments even if just “to fit in”. I fail to see why he is shocked or surprised that someone bothered to discover his identity.

Yes, it’s certainly unfair to be compared to a child rapist (although I think most people are aware of the difference even if they don’t care) but… “lumped me with the internet creeps“?. Like what, like people who ask women to post pictures of their boobs? I mean, he spent years in a pedophile community, embracing wrong ideas just to fit in (Is this the new “I was just being edgy“?). HE IS A CREEP. The whole pedophile mentality is creepy since it’s based on a false premise, the possibility of a relationship between adults and kids. Besides, I suspect he is building a preemptive defense in case something nasty from his past surfaces. If, for example, he were to answer this article, he’d probably rationalize the discrepancy between both abuse stories by saying the old one was the pedophile version, the one he wrote to fit in with those people.

 Now I have a bachelor’s degree in journalism that I’ve never used and I’m living well below the poverty line, existing on food stamps and the couple hundred dollars I manage to scrape together every month, sometimes augmented with financial help from my parents if the bills get too high.  I tried filing for disability over my arm and my emotional issues, but that was a no-go in my conservative Southern state.  This is what a law-abiding pedophile has been reduced to in this society.

At first I ignored this part but then I realized what he was doing. He is baiting progressives to side with him, forcing a political polarization around pedophilia. I’m not American and I have no idea how benefits and disability work over there, but something tells me he may be exaggerating. In any event, the intention is obvious: he is blaming part of his misfortunes on a political option. Not his character, not his years saying shit on the Internet, not even the concrete laws of the state, and certainly not his personal actions, but because he lives in a conservative state. Once progressives read this, they will say “Oh, but we can’t possibly be considered as bad as evil conservative Southerners, right?” And they will be tempted to do something.  That’s called driving a wedge between American political cultures using Salami Tactics. Note how he continues to shift the central issue of pedophilia from the children to his personal misfortunes.

 At times I’ve wondered why I’ve even bothered to stay legal.  Maybe prison would be better, even at the risk of getting shanked as a Short Eyes.  At least then it would all be over with.  But alas, I could never hurt a child.  No matter what, some small part of me still holds out hope that things will go back to normal, or as close to normal as a celibate pedophile with little prospect of a future can get.  Besides, like I said earlier, I just couldn’t allow myself to foist this abomination onto another human being.  So I simply endured. Until…

At least it would all be over with“. You know, there is something called suicide for that, there is no reason to go to prison and let someone brutally murder you if you hate your life too much. “But alas, I could never hurt a child” Yes, you see, this is the problem, I don’t trust your definition of “hurting” considering your own abuse wasn’t even traumatic or dangerous, it went unpunished, and you were just confused or, if we trust the other version, exhilarated.

I hope it’s a typo, but “I‘ve wondered why I’ve even bothered to stay legal.“? That’s wrong, man. I guess he wanted to say “At times I wondered why I had even bothered to stay legal,” at least that would imply he has changed. Anyway, he says he would not hurt another human being, but we are not talking about punching “other humans beings,” we are talking about you abusing children. Still, the bit about “still holds out hope that things will go back to normal” is the closest things to a sincere desire for change I’ve seen. It is an odd way to express it, though, since he does not know what is to have a normal sexuality, so… going back to what exactly? If you wanted to go back to normalcy why in the name of all gods are you writing an article with your name on it saying you are a pedophile? Besides, I think it’s all bullshit, and the whole paragraph looks like some commercial for Scientology since he then explains the religion forum that saved him: Virtuous Pedophiles.

Until now.  Ethan and his friend Nick Devin founded Virtuous Pedophiles on the notion that pedos needed an alternative to those other forums, a place where they can feel comfortable and get the support they need without the pressure to support sketchy views about adult-child sex.

“”Sketchy”, that’s a nice word for rape. Well, it’s an improvement I guess. Support means healing too? Do pedophiles want to be cured?

It’ll make all the difference as they settle into themselves and learn to accept who they are.

Hahhahahaha, OK, no. Accept that they are pedophiles? When will “acceptance” change to “pride”? Perhaps you have not seen the logical jump he just made, but he just went from “I didn’t want to hurt children” to “we have a group identity and knowing that saved me and we should talk in public about how we don’t’ want to rape children“.

VirPed itself has become the go-to place for support for non-offending pedophiles and has been mentioned and endorsed everywhere from NPR, Salon and the Atlantic to the New York Times and Toronto Star.  As its popularity increases, so too does its effectiveness.  There are still holdouts, people who believe that pedophilic feelings should be crammed down into the most subterranean recesses of ourselves, never to be discussed in the open, but these folks are going the way of the dodo bird.  Anyway, we’ve tried that.  Take it from someone who has firsthand experience: it not only doesn’t work, it tends to make things far worse.  Please repeat this mantra to yourself: a repressed, unhappy pedophile is a pedophile at risk.

(1) Non-offending, in gerund? That’s like non-raping? Shit, does someone realize his claim to moral superiority is “I just haven’t raped children, yet“?

(2) There is no link to that “endorsement”. Mention is not an endorsement, by the way. Also, four places is not “everywhere”.

(3) Holdouts? Like what, 98% of society? And the “Dodo bird”? Where have I heard that expression? Oh, yeah, it’s what progressives have always been saying: “you are going extinct, I’m the future; not agreeing with me is a sign of mental and moral retardation and I don’t need to prove why.“. Also, considering the harm the outing did to him, does he really believe pedophiles feelings should not be crammed down? Also, define “discussed in the open“. Like in scientific papers about pedophilia or in news channel and identity politics?

(4) This is disturbing. “Repeat this mantra to yourself“. Don’t the people at Salon realize they have been duped by a guy who is trying to force a massive cultural shift? He has even designed the slogan people have to repeat to themselves when they begin to have doubts about pedo acceptance. The mantra, by the way, doesn’t mention children directly, but it uses them. IT’S CENTERED AROUND PEDOPHILES FEELINGS, ALL THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT PEDOPHILE FEELINGS.

He says a repressed pedo is unhappy, and that’s a risk. Risk for who? For children I guess. So, this is where he was heading during the whole article: You have to stop hating us, you have to stop trying to hide us, since that’s what extinct people believe in anyway, and if you don’t, you are endangering children? Once we are accepted and our feelings talked in the open, children will be… safer? That’s some odd logic there.

Those individuals who have the courage to come forward and lay claim to this affliction with the understanding that they only want to use their pedo powers for good should be commended, not hated and feared.

Pedo powers? What the hell is that? Anyway, you realize he is saying that HE should be commended, right? I repeat: He is asking to be commended just for saying what he is and what he feels (a pedophile). He is trying to build another identity-victim group, based on brave, virtuous pedophiles. And what have they done to deserve such praise? Not raping. That’s the medal he wants! One saying: “I’m not abusing a child right now”. And what if they eventually harm? How long until they began to argue it’s not a crime but a relapsing from their affliction?

The long-held belief that pedophiles are destined to abuse kids is a tough one to overcome, yet many of us get just as upset as—if not more upset than—non-pedophiles when we read accounts of sexual abuse, not only because we hate when one of the little people we love most suffers, but also because, whenever yet another pedophile is arrested, it reinforces the reigning paradigm of the pedo as ticking time bomb.

(1)Who cares is that belief is tough to overcome? The belief is held because it protects children. If it wasn’t held every pedophile should be defended a priori because we don’t want to hurt his feelings, and we should only be wary of them when they have actually abused, that is, after the crime. Tell me, how would your virtuous community filter for potentially offending pedophiles? How would you rationalize those who fall to their instincts?

(2)This is disgusting. “More upset than,” “We love most“? I can’t believe Salon published this without puking all over it. This is moral high-ground and high-grade bullshit: “We love children MORE THAN YOU, and it HURTS OUR FEELINGS as a GROUP if a kid is abused“. Also, no, non-pedophiles don’t get “upset“, we go living with rage. This is actually amazing, it’s like I’m analyzing a text written by some human-eating alien that is trying to use our language to explain why he is normal and not a monster just because right now he isn’t nibbling a femur. He uses the words, but I’m not sure he understands their meaning.

No, you don’t LOVE children, their parents do; that’s why they fear you. And the word is children, not “one of the little people“. You are sexually attracted to childish features because your brain isn’t wired correctly, and that sexual attraction is the abuse that will make them suffer. You can’t LOVE since your love will traumatize them and it will never be reciprocated. You love is abuse, and it will never be reciprocated. Your love is predatorial, even if you don’t act on it. There can be no sane or safe love between a pedophile and children.So why do you want to talk about it in the open? WHY? What is your endgame? Note that he hasn’t yet said what he wants to accomplish.

Your “love” will disappear once she becomes and adult. Pedophiles groom children, gaze at them, fantasize about them, and a few abuse them, and that’s it. LOVE? I don’t think you understand the meanings of the words you are using. And “the reigning paradigm”, when “yet another pedophile is arrested“? “PARADIGM“?! Like, you know, believing the Earth is the center of the Universe, right? It’s just a paradigm.

I don’t believe every pedophile is a ticking bomb, but not being “a ticking bomb” is neither a free ticket nor absolution; not more than “I’m not a rapist though I have rape fantasies I want a medal lol. Let’s discuss my sexual orientation in public since otherwise we will be unhappy.” Also, and this relates to that part about “my abuse wasn’t that bad“: You see, that’s also the problem. Since it wasn’t that bad (let’s assume that), how would you know you are hurting her or when to stop? If she laughs at your fondling, when will you stop? How do you even know that abusing is wrong if your own abuse wasn’t that bad or, even, was exhilarating?

For better or worse—mostly worse—we have this sexuality, and unlike with most sexualities, there is no ethical way we can fully actualize our sexual longings.

Mostly!? There is something better with it? “Fully actualize”? You mean, penetration, right? Well, at least you didn’t say it is a “problematic issue”. And what if ethics changed? You are apparently trying to change them, so…

And for the pedos who are lucky enough to be able to form working relationships with adults, there are a new set of concerns: What if we have children?  Will I be a threat to them?  Can I ever share this fact with my spouse?  Can I ever love and want her as much as I do a child?

Yes, I’m literally reading the mental processes of a wolf talking to and about sheep. Saying you have “this sexuality” and then admit that the question that pops up in your mind is if you will be a threat to your children won’t’ build you a very good case. As I said, the problem isn’t society, it’s you. You’ll never be able to live like a normal person because you are not normal, so why are you fighting for visibility? Are you trying to normalize abnormality? There is a reason pedophilia is hidden, and it’s not oppression; it may even help pedophiles from mobs. It’s because there is no way your desires can be normalized.

In his whole wall of text he has never talked about responsibility to society, about improvement, about wanting to change; he just said he is oppressed and that oppression makes him feel worse and that we should accept his feelings or go the way of the dodo. He should be begging science to find a cure for his affliction (even if there isn’t), not shaming people into accepting him. Or he should just shut up and masturbate in private to some sick hentai lolicon or whatever shit these people do. “Can I ever love and want her as much as I do a child?” Whoah that’s so wrong, and he probably doesn’t even realize why. Does he expect people to empathize with him after saying THAT?

So, please, be understanding and supportive.  It’s really all we ask of you.  Treat us like people with a massive handicap we must overcome, not as a monster.  If we are going to make it in the world without offending, we need your help.  Listening to me was a start.

It’s not a handicap, you missing a hand is a handicap. Your pedophilia is much bigger than that. And I understand, but I don’t support, and you are asking much more than that; you even designed a political mantra based on sentimentalism for us to repeat. My support begins when you admit you want to stop being what you are, but you haven’t. In fact, you have talked about pedo acceptance, how the only abuse you know wasn’t even that bad, and how you are even more “upset” than us about sexual abuse. You have framed pedophilia as a group identity, and enjoy fantasizing about children. You may not be a monster, not more than a wolf or a shark is a monster, but you are a danger. A cultural danger, I’d say. No promises of celibacy or virtuosity will change that. You have gone from self-pity for your hand to demanding that people should accept you or, otherwise, they are full of bile and hate.

Also, we don’t care about you “offending”. This is not some Social Justice Offense Olympics. It’s about potential abuse. That he still believes it’s about offending is… disturbing. It’s as if he doesn’t really understand the harm people like him cause, as if it were just about offending our sensibilities because some kid got touched. It’s as if kids were just… things to him and we don’t like them touched as we don’t like someone messing with our stuff.

He wants to transform pedophilia into something that should be talked in public, but he doesn’t even bother to think about how that public debate will harm THE GROUP THAT CAN’T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT: KIDS.

I’ve no problem talking about pedophilia, but it’s a close loop, society doesn’t need to know anything. The loop goes like this: You -> your doctor -> psychologist -> prison if you do something wrong. There is no reason to force your perversions on the rest of society just because your feelings are hurt.

If a pedophile really wants to change and doesn’t want to hurt children, he doesn’t need to transform pedophilia into a public debate. In fact, he’ll probably wouldn’t want that. You see, in the whole article he has not said why he wants this shit to be talked in the open. What is his final goal? What does he want to accomplish?

This is something that pedophiles seem to not understand. It’s not just sexual abuse. The idea that someone is close to a child and looks at them with “longing” is inherently disturbing. Certainly, I don’t want you to be sent to jail just because of a fantasy -as a crime thought- but the idea that someone enjoys looking at children (and monodigit children!) is disturbing since it attacks the very foundation of society. There is no way your perversion could be made a part of our public society since it attacks its roots.

Conclusion: Pedo acceptance is the only logical conclusion to what the article wanted to accomplish. That or it’s an elaborate PR move for his forum of pedophiles. Any other intention is contradictory since (1) he was already convinced he didn’t want to hurt children and (2) pedophiles (and children) are safer if they hide. There is no way to “actualize” their “sexual longings”, so why did he wrote all that? We are not talking about gays here, but about pedophiles, their desires are inherently dangerous and toxic. It’s like openly talking about the desire of wolves to eat sheep; why would you want a debate about that if you are a sheep or a sheepdogCui prodest? Not us that’s for sure.

The answer will be known in the coming years, when articles began to appear, saying that some pedophilia crime could have been avoided if we didn’t criminalize pedophiles just for their “thoughts”. Then someone will talk about “virtuous pedo pride”. Someone is trying to build a dangerous slippery slope here, driving a wedge in American culture, painting a toxic sexual orientation as a disability and it all has begun by a man who said this:

I feel like I have yet to make my cultural legacy.

Confirmation

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s