Minor-attraction and Christianity

Don't worry, I'm going to write a long sermon and try to convert you if you're not Christian. Nor am I going to bore you all with the story of how I came to become one.

What I am doing is wondering what other people's definition of "Christian" actually is and what they think the word means. 

I've previously had people tell me "You're not a Christian", without giving any explanation. Well, yes I am; deal with it. Recently someone on Twitter said my handle there "contains two mortal sins". Since my Twitter handle contains two words and one of them is my name, I would posit that my complainant can't count. 

The other word, of course is "Boylover". Now, this is a description, and to sin requires action. Loving boys (and, indeed, everyone) is not a specific action, it is an attitude, a concept used in day-to-day life. For that matter, loving boys is not mentioned anywhere in Scripture as being sinful. "Love you neighbour as yourself" doesn't, of course, exclude anyone of any age or gender. Nor, of course, does love include fornication, and particularly not with children.

I think my responder's attitude is just an extension of the pseudo-religious homophobia displayed by some fundamentalist God-groupie. "There is no such thing as a gay Christian" they say, completely ignoring the fact that there are in fact millions, all over the world. "They need to repent" they say, demonstrating that they don't know what homosexuality - or paedophilia - actually means. 

By claiming I'm not a Christian, or that I can't be, they are actually trying to create a form of Christianity that only consists of people they like. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Anyone who accepts Jesus - no ifs, buts or maybes - is a Christian, and I'm not going to give up my Faith just because some people don't want me to have it. 

If you are one of those people, perhaps it's you who should consider if your faith is quite all you think? John 13:24 "Love one another as I have loved you". John 14:15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments". Matthew 5:44 "Love your enemies" - though I am not your enemy, even if you want to be mine. I forgive you.

How social media companies encourage child abuse

Lately, some of the principal advocates against child sexual abuse have been paedophiles and other minor-attracted people. Some of these people were also survivors of abuse. In their articles, blog posts and online comments, they explained why sexual activity between adults and children is wrong and how best to prevent it, which importantly includes helping people who might be so inclined to deal with their feelings in a healthy way.

I am driven to wonder, however, if the various internet media companies actually want to prevent abuse. Not long ago, "micro-blogging" site Tumblr, part of the Oath/Verizon stable, removed a number of "anti-contact" MAP and MAP-sympathetic accounts, including those of young people who may be coming to terms with their feelings or even trying to analyse their own abuse.

Then chat host Discord removed a chatroom run by Virtuous Paedophiles, whose tagline is "sex with children is wrong and always will be", giving as a reason that the forum was "against their community guidelines". It wasn't, of course, but they refused to consider any appeal.

Publishing site Medium, which is more of a magazine than a blogging site, had a very good segment called "Paedophiles about Paedophilia", with articles not only by anti-abuse writers with paedophilia, but also mental health professionals and researchers. This entire section was removed, along with most of its authors, with no explanation. Writers who write about paedophilia as an "outsider", such as mainstream journalists, remained.

Twitter frequently removes people who write about paedophilia in anything but a negative way or identify as MAPs.

In all these cases, the removals seem to be based on who the writers are rather than what they write. Non-MAP writers such as psychologists do not get cut off, even though what they write is much the same as the MAPs. It's also notable that articles which promote abuse, violence including murder, hatred and even child pornography are still to be found.

The common factors in all those fora and accounts that are removed are (a) they are (mainly) written by people who identify as minor-attracted; (b) they are working to prevent child sexual abuse; and (c) they propose that support and help for paedophiles who haven't offended is the best way to ensure they don't.

Though most writers are MAPs, not all are. Others are abuse survivors, who have found the usual methods of prevention-after-the-fact wanting. A few are young people just realising where their attractions lie and need help in coming to terms with it.

Removing these various support networks has the effect that people who previously had a large amount of peer support and in some cases group therapy have suddenly been left with nothing. This will without a doubt cause some of them to suffer a significant reduction in mental health, into depression, into isolation, and away from anyone who might be able to do them any good. They will - and the idea is not illogical - wonder if people actually want them to offend.

This puts children at risk. Some people might find solace in child pornography, since they will find it easier to get hold of than useful support. Others will, perhaps after some period of time, go further and find a child to abuse. The most dangerous people are the ones who think they've got nothing left to lose.

I will say it again: by removing the support from people who need it, Children are being put in danger. Do the web sites really think they are somehow doing good for society by pandering to the gutter press and the right-wing foam-at-the-mouth types instead of helping people prevent child abuse? Or do they just not care?

What's the problem with comprehension?

Comprehension: understanding, the act of grasping with the intellect.

Some people seem to be rather lacking in this area, and either completely misunderstand (whether deliberately or out of ignorance I don't know) what they read. Or just ignore it and pretend it said something else.

I have posted previously on why adults having sex with children is wrong. In response, I received messages from people who also think sex with children is wrong telling me I am a pervert, sick, and other similar descriptions.

One conversation went something like this:

Me: Sex with kids is wrong
Them: How can you say that? Children can't consent to sex!
Me: Exactly; the adult should always say "no".
Them: But, but, it's WRONG!

Or when I pointed out that an adult having sex with a child could seriously harm the child (blindingly obvious if you think about it), that made me a predator, a cockroach, and suchlike.

I remember one blogger who posted, as I do, that people who abuse children should be punished and referred to a recent case where an abuser had been imprisoned. I responded in agreement. The response was to block me.

I wonder if these people actually hate children as much as, or more than, they hate paedophiles (for whatever odd definition of paedophile they use)? I'm quite sure that some of them will abuse their children.

They seem to have some sort of mental block that prevents them from seeing when someone agrees with them. I'm sure it would be fascinating to a psychologist. Would it be some sort of persecution complex, that they must have someone to disagree with?

On the other hand, it might be that they are simply of low intelligence and limited vocabulary and unable to grasp that "don't have sex with kids" doesn't actually mean "have sex with kids".

Most of them are probably harmless, but I can't help worry what the result would be if their misunderstanding caused a child to be harmed.

Responses from any psychologists will be welcome!

What's the problem with sex with kids?

It seems that lately the MAP/CL world has become polarised into "pro-contact" and "anti-contact" camps - that is, people who say that having sex (or sexual contact) with children is OK, and those who say it isn't. (Actually these two camps have been around for donkeys' years, but it's only recently that they have identified themselves as such.)

There are various arguments used by both sides to support their view, but the problem is that a lot of these arguments don't hold water. Let's have a look at some of them.

First, the "anti-contact" side.

"Children can't consent." This one is so blindingly wrong I'm surprised it's still used. Any parent will tell you that children - even quite young children - are quite capable of giving or with-holding consent to anything they like or dislike, sometimes quite strongly. Ask a boy or girl if they would like a helping of spinach, or sprouts, or ice-cream.

"It's not informed consent, they don't understand the ramifications and consequences." Would these ramifications and consequences be things like pregnancy, venereal disease, maybe a long-term relationship leading to marriage? These might be relevant when you're 20, but hardly so at eight. (And marriage is hardly a bad thing.) She isn't going to get pregnant and while VD is not impossible, considering the type of sexual activity involved the possibility is close enough to zero as to be irrelevant. Because children don't have the emotional baggage that most adults associate with sex, they don't have to worry about it. It's just something that feels nice and is enjoyable to do.

"It's abuse." The dictionary definition of abuse is maltreatment or cruel behaviour. If you say that any sexual activity is abuse, then you have to specify what you mean by the word and how it fits the activity. The opinion of the supposed victim must also be taken into account.

"It's always coerced/forced, because of the power imbalance." This is actually relatively sensible, except that the argument is making a general assumption that isn't always true. While there is always the possibility, it is quite feasible that in any given situation any power imbalance is either not present or not a factor. Or, in fact, in the opposite direction.

"The child will always be harmed." This is simply untrue. Again, with any statement that includes "always", you only need one example to the contrary to destroy your argument. There are many documented instances of children who had sexual relationships with adults and suffered no ill-effects at all, either at the time or later.

Now, let's look at the arguments for the "pro-contact" side.

"They enjoy it." While generally true, that's  not really a good argument for doing it. How do you know that your young friend is actually enjoying it at any given moment, or to the extent that you believe? I like chocolate, but I don't want it all the time.

"It's harmless." It probably is, most of the time, but how can you be sure? And how little damage is counted as "harmless"?

"It's not the sex, it's society that's got the problem." This might very well be true, but it's not really the point. The problem is that society's problem will become the problem of the child and his/her adult friend if anyone suspects what they are doing.

"It's fine, no-one will ever know." For one thing, there is no way to ensure this - it only takes a chance remark, or even a suspicion by a perhaps well-meaning busybody who puts two and two together, to set all sorts of wheels in motion and all hell will break loose. Society's problem, as mentioned above, will then be very much that of the people involved. Plus the fact that "no-one ever knowing" puts an unfair imposition of the young person, who has to keep secret what might be quite an important part of his or her life.

"But we love each other." Love is, of course, wonderful, and something to be cherished, but being in love doesn't make you immune from the law, nor does it allow you to put the other person at risk.

"How can it be wrong when it feels so right?" Of course, this is a rhetorical question, though it is often asked. There is, at present, no sensible answer, but "wrong" is a value judgement and not actually relevant when deciding whether or not to do it at the time.

The problem is, regardless of the above, or other, arguments, it's illegal. If someone has sex with their young friend, they are breaking the law. In some places, the YF will be also. Let's look at the possible consequences of this. At the very least, the older person will be arrested, probably prosecuted, and very likely to be imprisoned. The police investigation will naturally also involve the young person, and the police may well interrogate him or her and not necessarily very nicely.

After that, there will be a court case, the older person will have a criminal record which will affect them for a very long time, possibly for life. They will be prevented from seeing their friend. They may be prevented from contact with their children or siblings.

The young person will have the trauma of seeing their friend arrested and locked up. They will be prevented from contacting them, so may have no idea what has happened and no way of finding out - it will look as though they have simply disappeared.

To avoid this, it will be necessary for the friends to keep their relationship, and possibly their friendship, secret. As I mentioned above, this simply is not fair on the young person; it is natural for someone to talk about their life and friends, especially when their life is happy and the friend is special. Even if they can manage this, a chance remark overheard by the wrong person can easily put the cat amongst the pigeons.

Yes, you can say that society has the problem, but when "society" - i.e. the authorities and the legal system, not to mention the tabloid media - gets on its hobby-horse, their problem very quickly becomes ours, and then the friends, both older and younger, are given the problems to suffer.

We must also, of course, mention those people who, for whatever reason (possibly one mentioned above, possibly not), will end up suffering mental stress following their relationship with their adult friend. We cannot deny this happens, though we may argue about the reasons. Can you say, with 100 per cent certainty, that your YF will not be one of these people? Of course not. Perhaps s/he won't; perhaps you can say s/he very probably won't, but that isn't good enough.

If you love someone, can it really be fair to put them at risk of all this happening? However unjust or invalid the rules might be, breaking them can cause so much trouble for all concerned that it really isn't worth the risk. Much better to enjoy a loving, fulfilling and mutually beneficial friendship without any risk of legal problems, than have some fun and run the risk of everything going pear-shaped.

Hate pedos, threaten women and children

Not long ago, someone published a blog post that said that not all paedophiles abuse children, and not all child abusers are paedophiles.

The outrage and venom this small post received was staggering. Message after message called for the writer to be attacked, even murdered - some of which completely missed the irony of wanting to kill the blogger while saying quite seriously that attraction and interest invariably leads to action!

It never ceases to worry me that some people have such violent tendencies. It is a fact that not all paedophiles molest or abuse children, and it is also a fact that not everyone who molests or abuses children is a paedophile.  Not only that, but it is also true that many people who think about doing evil things never carry them out - obviously, or everyone would be killing everyone else all the time! (Except perhaps the violent subnormals who post hatred to blogs about paedophilia).

Now, this is all very well, and sadly not uncommon, but these people went further. Not only did they threaten the writer, they also threatened to attack his wife and family! These people - I use the word biologically rather than socially - decided that attacking innocent people, including women and children, threatening their safety and even their lives, just because someone wrote something they didn't like.

It's always notable, of course, that the haters never manage to put forward any sort of sensible argument for their views, they just rant and rave, in the mistaken belief that this somehow makes them look intelligent.

The blog post and its messages have now been removed, and hopefully the writer and his family are safe. But I can't help wondering, how do the attackers behave in day-to-day life? Do they go round threatening to kill anyone they disagree with? Do they, God forbid, have children of their own? How do they threat children - with love and kindness, or with hate, threats and violence? I'm afraid I know the answer, and it's not the nice one.

I'd much rather my children were friends with a paedophile, who I could trust not to do anything inappropriate, than one of these types, who seem incapable of controlling themselves.

What about the children?

Browsing the pedo-hate sites, as one does from time to time in the vain hope that they might say something intelligent, I noticed something which seemed a little odd: they hardly ever mention the children.

For writers who claim to abhor and campaign against abuse of children (as we all should), the subject is ignored, except in passing as the occasional part of a report on an alleged offender.

Despite claiming to be "committed to the safety and well-being of all children", the writers are much more concerned with character assassination, schadenfreude - including waxing positively ecstatic over deaths or near fatalities - and demonstrating their severe lack of knowledge.

What about actual child abuse? The abhorrent cases that make the news, and the appalling huge number that don't? What about the 8-month-old (yes - a baby!) in Malaysia kicked and punched by her mother, simply, it seems, to make her cry? The 4-year-old in New York made to go out in the snow in his underwear? The 10-year-old in Dallas who died after being deprived of water by his parents? And what about the sickening case of the 15-year-old in London, who was tortured and beaten to death because his mother "thought he was possessed"? I could go on, but that is distressing enough.

What are those "committed to the safety and well-being of all children" doing about the appalling amount of abuse inflicted on children practically right under their noses? Not a lot, it would seem; they are too busy getting hung up about other people's supposed sexual proclivities and shouting a lot on the internet.

I wonder about some people

Why is it that some people see sex in anything and everything?

I came across a post on an "anti-paedophile" blog recently that provides a prime example.

The writer was working herself up at a post on Boychat, here, in which a boylover described how he loved his Young Friend, who it seemed loved hugging and holding hands.

The "anti" decided that, despite a complete lack of evidence, the BL was just a hair'sbreadth away from forcibly raping the boy! Where do these people get their ideas? She said "the boy is not asking to be molested" - which of course is true, but there was no suggestion he was. She also said "he doesn't want you" - which is obviously untrue from the description.

I wonder what causes this obsession with sex and molestation? I have come across it before - usually in "anti" writings - and can't help feeling that these people really ought to see someone. In my experience, it would take a hundred paedophiles to generate as much sexual obsession as one "anti".

I suppose one should feel sorry for them really, if they see sexual overtones in such innocent activities as hugging or holding hands. I can honestly say I don't know anyone who can't do these without leading to something else. I do wonder how they behave in their day-to-day life - do they put skirts on the piano legs, too?

Boy killed for wetting the bed

There are many solutions proposed for children who wet the bed, but this one won't appear in any parenting book - prevent them drinking anything so they won't produce any liquid.

Jonathan James of Dallas has a night-time problem, so his father and stepmother decided to punish him by with-holding water and forcing him to stand in front of the window with the sun beating down on him. Even when he had soemthing stuck in his throat he was forbidden to drink.

When he eventually collapsed and was taken to hospital, the doctors were simply told "he's sick".

This is a prime example of people who should never be allowed near children. Do they just hate kids, are they mentally ill, or just naturally nasty? And does it matter?

Read the who distressing story here.

Slightly luckier was a 9-year-old who was locked in a shed overnight by Mr and Mrs Arthur Warren of Greenville, Virginia; he was staying with them while his parents worked nights, and decided the best way to cure a bit of night-time incontinence was keep him out of the house altogether.

See here for the lowdown on this one.

What is it about people who mistreat children?

I can honestly say that I know not a single boylover or girl-lover would act in such a way.

Son's girlfriend too old? No problem, just kill his chance of getting in the Olympic team

When 17-year-old swimming star Justin Wright told his parents he'd met a nice young lady and was going out with her, instead of asking to meet her, they responded by trying to get him thrown off the swimming team.

Indeed, they emailed not only his coach but other members of the team to try to drum up support, to such an extent that the team had to make an official complaint and Justin was forced to go to court. Then they withdraw funding.

Aparrently Mr and Mrs Wright's objection was based on her age and she "stole him from the cradle". She is only 24 and surely 17 is a bit old to be still in the cradle?

It beggars belief that two people will go to such lengths simply to show opposition to someone they don't know and have never met, based entirely on prejudice, rather than getting to gether and discussing the situation with those involved.

There is now, unsurprisingly, bad feeling within the family which so easily could have been avoided. Still, I suppose we must be grateful they didn't call her a paedophile (there's no suggestion she is, but that's how some people think).

Read all about it here .

Different leopard, same spots

The people who ran the Wikisposure paedo-hating site have been given the boot by Perverted Justice; reason unknown, but one can hazard a guess that their policy of invented accusations bordering on the libellous, along with their stalking of gay teens and outing them to their parents, or, worse, waiting until they reach 18 and then printing damaging material, all about people or organisations not convicted - or even charged - with any offence.

So now they've come up again with another catchy title but the same policies of gloating over convictions or character assassination if they can't find anything illegal, or even inappropriate.

Even someone admitting having feelings for children, however honorable, makes them fair game for attack.

It's interesting to note that they have been off-line for a while; one can't help wondering if there was a legal case in progress.

Fortunately such sites are so rabid and off-the-wall that only their own cronies actually take any notice of them.