The normalization of paedophilia has become extremely mainstream in the West. It has become mainstream to suggest that paedophiles are ‘just like everyone else’ and worthy of our compassion. It has also been argued that society contributes to sex crimes against children by marginalizing and blaming paedophiles.
Paedophile Advocacy Groups have long been mainstream in the West. There was an actual paedophile political party in the Netherlands which was allowed to contest the country’s general election by the Judiciary in 2006. The primary agenda of the party, which called itself ‘Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity party (PNVD)’, was the legalization of child pornography and the lowering of the age of consent to 12 years old.
A new strategy that has been adopted to normalize paedophilia is the invention of the term: “Virtuous Paedophiles”. According to the narrative, ‘virtuous paedophiles’ are those who admit their paedophile tendencies and yet never act upon their urges. It’s also said that these paedophiles don’t call for the legalization of child pornography and the abolition of the age of consent like most paedophile advocacy groups do.
These paedophiles have a website dedicated to themselves and also have a Twitter account dedicated to themselves where they advocate for acceptance and raise awareness. They staunchly assert that sexual contact between adults and children is wrong under any circumstances due to the inability of the latter to consent.
Liberal Western Media has bought into that line of argument hook, line and sinker. There are numerous articles written about them. Far-Left website Salon published a report titled ‘Meet Paedophiles who mean well’. Another report was titled ‘Online Support Groups Can Keep Paedophiles From Offending but They Keep Getting Shut Down’, it said that “every time their support groups get shut down, saving virtuous paedophiles gets harder and less likely to happen.”
Psychologists, meanwhile, have opined that Paedophilia is a sexual orientation, putting it at par with homosexuality. A criminal psychologist argued, “An individual can have paedophilic interests without ever acting on these behaviourally. However, as I am working with criminal offenders, my experience is entirely weighted to those who have engaged in this behaviourally.” Similar arguments have been made by others as well. Things have reached a point where paedophiles are now writing articles on mainstream media outlets accusing others of being monsters.
The entire argument is based on a theoretical premise which can be summed up thus: “There exist paedophiles who are attracted to children but do not act on their urges. It is possible for them to experience the attraction without acting on them or satisfying their desires by using child pornography.” But is there any meat in this theory? Let us attempt to evaluate the theory in light of the admissions made by these very individuals while conversing with journalists.
Far-Left media outlet VICE published an article in 2017 titled ‘I Spent a Year Living With ‘Non-Offending’ Paedophiles’ where the journalist spoke with four self-proclaimed ‘Virtuous Paedophiles’. One of them he spoke to was called ‘Gary’. Gary was accused in 2010 of sexually abusing one of three foster children he was raised by the biological mother of the girl. The claims were dismissed by the Police, and also by the girl in 2015. However, two years later, the girl said that she was disgusted by the fact that Gary was posing as a ‘virtuous paedophile’ and she was the evidence of the fact that he was not one.
This Gary appears to be Gary Gibson who had himself said in public, ‘I knew I was attracted to little girls, I was always a little close, maybe I hugged them too tight, or did some things I shouldn’t have done, but I never penetrated a child, never – what I would call – had sex with a child.’ Thus, in his own words, he appears to have molested children but did not rape any, therefore, he is ‘virtuous’. It is almost bewildering that he is in the public eye and law enforcement authorities did not bother to question him exactly what things he did that he shouldn’t have done.
Sammy, another ‘VirPed’ member the journalist spoke to was a member of ‘pro-contact forums’. To make it clear, ‘pre-contact’ actually pro-child molestation and these forums are where members openly advocate molesting children. The third was a definite sexual predatory. ‘Jack’, this one was called.
Between 1967 and 1989, Jack admitted to having ‘inappropriately touched’ (read molested) over 300 boys. He told the journalist that he hadn’t molested again since 1989. Incidentally, he quit VirPed because he believed it was not ‘okay’ “to accept yourself for feeling an attraction to minors as long as you don’t act on it.”
The fourth was called ‘Ian’ and he didn’t tell the journalist any potentially criminal activity he might have committed. He claimed to be working at a specialized children’s library. The actions of the journalist himself are quite unethical. Although he writes in the article that he could not guarantee that these people had not committed any sex crimes against children, a paedophile admitted to him that he had molested over 300 children.
Yet, it appears he didn’t report it to the law enforcement authorities. One can understand the ethical dilemma here as a journalist, however, we are talking about someone who has molested over 300 boys. Sometimes, you have to take the fall to do something that is ethical. Thus, we have one VirPed who did commit sex crimes against children by his own account, one that was accused of committing a sex crime against his own foster child and another who was part of online forums where molesting children was advocated and quite probably, even child pornography was shared. The fourth one works in close proximity with children and there is no way of telling if he acted upon his fantasies or not.
Salon’s paedophile who wrote the article (it has now been deleted) calling others monsters, Todd Nickerson, himself has a very checkered past. He also featured in a documentary which was an attempt to portray paedophiles in a better light. As American rightwing outlet Breitbart pointed out, he admitted to being part of an online forum which advocated child molestation.
Nickerson says, as quoted by Breitbart, “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.”
Are we to trust the word of a paedophile who was a member of that group once upon a time when he says “nothing illegal” was happening there? Especially considering the fact that the moderators openly advocated child molestation which Nickerson describes as ‘pro-contact’. In the said article, he claimed that he was “victimized” by a vigilante group even though he himself admitted to having an extremely disturbing opinion about children. He was a part of this group long after the vigilante incident.
He was part of this forum for years, given the timeline he had provided and was involved with it even the year before he wrote that article for Salon. Thus, he wants us to believe that within the space of a year, without outside intervention, he went from being a child molestation advocate to being a ‘Virtuous Paedophile’. Does anyone else find his story hard to believe?
We need to see all of this in context with the larger phenomenon that is underway here. The phenomenon of ‘Drag Kids’ is increasingly gaining prominence in the West. Last year, there was even an occasion when one drag kid, called Desmond Is Amazing, was seen dancing at a gay bar while adult gay men threw money at him. This child has an extremely troubling record which will be explored in a separate article.
There is also the existence of a significant section of paedophiles who perceive themselves to be part of a social movement to gain acceptance for their actions. They appear to believe that the age of consent should be abolished and that children are capable of giving informed consent and that paedophiles are even beneficial for children. Paedophile advocacy groups exist all over the world and there was even an international paedophile advocacy group, ‘International Paedophile and Child Emancipation’.
The most troubling aspect of the entire affair is the fact that Paedophilia is being labelled a sexual orientation at par with homosexuality by psychologists. No one should be more offended with this than homosexuals themselves.
Thus, we see that the actual ‘Virtual Paedophiles’ on the basis of which the theory of the existence of such a category of paedophiles was founded upon are not very virtuous themselves. Some of them have admitted to committing sex crimes against children while others have either been accused of it or have been part of forums that advocated child molestation.
Moreover, we are asked to place an awful lot of trust in such people when they say they haven’t committed any crime despite their extremely troubling past. One also ought to remember that Western psychologists who preach the existence of such paedophiles also advocate in favour of hormone blockers for pubescent children which permanently stop their natural growth at a very very young age and often, ruin their lives for good.
The mainstream media which advocates for such ‘Virtuous Paedophiles’ doesn’t think it’s absolutely deplorable that a journalist was told by one of these people that he molested over 300 children and yet, did not report the matter to law enforcement authorities. The same media has made a hero out of Desmond and does not find it problematic that he dances at gay bars in front of adult men who throw money at him.
Therefore, there is absolutely no reason for us to trust these psychologists and the mainstream media in this matter. The conduct of these self-proclaimed ‘Virtuous Paedophiles’ themselves proves that such paedophiles cannot exist. And is, thus, merely a theoretical concept like Unicorns that fart Rainbows. Of course, such Unicorns can theoretically exist but every evidence and observations and logic suggests that they do not.
There is an urgent need to increase the safety of children. However, surely, there are better ways towards achieving it than normalizing such extremely dubious people with a morbid past while chasing an illusion.
It is also important to note that none of these ‘Virtuous Paedophiles’ condemned the gay bar incident involving Desmond. And none of them, despite all their self-proclaimed virtue, have informed law enforcement authorities about their forums which still advocate child molestation.