Tom O’Carroll

Tom O’Carroll is a self-confessed pedophile, pro-pedophile advocate, and writer.

He is a former chairman of the now disbanded Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), an advocacy group that existed from 1974 to 1984 to lobby openly for the legal acceptance of pedophilia.

Tom has faced multiple convictions for pedophile related behavior, including two custodial sentences, the first time in 1981 for conspiracy to corrupt public morals and again in 2006 for the distribution of child pornography.

He is the author of two books, the first being “Paedophilia: The Radical Case”, an autobiographical account of Tom’s early life and involvement with the Pedophile Information Exchange and his beliefs about the nature of adult-child sexual relationships, and his second book, published under the pen name Carl Toms, is “Michael Jackson: Dangerous Liaisons” which argues that the late entertainer’s relationships with young boys were pedophilic in nature.

In today’s episode we delve in to Tom’s early life, the experience of first realizing his sexual attraction to children, his failed attempts to lead a normal life, and his pro-pedophile advocacy efforts.

We debate the nature of consent, whether or not adult-child sexual relationships are always harmful, if childhood sexual trauma is caused by the sexual acts themselves or subsequent societal judgement, and the likelihood of pro-pedophile advocacy ever resulting in a society which accepts adult-child sexual relationships.

Related Links

Heretic TOC – Tom’s WordPress Blog

A Respected Opponent, Not an Enemy – Tom’s blog post about this interview (the comment section may be of interest)

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.

Cases in the Research – Consenting Juveniles

Tom’s Recommended Studies

Angelides, S. (2004). Feminism, child sexual abuse, and the erasure of child sexuality. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 10(2), 141–177.

Graaf, H. de & Rademakers, J. (2011). The psychological measurement of childhood sexual development in Western societies: methodological challenges. Journal of Sex Research, 48(2), 118-129.

Kershnar, S. (2015). Pedophilia and Adult Child Sex: A Philosophical Analysis. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Kilpatrick, A.C. (1992). Long-Range Effects of Child and Adolescent Sexual Experiences: Mores, Myths, Menaces. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Konker C. (1992). Rethinking Child Sexual Abuse: An Anthropological Perspective. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62(1), 147-53.

Leahy, T. (1996). Sex and the age of consent: The ethical issues. Social Analysis, 39 (April), 27-55.

Levine, J. (2002). Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Lilienfeld, S. O. (2002). When worlds collide: social science, politics, and the child sexual abuse meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 57(3), 176–188.

Martinson, F.M. (1994). The Sexual Life of Children. West Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

O’Carroll, T. (1980). Paedophilia: The Radical Case. London: Peter Owen.

Okami, P. (1991). Self-reports of ‘positive’ childhood and adolescent sexual contacts with older persons: An exploratory study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 20(5), 437-57.

Prescott, J.W. (1996). The origins of human love and violence. Pre- and Perinatal Psychology

Journal, 10(3), 143-188. The Origins of Peace and Violence: Accessed 18 Oct., 2017.

Primoratz, I. (1999). Ethics and sex. London: Routledge.

Rind, B. (2002). The problem with consensus morality, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31(6), 496-8.

Rind, B., Bauserman, R., & Tromovitch, P. (1998). A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse
using college samples. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 22–53.

Sandfort, T. (1984) Sex in pedophilic relationships: an empirical investigation among a non-representative group of boys. Journal of Sex Research, 20(2), 123-42.

Wilson, G.D. & Cox, D.N. (1983). The Child-Lovers: A Study of Paedophiles in Society. London: Peter Owen.


Book Recommendations


Support Lines for Adult Survivors

The National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC) – UK
Call 0808 801 0331 free from all landlines and mobiles
Monday – Thursday 10:00-21:00 and Friday 10:00-18:00
NAPAC provides a national freephone support line for adults who have suffered any type of abuse in childhood.

RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network)
The nation’s largest anti-sexual violence organization. operates the National Sexual Assault Hotline, as well as the Department of Defense (DoD) Safe Helpline and carries out programs to prevent sexual assault, help survivors, and to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice through victim services, public education, public policy, and consulting services.
Find help and the resources you need. Call 800.656.4673

Support Lines for Children

Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline – U.S. and Canada
Dedicated to the prevention of child abuse. The hotline is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week with professional crisis counselors who—through interpreters—provide assistance in over 170 languages. The hotline offers crisis intervention, information, and referrals to thousands of emergency, social service, and support resources. All calls are confidential. (1-800) 4-A-CHILD or (1-800) 422-4453

The UK’s leading children’s charity, preventing abuse and helping those affected to recover.
Help for adults concerned about a child: 0808 800 5000
Help for children and young people: 0800 1111

Image courtesy: Ubi Desperare Nescio

20 replies
  1. Ethan Edwards
    Ethan Edwards says:

    In his introduction, Whittaker explains why he didn’t seek out someone from Virtuous Pedophiles but chose Tom O’Carroll instead. In the process, he questions the credibility of the entire Virtuous Pedophiles organization.

    This is completely unfair, and I explain why in this blog post:

    For highlights, Whittaker lambasts VP member Todd Nickerson as a devious opportunist, and generalizes about the entirety of Virtuous Pedophiles based on this. In fact, Todd has been open and honest throughout. Todd always acknowledged a pro-contact phase. Whittaker takes his highly speculative post about sex with an eager girl (if it was legal and accepted) to dismiss him as lacking in virtue. And yet Whittaker himself recognizes after interviewing O’Carroll that the data isn’t so clear that adult-child sex is harmful. He congratulates himself on open-mindedness in considering this himself, but when Nickerson toys with this in the depths of despair he is given nothing but condemnation.

    No one can prove he doesn’t molest children — not even Whittaker himself. But singling out Virtuous Pedophiles for suspicion is totally unwarranted.

    If the goal is truly to help prevent child sex abuse, interviewing someone who shares society’s basic assumption that adult-child sex is wrong would be much more productive than interviewing an extremist who vigorously rejects that view.

    • Danny Whittaker
      Danny Whittaker says:

      Hi Ethan,

      Thanks for commenting. However, I can already tell from the quality of this comment alone that my intuition to steer clear of VirPed was probably correct.

      “Whittaker lambasts VP member Todd Nickerson as a devious opportunist”…

      Ignoring the rather mellow-dramatic use of the word “lambast”, I never said Todd was a “devious opportunist”, those are your words. My point was that two contradictory accounts exist as to what Todd’s views may be, and the potential for misrepresentation inherent in this has the potential to undermine my desire for an honest conversation.

      “Todd always acknowledged a pro-contact phase.”

      The acknowledgement of his pro-contact phase in the Salon article is glossed over like an empty aside, with the implication being that he was at one time merely engaged in shallow ideological pandering to peer pressure. The posts themselves certainly don’t read that way. And note the plurality. I cited one of Todd’s posts in my intro, but came to my conclusion based on reading many.

      “Whittaker takes his highly speculative post about sex with an eager girl (if it was legal and accepted) to dismiss him as lacking in virtue.”

      Again. Potentially lacking in virtue. I’m an interviewer, Ethan, not a detective. It’s not my job to conduct a thorough investigation into the ideological evolution of people you allow to represent your organization and then follow this up with a forensic analysis as to how and to what extent their thinking may have shifted. Sure, that could be a conversation worth having in isolation, but it’s not the conversation I wanted to have here.

      Since I’m assuming VirPed is partly a concerted effort to rectify what you consider blanket misrepresentation of pedophiles in the media, I would have thought it obvious, especially considering the severity of criticism that pedophiles are subject to, that the best way to meet that goal would be to only allow yourself to be represented by people with impeccable reputations.

      There are two ways one could go about this. One is to be represented by somebody who’s reputation is impeccable in the sense that they possess an immaculate past which adhere’s precisely to the standards that VirPed claims to represent, with no potentially damaging material waiting to be unearthed about them.

      Another is to have a representative whose reputation is impeccable to the extent that they take full ownership of their past and speak about it in an open and honest manner without resorting to euphemism or obfuscation. In my opinion, whether or not Todd Nickerson is indeed “virtuous”, his reputation falls short of both these standards, whereas Tom falls squarely in the latter. In other words, why wouldn’t I choose to interview Tom over a member of VirPed, if only for the sake of cautious self-preservation?

      Sorry Ethan, but if this post you’ve published on your blog is some sort of long-winded Talmudic parsing of my introduction with this same poor level of analysis applied throughout, I have neither the time nor the interest in engaging with it.

      Furthermore, the fact that you’ve decided to criticise what you consider a misrepresentation of VirPed on my part by misrepresenting what I actually said does nothing but make me feel even more secure in my decision to avoid engaging with your organization. When the founder himself resorts to such tactics, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that maybe the problem is indeed systemic.

      • Nick Devin
        Nick Devin says:

        Danny, I am co-founder of Virtuous Pedophiles along with Ethan. I thought Ethan’s blog post made a number of good points that I think are worthy of your consideration (as well as the consideration of your followers). I am sorry that Ethan’s summary of the blog didn’t pique your curiosity but I think that you do yourself (and us) a disservice by failing to consider it. I post it here for your convenience.

        [Text Omitted by Admin]

        • Danny Whittaker
          Danny Whittaker says:

          Hi Nick, people are welcome to visit the link to the article in Ethan’s original comment. However, I don’t think it justifies cluttering up the comment section with the full article here. ~ Danny

    • Danny Whittaker
      Danny Whittaker says:

      I didn’t, Nick. Nor do I intend to, for reasons already cited. Ethan’s summary has alerted me to the quality of analysis being offered. Between researching and prepping for future interviews, I simply don’t have the cognitive capacity to waste subjecting myself to an extended misrepresentation of my views. I’m sure if there is anything of substance in there, this will remain the case regardless of my participation. If there is anything actually worth considering, I’m sure my listeners will alert me to it. ~ Danny

      • Nick Devin
        Nick Devin says:

        Too bad. I will admit that I find it perplexing that you have three hours to provide a forum to a man who wants to legalize adult-child sex but don’t have five minutes to spare to read a critique from a group that at least claims that it is attempting to reduce the incidence of adult-child sex. If you had a few minutes to spare, you would go to our web site and see that our supporters include many leading experts on pedophilia as well as many organizations that are dedicated to fighting child sexual abuse.

        • Danny Whittaker
          Danny Whittaker says:

          No Nick, you’re asking me to read a misguided representation of my views, motives and conclusions. Ethan’s little summary above has made this quite clear. I chose not to reach out to you guys for the reasons already stated. I couldn’t care less whether or not other media outlets want to speak to you. I neither recommend nor discourage any journalist to write about/with/for you. Just me. I opted not to. End of.

          But it gone way beyond critiquing my personal decision to interview Tom. Ethan, has since gone on to accuse me of covertly engaging with him in the comments section of his blog under a pro-pedophile alter-ego with the pseudonym “Agapeta” (which was later demonstrated to be false, and was in fact one of Tom O’Carroll’s long-time contributors)… And then made the pathetic accusation that my choice to interview Tom was motivated by money because I have the audacity to OFFER my listeners the OPTION to VOLUNTARY donate to the podcast. I mean, God forbid I try to offset the costs of providing free educational content which cost me hundreds of pounds (and hours) a year to produce. And of course we all know what a lucrative money-spinner interviewing pedophiles is.

          The only thing perplexing about this situation is that you can’t seem to see why, after all this nonsense, I’m reluctant to take anything Ethan has to say about me seriously.

  2. irrationally rational
    irrationally rational says:

    I understand that these sort of issues need to be discussed in the community but there is a difference between discussion and trying to inforce your views on children. The more famous examples of the ancient reeks, Spartans etc all had their male child sexual slave/warrior — though they were not consenting it was just the way it was. Comparing yourself to gay people is not comparable as both are usually around the same age or consenting adults — not a adult manipulating a minor. I have no qualms of a person who is attracted to children but if you lobby to make it legal or act on your desires then you need to be removed from society.
    There maybe peer reviewed articles (have not read them) that in some cases that there is little long term effect on kids and its not a new idea of child slaves but to protect the ones that will suicide or have their life destroyed the consent age should never be lowered– a large male is never on equal grounds to a minor and will always have the advantage and will always be the predator … A very emotive issue and all the dads would want to protect their children from predators like Tom O’Carroll — I would have no moral qualms killing a Paedophile who wants to act on his desires if he came near any of my children or their friends. Lastly imagine your a 10 year old kid and some old prick like Tom O’Carroll is leering all over you — At that age kids don’t even want to associate with the opposite sex, let alone some manipulative predator.

    • irrationally rational
      irrationally rational says:

      just listened to a bit more of the interview — tom is a psychopath, comparing a parents bond to justify sexual feelings toward towards children– pretty long bow — Many comparisons are just stray arguments –Danny really needed to question things more and challenge tom but glad he brought this sort of thing to light..Danny really needed a child expert or someone like Sam harris who is used to debating but Tom really dug his own grave in this interview. Anyway being a podcast on mental issues this podcast really brought out my rage etc …cool

      • irrationally rational
        irrationally rational says:

        ok -last comment on this — tom is a true psychopath – how can you condemn people who state they were harmed by being sexually assaulted as a child as just being already damaged, attention seeking people because it does not suit your own argument.. Its like smacking a woman on her ass while touching her vagina at work and if she complains as an irrational fucked up female that many women loved it when you did it .
        This is twisted shit ..Danny mate i am impressed you kept your cool and kept the discussion moving — None of Toms arguments hold any water and are not even related…it is scary and I think Tom just justified people being worried when a sex offender moves into the neighborhood and parents resorting to violence if other Pedophiles think like tom

        • Danny Whittaker
          Danny Whittaker says:

          Yeah, I remember thinking, when Tom was actually talking about this during recording, that if he’d managed to garner any sympathy thus far, he currently tossing it right back out the window.

          I understand what he was TRYING to say, because there is a victim narrative being perpetuated at the moment, both in political debate, and in society at large. Everything from the petty compensation claims industry, to trigger warnings in university classrooms, to trauma counseling from democrats after the election of Trump, to the repetitive and unsubstantiated claims of the existence of a glass ceiling through which ethnic minorities can’t break because “the white man”.

          However, on this issue, I think Tom’s claims were misguided and based on the fact that the strongest claim that pedophiles have (or at least, they seem to think it’s the strongest claim) is that if the sexual encounter is consensual, it isn’t always harmful. Therefore the more people who come forward to say they were harmed by their experience, the more damaging it is to the pedophiles little self-serving civil rights crusade. I say self-serving because one of my arguments is that this constant comparison to the emancipation of gay rights is a false analogy… Gays were/are campaigning on behalf of one another. Pedophiles are campaigning on behalf of themselves and children, without any children campaigning alongside them. In no other civil rights crusade would it be acceptable for one group to campaign on behalf of enacting certain rights over the other group without consulting them. The only example I can think of is plantation owners arguing with the government about their rights over how they controlled and treated slaves.

          There is also the argument that retrospective societal narrative is the main cause of trauma, not the act itself, and there is some evidence to back this claim up. However, regardless of whether it happens at the time or retrospectively, trauma is trauma. The act of sexual abuse and retrospective societal trauma aren’t separate incidents, but part of the same process. Pedophiles think society should change its attitude… a MASSIVE undertaking, and unlikely to ever occur, therefore it makes more sense to focus on the smaller task of deterring pedophiles from being the catalyst to this traumatic process.

          And besides, if they’re so genuinely concerned about children and trauma, act accordingly and keep your fucking hands to yourself. ~ Danny

      • Danny Whittaker
        Danny Whittaker says:

        Hi IR,

        I understand you think I should have challenged Tom more, but I didn’t go into this with a debate in mind, it was merely an exploration into the psychology of a pro-contact paedophile, in which case it made more sense for me to simply ask the questions and then get out of the way and allow Tom to speak his mind. The times when I did appear to engage in debate were just part of the process of elaboration.

        However, subsequent to this interview I did wind up engaging in a rather heated debate with Tom and around 10-20 other pro-contact pedophiles in the comments section of Tom’s blog post about this interview. There you will be able to see my true feelings about the pro-contact philosophy and the depth and range of my reasoning. You will also read some truly bizarre arguments in favour of pro-contact pedophilia including the disingenuous claim that the pedophile crusade is about emancipating children from their overbearing parents, that parents are too emotionally invested in their children to be able to make the right decisions for them, and that any man who claims to be not attracted to girls as young as 11 is either a liar, a pathetic anti-male feminist, or “fucked in the head”.

        Genuinely bizarre, and should make for a mix of frustrating, unnerving and genuinely laughable reading.

        I’m thinking about posting a summary here, as there are something like 200+ comments in the thread, many of them multiple paragraphs in length. But if you’re interested in some of the debates around this issue, that might be a good place to start.

        Thanks, Danny

  3. Libertine
    Libertine says:

    ” and keep your fucking hands to yourself. “…We do, if only for the sake of self-preservation.
    I was going to respond to IR with his many fallacies, But when he mentioned ‘killing’ us thought to myself he’s too far gone. The discussion is ongoing so I’ll leave it at that, great interview BTW.

    • Danny Whittaker
      Danny Whittaker says:

      Hi Libertine,

      I don’t know that the discussion is ongoing to be honest, because I don’t think a discussion is what’s actually taking place. It strikes me more as two echo chambers on the opposite side of an unbridgeable chasm.

      I tried my best to be as objective as possible, but the deceitful claims of fighting for the emancipation of children by the moderates, and the accusations of “anti-male feminism” and “faggotry” of anyone who won’t themselves admit to being attracted to children (as if it were an irrefutable universal fact) by the extremists is just too frustrating and disingenuous to engage with and/or take seriously.

      The irony of this whole experience for me has been that the evolution of my views on pedophilia from the two-dimensional archetypal predator, to the three-dimensional nuanced individual has only served to further convince me of my conservative position on this issue, precisely because the addition of nuance has only served to expose the true extent of delusion and deceitfulness by the pro-pedophile faction with their utilization of so many abstract and disingenuous arguments.

      I’m interested, when you say that IR is “too far gone” by stating that when it comes to his own children, he would have “no moral qualms killing a Paedophile who wants to act on his desires…”, where precisely should he stand on this issue?

      I would agree that you can’t go around killing people as a “Minority Report-style” preventative measure. But, genuinely, what do you think is a reasonable stance for a parent to take when it comes to the issue of a pedophile with designs on having sex with one of their children?

      I’m going to preempt that the answer to this question will serve as a perfect example of the unbridgeable ideological chasm I suspect exists between pedophiles and the rest of society. But maybe you’ll surprise me. ~ Danny

      • irrationally rational
        irrationally rational says:

        I am not as well versed and eloquent as Danny but if Libertine’s morals override the children’s rights and expect parents and caretakers to accept their moral position for their own self gratification –why cannot you accept my moral standing that your rights should not override children’s rights to have a safe childhood without predators praying on them –And if you insist on acting out of your desires i will have no qualms killing you to keep my kids safe if you were going to act out your desires on my children I would sleep well at night (well never killed anyone so will no doubt fuck me up)– Kids only get to be innocent once and if cunts like tom and Libertine want to destroy that it needs to be meet with force.

        ” and keep your fucking hands to yourself. “…We do, if only for the sake of self-preservation. — what a selfish retort mate — not because it can harm kids but to save your own skin as you know its a very inflammatory issue ..

        And as Danny stated before — there are no Children holding your hand stating — yes make it legal for this man to manipulate me to his own ends.. in any marches.

        Libertine, my position is not full of fallacies — your just a selfish predator..I am sorry you are attracted to kids but dont drag children into your torment.. Being a parent and primary school teacher you learn that kids are sexual beings and could be easily manipulated and any trust destroyed by nefarious adults – they want to explore and be curious with other kids not with an adult . Do you have children Libertine? Can i come over and leer at them, stand over them, pressure them and manipulate them? I mean as Tom states i will not go at them “hammer and tong” but gently rape them on their own terms and they will state it made them a better person — and you will be happy that your children and I had a positive experience and any issues you may have just a reflection on your overbearing parenting misguided feelings — you have no rights over the child as a parent but me as a sexual predator.does.. to be fair Libertine nothing you state will change my mind so as Danny states it will just be an echo chamber

        Danny — glad this weeks podcast is on managing rage as i feel like smashing my fist through the monitor:)

  4. Libertine
    Libertine says:

    “maybe you’ll surprise me”….In this current climate I would understand a hostile reaction, So I wouldn’t recommend it, For the sake of myself or a child. If we were in more of a liberal society, then it would depend on how old the child is and how well he is known to the parents.


    when you call kids ‘innocent’ I assume you did not mean in a sexual way, because you admit they’re sexual beings.
    You assume that kids are only interested in other kids, well that is blatantly false.

    You call me a selfish ‘predator’, in the video tom explained how that is one of the many weasel words that are used against anyone who has relations with anyone under the age of consent.

    As for accusing me of being selfish, That doesn’t make our arguments less factual.
    it’s a natural form of relationship for us, and a way to fulfill romantic love to a complete extent. There is nothing inherently selfish or ignoble about this, because this desire is common to all demographics, and none of them are evil because of it. There is nothing inherently despotic or corrupt about reasonable sexual desire as long as genuine respect and consideration for others accompanies it.

    • irrationally rational
      irrationally rational says:

      You assume that kids are only interested in other kids, well that is blatantly false.– Well kids go through a phase where they are attracted to close older male role models – father, Uncle, teachers starting around 4. that is completely different to a sexual attraction leading to sex

      You call me a selfish ‘predator’, in the video tom explained how that is one of the many weasel words that are used against anyone who has relations with anyone under the age of consent.
      Tom can try to explain it anyway but when it comes down to it Paedophiles are predators as you are seeking to exploit a person who is not as big as you, not fully aware of consequences and no life experiences — they will never be on the a level playing field as a child.

      There is nothing inherently despotic or corrupt about reasonable sexual desire as long as genuine respect and consideration for others accompanies it.
      there is nothing wrong with sexual desires as long as its between two consenting people – How can a child be consenting — You would have to educate a child to be aware of about STDs, pregnancies, possible trauma emotionally and physically, people’s motives are not always in your best interest.etc …Children’s brains just are not developed to understand all the ramifications — Logically if children could make these sorts of sexual relationship decisions with adults logically then they should also be tried and convicted as adults in courts – they are not because they are not fully aware of consequences – their brain is still developing — Laws recognises this.
      Thank you Libertine – I was always wondering how the ultra left could get so riled up when academics etc mention race or gender and resort to violence — let people speak and agree or disagree, you don’t have to yell, scream, attack etc . I believe these sort of issues should be discussed but fuck I learned a lot of myself as It would be hard listening to you or Tom in an open forum not to get up and rage against your self centred selfish blinded bullshit.

      I suspect if age of consent was lowered it would be anarchy. Ask any parent male or female who would they die for — Their children is usually the top answer — I suspect the streets would run red as people like Libertine are blinded by their perceived rights over children and parents like me are blinded by their desire to protect their kids.

      • Libertine
        Libertine says:

        All I can do is urge you to research men’s sexual relations with boys, Because they seek older guys too. There are many studies if you can stomach them.
        As for kids not knowing ‘implications’, Then the burden of proof is on those making the claim that sex is somehow special (or supernatural) going by some of these victimologists; Have you heard of the Satanic Ritual Abuse trials?

        Also in the UK we have a criminal age of responsibility at the age of Ten, As it was recognised that more often than not, kids at that age have basic knowledge of what is right and wrong. I agree some adults can manipulate kids and some may be malign in nature, but we just want the law changed for those who are in consensual relations.

        “I suspect the streets would run red as people like Libertine are blinded by their perceived rights over children and parents like me are blinded by their desire to protect their kids”

        Again here we have an example of how the reactions of society use a sledge-hammer to crack a nut, And is often a cause of trauma when adult/child relations are discovered, they are often harmed by the hostile reactions of parents, police and teachers like yourself.

        • irrationally rational
          irrationally rational says:

          And is often a cause of trauma when adult/child relations are discovered, they are often harmed by the hostile reactions of parents, police and teachers like yourself.

          Your comment here just stuck with me — that the trauma is not from the act of an adult male and child but the reactions of carers and society..Its like your a innocent party and victim of misguided society norms and values. Oh, poor me, its not from me manipulating a minor its society getting in the way of our love. Its not Romeo and Juliet when there is 20+ year difference.

          As for kids not knowing ‘implications’, Then the burden of proof is on those making the claim that sex is somehow special (or supernatural) going by some of these victimologists; Have you heard of the Satanic Ritual Abuse trials?

          The burden on proof is on parents that STD, pregnancies, physical/mental trauma exist? That not everyone has your best interest and there are those out to manipulate? so your basically stating that if you enter a relationship with the child you have no role in that? Part of being in a caring relationship is to want the other party to be safe not just use them and any consequences is up to the kid to find out.
          I think most parents talk to their kids about stranger danger and sex- We are all sexual beings so its not something magical but it has consequences especially a first love and loss of virginity. The burden of proof is that you have to convince me that fucking a child is normal and healthy. Its not – You do not sound rational or mentally aware how fucked up of position is but i suppose you can say the same about me — Both of us will never change our minds. Thinking back if an older male approached me as a 10 year old or younger i would be fucken scared = I just cannot conceive being at the same emotional and physical equal level to tell the man to leave me alone. And tom talking about 6 year old girls– “oh, is that you daughter in the its my fuck date..she knows what she is doing” Mate if this is what pedophiles think then it needs to be met with a sledgehammer response. Your responses on the surface sound measured and calm and mine are full of emotion– But looking into what you are stating its quite sinister, self serving and playing an innocent victim.


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.