Oh my friends, darkness is so dark now and expanding daily.  My heart is broken for all of the lost…but most especially for the children.  Heinous, evil, despicable things are being done to children and the world is being taught to accept them as harmless and even good.

Do not be fooled for a moment, this is not the first time all of this is happening.  Throughout history, the pattern has been repeated.  Why?  Because each generation has had to been given first the opportunity to know the truth an choose salvation and then, the testing to see who is truly converted in their heart.  Then destruction of all who are not in right relationship with GOD, those who have chosen to serve evil/darkness/Satan.

We are living in the last days.  THE LAST TIME this scenario must be played out.  DARKNESS at this time will become as DARK and EVIL as it can get, forever displaying the need of GOD’s Plan of Salvation.

In our present society, evil is raging and it is focused primarily on the children.  I know that most of the people who read my webpage are fully aware of what is happening.  But, even among you there are those who don’t want to look at the truth about what is happening to our children.  They turn their head an don’t want to know.  I was shocked when one of my closest friends told me he did not know about any of the things I was telling him.  He said “IF he knew those things were happening he would do something about it”.  My friends ignorance is not bliss.  We must not turn our heads and ignore the truth that is before us.  I beg you to review all of my posts on this topic and share them with your friends and family.  Be a part of bringing the truth to light.  We MUST do all we can to save the children.  We must do our best to make sure everyone sees and recognizes what is happening.

The most important thing we can ALL do is pray.  Pray that GOD will deliver them out of the hand of all who would do them harm and place them where they are loved, protected and blessed.  Pray that GOD himself will provide for them, protect them and deliver them.  Pray that GOD himself with teach them about himself and reveal himself to them, from the time they are formed in the womb and throughout their lives.  No one on earth is qualified to teach them.   We are all so confused and deceived.  God’s word says that our children will be taught of the Lord.  That is my prayer for them.

Evil, GODLESS, PAGANS see children as objects, to be used, abused, exploited and sacrificed.  This is straight out of the PIT of HELL.  We must understand that GOD commanded us to reproduce because HE DESIRES CHILDREN.  He desires to populate heaven with the children of mankind.  That is why the devil hate them.  Children are not ours.  They belong to the Lord.  We are given the responsibility to provide, protect and prepare them for their role in God’s plan.  We have failed them miserably.

We have allowed the unGodly to turn our world upside down.  To change everything!!  To mock God and break every commandment.  We have failed to stand for truth.  Why have we let men dictate our lives?  Any law or government that goes against the law of GOD is not valid.  We must place GOD first.

God wanted me to provide this post today.  This is coming to you right from the throne.  God wants us to rise up and take responsibility.  We need to make it clear to the world where we stand as children of GOD.  We need to stand against all who would harm our children in any way, spiritually, emotionally, mentally and/or physically.



Luke 17 :1-2
And he said to his disciples, “Temptations to sin[a] are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come!
 It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.[b]

1 John 2:16-17

16 For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. 17 And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.



December 8th, 2022.

Project Veritas

➡️ Please tap the Like 👍🏼 button, Comment & Subscribe

CashApp: $TPardoEM

Don’t hesitate any longer! Get your 2 week or supply of food and/or supplies! ORDER NOW it’s more important than ever for you to prepare! ➡️https://mypatriotsupply.com/pages/rs-repdig-ppw-the-phoenix-enigma?rfsn=1750310.2a7b74&subid=the.phoenix.enigma

➡️https://bluemonsterprep.com/Promo Code: FRANKLY

𝗗𝗜𝗦𝗖𝗟𝗔𝗜𝗠𝗘𝗥𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘴, 𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘴, 𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘴 𝘰𝘧 TNichole Elevated Minds channel. 𝘈𝘭𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘰𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, and do your own research.



April 19th, 2018.


If you have not seen any of the following posts, please check them out.  Your Children’s lives and future depend on YOU!  Will you stand and SAVE the children?

It’s in The Blood – Part 11 – The LGBTQ Movement

What are we doing to the CHILDREN?



Will No One Stand to Save the Children? Part 2 of 6

Will No One Stand To Save the Children? Part 3 of 6

Will No One Stand To Save The Children – Part 4 of 6 – So much more than a “Story”

Will No One Stand to Save the Children? – Part 5 – Child “Protective” Services

Will No One Stand to Save the Children? – Part 6 – NWO Sex ED GOING BONKERS!

Will You Stand to SAVE THE CHILDREN?? – 6 yr olds taught to Masterbate, 4 yr olds asked to touch each other IN SCHOOL!

TIME to STAND UP, reclaim our Parental Authority, and save the CHILDREN!

It is NOW or NEVER -Will YOU join the FIGHT TO SAVE the CHILDREN?

You can Hide Your Eyes, but NO LONGER DENY!


Don’t Miss this opportunity – SOUND OF FREEDOM – SEE IT/SHARE IT!


Bear in mind that the following is written by ungodly humans who have a sheared conscience and are ruled by the forces of darkness.  Their opinions are naturally biased on the side of evil, just as my opinions are biased on the side of godliness and righteousness, because I choose to serve the Only and ONLY ALMIGHTY GOD, Our Heavenly Father. 

Ephesians 4:18

They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.

HE is the ONLY ONE who determines what is Right  and what is Wrong,  what is TRUE and what is FALSE, what is GOOD and what is EVIL.  Those determinations are not in the realm of HUMAN sovereignty, liberty or capacity.


Etikk i praksis. Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics (2015), 9 (1), 111–124
doi: 10.5324/eip.v9i1.1718

The ethics of pedophilia

Ole Martin Moen

University of Oslo, Centre for the Study of Mind in Nature o.m.moen@ifikk.uio.no

Pedophilia is bad. But how bad is it? And in what ways, and for what reasons, is it bad? This is a thorny issue, and sadly, one seldom discussed by ethicists. I argue in this article that pedophilia is bad only because, and only to the extent that, it causes harm to children, and that pedophilia itself, as well as pedophilic expressions and practices that do not cause harm to children, are morally all right. I further argue that the aim of our social and legal treatment of pedophilia should be to minimize harm to children, and that current practices are often counterproductive in this respect.

Keywords: children, consent, harm, pedophilia, sexual ethics


Few things upset us more than pedophilia, and with good reason. Pedophilic sex harms children, and roughly one in five girls, and one in twelve boys, are victims of sexual abuse.1 What is pedophilia? According to the World Health Organization, pedophilia is “sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age” (WHO 2010). The discussion in this paper stays within the boundaries of WHO’s definition, but focuses on sexual preference for prepubertals. Sexual preference for prepubertals provides the clearest example of pedophilia, and by focusing on clear cases we can set aside, for the moment, the added complexities that arise in the borderline case of sexual preference for those who have entered puberty.2

Pedophilia is prevalent. In an influential 1989 study, John Briere and Marsha Runtz sampled 193 male college students, and found that 9% reported that they had had at least some (more than zero) sexual fantasies involving prepubertal children, 5% admitted to having at least once masturbated to such fantasies, and 7% indicated at least some likelihood of seeking sexual contact with a child if they were certain that they would avoid detection and punishment (Briere & Runtz 1989). In 1996, Kathy Smiljanich and John Briere sampled 279 students, and arrived at a similar result. They also found that there is a significant gender discrepancy among pedophiles: roughly seven out of eight pedophiles are men (Briere & Smiljanich 1996). In the most recent and most comprehensive study to date, Kathryn Becker-Blease, Daniel Friend, and Jennifer J. Freyd sampled 531 male students, and found that 7% admitted to having some sexual attraction to children and that 3% would consider seeking sexual contact with a child if they were certain that no one would find out (Becker-Blease, Friend & Freyd 2006). Nathaniel McCognathy (1998) and Michael C. Seto (2009), in their respective meta-analyses, estimate that around 5% of men, or slightly less than that, are to some extent sexually attracted to prepubertal children.

Pedophilia concerns many different disciplines, most obviously psychology, psychiatry, and criminology. It is also, however, a subarea of sexual ethics, and as such, a concern for ethicists. Disappointingly, however, ethicists have given little attention to pedophilia.3 This is unfortunate, because ethicists can make valuable contributions to how pedophilia should be understood, assessed, and handled. My goal with this paper is to discuss the ethics of pedophilia somewhat comprehensively, beginning with a consideration of the ethical status of being a pedophile. I then proceed to discuss adult-child sex: What makes it wrong for an adult to seek sexual contact with a child, and under what conditions are the adults who do so blameworthy? Finally, I turn to the ethical status of producing, distributing, and enjoying fictional stories and computer-generated graphics with pedophilic content. The overall approach I will defend is that pedophilia is bad only because, and only to the extent that, it causes harm to children, and that pedophilic expressions and practices that do not cause harm to children are morally all right. I explore a number of practical implications of this view in the conclusion.

Being a Pedophile

According to WHO’s definition (quoted above) a pedophile is someone who has a sexual preference for children. Note that a pedophile need not ever have acted on his preference in order to qualify as a pedophile, according to this definition. Is it immoral to have a sexual preference for children?  

19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20These are the things which defile a man:

Romans 12:2

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Philippians 4:8

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

Matthew 5:28

But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Romans 13:14

But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

Galatians 5:16

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.

Galatians 5:19-21

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 8:7

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.

Colossians 3:5

Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

James 1:14-15

But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

Ephesians 5:1-6:24

Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. .

Before answering this, it is worth noting that a moral assessment of pedophilia is different from both an evaluative and a psychiatric assessment. Pedophilia might well be evaluatively bad in the sense that it would be better if a given person were not a pedophile. Being a pedophile is unfortunate for the pedophile himself, who will most likely not have a good sexual and romantic life, and for a number of children, who might be seriously harmed by his actions. Pedophilia might also be psychiatrically bad in the sense that it might be a mental disease. But is being a pedophile, in the sense of having a sexual preference for children, immoral?

For something to be subject to moral assessment, we usually assume that it must be something that, in some sense, we control or choose. If something is entirely outside of our control, such as our genetic makeup, it seems that though it might be more or less fortunate, and perhaps more or less pathological, it is not properly subject to moral assessment.

Do pedophiles choose or control their sexual preferences? Nothing indicates that they do. The competing scientific explanations of pedophilia are conditioning, childhood sexual abuse, and neurodevelopmental perturbations. In terms of phenomenology, pedophiles report that they discover their sexual preference (usually in their teens), not that they choose it (see Seto 2007). Once someone is a pedophile, moreover, there is little evidence to suggest that it is any easier for them to choose to be sexually attracted to adults than it is for those of us who are not pedophiles to choose to be sexually attracted to children. Being a pedophile is also highly disadvantageous, so it is also puzzling, on a more general level, why anyone would choose a pedophilic preference in the first place. Though this issue cannot be settled here, it seems most plausible that pedophiles do not choose their preferences, and that though their preferences might well be both unfortunate and pathological, the mere fact of having such preferences is neither moral nor immoral.

Just like anyone else who is outside of relationship with GOD, the pedophile is subject to the Kingdom of Darkness and ruled by his own lusts as well as the lusts of whatever demonic spirit/entity or entities control him/her.  They don’t even realize why they do the things they do.  Just like the Alcoholic/drug addict, the liar, the thief, or any other sinner.  

Adult-Child Sex

Even if we grant that it is not immoral to be a pedophile, it might still be immoral for pedophiles to seek sexual contact with children. To do so is an action, or a series of actions, and actions are subject to moral assessment. Though there are several possible arguments as to why it is immoral for adults to seek sexual contact with children, let me here examine what I take to be the two central arguments: the harm argument and the consent argument.

The Harm Argument
The harm argument is a simple argument with two premises: An empirical premise, that adult-child sex seriously harms children, and a normative premise, that it is immoral to seriously harm children (at least as long as the only justification is that it gives an adult sexual pleasure).

In what ways does adult-child sex harm children? Presumably, we can distinguish between two main forms of harm. On the one hand, there is bodily harm. If small children are penetrated, or otherwise raped, they have a significant chance of being physically harmed. So much is indeed uncontroversial, and I shall take this for granted in the rest of the paper. What I shall discuss in more detail is psychological harm. Psychological harm is more complex and more controversial than bodily harm, and it is also the kind of harm to which we must appeal if we seek to explain why most adult-child sex is harmful. The reason why is that most adult-child sex does not involve violence or penetration. Though there are many tragic counterexamples, the most characteristic pedophile activities are cuddling, caressing, and genital fondling, and when full intercourse takes place, it occurs most commonly when the child is well into adolescence (Howitt 1995). (THESE ARE OUTRIGHT LIES!!  WE HAVE SEEN THE PHYSICAL DAMAGE DONE TO CHILDREN BY PEDOPHILES!  THE BLACK EYES FROM ORAL SEX FORCEFULLY PERPETUATED.  THE TORN FLESH, MARKS, BRUISES AND BLEEDING FROM VAGINAL RAPE AND ANAL RAPE FOREFULLY PERPETRAED BY PEDOPHILES.  NOT TO MENTION THE TORTURE AND MURDER OF CHILDREN AT THE HANDS OF SADISTIC PEDOPHILES.) It seems hard to argue that cuddling, caressing, and fondling causes physical harm to children’s bodies, so if we think that these cases are problematic as well, then the harms to which we appeal must, at least in part, be psychological.

There are several studies on the psychological effects of adult-child sex on children. One of the largest studies, funded by the US National Institute of Drug Abuse, found that in a sample of 1,400 adult women, childhood sexual abuse was significantly correlated with increased likelihood of drug dependence, alcohol dependence, major depression, and general anxiety disorder (Zickler 2002). Other studies identify a strong correlation between sexual abuse and various psychological disorders such as dissociative identity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, borderline personality disorder, and various eating disorders. Meta-analyses estimate that between 51% and 79% of sexually abused children display symptoms of psychological disorders (see Hornor 2010). Presumably, psychological disorders, or symptoms thereof, constitute harm, and arguably, the threshold for being harmed is even lower than the threshold for having identifiable psychological disorders or symptoms of such disorders. As such, the evidence for the harmful psychological effects of adult-child sex seems solid.

There are, however, arguments to the effect that these findings fail to show that adult-child sex is harmful. Robert Ehman, a philosopher who has defended adult-child sex, has advanced three such arguments. Let us consider these.

Ehman’s first argument against the harmfulness of adult-child sex is that the available research was conducted using a non-representative sample of children who have had sexual contact with adults. “Although there is a good deal of clinical data on the effects of adult-child sex on the children,” Ehman argues, “there is little in the way of controlled scientific research.” The children who are studied are those that have come to clinical and legal attention, which is problematic, because “[t]he people who come to clinical and legal attention are not necessarily a typical cross section of the relevant population. … [T]hey are apt to be more negatively affected than those who do not come to clinical attention.” Indeed, he argues, it is often “the negative effects [that] bring them to clinical attention in the first place.” Instances of adult-child sex that are voluntary and considered good by both parties, and thus result in neither criminal charges nor psychiatric treatment, “remain invisible to clinical observation” (Ehman 1984: 433).

It is impossible for Adult Child sex to be consensual.  “Affirmative consent is a knowing, voluntary, and mutual decision among all participants to engage in sexual activity.   Basically, informed consent means that there are no surprises and consent can be rescinded at any point—especially under changing conditions! 

“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

Jesus was not implying that children are sinless, since we all—as descendants of Adam—are born in sin (Psalm 51:5). Perhaps it is rather that the heart of a young child does not have the capacity to discern good from evil (Deuteronomy 1:39)—in some way like the hearts of Adam and Eve before they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil—for by God’s grace, a young heart is cocooned for a time in the simplicity and innocence of childhood (Isaiah 7:15).   Source

Young children are not of an age and level of understanding to make a decision on sexual matters.  They have not acquired enough life experience, teaching and preparation to discern what is right and wrong in any area but most especially in the area of sexual relations.  They have no idea what perversion is or of the consequences of partaking in sexual activity normal or perverted.  Therefore they do not qualify to give consent to such interactions.

Ehman’s second argument is that adult-child sex is harmful only, or predominantly, because of society’s way of viewing and handling sexual contact between adults and children. The harm, he suggests, is the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy. In Ehman’s view, adult-child sex is made traumatizing by a culture that labels it with strongly evaluative terms such as “abuse,” “assault,” and “molestation,” which tells the child it has been scarred for life. The harms are culturally contingent, and to support this view, Ehman points to places where adult-child sex were viewed and handled very differently, such as Ancient Greece (Ehman 1984: 435-436).

There you go.  This argument is made by those who do not have a relationship with the TRUE and LIVING GOD.  They are living under the lordship of the ancient gods/demons/fallen angels.  Now, understand that the demons/Fallen Angels know who really determines right from wrong.  These people are deceived.

Ehman’s final argument is that children are sexual beings: Children of both sexes are capable of and interested in various types of sexual experiences, and most children have at some point engaged in sexual activities with other children. Because of this, Ehman takes it that the burden of proof rests on those who claim that a child’s sexual gratification may not, in any circumstances, come from sexual contact with an adult. If the burden of proof cannot be met, the argument goes, we should be open to the view that sexual contact between an adult and a child will sometimes be mutually desirable.

Naturally, our bodies are created with the potential for pleasure.  Just because a child can experience pleasure does not mean that they comprehend what is happening to them, let alone the consequences of what they are doing.  Children do not naturally look for sexual activity.  They don’t know what it is.  It is our job as parents to protect them from early exposure for which they are unprepared.  INNOCENCE is a precious gift that should be preserved and protected.  There are many adults, in fact I would venture to say, most adults don’t really comprehend the truth about sexual activity and its consequences.  There is no way children can handle any or all of the repercussions of premature sexual exposure.

What should we make of Ehman’s arguments? Regarding his first argument, the appeal to an unrepresentative sample, we must concede that it is problematic that many studies are concerned only with cases that are brought to clinical or legal attention. It is worth noting, however, that not all studies suffer from this problem; the US National Institute of Drug Abuse study, for example, relies on a non-forensic and presumably representative sample, and still finds a significant correlation between adult-child sex and psychological problems. Even if we focus exclusively on the studies that were available when Ehman published his paper (1984), however, it is still unclear how much Ehman’s argument really shows. Though he might have been right that a group of unharmed children escaped the researchers’ attention, nothing in Ehman’s argument tells us how large that group is. His argument is compatible with the unharmed group being very large, but it is just as compatible with it being very small. We must also take into account the potential underreporting of harmful sexual abuse, so Ehman cannot assume that all, or even most, unreported cases did not result in harm. Children might have failed to tell anyone due to fear or shame, due to few or no prospects of being believed, or, in the worst cases, due to not living to tell. As such, the unrepresentative sample argument, though it does point to a weakness in some of the research, does not show that Ehman is right; it merely allows for the possibility that he is, and since more representative studies also find similar correlations, his first argument is very much weakened.

What concerns Ehman’s second argument, the appeal to a self-fulfilling prophecy, it seems hard to deny that cultural attitudes influence children’s psychological reactions to adult-child sex. In fact, this view has gained some recent support by the findings of Harvard psychologist Susan Clancy (2011), which indicate that victims of child sexual abuse typically do not suffer psychological problems because the abuse was traumatizing when it happened, but rather, that the abuse tends to become a problem later on when the memories are processed and examined, and the actions more fully understood. If much of the harm occurs only after conceptual evaluation, this might suggest an important role for cultural attitudes in determining children’s negative responses.

NO, this demonstrates the fact that children are not capable of understanding, evaluating an forming a view of sexual activity and its consequences. 

This is not, however, enough to save Ehman’s argument. First, even if Ehman is right that the harms are culturally contingent, this does not make the harms any less real, for presumably, a child’s suffering is just as bad when it is contingent on culture as when it is not. A child, moreover, cannot be held responsible for having internalized the norms of his or her society. Though Ehman is right that if the harms are culturally contingent, this raises the question of whether our norms can and should be changed, it still holds true that until or unless they are changed, adult-child sex causes harm to children. Second, the fact that we use strongly value-laden terms such as “molestation,” “abuse,” and “assault” does not show that our cultural attitudes cause the harms of adult-child sex through a self-fulfilling prophecy, for we might use strongly value-laden terms for the very reason that adult-child sex is harmful. “Rape” is not a neutral concept either, but that does not show that the harms of rape are the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Third, regarding the appeal to Ancient Greece, it should be pointed out that what was condoned in Ancient Greek culture was sexual relationships between men and teenagers, not between men and prepubertal children (see Nussbaum 1994). Moreover, the fact that a certain practice was accepted in Ancient Greece does not show that the practice was harmless. Consider, for example, slavery or the oppression of women.

Our response to the self-fulfilling prophecy argument is given further strength by how we respond to Ehman’s last argument, the appeal to children’s sexuality. Here I think we must concede that children are, in some sense, sexual beings, and for the sake of the argument, let us also concede that this places the burden of proof on those who claim that there should not be any sexual contact between adults and children. Placing a burden, however, is not the same as settling a case, for the question then becomes whether the burden can be satisfied. To satisfy the burden, we would need to point to a difference, or a range of differences, between adults and children that explains why sexual contact between them harms children. There are, I think, several differences that can play this explanatory role. One difference, pointed out by Ben Piecker and Jan Steutel, is that although children are sexual beings in one respect, child and adult sexualities are importantly different, and children and adults have different aims in sexual engagement. For one, children might often seek nothing sexual at all in physical intimacy with an adult, but rather, seek confirmation and affection. Moreover, even in cases where the child’s motivation for physical intimacy is in some sense sexual (presumably, a child can find genital fondling pleasant), the aims in sexual involvement are still different, for though children can experience sexual pleasure, and can be curious about others’ bodies, they do not feel sexually attracted to others and desire others’ bodies the way adults do (Piecker & Steutel 1997: 332-338). In addition to having different aims, there is also an asymmetry of power and knowledge between children and adults. On the one hand, David Finkelhor observes, “adults control all kinds of resources that are essential to [children] – food, money, freedom, etc.” (Finkelhor 1979: 693). On the other hand, adults are more knowledgeable than children and children tend to trust adults. For these reasons, it might be very hard for a child to say no to an approaching adult, especially if the adult insists and has already gained the child’s trust. Presumably, the pressure can be overwhelming even if the adult does not intend it this way. Finally, children are vulnerable, so a bodily invasion and a breach of trust might cause significant difficulties for how children perceive their own bodies and how they perceive adults. Differences in aims, power, knowledge, and vulnerability seem to come far in explaining why, in spite of the fact that children are sexual beings, adult-child sex harms children.

Importantly, however, by pointing to differences in aims, power, knowledge, and vulnerability, we are also pointing to often present but still contingent features of relationships between children and adults. As long as our argument rests on an appeal to such differences, we must concede that it possible that in some cases children are not harmed by adult-child sex.   NO IT IS NEVER RIGHT!!   There might be special cases where differences in aims, power, knowledge, and vulnerability do not come into play, or do not do so in a harmful manner. Indeed, we must concede that, in exceptional cases, the child might not only fail to be harmed but might also, retrospectively, view the incident positively.   THEY MIGHT VIEW IT POSITIVELY IN THE MOMENT IF THEY WERE TREATED KINDLY AND THEY EXPERIENCED PLEASURE,  BUT THAT STILL DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT!!  THEY HAVE BEEN VIOLATED BY AN ADULT AND THEY ARE ILL PREPARED TO COMPREHEND WHAT HAS HAPPENED!   THERE IS BEYONE THE NATURAL LEVEL A SPIRITUAL LEVEL TO THIS ACT.  ONCE THE CHILD HAS BEEN VIOLATED THEY ARE OPENED UP TO DEMONIC INFLUENCES THAT WILL AFFECT THEM FROM THAT POINT ON.  This conclusion is backed up by empirical findings. In an influential meta-analysis of 59 studies, Rind, Tromovitch & Bauserman (1995) looked not merely for harm or lack of harm, but also for reports of positive experiences, and found that a minority of college students who had had sexual contact with an adult when they were children, and who retrospectively described this experience as positive.

Well, I can tell you, that I have done my own research on this topic.  I was at one time part of the world of THEATER.  In pursuit of an acting career, I was exposed to an overwhelming number of homosexuals and bisexuals.  Many of whom were dear friends.  I set out to discover what caused them to make those choices.  I interviewed  a large number of those two groups and found that EVERYONE OF THEM had experienced a sexual encounter with a trusted friend or relative at a very young age.  There is a point in a child’s development where their mental and spiritual development has not developed, while their physical bodies are capable of sexual response.  If a child is exposed to premature sexual activity, especially perverted and unnatural sexual activity before they are able to process what is happening… then they get trapped, their spiritual and mental development is stymied.  They are unable to grow beyond their experience.  It has a profound affect on them and their innocence being taken from them, they are unable to form healthy, natural relationships with the opposite sex.  

Rind also found that the extent of psychological damage depended heavily on whether or not the incident(s) were retrospectively described as “consensual.” Rind’s study was condemned by the US Congress for providing material that could be used by pedophile organizations to justify their activities. It is doubtful, however, if Rind’s findings give pedophile organizations what they want. After all, granted the significant harms that often occur, the fact that some children are not harmed—and that a minority reports that their sexual experiences were positive—fails to establish that harm is not expected to result from adult-child sex. A useful parallel to engaging in adult-child sex might be that of giving children hard drugs. Even if we concede that giving children hard drugs might sometimes end well, and even if we discovered that a minority later on reported that being given hard drugs was in sum a positive experience, it will still be true that harm should be expected and that, in some cases, devastating harm will be the result.

It therefore seems that we should reformulate the harm argument in terms of risk of harm. The empirical premise, on this variant of the argument, is that adult-child sex exposes children to a high risk of being seriously harmed; the normative premise is that it is morally wrong to expose children to a high risk of being seriously harmed (absent very strong overriding reasons to the contrary). If we accept both of these premises, as it seems that we should, we have a sound argument as to why it is wrong to engage in adult-child sex.

The Consent Argument
Another common argument as to why it is wrong to engage in adult-child sex is the consent argument. This argument can also be formulated in terms of two premises: first, that it is wrong to engage in sex without consent; second, that children cannot consent to sex, such that all sex involving children becomes non-consensual.

The consent argument has strong intuitive appeal, and David Finkelhor—one of the world’s leading pedophilia researchers—makes the case that the consent argument is even stronger than the harm argument. He explains that the harm argument is empirically vulnerable: It depends on the empirical fact of harm, which is sometimes questionable. The consent argument, by contrast, does not depend on uncertain empirical facts to the same degree. As such, the consent argument is more robust (Finkelhor 1979).

Though Finkelhor might be right that the harm argument is empirically vulnerable, he is wrong in claiming that the consent argument is any less vulnerable. The reason why is that the consent argument is dependent on the harm argument. To see why, consider first the mundane fact that there are many things to which children may rightfully consent. If I ask my 10-year-old son if we should go play basketball, and he says yes—and we then go on to play basketball—nothing wrong has happened. The same would be true for going on a ski trip, watching a children’s movie, or baking a cake. On the other hand, there are things to which children may not consent. If I suggested that my son and I go play with guns, get drunk, or have sex, it would not be permissible to follow through on these suggestions, irrespective of his consent.

Why may children consent to some things but not to other things? The central explanation seems to be that while some things are harmful, other things are not, and while adults have the privilege to consent to harmful things (within certain limits), children do not have the same privilege, or do not have it to the same extent.

It is not JUST that some things are harmful, it is that some things have heavy negative consequences which children cannot possibly comprehend.  

The reason why the consent argument depends on the harm argument, therefore, is that only if the harm argument is sound do we have a good explanation of why children cannot rightfully consent to sex. Had adult-child sex posed no risk of harm at all, it is unclear why children could not consent to it. Perhaps it could be suggested that children cannot consent to sex because they are not sufficiently physically and psychologically developed to know what they are consenting to. True as this might be, in the absence of any risk of harm, this does not seem to be problematic either. If my son ventured to read Hegel, it is evident that he would not know what he was doing. Still, since this would presumably not expose him to any significant risk of harm, there would be nothing wrong in letting him do so.  That is a personal opinion and not valid.  Sexual activity of any kind has deep spiritual consequences and potential for serious harm.  There is no question there is spiritual harm perpetrated on a child when an adult interacts with them in a sexual way.  A child will not FEEL the consequences.  He/she may not even realize they have been changed or harmed.  Adults often don’t realize these things.  It is only when our eyes are opened to spiritual truth that we come to fully understand.  

Even if we accept that the consent argument depends on the harm argument, however, it does not follow that the consent argument is eliminated. Arguably, the harm argument vindicates the consent argument, and does so by virtue of providing an explanation as to why sex is something to which children, given their level of autonomy and understanding, cannot consent. Still, within the scope of the present discussion, the consent argument does not add much either. While the harm argument states that it is wrong to expose a child to a significant risk of serious harm, the consent argument states that this is wrong even if the child consents. Since this is already implicit in the harm argument, I shall proceed on the assumption that it is the harm argument that provides the central explanation of why it is morally wrong for adults to engage in adult-child sex.

Even if we agree that it is morally wrong for adults to engage in adult-child sex (because doing so exposes the child to a significant risk of serious harm), the question of moral wrongness is not the only relevant moral question that we might ask. A further question is to what extent, and under what conditions, those who engage in adult-child sex are not only wrongdoers, but blameworthy wrongdoers. Though blameworthiness is a complex issue that cannot be explored in depth in this article, let me suggest two reasons why some pedophiles who engage in adult-child sex might be less blameworthy than we intuitively assume, even though what they do is wrong.

One factor that might mitigate blame on the part of a wrongdoing agent is that the agent is ignorant of the fact that what he is doing is wrong. Let us call this the appeal to ignorance. For the appeal to ignorance to detract from the blameworthiness of pedophiles who engage in adult-child sex, then (as long as we relate our discussion to the harm argument) the pedophiles in question would need to be ignorant of the truth of one of the two premises of the argument: either the empirical premise that adult-child sex exposes children to a significant risk of serious harm or the normative premise that it is immoral to expose children to a significant risk of serious harm (absent very strong reasons to the contrary). Let us take for granted that pedophiles cannot be ignorant of the truth of the normative premise that it is immoral to expose children to a significant risk of serious harm. Could it be, however, that many pedophiles are ignorant of the truth of the empirical premise that adult-child sex exposes children to such harms?

UNLESS THEIR CONSCIENCE HAS BEEN COMPLETELY OBLITERATED, humans have deep in their spirit a knowledge of what is evil.  There is some sense that they are doing something they should not.  That is why they hide and secrecy plays such a major role in their activity.  However, a soul who is without GOD, has no understanding of TRUTH, RIGHT and WRONG or GOOD AND EVIL, and a soul controlled by demonic forces is often not even conscious of what is happening.  Does that make it ok?  Does that excuse them?  NO!! HEAVENS NO.  Ignorance is no excuse.   What you want to do with your life is between you and GOD, but when you bring others into your evil choices you become blameworthy and guilty and accountable!!  

I think some reasons support this view. To see why, we must first appreciate that sexual attraction towards children is often a deep and integral part of pedophiles’ personalities, and that from the pedophiles’ perspective, adult-child sex is very appealing. Presumably, adult-child sex is just as appealing to pedophiles as sex between adults is to non-pedophiles. Due to self-serving biases, therefore, it will take very serious reflection on the part of pedophiles to realize that the actions that they like so much systematically expose the other party to a serious risk of harm. It is also worth noting that the case against the harmfulness of adult-child sex is not obviously mistaken (cf. Ehman’s arguments), and in fact, pedophiles have at least some justification for rejecting the mainstream view. To the extent that the mainstream view is that adult-child sex is categorically very harmful, it is an overly strong view, and being overly strong, it is easily falsified.  SINNERS WILL ALWAYS FIND JUSTIFICATION FOR THEIR SIN.  SADLY, only in thier own hearts.  GOD NEVER CHANGES, an HE determines what is RIGHT AND WRONG, GOOD AND EVIL.  ALREADY WELL ESTABLISHED and is the current NORM though sadly the world is falling into DARKNESS RAPIDLY.  Accordingly, when pedophiles discover, for instance, that NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, has had a number of teenage members, some pedophiles might think, not entirely without justification, that the mainstream view must be mistaken. It is paradoxical, therefore, that those who promote the view that adult-child sex is categorically very harmful, by virtue of promoting too strong a view, contribute to justifying, to some extent, a pedophile’s thinking that society at large must be mistaken about adult-child sex. This, in turn, is a pragmatic reason for promoting the more accurate view: that adult-child sex is not categorically very harmful, but that it exposes children to a significant risk of being seriously harmed. While the categorical view is falsified by a single instance of adult-child sex that does not harm the child, the more accurate view, though it is in principle falsifiable, is not so easily falsified.

Perhaps we can demand both of pedophiles and of others that they be epistemically responsible: that they counteract their biases, even when doing so is emotionally difficult, and that they charitably modify opposing hypotheses as these get falsified. To the extent that this is a tall order for the average pedophile, however, we have a reason that might detract from the blameworthiness of the average pedophile who seeks out (at least certain forms of) adult-child sex.

Another factor that might mitigate blame is bad moral luck on the part of pedophiles. Pedophiles are unlucky to be pedophiles, and we should concede that for many of them, it must be very difficult to go through life without ever seeking sexual contact with a child.  THIS SIN IS NO DIFFERENT THEN ANY OTHER SIN.  THE PEDOPHILE MAKES A CHOICE TO REMAIN A PEDOPHILE.  GOD PROMISES IN HIS WORD THAT ANYONE WHO COMES TO HIM AND LAYS DOWN HIS LIFE/HIS WILL GOD WILL CLEANSE THEM OF ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS AND THEY WILL BECOME A NEW MAN/HUMAN.   Why, we might ask, should we expect it to be easier for pedophiles to abstain completely from adult-child sex than it is for others to abstain completely from adult-adult sex?   IT IS EQUALLY SINFUL FOR PEOPLE TO BE HAVING CASUAL SEX WITH ANYONE.  SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE IS SIN.  IT ALSO OPENS A PERSON UP TO DEMONIC ACTIVITY.  SEXUAL SIN FOR ADULTS IS SIN!!!  THE REASON PEOPLE HAVE TROUBLE RESISTING THE SIN IS BECAUSE THEY LOVE THE SIN TOO MUCH TO PUT IT BEHIND THEM Approaching this from the perspective of moral luck, we might ask how many of those who currently blame pedophiles for engaging in adult-child sex would have managed to abstain completely from adult-child sex in case they themselves were pedophiles. Of course, it is possible that they would all have been able to abstain, but it is far from obvious, and we should be careful before expecting a much higher level of willpower from pedophiles than we know to be the norm.   WE SHOULD BE EXPECTING A MUCH HIGHER LEVEL OF MORALITY FROM EVERYONE!!  BUT ESPECIALLY FROM PEDOPHILES, BECAUSE THEY ARE CORRUPTING INNOCENT CHILDREN.  

In spite of the appeal to ignorance and the appeal to moral luck, it might well be that some forms of adult-child sex, such as rape, are so clearly harmful that our intuitive assumptions about blameworthiness are fully justified. Moreover, observe that what counts against blameworthiness in these cases is exclusively limitations on the part of pedophiles qua agents, so if a given pedophile is sufficiently enlightened and autonomous, neither the appeal to ignorance nor the appeal to moral luck will detract from his (or her) blameworthiness. Finally, even if we acknowledge that the above reasons have the potential to count against blameworthiness in individual cases, they need not count against criminal prosecution. We might still have reasons for prosecution grounded in the protection of victims and the prevention of future harms.

Fictional stories and computer-generated graphics

So far I have considered the ethical status of being a pedophile and of engaging in adult-child sex. How, however, should we assess ways to satisfy pedophilic preferences that do not involve any actual children, such as the enjoyment of fictional stories and computer-generated graphics with pedophilic content? Even though most of us might think of such stories and graphics as less bad than adult-child sex, there still seems to be something troubling about them, and in most countries they are banned. But what makes such texts and graphics bad? It seems clear that we cannot appeal to harm to virtual children since, presumably, virtual children cannot be harmed.

One explanation might be that even though virtual children cannot be harmed, real children can be harmed as a result of what goes on in virtual reality. It might be argued, for example, that exposure to texts and graphics that sexualize children makes pedophiles more prone to engage in adult-child sex in the real world. This argument has some intuitive appeal, as it seems likely that repeated virtual engagement in an activity lowers one’s barriers to engaging in that activity outside of the virtual world. In spite of the intuitive appeal, however, the claim is empirically questionable. Dennis Howitt, in a study of pornography usage among pedophiles, concludes that “no clear-cut causal link has been demonstrated between … exposure to pornography and sex crime.” (Howitt 1995b: 17) A similar conclusion has been drawn by Jérôme Endrass, who recently found that “[c]onsuming child pornography alone is not a risk factor for committing hands-on sex offenses – at least not for those subjects who had never committed a hands-on sex offense.”(Endrass et.al. 2009: 1) David Riegel has gone one step further and suggested that for many pedophiles, pornography is a tool that helps them redirect their urges and drives, and gives them an outlet for their sexual desires in a way that does not involve having sex with children (Riegel 2004). Howitt, Endrass, and Riegel’s conclusions are also given tentative support by broader sociological findings. Milton Diamond has found that when the Czech Republic lifted its ban on pornography (including child pornography) in 1989, there was a drop in rape and child sexual abuse (Diamond, Jozifkova & Weiss 2011). Diamond also found similar negative correlations between the availability of child pornography and adult-child sex in Japan (Diamond & Uchiyama 1999). Granted our current knowledge, it therefore seems that texts and computer-generated graphics with pedophilic content may result in less adult-child sex.

Another possible argument as to why it is wrong to enjoy fictional stories and computer-generated graphics with pedophilic content is that all attempts at satisfying pedophilic sexual preferences are in some sense abusive or disrespectful, or expressive of ill will, which makes them morally bad.

Let us grant, for the sake of the argument, that a practice can be made morally bad by virtue of being abusive or disrespectful, or expressive of ill will. The question then becomes whether a pedophile’s enjoyment of texts and computer-generated graphics with pedophilic content involves these features. Though it is tempting to assume that it does, I do not think we are justified in making that assumption. Note that the assumption concerns the mental states of pedophiles, and though it is true that the sexual actions that pedophiles desire tend to harm children when carried out in the real world, we have no reason to believe that what pedophiles desire is to harm children. Pedophiles desire to have sex with children, and as long as it is only a contingent fact about the world that children are harmed by adult sex, there is no reason to posit intentions to harm on the part of pedophiles. When pedophiles themselves are asked about their intentions and motivations, they commonly report that they fall in love with children, long for physical intimacy with children, and want their feelings to be reciprocated (Green 2002). Unless we find good reasons for disbelieving them, we should be careful before assuming that abusive or disrespectful intentions, or expressions of ill will, are perennial features of the satisfaction of pedophilic preferences.

This is not to deny that some pedophiles’ intentions are in fact abusive or disrespectful, or expressive of ill will. Very likely, some pedophiles prefer outright violence against children. Even if we grant that it is always wrong to seek to satisfy such preferences, however, we still do not have an argument against the satisfaction of all pedophilic preferences. A preference for violence can, after all, also be a feature of adult-oriented homo- and heterosexuality, but we do not think that that is sufficient to make the satisfaction of all adult-oriented homo- and heterosexual preferences wrong.   I beg to differ.  Violent sex that causes harm is WRONG no matter what age the victim or the perpetrator Perhaps it can be argued that violent preferences are more closely tied to pedophilia than to other sexual preferences, but this is an empirical claim for which we need evidence, and even if we had this evidence, we would still only have an argument against the satisfaction of a subset of pedophilic preferences, not against the satisfaction of pedophilic preferences as such. Accordingly, the argument that it is wrong to enjoy fictional stories and computer-generated graphics with pedophilic content because doing so is abusive or disrespectful, or expressive of ill will, is weak.

The reason it is wrong to allow fictional stories and computer generated sexual content for anyone to consume is because GOD says so.  We are commanded not to look upon anyone naked,  we are commanded not to have sexual relations outside the marriage bed, we are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves meaning to pursue their best interest an do them NO HARM, we are commanded not to for images of anything on the earth, and we are told that if we commit adultery or any ungodly act in our minds, we have already committed that sin.

Matthew 5:27-28
27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

As with any sin, once you are exposed to it, you are open to the influences of demonic forces.  Each time you commit the same sin, the draw of that sin increases.  It is a proven fact that sin is addicting, and it is never enough.  The fallen nature wants more.  Each time the sinner is driven to go deeper, to become more violent, to need more of the drug.  MORE, the demons always want MORE.  There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that pornography leads to lust and perversion.  

A final argument as to why it is wrong to enjoy stories and graphics with pedophilic content is that pedophilic preferences are sick, which makes it wrong to satisfy them.

Let us start by considering a number of arguments in favor of the view that pedophilia is a sickness or disease. One argument appeals to correlations between pedophilia on the one hand and psychological traits such as poor social skills, introversion, and low IQ, on the other (Seto 2009). Though several such findings have been made, and though they might perhaps provide reasons for believing that pedophilia is a mental disease, it is doubtful how much the findings really tell us about pedophiles. The reason why is that the pedophiles who have been studied are almost exclusively pedophiles whose sexual preference was revealed because they got caught for engaging in adult-child sex. This, moreover, skews the sample in a very problematic manner. First, those pedophiles in the subset of individuals who engage in adult-child sex are presumably, on average, less able to curb their desires, less concerned with adhering to social norms, and more willing to take risks than pedophiles who never engage in adult-child sex – and only the former are included in the sample. Second, pedophiles who are studied are not a representative sample of the pedophiles who have engaged in adult-child sex; the sample is restricted to those who got caught. It should not be surprising, however, that those who first engaged in adult-child sex and then were unable to hide their acts have a lower IQ and poorer social skills on average. In studies that have examined a more representative sample, the only significant psychological correlate to pedophilia is introversion (Howitt 1995a). Glenn Wilson and David Cox conclude that “…the most striking thing about these results is how normal the paedophiles appear to be according to their scores on these major personality dimensions—particularly the two that are clinically relevant [neuroticism and psychoticism]. . . . introversion . . . in itself is not usually thought of as pathological.” (Wilson & Cox 1983: 57) Though it might be interesting to explore the explanation for the correlation with introversion, the correlation argument for why pedophilia is a mental disease is not, by itself, convincing.

There are, however, arguments as to why pedophilia is a mental disease that do not rely on correlations between pedophilia and other psychological problems, but rather, on pedophilia as such and the ways in which pedophilia diverges from normal sexuality. This view assumes there is something pathological about the very state of being sexually attracted to children. This suggestion cannot be rejected out of hand, for presumably, not all arguments for why something is a mental disease can rest on correlations with further mental diseases.

It is doubtful, however, if an appeal to the nature of pedophilia makes us justified in concluding that it is a disease. A central reason for this is that pedophilia diverges less from normal sexuality than what we often assume. One reason is that, at least in one sense of the term “pedophile,” many of us have been pedophiles at one point. When you were 11, it is not unlikely that you were sexually attracted to prepubertal children. Admittedly, when we discuss pedophilia in psychiatric and legal contexts, we are concerned with adult sexual attraction toward children. That, however, does not change the fact that the mental state of finding children sexually attractive is very common, and is indeed part of many fully healthy, albeit younger, psychologies.  THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.  THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE LEFT UNMOLESTED HAVE NO SEXUAL ATTRACTION TO CHILDREN!!

A second reason is that children look much like adults. Though the difference between an 11-year-old and an 18-year-old is significant, the development from childhood to adulthood in humans is hardly equivalent to that from, say, a larva to a butterfly. The skin, the skeleton, the bodily contours, the way the body moves—even the genitals—are fairly similar in children and adults.  Well, in today’s society, children have been groomed to dress and behave like adults.  That is a crime in itself.  CHILDREN should never be seen or treated like adults.  Their innocence should be closely guarded and protected.  They are not short adults.  They are innocent children for whom we are responsible to train them, lead them and guide them preparing them to deal with adult life and adult decisions when they are of age.

A third reason is that youngness, the property which children have in excess, is a property that, when present to a lesser extent, is widely considered sexually attractive. As such, what makes pedophiles diverge from others is that they prefer more youngness than does the average person. This emphasizes that a main way in which pedophiles differ from non-pedophiles is quantitative.  That is ridiculous.  That is also a perversion brought on by Sin and the influence of demonic forces.  As a society we have been groomed to accept older men chasing young girls…but that does not make it right!  If youth is what people find sexy…we are a sick society!

A fourth reason is that virtually all adults are drawn to be physically intimate with children: adults kiss them, cuddle them, find them cute, and develop fond emotions for them. Sexual attraction, moreover, is one of many forms of positive affection, and since human psychologies are associative, it is not surprising that some adults are also sexually attracted to children.  NO!  Only children’s family adults should be allowed to kiss them, hug them and touch them in anyway.  Even family should be very careful not to open up themselves or their children to impure thoughts much less behaviors.  Parents should keep close watch on their children to protect them from predator’s.  IT IS NEVER PROPER OR ACCEPTABLE TO BE SEXUAL WITH A CHILD!

A fifth reason is that the ways in which pedophilia does in fact diverge from normal sexuality must be seen against the backdrop of human sexuality in general, which includes many non-reproductive sexual practices and expressions (such as homosexuality, masturbation, oral sex, attraction toward postmenopausal women, etc.). Within the wide spectrum of human sexualities, it is not clear that pedophilia stands out as exceptionally divergent.  ALL THOSE ARE SINFUL and the WORKS OF THE DEVIL  UNNATURAL and EVIL.  JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE BECOME ACCEPTED BY SOME, DOES NOT MAKE THEM NATURAL, GOOD or RIGHT!

For pedophilia to be a mental disease, it seems that it must be so in either a pragmatic or an evolutionary sense. In a pragmatic sense, the view that pedophilia is a mental disease is true if and only if good consequences follow if pedophiles are given a diagnosis and subsequent psychiatric treatment. Although pedophilia might qualify as a disease in this sense, this tells us nothing about pedophilia as such or about the moral status of any pedophilic expressions. In an evolutionary sense, the view that pedophilia is a mental disease is true if and only if pedophilia is reproductively disadvantageous. Reproductively disadvantageous as pedophilia might be, this is a problematic criterion for disease, since from an evolutionary perspective, pedophilia is no worse than the examples listed above: homosexuality, masturbation, oral sex, and attraction toward postmenopausal women.  THEY ARE ALL SINS.

Even if we were to grant that pedophilia really is a disease, however, we would still not have a complete argument against the enjoyment of texts and computer-generated graphics with pedophilic content, for it would also need to be true that it is wrong to satisfy preferences that result from a disease. This is a doubtful premise, however, for even if we grant that it is bad to have a disease, once we have it and cannot get rid of it, it seems to be an open question whether or not we should give in to the disease in ways that do not cause harm. Admittedly, doing so might be wrong if it intensifies the disease, but we lack evidence that pedophiles become more pedophilic by virtue of enjoying texts or computer-generated graphics with pedophilic content. No research indicates this, and when it comes to other sexual preferences, such as homo- and heterosexuality, we seem to be accustomed to the idea that they are largely stable and that exposure to homo- or heterosexual pornography cannot be expected to change anyone’s orientation. As such, we lack good reasons for why it is bad that pedophiles satisfy their preferences by means of texts and computer-generated graphics.  THAT IS HOGWASH.  Pornography absolutely changes people’s perceptions and preferences.  It leads to more and more autoerotic and violent sexual tendencies.

In the absence of convincing arguments to the contrary, we should conclude that it can be morally permissible for pedophiles to enjoy fictional stories and computer-generated graphics with pedophilic content. It is important to note, however, that even if we accept this conclusion, it does not follow that we must be comfortable with such practices. Given that pedophilia predisposes people to seek adult-child sex, and that adult-child sex exposes children to significant risks of serious harm, it is understandable that most of us strongly dislike it. Moreover, it does not follow from the above that it is irrational to be worried if one discovers that someone enjoys fictional stories or computer-generated graphics with pedophilic content. One might have very good reason to worry since this is a strong indication that the person is a pedophile, and pedophilia predisposes people to seek adult-child sex. Observe, however, that what is troubling here is the discovery of the person’s sexual preferences via his enjoyment of virtual pedophilia, not his enjoyment of virtual pedophilia as such. Once he has those preferences and cannot change them, he might do nothing wrong in enjoying such fictional stories and computer-generated graphics. Indeed, doing so might be one of the best things he can do granted the unfortunate circumstances in which he finds himself.


If my arguments in this article are sound, then being a pedophilein the sense of having a sexual preference for children—is neither moral nor immoral. Engagement in adult-child sex is immoral, but perhaps not always blameworthy to the extent that we intuitively assume. Finally, the enjoyment of fictional stories and computer-generated graphics with pedophilic content is, in and of itself, morally acceptable. If these conclusions are correct, what practical implications follow?  THESE CONCLUSIONS ARE ABSOLUTELY NOT CORRECT.  

A central implication is that in dealing with pedophilia, our aim should not be to find outlets for our disgust and outrage, but rather, to minimize what is the real problem: harm to children. On the least revisionist side, the aim of reducing harm provides us with a good justification for upholding current bans on adult-child sex and child pornography. There are, however, also a number of more revisionist implications. One revisionist implication is that we should stop the outright condemnation of pedophiles. Condemning pedophiles for being pedophiles is unjust, and non-offending pedophiles, rather than deserving condemnation for their pedophilia, deserve praise for their admirable willpower. Possibly, today’s condemnation also prevents pedophiles from telling health professionals about their attraction to children, and insofar as detection and counseling can help prevent abuse, this is very unfortunate. To prevent harm to future children, we would also be well advised to start teaching high school students not just what to do in case they are victims of sexual abuse (which, thankfully, we have started telling them over the last few decades), but also what to do in case they themselves are pedophiles. A certain percentage of high school students either are or will become pedophiles, and currently they are not given any advice on how to handle their sexuality.

The production, distribution, and enjoyment of texts and computer-generated graphics with pedophilic content should almost certainly be made legal. Until or unless it can be shown that such texts and graphics lead to more adult-child sex, the justification for today’s widespread ban is weak.

Of course, a policy plan for dealing with pedophilia requires interdisciplinary work far beyond the scope of this article. Nevertheless, I have sketched how pedophilia should be approached under such a plan. The aim of our social and legal treatment of pedophilia should be to minimize harm to children, and to the extent that current practices are counterproductive in this respect, we should change our ways.

Remember, the above article was written by a pedophile, from the view of a practicing pedophile.  What you see in green letters are my comments. 


  1. Pereda, N., Guilera, G., Forns, M., & Gómez-Benito, J., 2009. This meta-analysis sampled 65 original studies from 22 countries and concluded that the best estimate of the global prevalence of child sexual abuse is 19.7% for girls and 7.9% for boys.
  2. Attraction towards those in early puberty is called hebephilia. Attraction towards those in late puberty is called ephebophilia.
  3. There are some exceptions: Ehman (1984) defends adult-child sex. Primoratz (1999) and Kershnar (2001) criticize Ehman. Spiecker & Steutel (1997) present and criticize a number of arguments defending adult-child sex. Benatar (2002) argues that if we accept casual sex, it is hard to reject pedophilia. Luck (1999) argues that if we accept murder in virtual reality, it is hard to reject adult-child sex in virtual reality.
  4. There is now a network of non-offending pedophiles called Virtuous Pedophiles. None of its members dare be open about their identities.


Becker-Blease, K., Friend, D., Freyd, J. J. (2006) Child Sex Abuse Perpetrators Among Male University Students. Presentation at 22nd Annual Meeting of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, Hollywood; CA. November 4-7.

Benatar, D. (2002) Two Views of Sexual Ethics: Promiscuity, Pedophilia, and Rape. Public Affairs Quarterly, 16 (3), p. 191–201.

Briere, J., Smiljanich, K. (1996) Self-reported Sexual Interest in Children: Sex Differences and Psychosocial Correlates in a University Sample. Violence and Victims, 11(1), p. 39-50.

Briere, J., Runtz, M. (1989) University Males’ Sexual Interest in Children: Predicting Potential Indices of ‘Pedophilia’ in a Non-Forensic Sample. Child Abuse and Neglect, 13 (1), p. 65–75. CrossRef

Clancy, S. A. (2011) The Trauma Myth. New York: Basic Books, 2011.

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

Diamond, M., Jozifkova, E., Weiss, P. (2011) Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic. Archives of Sexual Behavior 40 (5), pp. 1037–43. CrossRef

Ehman, R. (1984) Adult-Child Sex. In: Philosophy of Sex, 2nd ed., Robert Baker & Fredrick Elliston (eds.). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.

Endrass J. et.al. (2009) The Consumption of Internet Child Pornography and Violent and Sex Offending. BMC Psychiatry 43 (9) p. 1-7. CrossRef

Finkelhor, D. (1979) What’s Wrong With Sex Between Adults and Children? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 49 (4), pp. 692–697. CrossRef

Green, R. (2002) Is Pedophilia a Mental Disorder? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31 (6) pp. 467-471. CrossRef

Hornor, G. (2010) Child sexual abuse: Consequences and implications. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 24 (6) p. 358–364. CrossRef

Howitt, D. (1995a) Paedophiles and Sexual Offences Against Children. Chichester, Wiley.

Howitt, D. (1995b) “Pornography and the paedophile: Is it criminogenic?”, British Journal of Medical Psychology, Vol. 68, No. 1, 1995, p. 17. CrossRef

Kershnar, S. (2001) The Moral Status of Harmless Adult-Child Sex. Public Affairs Quarterly, 15 (2), p. 111-32.

Luck, M. (1999) The Gamer’s Dilemma: An Analysis of the Arguments for the Moral Distinction between Virtual Murder and Virtual Paedophilia. Ethics and Information Technology 11 (1), p. 31–36. CrossRef

McConaghy, N. (1998) Pedophilia: A Report of the Evidence. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 32, p. 252-265. CrossRef

Nussbaum, M. (1994) Platonic Love and Colorado Law: The Relevance of Ancient Greek Norms to Modern Sexual Controversies. Virginia Law Review 80 (7), 1994, pp. 1515-651. CrossRef

Pereda, N., Guilera, G., Forns, M., & Gómez-Benito, J.  (2009) The Prevalence of Child Sexual Abuse in Community and Student Samples: A Meta-analysis”. Clinical Psychology Review, 29 (4), p. 328-338. CrossRef

Primoratz, I. (1999) Pedophilia. Public Affairs Quarterly, 13 (1), p. 99–110.

Riegel, D. (2004) Effects on Boy-Attracted Pedosexual Males of Viewing Boy Erotica. Archives of Sexual Behavior 33 (4), 2004, p. 321-323. CrossRef

Rind, B., Tromovitch, P., Bauserman, R. (1998) A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples. Psychological Bulletin 124 (1) pp. 22-53. CrossRef

Seto, M. C. (2007) Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children: Theory, Assessment, and Intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 2007).

Seto, M. C. (2009) Pedophilia. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, p. 391-407. CrossRef

Spiecker, B. & Steutel J. (1997) Paedophilia, Sexual Desire and Perversity. Journal of Moral Education 26 (3) p. 331–342. CrossRef

World Health Organization (2010) Paedophilia. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10) Version for 2010, Section F65.4.

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

Zickler, P. (2002) Childhood Sex Abuse Increases Risk for Drug Dependence in Adult Women. National Institute of Drug Abuse Notes 17 (1)


How one “junk scientist” unleashed a plague of corruption and contagion on America and the world!

Nour Alhakk

Mind Talk
Published in Mind Talk
4 min read
Dec 25, 2022
HomeNews Reports Death anniversary of Alfred Kinsey: ‘Father of sexual revolution’ who claimed babies have orgasms,…

Alfred Kinsey was credited for authoring pioneering reports on human sexology that radically upended the prevailing view on sexual relations between humans. Kinsey’s research work is said to have influenced social and cultural values not just in the United States but across the world.

But before his death, Kinsey was credited for authoring pioneering reports on human sexology that radically upended the prevailing view on sexual relations between humans. Kinsey’s research work is said to have influenced social and cultural values not just in the United States but across the world. He was dubbed by the New York Times as the ‘father of the sexual revolution’.

Born on June 23, 1894, Alfred Kinsey went on to complete his majors in Biology from Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine. After completing his education at Bowdoin, Kinsey moved to Harvard University’s Bussey Institute, where he pursued the institute’s much-vaunted biology program. His interest in various forms of sexual practices piqued in 1933 after discussing the topic extensively with a colleague, Robert Kroc. Since then, he had devoted himself to the research and study of sexology.

From 1938 until his death, Kinsey conducted more than 17,000 face-to-face interviews with a broad set of people—college students, prostitutes, and even prison inmates—to understand their sexual experiences. His most infamous research subject was the 1944 interview of a sexual omnivore, who had a history of having sexual encounters with men, women, boys, girls, animals and family members, and which took about 17 hours to be recorded.

The results of his comprehensive interviews were published in two separate volumes— ‘Sexual Behavior in the Human Male’ (1948) and ‘Sexual Behavior in the Human Female’ (1953), also known as the Kinsey Reports, as well as the Kinsey scale. Kinsey’s reports stunned the entire world, stoking massive controversy during the 1940s and 1950s. Even today, almost 75 years since the first volume was first published, the findings and the methods employed by Kinsey remain deeply controversial and are hotly debated around the world.

While a set of people hailed the American biologist for revolutionising sexual customs, breaking taboos about the discussion of sex and challenging centuries of beliefs about human appetites and capacities, another set of people considered Kinsey as a paedophile, adulterer, attention-seeker, pornographic “filmmaker” and an addict, whose sole objective in carrying out research on sexology was to normalise and legitimise his many illegal fetishes.

Children from birth have orgasm, paedophilia and incest sex benefits children: Alfred Kinsey

Among the many shocking findings in Kinsey’s Reports, arguably the most scandalous one was about young children, as young as infants, observing orgasm. “All orgasms are “outlets” and equal between husband and wife, boy and dog, man and boy, girl, or baby? For there is no abnormality and no normality,” the Kinsey Report said.

Not only did Kinsey hypothesise that infants are orgasmic from birth, but he also suggested that incest relationships and paedophilia benefit children. In his writing, Kinsey asserted that there was no proven medical or other reason to forbid incest or adult-child sex. “Children are sexual and potentially orgasmic from birth (womb to tomb), are unharmed by incest, adult/child sex, and often benefit thereby,” a women’s rights group stated regarding its findings.

Regarding human sexuality, Kinsey opined that humans are naturally bisexual but religious precepts and prejudices have forced people into chastity, heterosexuality and monogamy. The American biologist also endorsed sodomy, saying that all forms of anal intercourse are natural and healthy.

In “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male,” touted by Kinsey’s disciples as the first major attempt to measure scientifically the range of human sexuality, the sexologist noted that sexual taboos and sex laws are routinely broken, and called for the elimination of all such taboos and sex laws. Kinsey believed that moral standards regarding sex result only from “cultural conditioning,” not from timeless guidelines for what is right and what is wrong.

The Irish Times recorded in a report, “But was he a scientist – or a voyeur and latent paedophile? He observed and filmed men and women having sex in various combinations. He had sex with some of his subjects and with his researchers and so, too, did his wife, Mac. He exchanged lewd, locker-room limericks with his students and got his young researchers to discuss their wives’ masturbatory habits. Once, when he had set up a sado-masochistic session involving two men, the researchers had to step aside occasionally when Mac came in to change the blood-stained sheets. He interviewed young children about their ideas on sex and incorporated the research of a self-confessed paedophile into his own work.”

Despite being aware of the acts of paedophilia, he never reported anything to law enforcement authorities.

With mounting allegations of pedophilia against Alfred Kinsey, John Bancroft, then director of the Kinsey Institute, said, “[Kinsey] obtained information about children’s sexual responses from a few of his adult male research subjects, one in particular, who had been involved in sexual activity with children. Resiman [sic] is entitled to disagree with Kinsey’s use of such evidence; she is entitled to the opinion that no researcher should obtain information from a sexual offender without reporting it to the police; she is entitled to question the validity of such evidence; but she is not entitled to make the allegations of criminal behavior on Kinsey’s part. He did not promote this activity; he did not train anyone to carry out such observations; neither Kinsey nor any of his research team was involved in any sexual experiments on children; and none of them was in any sense, a pedophile.”

Kinsey was a fraud who sought to normalise his illegal sexual obsessions: Critics

Even though Kinsey’s tendentious body of work had triggered outrage across the world, the mainstream media at the time was occupied with glorifying the biologist as one of the foremost authorities on sexology rather than probing the allegations levelled against him. Decades later, as the monopoly over the control of popular discourse became diluted, more people came forward to criticise Kinsey’s methods and his findings.

In 1990, a lady named Judith Reisman spearheaded the anti-Kinsey campaign. In her book titled “Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud”, Reisman called Kinsey a charlatan, whose research work engendered an array of social afflictions plaguing the United States.

Reisman argued that the rising number of divorce, abortion, sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, illegitimate births, cohabitation, pornography, homosexuality, sadomasochism, rape, child molestation, sexual crimes of all types, family breakup, endemic violence, etc. could all be attributed to the findings of the scandalous research undertaken by Kinsey. The author said Kinsey’s deductions cannot be described as normal sexual behaviour because they are based on evidence collected predominantly from prison inmates.

“If the public learns the truth, the sexperts in the field of human sexuality and the sex industry will be shaken to its foundations. . . . Whole shelves of books will have to be rewritten. Both public and religious schools will have to discard their sex ed courses. Lucrative public grants will dry up,” Reisman said.

She even alleged in her book that Kinsey was a paedophile. The Concerned Women For America later concurred with this view and declared that Kinsey-based sex education has put children at risk. In a scathing report, the group termed Kinsey’s research on sexology as fraudulent and inaccurate and asserted that it was biased towards his personal agenda and not towards exploring human sexology.

The report also highlighted how Kinsey’s research formed the bedrock of the sex education policy in the early 60s. “The sex-education revolution began in the 1960s when Kinsey’s disciples dominated the academic committees that issued accreditation for sex educators. Before this, sex education consisted of human biology and reproduction, hygiene and marriage. After Kinsey released his findings, several groups advocated teaching children that they are “sexual beings” from birth and that they need to be aware of all types of sexual behaviours,” it said.

John Bancroft, then director of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction at Indiana University in Bloomington, in 1995 made a stunning revelation about the research undertaken by Kinsey. In an interview, Bancroft hinted that the numbers and findings in the Kinsey report might have been manipulated.

“The material in the tables came from one man, an extraordinary man with incredible numbers of sexual experiences on which he kept very careful notes…Kinsey gives the impression that the data came from three or four men, but it was just the one,” Bancroft said while raising aspersions on the validity of the findings of the Kinsey Reports.


Betrayed Innocence … A Childhood Trauma For A Lifetime
Where hope isn’t lost, self-worth can be rebuilt and dignity can be recovered

Betrayed Innocence … A Childhood Trauma For A Lifetime

On May 25th 2019, seventeen-year-old author Noa Pothoven of The Netherlands said byes to her followers on social media, she would be dead in ten days. In her last post, she intimated, ‘after years of battling and fighting, I am drained. I have quit eating and drinking for a while now, and – after many discussions and evaluations – it was decided to let me go because my suffering is unbearable’. Pothoven’s acclaimed autobiography – Winnen of Leren (Winning or Learning) – chronicles her anguish. Beginning at the age of eleven, when she was sexually assaulted at a school party. One year later she was again similarly assaulted, and, at the age of fourteen, two men raped her. She wrote, ‘My house has been broken into, my body, that can never be undone. I relive the fear, that pain every day. Always scared, always on guard. To this day, my body still feels dirty’. Fear and shame kept her silent. Her pain manifested itself in traumatic stress, depression, and eating disorders for which she had intensive therapy and spent time in psychiatric hospitals. Experiences she described as ‘degrading and humiliating’. At age sixteen, unbeknownst to her family, she solicited end-of-life at a regulated clinic, about which she wrote ‘They think I’m too young to die’. She was encouraged to complete a trauma treatment and wait until her brain was more fully developed. Suggestions she lamented in saying ‘I can’t wait that long.’ On Sunday, June 2nd, Noa rested in peace. 

Pothoven’s biography echoes the troubling experiences of betrayed innocence and sexual violation that transcend cultures far and wide. In this essay, I offer an insight into the ruinous consequences that these pervasive experiences wreck on the bodies, minds, and souls of survivors and in the very gut of our society. In this task, I do not offer judgement for the experience of sexual violation, but in my effort I shall offer a case study to shed light on the incidence of betrayed innocence within the wider contexts of family, community and society.

Framing Betrayed Innocence

In our advanced society, betrayal is appreciated from the sense of innocence, which connotes purity, or a lack of corruption thereof. This is the natural state of a child’s sense of sensuality before sexual maturation occurs when the brain develops fully, upward of year sixteen in the average child. In that crude sense, sexual contact with a child before maturation is harmful, because it bears the immediate consequence of impacting the child’s mental development.

This consequence is understood in terms of how the organ of our mental processes – the brain – develops and works. Requiring an average of sixteen years to fully develop, it is well appreciated in the science literature that the brain cannot be ready to competently process sensuality and the implications of sexual activity before then. Premature exposure is liable to compromise the child’s neurobiology and alter his or her ability to develop this competency.

In this compromised state, the child’s developing brain adapts naturally in order to cope. As cells (neurons) secret chemicals to shape or reshape how they appear physically and express themselves. So much so, the neuroscientist Margaret McCarthy’s research team found that cells in the area implicated in behaviour regulation and impulse control – the caudate nucleus – appear much smaller in violated boys than in non-violated peers. In violated girls, relative to their non-violated peers, the team recorded significantly fewer connections in three brain areas implicated in emotion regulation – the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, and amygdala. This neuro-deficiency tells us that premature sexual experience may prime the brain for poor impulse control and behaviour dis-regulation that punctuate a compromised quality of life.

The Trauma

It begins with the mental confusion that originates in premature sexual experience, which distorts the child’s sense of self and safety. This is a psychological consequence that binds with any physiological consequence to form the anguish that inevitably unfolds. A study with incest survivors by eminent psychiatrist Bessel van der Kolk revealed that this anguish originates in a trauma that can infest and reshape the victim’s entire life. Compared to the non-violated peers in his study, survivors of incest in childhood were found to have high abnormalities in ratios of immune cells. These abnormalities exposed them to autoimmune diseases – for which the women were ten times more likely than the men to be hospitalised.

Dr DeLisa Fairweather of the renowned Mayo Clinic has explored how biology can in part explain this gendered inequity. In her study of the twenty-one most prevalent autoimmune conditions – which included arthritis, lupus, and thyroiditis – she found an association with traumatic stress in childhood that was as strong as to resemble the correlation between unprotected sex and pregnancy. It turns out that a higher baseline of estrogen and the stress hormone cortisol that modulate inflammation – presumably to protect babies in pregnancy – in women becomes severely compromised under conditions of intense emotional stress. In a word, nature’s way of ensuring that women bring their gestating babies to term is disposed to subversion under the emotional stress that sexual violation induces. In this warped state, the renegade hormones are not only merely compromised in their ability to help the afflicted women to modulate inflammation in their bodies. These rogue hormones will also induce the production of auto-antibodies that tear down organs and tissues in autoimmune diseases.

Naturally, it can take time – weeks, months and even years – between an experience of sexual violation and its manifestations to occur. By this, a child can have such an experience at the age of ten and it can take ten years or longer to show up in a clinically recognised malady. It is at that stage a link between the experience of sexual violence in childhood and the perhaps chronic malady in adulthood is easily missed, if not dismissed. This speaks to the lifetime consequence of pre-mature sexual contact with children and the consequent trauma that can easily betray perception, because of time laps and variation in interpretations across cultures.

Scoping Betrayed Innocence

The work of psychiatrist Susan Forward suggests that sexual violence in childhood easily betrays perception because legal definitions upon which we tend to rely to frame it as an offence are typically restricted to bodily contact and affects, such as intercourse, bruises, and pregnancy in older children. This limited scope is often improved with the more inclusive psychological definition – widely accepted among wellbeing practitioners – that covers any sexually stimulating behaviour – whether explicit or implicit – that is liable to cause harm.

The combined legal and psychological coverage tells us that the range of sexual behaviours that betray children’s innocence and impact their development runs the gamut from criminal to inappropriate. The many that do not involve bodily contact – examples of which include voyeurism, exhibitionism, masturbating, and sexually suggestive expressions in poses and remarks – qualify as psycho-sexual violence. For, like contact experiences, these are forced upon the child’s innocence and procure harm, although primarily in a psychological sense.

This violence is experienced by children in all cultures, and, for many, their experience and the consequences for their long-term psychological and physiological wellbeing will remain undisclosed. This is more true for the socially and economically marginalised, whose young girls – at an average age of six, ten for boys – are especially vulnerable. So much so that boys raised in poverty and in homes without their natural fathers are at a far greater risk for sexual violence, often perpetrated by more grown-up males. By age twelve, these boys will bear an increased risk of using alcohol, narcotics, and psycho-stimulants. Upwards of twenty-five to fifty times higher than their peers who would not have experienced such violence. Violated boys will also go on to experience higher rates of mental illness than the general population – a susceptibility that reflects in a twelve times higher likelihood for them to commit suicide.

The trauma that originates in an experience of sexual violence in childhood is, thus, complex and multi-dimensional. As such, its full impact and disruptive effect on core developmental processes – such as cognition, self-regulation, and resilience – is difficult to scope. But hope does present in a complex post-traumatic stress disorder (cPTSD) construct, which captures some of the more chronic manifestations and offers a reference from which we can begin to appreciate its variance and speculate about its scope. It is however a reference that poses its own set of challenges, considering the cPTSD construct is not one that is recognised in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Even so, I find a coupling with an awareness of the prevalence of rape – which is perhaps the most confronting form this violence takes – paints a picture from which an insight into its scope can be gleaned.

An inquiry by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) for the British Government in 2018 suggests that about forty per cent of all incidents of rape recorded by the police are committed against children under the age of sixteen. Female children bear an increased risk of this kind of violence, a prevalence that increases nearly four folds where the children are disabled. These statistics can help in building a picture of prevalence and for scoping intervention, but they only take us so far. Behind the numbers are personal stories of trauma and adjustments that shape, reshape, and wreck lives. Mainly in that premature sexual experience impacts upon the natural course of a child’s emotional and physiological developments. And, in so doing, predisposes the child and her or his grown-up self to maladies and implications that are very difficult – if not impossible – to quantify. This is truly an all round wicked problem that hides and festers in the very gut of our civilisation.

The Secrecy Code

A wicked problem that skirts redress, primarily because its incidence is shrouded in secrecy. And, incidentally, secrecy is a currency through which it persists over time – irrespective of whether the behaviour involves a child’s body or emotions. It is a secrecy that has a long and refined history, one that appears to have originated in the apparent sacredness of procreation and the interconnectedness with intimacy and sex. The twentieth century social psychologist Abraham Maslow explored this interconnectedness through his hierarchy of needs, in which he observed that sex is motivated by a crude impulse that underpins our very existence.

Quite apart from intimacy, which is experienced in meaningful and secure relationships, sex across cultures is appreciated in much the same way as food for nourishment and shelter for protection from the harshness of nature. These are fundamental needs that grown-ups, not children, are naturally qualified to provide and with which they are typically preoccupied.

A similar consideration by Sigmund Freud – father of psychotherapy – in his Interpretation of Dreams gave rise to the notion of an Oedipal complex. Which originates in the tragic tale of the mythical Greek king, Oedipus, who accidentally fulfilled an omen by killing his father and marrying his mother – to bring disaster to his kindred. This complex is, thus, a condition that surrounds an innate sexual impulse in young children that – long before sexual maturity – must be tempered, and may be directed towards their parent figure for that very purpose.

Freud and his disciples have forever argued that this impulse manifests in the young child’s feelings of desire for the opposite-sex parent and jealousy towards the same-sex parent. In a word, it is that crude impulse (sic) presenting in childhood for temperance, not stimulation. A task for which parents are held liable to qualify in their role as provider of nurturance and care, which extends to ensuring their children’s innocence is preserved until sexual maturity. This is an assumed liability and qualification that have long guided tendencies in the bulk of our civilisation, which appears to be the origin of taboos surrounding incest and paedophilia. Social taboos that function to protect the special trust that should exist between children and grown-ups, and to guard against violation of the children’s rights, boundaries, and dignity.

However, these taboos also function to drive the incidence of sexual violence in childhood into secrecy – to further qualify it as a wicked problem. Wicked in that its full scale remains difficult to determine, and its impact on survivors is perhaps impossible to contain fully. As such, statistics tend to encourage the assumption that it is a somewhat bizarre occurrence in certain social groups. Perhaps among strange people who may be depraved in a sense. The truth, however, is that sexual violence against children is ruthlessly democratic, occurring at all social, economic, educational, and professional levels. Taking on forms that at times can betray perception of violence. Forms such as incest, which can preserve it across generations in families, wherein at least one in ten children are molested by a trusted family member.

Betrayal of Innocence – The Case study

Pothoven’s experience at the outset introduced betrayed innocence as an antecedent of anguish, a lifetime of trauma, and even early death. The following inter-generational case study sheds light on this incidence, from where it can originate, and how it persists. It is one from which we can learn about the complexity that inheres sexual violence against children, how this adverse lived experience morphs into a lifetime of trauma, and why contemporary interventions may be inadequate. For preservation of privacy, the names only are fictitious.

The study concluded in 2017 when Mr Spence, then eighty-seven years old, was sentenced to eighteen years in prison for crimes of sexual violence committed over thirty years earlier – during the 1970s and 1980s – against four young boys who were entrusted in his care. This long sentence – by British norm – reflected Mr Spence’s lack of remorse and denial of wrong doing, which, in a way, denied the now young men the closure they had anxiously sought.

The Spence family participated for ten years in my study of the affects of psychosocial resources. Throughout that time, I visited Mr Spence every third Sunday, when he would prepare meals that I was expected to share with him. By this, I came to know him well. He lived alone and complained to me often about loneliness. However, he derived comfort from the framed photos on his wall of a mixed-race baby boy, a mixed-race teenage boy whom he once provided for, a black young man dressed in college graduation garb, and a middle-aged Indo-Caribbean man suited in formal attire that suggested he was learned, perhaps wealthy.

Mr Spence keenly encouraged my visits and our conversations. His presenting disposition, however, was that of a conspicuously guarded – perhaps mysterious – man. He gave eagerly and generously, to get. And what he appeared to desire more than anything else was a sense that he mattered and commanded a modicum of respect. The kind of respect that reputability confers. His conspicuity and calculated generosity, though, hid what I recognised as volatile rage and deep anger towards progressive family norms and indicators of well-being. For that matter, ideas of attuned parenting, healthy interpersonal relationships and friendships, stable family life, and community spiritedness – examples of such indicators – easily enraged him.

From within that same consciousness, he also entertained an apparent preoccupation with misery. The kind afflicting people that are little able to sufficiently provide materially for themselves and their dependents. This would be, more specifically, those socioeconomically disadvantaged. In light of this wretched reality that afflicted the many with whom he shared a similar heritage, he considered himself ‘happy’, the motivational state that came up most often in our conversations. Happiness, it appeared, was his divine inheritance, appreciated in terms of his good health and financial security, which enabled him to easily afford his own food, clothing, and shelter. As he put it:

God gives me long life and happiness. I don’t care so much [not have the need to worry much] about money. God said that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eyes of a needle than for a rich man to dwell in the kingdom of God. So God will reward me with long life, good health, and happiness. I am very happy, happy like a pig in shit.

In knowing Mr Spence, his metaphor (like a pig in shit) is symbolic and qualifying. ‘A pig’, with which he identifies, is perceived as a dirty creature. One that is especially loathed and considered unclean among adherents of widely influential Abrahamic religions – such as Judaism, Islam, and Rastafari – which have a bearing in popular awareness that is potent in its symbolism and affirmation of dirtiness.

As such, the metaphor speaks to a sense of dirtiness and its unenviable mastery that were opposing Mr Spence’s motivational state. His rage and anger masked this inner struggle, which was compounded by a poor sense of himself and an apparent inferior sense of his masculinity. Rage shielded this inferiority and functioned as a conduit for the pain and powerlessness that dogged him. This is a state from which he would not recover, because it was trapped in shame and secrecy – the origin of which was located in his early socialisation and family life. In a history of chaos that was animated by abuse, neglect, and abandonment.

Mr Spence was born to an unmarried mother, into a family of nine children, on an island in the Commonwealth Caribbean. Before he could recall, he was given away to his father, who was not the father of his maternal siblings. His early years were spent living in different families, one of which included a stepmother and her own six children. In that latter family, he felt displaced, disliked, and abused in ways that he was never sufficiently comfortable to recount. However, he recalled that frequent whippings, hard labour on farmland, and little to eat were the standard of discipline in that household. And, what is more, unlike his peers, he was not allowed to attain the basic education in the primary schools that were organised by evangelists on the island at the time. He never learned to read, write, and calculate formally.

At the age of thirteen he ran away from home to stay with older friends, until he made his way to the island of Trinidad. There, he met and stayed with his natural mother and helped her to provide for his siblings until he was sixteen. By then, he had developed a proclivity for ‘hard labour’ and sought to work as a ‘labourer, doing any job’. His large muscular physic was an advantage in this regard. It defined him as a man, although one that lacked the intellectual qualification that defined the reputable men to whom he felt inferior, and whose demeanour and dress code he tried to copy.

In 1957, at the age of twenty-seven, Mr Spence married the woman with whom he would bear six children. Shortly thereafter, he emigrated to America and then to Britain in search of opportunities for ‘work and a better life’. Britain at the time was a natural destination for the less privileged citizens of the wider Commonwealth, many of whom were invited to work and settle in England. It was an easy choice for him to make. He settled in the Northeast of England. In the industrial county of Yorkshire, where work in cotton mills and steel factories were plentiful. His wife and four young children – three girls and one boy – later joined him. The two other children in the marriage, which survived until 1972, were born in Yorkshire.

Throughout their marriage, Mr Spence habitually battered his wife. He would also restrict financial and material provision in the family, and engaged in sexual activities – including intercourse – with his sons and daughters. The neighbours who attempted to intervene on behalf of the violated children and battered wife were rebuked. The children were beaten frequently, frightened, and emotional neglected. Eventually, the family disintegrated and – following the dissolution of their parents’ marriage – the children were abandoned in the care of relatives, friends, and social services.

The sexual violence to which Mr Spence habitually subjected his children was not only unchecked by their mother, who at times also denied it. It was also overlooked during their divorce hearing in 1972, when she testified that he was by then a changed man. One whose physical abuse towards her was unforgivable and differences were irreconcilable, but would unlikely continue to violate the children, presumably because the family had disintegrated and they were no longer in his care. This testimony precluded Mr Spence from judgement for his acts of betrayal and violence against his children. Over the subsequent two decades he would go on to subject young boys entrusted in his care to sexual violence, the same.

This began when Mr Spence had offered to help the lone-mother families of two teenage boys at a time when they were having problems. And, because he was viewed as a kindly figure, it was agreed. This involved allowing the boys to stay during weekends at his home. Where, unbeknownst to their mothers, they would share a bed with him and were habitually raped. Two other boys – who were allowed to visit him – were also indecently assaulted and made to touch him sexually. He gave them gifts that effectively groomed them. The boys were sworn to secrecy, frightened, and shamed into not telling anyone about their traumas.

After having lived with these traumas for over three decades, the now four young men were encouraged to overcome their shame. To break the code of secrecy that had trapped them in a state of emotional turmoil, and to report their experience of having been violated to the police. It is for these violations that in 2017 Mr Spence was convicted and sent to prison to serve a life sentence. A fate the sentencing judge declared reflected the serious nature of the violations, which had an ‘enormous psychological impact on the lives of those involved’.

Conditions for Betrayal of Innocence

Mr Spence’s lived experience of betrayal of innocence, which ended in his incarceration in a maximum security prison where he will eventually die, tells us something about experiences and outcomes of trauma and deprivation in childhood that go unnoticed and unchecked. His is arguably an unfortunate experience and outcome, my study of which led to awareness of the conditions that procure betrayal and sexual violence against children that continue over a long time, with dreadful consequences. I will unpick these conditions from his point of view.

  • Mental processes that corrupt parent-child relationship – The Person Condition.

Mr Spence believed that, by virtue of pregnancy and childbirth by which the maternity of a child is assured in a way that the paternity is not, it is intended in nature for mothers to be the keeper of their children. Within this belief, it is wholly a mother’s prerogative to ensure the safety of her children. As her failure to fulfil this prerogative may leave her children vulnerable to the kind of abuse, neglect, and abandonment that he experienced in his childhood, and to which his children would also experience in their own.

By extension, any grown-up disposed to care for such vulnerable children are free to derive whatever service they will from this condition. My case survivors’ experiences revealed that this can include but not limited to affection, companionship, sexual gratification, and labour. Typically in exchange for material provision and [or] a sense in the children that they are loved, are functioning members of the social groups from which they derive their identity, and that – more importantly – they matter. Under this condition of care, where the child’s safety and self become compromised, it is not because of his or her own fault, but because of the mother’s failing. For the mother is a participant in whatever experience befalls her child, whether she knows it or not. Her participation, however, is defined more by what she does not do, rather than by what she does.

By this reasoning, Mr Spence’s violence against the children – including his own – in his care was invited by the mothers’ inability to sufficiently protect them. This is a mental processing that functioned to corrupt his role as a parent figure, who was not only trusted, but also held to have a duty of care to the children. It is this mental process that produced the psychology through which he absolved himself from responsibility for the children’s safety and justified his violence against them.

His experience of violence in childhood provided the template that moulded this psychology. It is a template that was corrupted further by a correlation between the pain of his experience and the material and emotional provision through which he soothed himself. This correlation is etched in his psyche, it became a template for his relationship with children throughout his life. To this day, at the age of eighty-eight, it remains intact. This means that any child in his care would be predisposed to violence, although not necessarily predestined to be violated.

An impaired parent-child relationship was an absolute prerequisite for violence to occur. For those children who had a healthy relationship with an attuned parent figure – mothers in the two cases that formed part of the study – were never subjected to any violation. Although he remained generous in providing materially for them. Those children whose relationship with their mothers was impaired became his victims and, ultimately, survivors of sexual violence.

  • Insecure social connectedness – The Family and Community Condition.

Sexual violence finds prevalence in families and communities in which adversity, emotional isolation, and confused boundaries structure life. Hence, the incident of being raped by a parent figure – as were the young boys in Mr Spence’s case – is a manifestation of impaired relationships in which parties behave inappropriately, because they are isolated, confused, or traumatised. Their life and behaviour are shaped and reshaped by adverse experiences for which they are not prepared and through which they are inadequately supported. This leaves children’s innocence open to betrayal by parent figures, who are unqualified to protect them.

This is a vulnerability that often correlates with the need for material provision, for which children’s innocence can be a bargaining cheap, a currency. My case study tells me that this is quite a common occurrence in conditions of socioeconomic marginality where children’s vulnerability is amplified. Trapped in a cycle of marginality and need for material provision, such children bear an increased risk of being violated and of violating their own children in their grown-up lives. The taboos and secrecy that surround this experience mean that ability to nurture secure connections and attuned relationships is compromised across generations.

Whilst this can be indicative of socioeconomic strain in their lives, it is also about loneliness and isolation, two conditions our neuro-biology impels us to avoid. As such, sexual contact may be motivated by a combination of easy access to a child’s trust and companionship and the biological need for connection to avoid loneliness. It is a connection that the noble social psychologist John Cacioppo likened to hunger, in noting that it helps naturally gregarious humans establish mutually beneficial relationships that meet social needs vital to survival.

  • Tradition of shame and secrecy – The Society Condition.

Secrecy surrounding premature sexual experience is sustained in traditions where children are discouraged from expressing intense emotions or sharing negative experiences. This can occur along a spectrum of oppression in child rearing practices, from say being ignored to outright neglect and abandonment. Mr Spence’s experience, as are those of his child victims, speak to the prevalence of this oppression in our society. It is that, when children view their experience as one that should not be shared – a secret, or one that is unacceptable and alienating, shameful – they are less likely to seek help outside the relationship in which the experience is lived.

Moreover, the pact ‘not to tell’ by which child victims such as Mr Spence’s are often sworn can be so powerful, so as to amount to a bond. A hidden trauma that bears intergenerational implications and, for that reason, cannot easily be broken. This kind of trauma festers from generation to generation, often passed on in the form of emotional maladies from parent to child. The shame and secrecy that sustain it do not ennoble, but destroys, often from within.

My case study suggests that children in attuned relationships with a parent figure are less vulnerable to this kind of trauma bond and, when it occurs, are more likely to recover. This is because a child in such a relationship, who experiences adversity, will seek out advocation from their attuned parent, who will in turn intervene on their behalf and help them to isolate and integrate the experience into a bad memory. Researchers at Emory University found that changes in oxytocin receptors that result from this affirming experience wield a protective influence that can help children to become resilient. This tells us that, in understanding what helps survivors of trauma to recover and build resilience, we are better able to structure interventions that are effective, and that which can be deployed in different areas of life.

Recovery and Resilience

We now know that sexual violence in childhood from which betrayed innocence originates can impact upon the survivors’ life chances and self-actualisation. This experience early in life when young people are most vulnerable to adversity and trauma is especially ruinous because it can affect their physiology in ways that are irreversible. It is precisely that lived experiences of adversity in early life cause neurons in the developing brain to fire and wire together, forming patterns, networks, and templates through which critical life experiences – such as friendships and parenting – are filtered. This is how the neuro-biological component of emotional pain and shame is scripted and rendered potent. So much so that survivors will think about and revisit incidents that occurred even in their remote past throughout their life.

This biology has profound implications for how we understand trauma, interventions, and recovery. Especially in that it appears to defy the adage that time heals wounds, and suggests more compellingly that time conceals emotional wounds inflicted by violence and trauma in childhood. Allowing for the trauma to be masked until converted into maladies later in life. As one of the study’s participants – who I will call Patricia – put it, ‘it is a life sentence that you can only understand if you have lived it’. She knows this because her own experience of incestuous sexual violence in childhood and betrayed innocence manifested itself in chronic depression and traumatic stress with which she has lived for most of her fifty-five years.

It is not, however, to say that sexual violence in childhood will inevitably produce damaged grown-ups. Healing through therapy that may be possible can be sensed in the experience of the young men in the Spence’s family, who were encouraged to withdraw from their secrecy pact, overcome their shame, and break their trauma bond. By these courageous acts, the men were disposed to social rejection and embarrassment, but were also necessarily enabled to confront their betrayed innocence and present themselves so that their complex trauma was caught and treated in time. The wider experience of sexual violence in childhood – of which their’s is an example – is one that remains difficult to contain and redress in isolation of the social conditions that foster it, the cultural traditions that sustain it, and the psychology in which it is preserved. These forces guard its incidence in families and communities, and must be considered in interventions that are designed to catch and confront its occurrence, consequent trauma, and manifestations in time – in order to facilitate healing and save lives.

The incident of death in Noa Pothoven’s experience – which is by no means unique to her – tells us that this kind of violence is deadly, even in childhood. And that we need to do more in the way of confronting betrayed innocence and treating its consequent trauma – in order to achieve and sustain the condition that could have saved her life and that of others who are similarly impacted. For it is an incident that finds resonance in Fairweather’s (sic) persuasion that the life expectancy of survivors is almost one third of the standard population. Women, more so than men, bear this casualty, as they are more likely to have experienced sexual violence in childhood. Moreover, by virtue of their high risk of socioeconomic marginality, many among these women survivors will never have access to provisions for healing. Yet, they are the ones most liable to remain resilient in raising families, building communities, and keeping their society from falling apart, even whilst they are themselves falling apart.

These women remind us that people vary in their ability to cope with and recover from trauma. And, notwithstanding the gendered bias in how violence impact upon the body and mind, it is clear that the way in which each person deals with violence and complex trauma is mediated by a range of factors that underpin resilience. This is to say that, although sexual violence in childhood and the consequent betrayed innocence are crushing for survivors and society as a whole – where hope isn’t lost, dignity can be rescued and self-worth can be built.

To this end, I still cannot say that we are any closer to grasping the full scale of this kind of violence and its manifestations. However, the experiences of Noa Pothoven and the Spence family with which we are now acquainted offer a sight of the profound human consequence of sexual violence in childhood, including the impact upon life and well-being. We also now know something about its intergenerational incidence. Wherein its occurrence can have an intergenerational scope that permits the survivors’ experience to fall within a larger narrative that encompasses the life of their grandparents, parents, and children. Healing and recovery in this sense might involve compassion for self, forgiveness for forbears, and a more attuned nurturance for their children. This appreciation rests in the heart of recovery and resilience.

Work Cited

Bradley, B., Davis, T., Wingo, A., Mercer, K., & Ressler, K. (2013). Family environment and adult resilience: contributions of positive parenting and the oxytocin receptor gene. European Journal of Psychotraumatology , 4 (10), 3402/ejpt.v4i0.21659.

Cacioppo, J. (2009). Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection. New York: WW Norton & Co.

Cawson, P., Wattam, C., Brooker, S., & Kelly, G. (2000). Child Maltreatment in the United Kingdom: a Study of thePrevalence of Abuse and Neglect. London: NSPCC.

Fairweather, D. L., Dube, S., Pearson, W., Felitti, V., Anda, R., & Croft, J. (2009). Cumulative childhood stress and autoimmune diseases in adults. Psychosomatic Medicine, 71 (2), 243–250.

Forward, S. (1988). Betrayal of Innocence: Incest and Its Devastation. New York: Penguin Books.

Freud, S. (1997). The Interpretation of Dreams. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions.

Maslow, A. (2013). Hierarchy of Needs: A Theory of Human Motivation. Saint Paul: Wilder Publishing Center.

NSPCC. How safe are our children? – The most comprehensive overview of child protection in the UK. London: NSPCC.

Reich, C., Michael, T., & McCarthy, M. (2009). Differential effects of chronic unpredictable stress on hippocampal CB1 receptors in male and female rats. Behavioural Brain Research , 203 (2), 264–269.

Sullivan, P., & John, K. (2000). Maltreatment and disabilities: a population-based epidemiological study. London: Child Abuse & Neglect.

Van Der Kolk, B. (2015). The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma. New York: Penguin Random House.


The shocking truth about what is being taught in schools

Dr Julie Maxwell from Lovewise explains some of the key concepts and messages that children are taught in schools today.

Written by Julie Maxwell

It was about 13 years ago, as a school governor at my children’s primary school, that I was first shown the material used for Relationships and Sex Education (RSE).

As a Community Paediatrician, I was used to seeing children for whom family breakdown had played a significant part in their difficulties. It was extremely disturbing, therefore, to see the way that sex was portrayed as purely a fun activity, the lack of teaching on marriage, and how explicit the materials were. Since that time the situation has only become worse: the material has become ever more extreme and explicit, and now teaching on gender ideology has become increasingly widespread.

Over the past 10 years we have seen an explosion in the number of children and young people declaring a gender identity which is different to their biological sex. We are also seeing increasing awareness of the harm being done to these children and young people by allowing them to pursue medical and surgical interventions which a growing body of evidence is exposing as harmful and irreversible.

What is encouraging, however, is that concern at what children are being taught is becoming more mainstream, and these concerns are shared by people from across the political spectrum.

One recent report commissioned by Miriam Cates (Conservative MP for Penistone and Stockbridge) focuses in-depth on the inappropriate nature of the material that is regularly being used in schools up and down the country. Another report by the Policy Exchange, with a foreword by Rosie Duffield (Labour MP for Canterbury), focuses on the ways safeguarding principles are being undermined by the widespread influence of gender ideology in schools.

It is no longer just those with strong religious beliefs who are worried about what their children are being taught: feminists (many of whom have no faith) are becoming increasingly vocal in defence of women’s rights, and secular organisations such as SafeSchoolsAlliance are working extremely hard to expose and combat the teaching of gender ideology in schools.

So what are children actually being taught? And what impact is it all having?

Become your true self

Schools, understandably, are looking to boost children’s self-esteem. Children are regularly told how important it is that they can “be themselves”, that they can be whoever they want to be and just need to follow their dreams.

But how do they know who they are? Well-intentioned messages can put huge pressure on children as they try to discover who they are, in order to become that person or to live up to others’ expectations.

Where this becomes more worrying is with the way that gender ideology is now being taught in our schools: this defines gender as something that may not align with biological sex, and is something that children need to work out, in order to discover who they are. Children are being taught to question the biological and physical reality of who they have been created to be in favour of an inner sense of identity based on gender stereotypes and how they feel.

There are a number of books, such as this one, which are promoted in primary schools (and even nurseries) that inform children that adults actually guessed their sex when they were born and that they might have got it wrong because only they themselves know whether they are male, female or neither! Other Schools may use the ‘Genderbread person’ or the ‘Gender Unicorn’ which present aspects of gender and sexuality as being on a spectrum: these illustrations can be quite baffling for adults, let alone for children!

Gingerbread Person

This is particularly likely to raise questions in the minds of children who already have issues around identity and attachment, such as those from unstable homes or in foster care, or where role models have been poor or absent. Children are increasingly being taught to disregard biology and that women can have penises or that all genders can have periods. And the teaching is profoundly confusing: I have been told about situations where a young child has come home worried that they are going to become the opposite sex or very confused when a friend of theirs suddenly declares themselves to be the opposite sex.

Gender iden­tity can fix your problems

This area becomes even more complicated as children approach puberty and adolescence: teenagers and adolescents (the brain is not fully mature until about the age of 25) are going through a complex process of physical and emotional change which includes trying to understand who they are apart from their parents. Some sail through these changes but others struggle to a greater or lesser degree and will experience significant difficulties adjusting.

Too often young people are being encouraged (often through social media) to understand their difficulties through the lens of gender identity and come to believe that identifying with a different gender identity is the answer to all their distress.

Almost 2/3 of girls identifying as transgender already have a pre-existing mental health condition. Around 1/3 have autism or another neurodiversity. 41% of people identifying as trans do not identify as heterosexual, and there are also links with eating disorders as well as bullying prior to adopting a trans identity. Young people are increasingly being taught that going through puberty is optional and seek drug treatment to stop the changes.

As Christians we are uniquely placed to speak into this – our identity comes not from what others think of us, nor how we feel inside but from our creator God! (Andrew Bunt writes very helpfully and personally on this in his book Finding Your Best Identity)

Gender ste­reo­types are back in

The whole area of gender stereotypes and gender identity seems to be a mess of contradictory concepts which are totally confusing to children and young people.

On the one hand, young children are encouraged to be gender-neutral and we are told that any differences between boys and girls are purely socially constructed. We are told that men and women are not just equal but that they are interchangeable.

But on the other hand, children are told that if they like toys associated with the opposite sex or clothes usually worn by the opposite sex then maybe they are really the opposite sex, and that they might have gender dysphoria (a sense of unease that a person may have because of a mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity).

Gender Spectrum

There is also increasingly a third narrative: that gender is a spectrum with infinite possibilities and can change from day to day or even throughout the day.

One provider, Jigsaw, poses the following question to fourteen-year-old pupils: “Gender and sexual identity – is it a spectrum or a galaxy?”. They then suggest that you “add you own planet (comet or moon)! Make your own solar system or galaxy!”, offering example terms such as “agender”, “neutrois”, “3rd gender”, “gender queer” or a “two spirit galaxy”.

All of these ideas are increasingly not just being taught in RSE but often throughout the curriculum! The Rainbow Flag Award scheme provides lesson plans designed to embed LGBT+ throughout the curriculum – just one example is this PowerPoint slide which makes up part of a computing lesson, rather than an RSE lesson.

Non binary IT

All of this can leave children extremely confused about what it really means to be male or female: it all becomes about feelings and preferences rather than about the reality of biology and the numerous biological differences between men and women.

The only bound­ary in sex is consent

Another aspect of RSE teaching in schools that is having a huge impact, particularly on teenage girls, is that of so-called “sex-positivity”.

Of course, we should be positive about sex: it is a wonderful gift from God, given to strengthen the relationship between a husband and wife, as well as to create new life. But this is not what this term means in our society currently.

Sex-positivity regards all consensual sexual activities as fundamentally healthy and pleasurable, encouraging sexual pleasure and experimentation.

As a result of this children are frequently taught about all kinds of extreme and potentially harmful sexual practices: Pornography and sex-work are often considered to positive and empowering to women. Anal sex is now taught despite the increased health risks for women in particular, seemingly in an attempt to talk about homosexual sex as much as heterosexual sex. Other activities being taught about include ‘chemsex’ (taking drugs while having sex), and even things like choking and strangulation. Such activities are being presented in a ‘sex-positive’ way, with little attention given to potential (eg. in the Proud Trust’s Inclusive Sexual Health Toolkit).

When RSE lessons in school are based on this ethos, children become sexualised and exposed to highly inappropriate information, both at school and on their devices outside of school: explicit material is only too easily available online, often under the guise of “educational” websites, such as BISH, which provides an A-Z of pornography, and is aimed at teenagers.

Girls may be afraid to grow up and become women because they don’t want to be treated like this, and equally, some boys do not want to grow up into the kind of men who treat women this way. It is hardly any wonder teenagers are wanting to opt out of growing up into a man or a woman: there are increasing numbers of this age group that are identifying as non-binary (neither male nor female) and are requesting medical interventions to obtain an androgynous look.

Ques­tion­ing gender iden­tity is transphobic

The situation in many schools is that anything other than complete acceptance and often celebration of a child’s declared gender identity is considered to be transphobic.

There are numerous stories of teenagers declaring a trans identity and the school holding a celebration assembly where this is presented to the entire year group or even the whole school.

In this article, a 14 year old describes the situation in her pretty average secondary school: “There has been a significant influx of girls in my classes demanding that other children refer to them with biologically incorrect pronouns and “gender identities” such as “gender-fluid” and the like.” She explains that she is too afraid to say anything that goes against the accepted norm in case she is targeted.

Even more concerning is the fact that there have been many situations reported where schools have gone ahead and embraced a child’s chosen identity and allowed them to change name, use different pronouns and change clothes, all without parental permission or even knowledge; some parents have even been reported to social services for opposing these changes made by the school.

What can we do?

Reading this article may have been shocking for some and depressing for many! It is easy to feel hopeless and helpless in the face of the prevailing narrative in our society and the cries of transphobia and homophobia if we dare to speak out.

But there are increasing numbers of people speaking and there is an ever-growing body of evidence that gender ideology is harming children. Measures that have been put forward as loving and the right thing to do, such as letting children socially transition (change names/pronouns/clothes etc), are increasingly understood not to have a positive benefit in the long term and are in fact significant interventions that may cause gender distress to continue.

It is easy to be put off by the media stories of people losing their jobs for questioning what is being taught in schools, but we don’t tend to hear about the success stories where parents have succeeded in influencing the content of teaching in their child’s school.

Here are a few things you can do yourself:

  • Ask to view the RSE materials being taught in your child’s school
  • Talk to your children about what they are being taught in their lessons
  • Be nosy and look what books are in your school library
  • Consider becoming a school governor
  • Use opportunities to talk with your children about what being male and female means while avoiding unnecessary gender stereotypes.

And let us all, whatever our role, continue to keep an eye on whether teaching is in line with biology, or with ideology.

Dr Julie Maxwell MBBCh MRCPCH is a community paediatrician and a member of the Church of England General Synod. She works part time for Lovewise and is a trustee of Family Education Trust. She has over 20 years’ experience of church youth work and is co-author of the Greater Love Declaration.


ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION:  IF EDUCATION, SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY in our Modern Society has been such a huge boon for us and made us so much more sophisticated and refined that we have evolved to such a huge extent above our ancestors… Why are we seeking to return to the Ancient pagan ways?  Why would we seek wisdom from the ANCIENTS?  Why would a civilized society want to return to savagery???    IS EVOLUTION A JOKE?  Well, indeed it is, but we do not want to return to the ancient ways.  CHRIST has come and opened the way to heaven.  He paid the price for us to become children of GOD!!