Strange Bedfellows

Fans of Michael Jackson are constantly on the lookout for allies who will help them shore up Jackson’s tattered reputation, and their quest has resulted in some strange bedfellows. One such fellow traveler, as I recently found out, is RazörFist. (I feel silly typing that – from now on I’ll refer to him as just Fist.)

Fist created a video damning the negative media surrounding Jackson, and pronounced Jackson innocent based on his “research”. This video has been in circulation on social media, being pushed by fans as a “true and dynamic rebuttal of some of the worst lies about Michael Jackson.”

Curious, I clicked on the link to Fist’s YouTube channel. At first glance Fist appears to be living a teenage boy’s wet dream, earning a living making videos about computer games, metal bands, and other trivial subjects that appeal to shiftless young men. Look closer though, and the receding hairline and wrinkles reveal the truth. This is no teenager. This is an unblooded man rapidly approaching middle age who appears to be stuck at Mom’s house. If you were to write a movie of his life it could be a combination of Failure to Launch and Spinal Tap (but without the cool bits).

I know, very uncharitable of me. Fist, if you are reading this, it’s nothing personal. This is going to be a story about how damned hard it is to do real, solid research on Michael Jackson, and I’m going to use you as an example on how NOT to do it.

I pressed play on Fist’s Michael Jackson Rebuttal video and was immediately sorry I did — I was confronted by a relentless, loud, and brash monolog which grated. Fist is neither sympathetic to the ear nor entertaining, and after four minutes I switched off both physically and mentally. Another way had to be found to absorb this performance. I begged one of my best friends to suffer through it and provide me with a transcript, which thankfully she did. Thanks Jess!

While Fist promised to load up the F-18 and drop some truth bombs, all we got was an unpiloted drone dropping dung from a great height. Once I’d read the transcript it became clear that Fist faced a problem that many casual Michael Jackson “researchers” face — lack of access to a balance of materials. It’s easy to get stuck in a particular mindset when searching through Google for Jackson information because oftentimes only pro-Jackson sites appear. To find out the truth about Jackson requires stamina and intellect. Many give up and go the easy route of reading without checking facts or thinking deeply about what certain evidence may mean.

In the first section of the video, Fist argues that had Jackson actually molested children his “provable tactical acumen” and financial resources would have ensured the world would never have heard about it. This isn’t a solid argument. Apart from the implication that there are families with molested children out there who were silenced by the pop star, Jackson’s “tactical acumen” wasn’t evident in his reaction to the Chandler case (as we’ll see).

Fist also recommends Tom Mesereau’s lectures, interviews, and writings so as to be exposed to the same “pertinent, exculpatory evidence” which made him come to the conclusion that Michael Jackson was innocent. That isn’t a great idea, as I will point out at the end of this article.

Having read the transcript, I find it hard to believe that Fist did extensive research, it appears all he did was read a few fan sites and listen to a few Tom Mesereau videos. Fist gets so many basic facts wrong it would be exhausting to list them all, so I will point out only some of his errors. Let’s do some Fist fact checking.

“Michael Jackson recklessly molested boys.”

This isn’t true. Every child that has ever accused Jackson has described in detail the months of grooming that Jackson engaged in before attempting anything sexual with them. Fist only had to read Jordan Chandler’s interview with his psychiatrist, Wade Robson’s complaint, or James Safechuck’s story and that would have been evident. Jordan Chandler spoke of a steady escalation of visits, hugs, and kisses before Jackson attempted anything close to molestation. Similarly, Jimmy Safechuck explained that until Jackson built up Jimmy’s trust completely, his adult friend never tried anything sexual. Wade perhaps is the exception, with Jackson molesting Wade after a very short time together. It could be argued that a seven-year-old mega fan with a laissez-faire mother pushing him onto the pop star must have given Jackson a feeling of safety which led to molestation on the first weekend they met, it’s certainly possible. We know that Jackson followed the same pattern with Wade as he did with the other boys he molested — the level of the sex acts escalated as Jackson became more confident.

Fist: The police only found one item which could be vaguely construed as pedophilic.

During searches of Neverland, police found two books (Boys Will Be Boys and The Boy); two actual photographs of unclothed boys; and 29 naturist magazines.

These items scream pedophilic. The two books are part of a set put out by Book Explorers, book_adventuresan outfit in New York dedicated to publishing “boy lover” works. They are edited by pedophiles, and both feature sexualized images of boys taken by pedophile photographers.

In a subsequent Twitter conversation, Fist maintained that the inscription Jackson wrote in the frontispiece of Boys Will Be Boys – “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I have never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children.” – proved his interest was totally innocent. Fist then admitted he had never seen Boys Will Be Boys or any of it’s contents. If Fist had seen the book, he would know that the inscription was a ruse – though technically legal, the book contains a plethora of boy’s penises, buttocks, and anuses. It’s doubtful Jackson would have thought to himself, “This is the life I want for my children,” if it meant his children’s genitalia were in full view of the readers these kinds of books attract.

The first of the photos found was described in court documents as “A photograph of a boy, believed to be Jonathan Spence, fully nude”. Jonathan Spence was a special friend of Jackson’s in the mid-1980’s. To suggest there is nothing pedophilic about a nude photograph of a boy owned by a man who shared a bed with that same boy would be disingenuous.

The second photo was equally suspicious, described as “A photograph of a young boy holding an umbrella, wearing bikini bottoms partially pulled down.”

(Some have tried to claim these photographs never existed, as they were never tendered as evidence in court. The photos weren’t tendered in evidence as there were a) no witnesses to Jonathan Spence being molested and b) the second boy couldn’t be identified,  not because the photos didn’t exist; the photographs were discussed by Jackson’s counsel.)

On their own, the 29 naturist magazines mean nothing. Put together with the above items, in Jackson’s hands, and they take on a deeper meaning. According to prosecutors at Jackson’s 2005 trial, the common denominator in all 29 magazines was naked boys. Whilst today we would view these nudist magazines as quaint, they are still currently in demand and collected by pedophiles because they are a safe, legal source of images of naked children. According to Bill Dworin, a 34-year veteran of the LAPD who has investigated more than 4,000 sexual exploitation cases, “Pedophiles will frequently have this material available because they can obtain it legally, it’s not illegal to possess”. In his book Naked: A Cultural History of American Nudism, Brian Hoffman explored the history of naturist magazines. Back in the 1930’s when these magazines were published, at a time when images of naked people were heavily restricted, publications such as The Nudist allowed various readings. “An image of a naked muscular man presented readers with a symbol of strength and athleticism or a source of titillation for both women and men. The display of full-frontal female nudes of all body types exhibited nudism’s commitment to showing the body without shame while also providing glimpses of genitalia rarely displayed in other forms of commercial pornography. The many images of children in the magazine communicated the natural joy of going naked and gave individuals seeking out intergenerational sex a venue to gaze at prepubescent youth.”

These items are more than “vaguely pedophilic”, they are exactly the kind of items owned byboy-scout pedophiles who want to stay just within the law. If we were to talk about items that were “vaguely pedophilic”, would Jackson’s statue of a boy scout in shorts fit the bill?

Check out  Wade Robson Interview


“Gavin Arvizo’s fingerprint was only found in a magazine along with Michael Jacksons because Thomas Sneddon handed it to the boy at a grand jury hearing before it was tested for fingerprints.”

This charge of Sneddon tampering evidence has been circulating for years among the fan community. Fist gathered this allegation from William Wagener, a vociferous campaigner for Jackson’s innocence. Wagener, who has an interesting background, made many colorful allegations against Thomas Sneddon and could be kindly described as a “crank”.

The story centers around a copy of Barely Legal containing one fingerprint each of Michael Jackson and Gavin Arvizo, which was put forward by the prosecution as proof that Jackson had shown a pornographic magazine to a minor. Overall, it’s uninteresting in relation to Jackson’s 2005 trial because the respective fingerprints were on entirely separate sections of the magazine, making it very flimsy evidence indeed.

The accusation of tampering is more serious and if true would have indicated that Sneddon, normally a meticulous and thorough prosecutor, handed the magazine to the boy at the grand jury hearing to gain false evidence against Jackson.

During the 2005 molestation trial, Jackson lawyer Robert Sanger asked of Detective Paul Zelis (regarding the magazine), “However, during the course of that grand jury, the contents of this, of this briefcase, Sheriff’s Item 317, was handed to Gavin Arvizo so he could look through it, see if he could identify it; isn’t that correct.”

This suggestion caused a stir. What followed was two days of exhausting testimony from detectives and forensic experts on the chain of custody for not just the magazine, but the briefcase it was found in. Away from the jury, there was an extensive argument over grand jurors –traditionally they are not involved in court cases which result from their indictments, but Sneddon wanted the grand jury forewoman to testify that Gavin Arvizo didn’t touch anything in the briefcase. In a cautious move, defense demanded they be able to speak to every single grand juror, rather than rely on just one, to discern the truth of the matter. After much argument from the prosecution about keeping the identities of the grand jurors secret the judge allowed the names of the jurors to be released to the defense so they could be interviewed, on condition they could be questioned about this one issue only.

As a result of those interviews the defence abandoned their assertion that the boy had been handed the magazine by Sneddon, and Tom Mesereau defaulted to the argument that the fingerprint was on the magazine because the boy had broken into Jackson’s bedroom and looked at the magazine on his own, not that Jackson had handed the magazine to him.

“Michael Jackson is dead because of his inability to deal with the unceasing barrage of lies about him.”

Michael Jackson died of an overdose of propofol, a drug he asked to be administered because of insomnia he suffered as a result of the pressure of rehearsing for a series of 50 shows in London.

“The 1993 case was a successful extortion attempt.”

There was no extortion. On August 4th 1993 Evan Chandler met with Jackson and his lawyers, suggesting that unless Jackson paid twenty million dollars he would take Jordan to see a mandated reporter (who would then need to report any alleged abuse to the authorities). If Jackson were innocent this would have been seen as a blatant extortion attempt, yet rather than Jackson and his legal team reporting Evan Chandler to the police, the pop star and his lawyers treated it as a starting point for negotiation and appointed private investigator Anthony Pellicano to work out a deal with the father.

Pellicano offered the Chandlers a million dollar settlement; this was rejected and Pellicano, with Jackson’s blessing, lowered his offer to $350,000. Exasperated, and with a deadline looming where he had to hand the boy back to his wife who would then allow renewed access to Jackson, Evan Chandler took Jordan to a psychiatrist. The boy then revealed abuse at the hands of Jackson. The psychiatrist by law had to report the abuse to the authorities, leading to a police investigation.

On the 23rd of August the first media reports suggesting abuse appeared, and the following day Anthony Pellicano announced at a press conference in Jackson lawyer Howard Weitzman’s office that the accusations against the entertainer were an “extortion gone awry”. Addressing questions related to the monetary offers made to Chandler, Pellicano said “I was trying to set him up with the extortion,” and “I wanted to see if he would take it.”

To bolster his claim of extortion, Pellicano played a tape (which Fist featured in his video) of a conversation he had recorded where Evan Chandler said “This man is going to be humiliated beyond belief and, and he will not believe what is going to happen to him — beyond, beyond his worst nightmares. He will not sell one more record….If I got through with this, I win big time — I will get everything I want … destroyed forever.”

(It wasn’t until a year later, when the original tape transcript materialized in an unrelated court case, that it was discovered that the recording Pellicano played was selected sentences spliced together from hours of conversation to make Evan Chandler’s demands look like extortion. In reality, the transcript revealed a revengeful father who was angry that Jackson, with the help of the boy’s mother, was coming between himself and Jordan. No mention was made of extortion nor molestation.)

After Pellicano revealed the alleged plot to the assembled media a reporter from the Los Angeles Times asked if Jackson’s team had reported the extortion to the police. Pellicano sheepishly revealed they had not. A complaint of extortion was subsequently filed with the police by Jackson’s team; after a five-month investigation the deputy Los Angeles County district attorney Michael J. Montagna announced “We’ve declined to file today criminal charges of attempted extortion,” and that “the evidence does not show that any crime has been committed.” The delay in the complaint being filed, and the negotiations by Pellicano, proved that no crime had been committed. “The law actually favors trying to settle actions without going to court,” Montagna concluded.

“The taped phone call between Evan Chandler and Dave Schwarz is suspicious because it was after Jordan was molested.”

Even though Jackson had molested Jordan at this point, Evan had no evidence his son had been molested at the time the tape was recorded – he only had suspicions that Jackson’s interest in his son was sexual.

“Evan Chandler’s meeting with Mel Brooks could have been engineered by Michael Jackson.”

Robin Hood: Men In Tights was released on the 28th of July 1993. Considering that Evan Chandler first met Michael Jackson on May 20th 1993, it’s unlikely Jackson arranged for him to meet Mel Brooks over a year previously.

“As Michaels’s favors began to dry up, so did Evan Chandler’s affection for the King of Pop.”

Michael Jackson never did any favors for Evan Chandler.

“Larry Feldman’s involvement in the 1993 case and the 2005 case is a big red flag.”

No, it isn’t. Larry Feldman became involved in the 1993 case after taking over the case from Barry Rothman. In 2005, the Arvizo’s lawyer, William Dickerman, having heard that another young boy was caught in Michael Jackson’s web, recognized parallels with the 1993 case. Unsure of how to tackle a huge star in a potentially explosive case, he contacted a lawyer who had taken on Jackson in the past (and won) – Larry Feldman. Feldman did some preliminary investigations in the Arvizo case but was reluctant to take it on, suggesting the family revisit him after the criminal trial was over. They never did.

“Evan Chandler hooked up with Jordan’s stepfather for an impromptu dental exam with his son”

Dave Schwartz wasn’t with the Chandlers during the dental exam.

“The original confession was elicited while Jordan Chandler was under the influence of laughing gas.”

It wasn’t laughing gas, and it wasn’t a detailed confession. After sedation with (allegedly) sodium amytal for a dental procedure, and after promising his son the information would go no further (he lied), Evan asked Jordan if Jackson had ever touched him on the penis — Jordan answered yes. No further questions were asked.

“Jordan was never molested at Neverland.”

Jordan said in his interview with Richard Gardiner that Michael Jackson performed fellatio on him at his father’s house, MJ’s Hideout, his mother’s house, and Neverland. The first incident of sexual molestation (after several months of grooming which started with brief hugs and progressed to kissing on the mouth) occurred at Monaco when Jackson masturbated Jordan.

“Michael Jackson ‘butt-fucked’ Jordan in Monaco”

No, it was masturbation only.

Check out  Michael Jackson Unveiled

“They had the flu”

According to Jordan, who was there, he and Jackson had colds. There was no evidence of “nasal phlegm” nor “hundred degree fevers” as Fist asserts. Jackson insisted the mother and daughter go out shopping, leaving he and Jordan alone in the suite. Jackson suggested he and Jordan take a bath together, which led to molestation.

“The prosecution never said Michael sleeps in the same bed as young boys, they said he sleeps in the same room as young boys.”

The prosecution always asserted that Jackson slept in the same bed with young boys. Even witnesses for the defense, men who had been allegedly abused as boys and were refuting the prosecution – Wade Robson, Brett Barnes and Macauley Culkin – testified that they slept in the same bed one-on-one with Jackson, not just at Neverland but at hotels when they travelled with the pop star. Several other of Jackson’s boy friends have confirmed bed sharing. Frank Cascio said he shared a bed with Jackson, as has Omer Bhatti. As Fist points out, an adult sharing a bed with a child in and of itself wouldn’t connote pedophilia, and is not illegal, so if it’s a non-issue, it’s curious that Fist needed to address it.

“Parents and entire families slept in Michael Jackson’s bedroom.”

Yes, this happened, but only on rare occasions. Jackson preferred to sleep with just one underage male bedmate over and above sleeping with adults or girls.

“The Chandlers, acting on advice from their lawyer Larry Feldman, deliberately waited to level charges for several months until Michael Jackson had begun his tour for the Dangerous album”

The Dangerous tour commenced on June 27th, 1992, 14 months before the Chandlers accused Jackson of molestation.

“Michael Jackson would have had to cancel the second leg of the Dangerous tour to fight the charges in court, that’s part of why he settled.”

Michael Jackson commenced the third leg of the Dangerous tour on August 24th, 1993 and canceled the remaining few concerts on November the 14th, 1993, prior to settling with the Chandlers in January 1994.

“The Chandler family during the pretrial phase purposefully omitted the photographs of Jackson’s genitalia.”

The Chandlers never had access to the photos for their civil case, the photos were taken by law enforcement for the criminal case, thus the photographs and description were only relevant to the 1993 criminal investigation. Tom Sneddon attempted to introduce them during the 2005 trial and it was the defence who argued that they shouldn’t be produced as evidence. If Fist had read the page he showed onscreen in his video at this point of his rebuttal he would have known this. Curiously, in 2005 the defence did not want this evidence, which would supposedly exonerate Jackson of the 1993 allegations, shown to the world.

“Michael Jackson was embarrassed that photos were taken of his genitalia.”

Immediately after this Fist contradicts himself by playing a video, shown around the world, where Jackson describes (in a laundry list of items which supposedly embarrass him) exactly what the police photographed — “my penis, my buttocks, my lower torso, thighs, and any other area that they wanted” — and goes on to mention his “embarrassing” disease vitiligo. Jackson certainly wasn’t being modest when reliving this supposedly “dehumanizing” episode, he was attempting to elicit sympathy from easily manipulated members of the public. It still works more than twenty years later, right Fist?

Another point to make is that the strip search had no effect on Jackson’s behavior. The sleepovers with boys, the root cause of this purportedly “dehumanizing” experience, continued unabated. Either the experience wasn’t as bad as he made it out to be, or Jackson’s compulsion to sleep with boys was so strong that he could put it out of his mind.

“In fact we know this evidence is weak because much of it was used in the 2005 case and was laughed out of court.”

The evidence wasn’t laughed out of court. The jury heard the evidence from the early 1990’s and were justifiably suspicious of Jackson and his motives. From an ABC News article after the trial:

During deliberations, jury foreman Paul Rodriguez said, he and other jurors frequently discussed the testimony they had heard about past allegations that Jackson had molested or behaved inappropriately with five other boys, including two youngsters who reached multimillion-dollar settlements with the singer in the 1990s.

But, Rodriguez said, the jurors knew they could not convict solely on the basis of past allegations.

“We couldn’t weigh that with this case in particular,” he said. “We all felt that he was guilty of something. But we feel that if he didn’t learn from this experience, then it’s up to another jury to convict him.”


“Sony pressured Michael Jackson to settle with the Chandlers.”

There is no evidence that the decision to settle with the Chandlers was anything but Jackson’s own. The only pressure Jackson would have felt was that Jordan had described his erect penis to police who then took incriminating photographs of his genitals, prompting his lawyer to remark in 2010, “We wanted to do all that we could to avoid the possibility that there would be a criminal filing against Michael Jackson, and the reality was we were hopeful that if we were able to “silence” the accuser, that would obviate the need for any concern about the criminal side.”

“Jordan Chandler never spoke to either of his parents after the settlement.”

Before his death, Jordan lived with his father for many years. Although Jordan did not see his mother for at least eleven years, he is now in a close relationship with her as evidenced by recent photos published of them together.

Once we strip away Fist’s confident veneer we are left with mainly incorrect assumptions, which have led to his erroneous conclusions. Fist could have made valid arguments for some of his points but his basic research was faulty. Simple things, such as the start and end dates of the Dangerous tour, are easily found; others such as Michael Jackson’s habit of sharing his bed with young boys require more digging, but the information is there if one were to search for it. Invaluable resources are the transcripts and court documents from the 2005 trial — even though it takes commitment, a good trawl through them brings up valuable nuggets of information. Contemporaneous news reports can also give an insight into events from the past (the Google News Archive is a good place to start, a subscription to Highbeam is even better if you can afford it) and fill in many gaps.

If using anything other than source material, I recommend due diligence on any supposed facts you encounter before using them for your own stories. Many myths (such as the Sneddon handed Gavin Arvizo the magazine at the grand jury hearings story) can become so ubiquitous that they are erroneously taken as gospel truth. A thorough and analytical approach needs to be taken if you are to be a Jackson truth teller, otherwise you are only spreading more misinformation about Michael Jackson.

My final point: Considering Fist focuses on the 1993 allegations in his rebuttal of accusations that Jackson was a child molester, it’s surprising he relies so heavily on Tom Mesereau for information. The private investigator hired by Mesereau in the run up to the 2005 trial, Scott Ross, revealed in an interview that the lawyer had very little knowledge of the 1993 case, and this was underscored by Mesereau’s lacklustre cross-examination where he bizarrely asked June Chandler questions on totally unrelated subjects including Jackson’s deals with Sony and Pepsi, whether Jackson had visited Roy Disney’s widow, and whether the Cascio family owned a restaurant. Mesereau floundered while questioning the boy’s mother.

Mesereau’s blinkered impression of Jackson is because he views every accusation against the pop star as false, not just because the 2005 trial had so many holes but because Jackson would have told him (as he told many others) that the accusations were only ever about extortion. Jackson has presented himself to Mesereau as above reproach and Mesereau has accepted this characterization without question. It’s not a good idea to rely on Mez or his opinion when it comes to anything but parts of the 2005 case.

Fist concludes his video with an admonition toward a (presumed) rival: “And one last parting shot for Review Tech, hey Richie boy, you know what’s even better than common sense? Fucking research! RazorFist, out!”

Which brings to mind the wise saying, 思ったことをすぐに口にするより 周りから馬鹿だと思われても黙っていた方が良い時もある, which translates as “It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt.”

Keep it in mind, Fist.

  • allysofwaderobson

    Absolutely Brilliant!

  • Mezza

    Well written as per usual!

    BTW, the frozen in time comment from one of Jackson’s 1993 lawyers was a HUGE turning point for me. It shows unequivocally that Jackson wanted to settle this thing to get out of the criminal trial and the fact that it comes out of Jackson’s lawyers mouth and not Zonen or Feldman said everything to me.

  • george

    I have read Michael Jackson’s Dangerous Liaisons by Carl Toms (Tom O’Carroll) And he comes to the same conclusions as you in his mammoth book, But from the perspective of a benign Boy-Lover, Those that are easily offended, Or not extremely open minded should stay well clear!

    • Apart from your assertion that O’Carroll is a benign pedophile, I agree. It was a good book.

  • FunkAnarchy84 ☭

    So no talk about how the current accuser ruined your beliefs that MJ was this supposed “boylover”? OK lmao

    Y’all should delete your site. Nothing but lies.

    Also the fact that some of y’all read books from admitted pedophiles… yeah y’all deal in your own delusions. I’m out.

    • Fudhux

      Hi FunkAnarchy,

      Can you explain why the fact that a girl came forward accusing him of molestation would ruin our belief that he was a boylover ? I don’t get why ? It doesn’t take away the other accusations does it ? He still slept and had suspicious behaviour with boys . I don’t think that there will be something that will take away the fact that we believe that he was a boy lover. We don’t base our belief just because we are delusional like you say. We base our belief on facts and common sense.

      Its actually possible for a pedophile to like girls and boys. Most of us are still not sure about this new accusation as we don’t have enough information to make a conclusion of our own .We shall wait and see. But its probable that he experimented with girls before deciding that he was into boys. Pedophiles like youth and sometimes they molest regardless of the gender of the victim .I am not saying it’s the case here because I don’t know. But I do believe that he was a boy lover because there is plenty of evidence that shows it.

      Also he did have images of nude girls. So who knows maybe he was into both boys and girls.

      And if you think that this site is ” nothing but lies ” then you did not read it , its based on facts and research . Have you even read the articles here ? Looks like you didn’t !

      • FunkAnarchy84 ☭

        Blah blah fucking blah… a fake girl accuser comes forward but for like 10, 15, 20-odd years, we were to believe MJ only preferred boys. No girls just boys. Sure destroys this site’s entire argument.

    • ShawntayUStay

      Now, Tim…I could’ve sworn you spent months/years on Twitter, WRS Facebook page, and Topix damning MJ to hell for what he did to those children. Now you think he’s an innocent angel? Tell me: will this newfound position be yet another one of your beliefs du jour for which you will (no doubt) later discard in favor of whatever alternate position is popular at the moment (a common theme of yours, right?), or do you really believe it this time?

      I won’t even address the silly “boylover” comment because its ridiculousness speaks for itself.

      “Also the fact that some of y’all read books from admitted pedophiles… yeah y’all deal in your own delusions.”

      Who are you referring to? Victor Gutierrez? Let me guess, you got that unfounded smear from the nuts at VMJ who choose to believe the word of a real convicted pedophile/serial liar Rodney Allen. Oh the irony!! And unlike MJ, VG has never been accused of molestation or been charged or been arrested for pedophilia. Have you even read his book (or any books for that matter)? His is one of the best works on the 1993 case, and quite possibly one of the best books on Michael Jackson, period! You don’t have to agree, of course, but let’s not hurl insults with no facts, okay, Tim?

      Carl Toms? Yes, he is a pedophile, but his book “Dangerous Liaisons” is very well researched and contains a lot of information that isn’t readily available because you’d have to get a subscription to databases. That is one of the reasons it is worth reading, though it isn’t as invaluable as say, “All That Glitters” and “Michael Jackson Was My Lover”, among others. Plus, it takes one [pedophile, Carl Toms] to know another one [Michael Jackson], right? Don’t be so close-minded to information. It’s limiting.

    • So no talk about how the current accuser ruined your beliefs that MJ was this supposed “boylover”? OK lmao

      I am open-minded enough to change my position on something when new evidence comes to light. How about you?

      Y’all should delete your site. Nothing but lies.

      Fans keep saying that, but they can never point out any of these supposed “lies” when challenged. Want to give it a try?

      Also the fact that some of y’all read books from admitted pedophiles… yeah y’all deal in your own delusions. I’m out.

      Yes, I’ve read Dangerous Liasions by Carl Toms (pseudonym of Tom O’Carroll, a notorious British pedophile). It’s an interesting book about pedophiles and their behavior. It deals mostly with Michael Jackson and his relationships with boys, but there are portions which argue that there is nothing wrong with intergenerational sex. I disagree with that premise in principle, but the book is still valuable for it’s insights into why MJ did what he did, and I won’t condemn Tom O’Carroll’s opinion of MJ just because he’s a pedophile for the simple reason that “it takes one to know one.”

      On the other hand I don’t place much value on a flip-flopper who changes their opinion based on suggestions from nasty idiots trying to malign this site. First you were a fan, then you did some research and found out the truth about MJ and realized he was a pedophile, then you listened to a couple of spiteful women and decided MJ’s sleepovers, settlements and child erotica were totally fine. Pppfffftttt.

  • ShawntayUStay

    Such a ridiculous video, and not just because this dude is clearly a connoisseur of his own farts. LOL. I’ve seen many fans linking to it like it was the gospel truth, so it is crazy to me how inaccurate it was. Even noted Vindicate MJ expert/fan David Edwards was linking this to others, and he — out of everyone — should have cringed at the misinformation! MJ helped Evan Chandler get to work with Mel Brooks?? Really?! That script was done way before Evan met MJ; Jordie was the one that came up with the concept! Perhaps RazorFist was confused about the screenwriting deal offered to him by Pellicano in August 1993.

    I think most fans of this video are either as ignorant to the facts as RazorFist is, or they were just caught up by his overzealous defense of Michael Jackson. Fans tend to flock to anyone who says the tiniest compliment about their idol, or says that he was innocent of the molestation allegations…facts be damned. I mean I get it, but this video was not one to champion if it can be easily dismantled. But most people would just be taken in by the confidence with which he’s saying all his “facts”. That’s just how propaganda works; focus on stirring up an emotional reaction so people don’t notice that everything being said is a crock of pure BS.

    • In an email last week Fist admitted his facts are light on.

      Look, you argued (not unfairly, I’d add) that my pool of sources for information on M.J.’s allegations was too narrow. Fair enough. It was a rant. Not a thesis. I don’t work from a script, I had a bullet-point outline. Everything else was off the top of my head. There are bound to be inaccuracies under such circumstances.

  • Pea

    This is a very funny post. If there are more examples of RazorFist’s errors, perhaps you can do a follow-up? 🙂

    “It wasn’t laughing gas, and it wasn’t a detailed confession. After sedation with sodium amytal for a dental procedure, and after promising his son the information would go no further (he lied), Evan asked Jordan if Jackson had ever touched him on the penis — Jordan answered yes. No further questions were asked.”

    Just to clarify, while Jordie Chandler was not given laughing gas, as RazorFist insisted, he was also not given sodium amytal. It can be used as a sedative, but there’s no evidence it was given to Jordie. Diane Dimond, though not a beacon of reliability in every case, stated Dr. Mark Torbiner used Robinul and Vistaril, the latter of which is commonly used in dentistry — both would be better choices for a tooth extraction than sodium amytal.

    And to any obsessive floon reading this website (you know who you are), the document Jordie and Evan Chandler signed July 16, 1993, the day Jordie got his extraction, does not say, “Fetal demise and death,” it says, “Tooth damage and death”!

  • I agree that boys are not ‘always harmed’ by sexual activity with older adults/youth, but that is not a good enough reason to condone or accept the practice.

    It’s undeniable that children (not just boys) experience sexual feelings and desire, and a case could be made for self-exploration and age/peer appropriate relationships (although I’m not even convinced of that), however it would be morally and ethically wrong for a mature adult, especially one who is sexually attracted to children, to take advantage of those feelings and desires. There is a vast imbalance between the life experiences and brain development between adults and children, and children do not have the cognitive abilities, nor the awareness of the consequences, to consent to a sexual relationship with adults.

    It is easy for a world-wise adult, or mature youth, to manipulate a naïve child into performing sexual activity. Several of Michael Jackson’s boy friends have described a lengthy and orchestrated grooming process so that Jackson could satisfy his sexual interests, a process they found impossible to resist at the time and a process which still causes conflict in their attitudes to him.

    The harm, in cases of adult/child sexual relationships lies not just in the maturity imbalance between the partners. It is in the aftermath where several things happen. The child grows up and comes to realize that their intrinsic worth is not as fully rounded people but as a provider of sexual favors and that the older they get, the less attractive they become to their friend (James Safechuck mentioned this). Children, when they grow up, also feel shame that they allowed the abuse to happen. While some may argue that this is because of “prudish societal attitudes”, those attitudes are a reality and cannot be dismissed. Some may invoke the Trobriands and Chewas as some kind of precedent or excuse for allowing child sexuality to flourish; this does not alter the fact that contemporary Western mores dictate that children’s sexuality is something that must be suppressed, and for good reason — there are cruel and evil people ready to take advantage of any relaxation of attitudes towards intergenerational sex. Bluntly, there are a lot of people who can’t be trusted with children.

    There is also the possibility of children being infected with sexually transmitted diseases, something which the child will fail to take into consideration.

    So even though not all children are harmed by sexual activity with older adults/youth, they are in a tiny minority and as a society, it is wise to disallow such activity altogether so as to protect boys and girls who will be harmed by it. It’s better not to take chances with children.

  • nofan

    “Michael Jackson died of an overdose of propofol, a drug he asked to be
    administered because of insomnia he suffered as a result of the pressure
    of rehearsing for a series of 50 shows in London.”

    Yes and no. That’s what killed him on the surface. But I believe that ultimately his own state of mind killed him. The reason why the Bashir documentary was so disturbing is that the editors did a skillful job to portray the darkness within MJ’s psyche – a man who appeared to be deeply unwell. MJ may have been a “friendly” acquaintance molester who lied to himself as well as to his victims that what he was doing was causing no harm, but ultimately I believe that some part of him knew that it was wrong (even if it was only the part that knew he’d be judged by his family, even if they probably covered for him to keep the cash flowing).

    He can’t have been immune to that. Without wanting to go into too much lay psychoanalysis, his albums were called ‘Thriller’, ‘Bad’ and ‘Dangerous’ – but they were pop music, far off from, say, dark underground music which aims to channel catharsis (metal etc.). MJ loved to dress up as a monster for videos, something which is a bit at odds with the soft-spoken man whose later music was in fact often cheesy and who liked to portray himself as some kind of Jesus-PeterPan-Salvation figure surrounded by angelic children. It suggests a split off or suppressed part of his psyche, the predatory monster within him. Substance addiction often masks underlying mental health problems – deep, profound shame could be one of them. He medicated himself with prescription tranquilisers to numb his feelings of guilt and shame, and to keep his own vision of himself as a pedoPHILE, a “benevolent lover-of-children”, alive to himself on some level. That’s how he was able to continue the prolonged abuse on the scale that he did, and it’s likely also what ultimately killed him.

  • CandyC

    I agree with a lot of what you’re commenting but what makes you think he was addicted to weed? There seems to be little evidence of that… you read that in Frank Cascios book right?

    But yes… I’ve said for a long time that Michael had multiple personalities, one of was an innocent man-child, and the other was a grown adult red-blooded male with an obviously high sex drive that had questionable relationships with underage (mainly) boys. We should also acknowledge many people have said his high pitched soft voice was a facade, and he naturally had a deep voice and there’s proof of that.

    In regards to his music I think there is a deeper meaning to many of his songs, people make the mistake of taking him at face value, but his music and image truly does say a lot about him, when you study it thoroughly, however. He truly was a multi-dimentional person. If he had mental health problems who could blame him? Just look at his life — anyone would struggle to maintain their sanity!

    Plan to reply more in detail when I have more time, I’ll be back.

    • Celestia

      Perhaps I should have have phrased what I said a little better. I don’t think he was ADDICTED per say to Marijuana, but I have heard he used it recreationally. Lol yes, I did read it from Frank’s book (and from a few discussions on topix). I know he isn’t the most amazing source to get information like this from—especially since he seemed to either embellish or completely make up stories that could confirm Michael’s skirt chasing, red-blooded, undeniable “heterosexuality”— but I kind of assumed that because he was around MJ firsthand that his info about the drugs, at least, could be more credible. He seemed to be pretty candid about MJ’s drug and alcohol addiction versus completely denying that he even had a substance abuse problem (like some MJ stans have the courteousy to do). Perhaps I assumed wrongly about that. 🙂

      Yeah, the multiple personalities is a very real condition I believe Michael suffered from. I’m not sure if it was an unintentional or intentional thing he could control but I’m kind of leaning towards the latter. I know that in Psychology there is a lot of controversy about wether MPD or DID is a real personality disorder or not. I’m still on the fence with this one, but I think Michael did have split-personalities that he used at will for different situations (like putting on a mask). You have the Peter Pan Michael or the innocent MJ, the King of Pop, sexual and powerful MJ, the humanitarian MJ that’s saint like and honest to fault, there’s so many different sides to him. So, he definitely wasn’t a one-faceted individual. I’d love to hear more about how you feel about this because this is something I only very recently started thinking about.

      His voice I’ve always known was fake even from the days I was a fan. I have never in my life heard of a man naturally taking the way Michael claimed he naturally spoke. I’m a woman and his voice is higher than mine, so I always knew that his falsetto couldn’t possibly be real, and if it was than something very freaky and unnatural had to have taken place with his vocal chords lol. Multiple people have confirmed that his voice was deeper but the biggest debunker of all was the secret recording from Conrad Murray right before his passing. Even though MJ was hyped up on “milk,” he was too hyped up to alter his voice so that shattered the idea that his Marilyn Monroe-esque whisper was real.

      If Michael wasn’t famous he definitely would have been sent to jail. No doubt about it. If some creepy, middle aged man that spoke like a woman and had an almost laughable amount of plastic surgery lived in anybody else’s neighborhood, had kids frequently entering and leaving his house and was accused more than once of child moleststion, the justice would come swiftly and he’d be locked up in a penitentiary somewhere trying not to drop the soap.

      A lot of fans would like to argue though that if MJ wasn’t famous and still slept in a bed with unrelated (and sometimes related) children alone that nothing would be wrong with it. Which is sad because it seems as though Michael brainwashed his fans so much to think that sleeping with children is okay that they really believe it and almost sympathise with pedophilia and try to make excuses for it—which I admittedly used to do but thankfully I’ve realized how wrong I was—while they victim shame and harass other kids that admit to their abuse. It’s very saddening. 🙁

      Yes, his music does hold deeper meaning than what meets the eye. A lot of his music is extremely misogynistic—songs like Dangerous, Dirty Diana, Who Is It, Billie Jean, Blood on the Dancefloor, Superfly Sister, Can’t Let Her Get Away—paint a horribly negative image of women in general. It’s almost as if Michael was trying to say that we’re all gold diggers and out to lie as much as we possibly can and carelessly sleep around so we can destroy some innocent man’s life. 🙁

      Just by listening to his songs you wouldn’t really detect most of this but it isn’t until you really read and try to understand his lyrics that you hear what he’s really trying to say.

      He toyed around with the misunderstood monster persona in some of songs—like Ghosts, Is It Scary, Threatened—and the whole “the press is out to get me but I’m innocent!” concept as well—Leave Me Alone, 2 Bad, D.S., Tabloid Junkie, Scream— and the songs trying to convince you of how innocent he was and was hurt so much by so many people and just wanted to make the world a better place—Man in the Mirror, Human Nature, Heal the World, Keep the Faith, Earth Song, Someone Put Your Hand Out, Cry, Why—and finally who could forget the songs that paint him has an OBVIOUSLY red blooded heterosexual—I Just Can’t Stop Loving You, The Way You Make Me Feel, Lady in my Life, P.Y.T., Don’t Stop Til’ You Get Enough, Workin’ Day and Night, She Drives Me Wild, In the Closet, Serious Effect, Give in to Me, You Are Not Alone, Break of Dawn, Remember the Time—So, by the time you listen to all of these songs, it’s almost as if Michael has brainwashed you to believe in his made up persona that he champions. And as a former fan, I personally remember listening to his songs and thinking, “How could anyone believe that Michael is gay or a pedophile? It’s so obvious that he loves women and all he wants to do is heal the world and save the children. The press lies about him so much; he is so misunderstood!” But of course, now I know better. So to me, his music was a smokescreen he used make people believe what he wanted them to believe so you wouldn’t think to question his behavior.

      His music videos say a lot too. Because in the videos for songs like Remember the Time where he sings about his former love affair with a woman and trying to reignite the flames of their romance, it doesn’t really translate on screen. Michael barely kissed Iman in the “Remember the Time” music video and for “In the Closet” he didn’t really seem to be into Naomi Campbell at all. He danced with a woman in the BOTDF music video, but there was absolutely no chemistry between them and the entire video had a dark vibe to it. And don’t even get me started with the PR friendly, “let’s be half naked and only cover ourselves with white sheets so people think we’re in love in a healthy, sexual relationship” video he shot with Lisa-Marie Presley for “You Are Not Alone.”

      The only music video he ever did, in my opinion that even came close to showing him being interested in another human being is the video he did with Eddie Murphy for “Whatzupwitu.” If you didn’t know better, the way they acted around each other would make you think they were two lovers in a gay relationship having fun and enjoying each other on camera.

      I mean, just look at the video!:

      MJ was a very strange character. :/

      • CandyC

        Celestia, so far it seems you and me think very similarly. I was a former fan myself, I sometimes reminisce about those days — the unrequited love feeling is something I miss sometimes, admittedly, but isn’t it better to know the truth and not be among the “duped”, we ave to admit the remaining f’loons look very stupid, I mean they’re still harping the myth that Jordan Chandler lied! What a fallacy.

        In regards to the marijuana, I have heard he used it recreationally too (from Frank Cascio, sigh) but I don’t pay too much attention to that, personally I frown upon drug usage so it’s just another stain on his image, in my opinion. They also found empty cigarette packets in his room after his passing. Anyway I’ll add to what I said… I guess I can’t totally comment on Franks book, I admittedly have not read the whole thing, only snippets but the reason I don’t take too much of what he says seriously is because he’s MJ’s ass kisser, to put it crudely — he was another “special friend”.

        Yes I agree with you, I believe all his “masks” so to speak, were intentional and I think he enjoyed fooling he public but also the f’loons he claimed to love. Another interesting thing to think on is his home Neverland, on the outside, the surface it was a beautiful place, even a child’s paradise but inside it contained some dark material including porn, homo-erotic books, pedophilic books and alcohol to only name a few. It’s just yet more proof of how multi-dimensional he was.

        Have you ever read the book “Michael Jackson Was My Lover”? It’s an excellent, factual book in my opinion and also of the opinion of many people who comment on this website. Michael had the opportunity to sue it’s author Victor Gutierrez because the details in the book were so damning (and graphic), but he never did. Also only shortly after its release he demanded his employees to pull every copy from the shelves, which is why the book is so rare and expensive — do those things spell innocent man-child to you?

        Celestia, he was never a humanitarian, at least in the true sense. I’ve always scoffed at people suggesting he was some hero here to save the world and it’s children, it was all another PR stunt to make him look good. Sure some of it may have been sincere but I doubt all of it, he’s too much of a confusing individual to know for sure. His lyrics tell a lot about his feelings and the things that went on in his life, the song Morphine is what I believe is one of his most honest songs and a change from his silly sappy songs. The Dangerous album is an interesting one, Who Is It is a song I think that is also honest. Stranger In Moscow is another song that only adds to his peculiar love of children if you study the lyrics. Speechless seems like another one of his “romantic” songs but when you consider he wrote it about a 14 year old boy it becomes unsettling. I could comment a lot more on his music but this comment would be way too long! Of course his music was a smokescreen Celestia, he wanted to be the enigma no one could fully figure out.

        I completely agree with you, he was misogynistic — check out his comments to Rabbi Shmuley Botech, he didn’t seem to favour women, add to that he told his “special friends” to forget the “wenches, bitches, heifers and hoes” — he was referring to women of course, ugh. Yes the RTT kiss with Iman was awkward, I’ve heard he “freaked out” to Karen Faye when Naomi Campbell talked dirty to him and didn’t know how to react. Don’t get me started on YANA, the whole “thing” with Lisa Marie Presley was just… weird and such a PR stunt, I mean to marry just four months after settling child sexual abuse accusations? Too suspicious. LMP was caught up in his charm, as we all were.

        It’s good you mention “WhatzUpWitU”, that video was odd, Eddie Murphy was all up on MJ and was touchy-feely with him, I wouldn’t be surprised if Eddie got that vibe Michael was “different” and had a little crush on him, check out the Soul Train Awards 1993, Eddie was all over Michael

        I have more to say but I think I’ll leave it at that for now, this comment is quite long!

        • Celestia

          Thank you—I can’t tell you how nice it feels to find a safe place to realistically discuss Michael’s life without immediately being shot down and attacked by rabid fans. 🙂

          Yes, sometimes I reminisce about my days of being a fan as well. It’s crazy because when I was a little kid (around 8 or 9) I hated him for some reason—I think his face scared me lol—but eventually I started liking him after a close friend of mine admitted that they liked him. From then on, my friend and I bonded over being fans of Michael and it was cool because you felt like you belonged somewhere; like you were part of this army set out to L.O.V.E and vindicate Michael and you were a part of something bigger than most people would understand. Then, eventually that friend of mine moved away and not too long after that I stumbled across Desiree’s blog (Desiree Speaks So Listen). I remembered reading this article about Michael’s sleepovers and I saw this letter one of the sisters of a boy MJ was sleeping with had wrote him (It may have been Wade or Jordie’s sister, I’m not sure) and she was upset because Michael wouldn’t allow her to be a member of his “Applehead Club” and she knew it was because she was a girl, not a boy. It broke my heart because the letter looked too legitimate to be fake and I couldn’t believe Michael would do such a thing because for so long, as a fan, I had always defended his sleepovers by saying that he had fun with both boys AND girls and to find out that I was wrong really hurt me. And from that day on, the spell was broken and I decided to find out the REAL truth, not just the “truth” Michael wanted everyone to believe.

          Some days I feel kind of sad and wish I could just go back to just being ignorant about all of this and fall back into the blissful unawareness of being a fan but then I shake myself out of thinking that way because I know that it wouldn’t be right to insult my own intelligence and revert back to my “f’loon” mentality. It’s not fair to me, or his victims that he abused, to not pay attention to the truth even if it is hurtful.

          That’s why I always say that being a Michael Jackson fan is more hardcore than being a fan of anyone else because it REALLY feels like you’re brainwashed and all the time you have to constantly fight with yourself to not fall back into that “ignorance is bliss” mindset and go back to believing everything Michael wanted you to. And I have a lot of sympathy for his fans that are still around because you know exactly what they are feeling, what they are going through, and you know how hurtful the truth is and you almost don’t want them to know it because you know it’s going to devastate them the way it devastated you; to know that the person you respected and looked up to so much lived a much darker life than the one you thought. Everything you think you know becomes a lie, and you don’t really know what to believe anymore. It’s a very sad, numb feeling. And if you’ve never been a fan, then you would never truly understand it. It sucks. 🙁

          But I agree with you, Candy, that it honestly feels so much better to be in the know then being duped or fooled like you used to be. It’s an uphill battle, but the knowledge you gain helps to keep you going.

          Yes, the remaining f’loons do look stupid; and while I do have a lot of sympathy for them, I don’t like how they spread false information about MJ and the molestation accusations. Like Jordan apologizing after Michael’s death for making false allegations against him or Evan Chandler killing himself because he felt too guilty about “ruining” MJ’s life. If you’re looking for the truth about Michael—especially if you’re not a fan or a realist and you know NOTHING about him—then you might read that crap and believe it because you don’t know better and that’s SO misleading because even Michael’s Wikipedia page has a bunch of incorrect information in it. I can’t stand to look at it because the inaccuracy is too annoying for me to read. But they twist stuff around in Michael’s favor to make him look better; it’s almost as if they’re trying to rewrite history for him, and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing that. They should also be ashamed for threatening and harassing Michael’s victims. The pure hatred that Wade and Jimmy got for speaking out against Michael was… Disturbing, to say the least. Very disturbing. As I think about it now, I feel like I’m at a loss for words because absolutely no one deserves to be victim shamed and have their life threatened. I’ll switch to a different subject because it makes me feel ill to my stomach to think about. 🙁

          I frown upon drug use as well because a lot of my extended family suffer from drug addiction—I know people addicted to heroin, crack cocaine, alcohol, tobacco, you name it. So it really upsets me to see people destroy their lives that way. It especially hurts to know that you can only attempt to help them but so much because they will lie to you and steal your money… It’s devastating. But as far as Michael goes, he was a drug addict to his very core and his song”Morphine” reflects that more than anything. He was surprisingly very candid on that record; one of the most personal parts that stood out to me was the bridge:

          This won’t hurt you
          Before I put it in
          Close your eyes and count to ten
          Don’t cry
          I won’t convert you
          There’s no need to dismay
          Close your eyes and drift away

          Oh God he’s taking demerol
          Oh God he’s taking demerol

          He’s tried
          Hard to convince her
          To be over what he had
          Today he wants it twice as bad
          Don’t cry
          I won’t resent you
          Yesterday you had his trust
          Today he’s taking twice as much

          This is why it astounds me so much how people (*cough* his fans *cough*) try to deny his drug usage. It’s so blatantly obvious that you’d have to really be trying hard to ignore it to not see it. The heroin comes from around late 2002. He was set to appear in court one day and didn’t make it because he had a “spider bite.”

          Now tell me, does this look like a spider bite to you?

          Here’s an excerpt of an article by MTV:


          When Michael Jackson failed to show up for court on Thursday due to a spider bite, the judge in his ongoing breach-of-contract trial in Santa Maria, California, ordered the singer to undergo a medical examination.

          Jackson has complained of a series of medical maladies since the beginning of the trial, in which he’s accused of backing out on a pair of millennium concert performances.

          The singer initially blamed his late arrival on November 14 on a mysterious ailment — it later turned out he was just sick of the unflattering court photos taken the previous day. The next day, Jackson claimed he received his first spider bite, on his hand. Then, when court resumed after a two-week recess in which Jackson took a controversial trip to Germany, Jackson showed up to Santa Barbara Superior Court on crutches on Tuesday, complaining of a second spider bite. This time the bite was on his left foot, which he said was swollen.

          In addition to the crutches, Jackson relied upon a bodyguard, who helped carry him out of court on Wednesday. “It is a spider bite,” Jackson told reporters. “It is real bad. If I showed it to you, you’d be shocked. It hurts very much right now as I speak.”

          Though Jackson keeps pet tarantulas on his Neverland ranch, he claimed that a small indigenous spider that had crawled out from the scrub brush near his compound caused the bite. He said it had been smoked out during a routine fumigation. However, a Southern California entomologist told the New York Post on Wednesday that he thinks it’s doubtful Jackson’s spider bite could have been caused by a local variety, since the only kind of poisonous spider in Jackson’s neighborhood would be the black widow, whose bite does not cause swelling.”

          Now, I have family members that do heroin, and heroin injections look absolutely horrifying, they’re ugly, they’re very obvious to see and most of the time, they’re BLACK. What spider have you ever seen in your life that would cause a “bite” like that? He was using heroin, he had to have been. 🙁

          As far as cocaine goes, it was found in a pair of his underwear. Traces of cocaine, along with Demerol were found in Michael Jackson’s underpants when the garments were seized during a search of his Neverland ranch in 2003, so it’s safe to add cocaine on to the list of hardcore drugs he abused. Neverland looked beautiful on the outside, but what went on inside of it is a completely different, more disturbing story.

          I have never read “Michael Jackson Was My Lover,” although I really want to. So far, I’ve read Frank’s book, Bob Jones’ “The Man Behind the Mask,” LaToya’s autobiography, Jacko: His Rise and Fall by Darwin Porter (which I’m currently re-reading), Michael Jackson: The Magic & The Madness (all volumes) by J. Randy Taborelli and, of course, Michael Jackson’s “Moonwalk.” The only two I can think of that I want read but haven’t yet are MJWML and the “Michael Jackson Tapes” by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. I can read Shmuley’s book online at Jetzi, but as you said about MJWML it’s so hard to come by that I can’t seem to find a copy for a reasonable price since it’s so rare.

          I heard that MJ had the opportunity to sue him over the book’s contents but he didn’t, which is so out of character for Michael because he seemed to have had no issues suing people over false information before; he even sued Victor over the “secret sex tape” he claimed to have of Michael and his nephew and won. So, that just tells me he didn’t go after MJWML because he knew in his heart that most of what was in book was accurate, which doesn’t scream innocence at all on Michael’s part. But with MJ’s damning behavior aside, It sounds like a great book with a lot of pertinent information. I know Victor Guttierez put in a lot of good research into it, but the only part that’s a little off-putting is the diary part since I don’t think Jordie’s himself wrote anything in it, though I could be wrong about that. 🙂

          I agree with you about his songs. “Who Is It” is interesting because I believe he wrote it about his supposed “love affair” with Diana Ross. If you look at the music video for the song very closely, at one part there is card floating from the sky that has the name “Diana” on it in reference to Diana Ross, I believe. Stranger in Moscow is still one of my favorite ballads from him, it has a great melody but the lyrics are so depressing. I think Michael may have suffered from some form of depression in his life so maybe the lyrics for SiM were a reflection of that. Oh my goodness, don’t get me started on “Speechless”! It’s so awkward to think that such a beautiful love song was written with a 14 year old boy though nothing surprises me about MJ anymore. I think it was written about Anton Schleiter because he mentions him in the Invincible booklet. In the the ‘thank you’ portion, he says:

          “Special thanks to Anton and Franziska…I love you with all my heart, Michael Jackson”

          He really was an enigma, wasn’t he? I agree, I think he lived in such a way so no one could 100% understand him, yet he complained constantly about being “misunderstood.” :/

          I haven’t seen the 1993 Soul Train awards, I’ll have to look it up on YouTube later. I think Eddie may have been attracted to Michael, but I’m not sure. Lol it is funny though to think that maybe he picked up a fruity vibe from Michael though it really doesn’t surprise me.

          I would love to message you, that sounds great! I’d like to know your story better as well, especially since it’s so hard to find a decent former fan turned realist to speak with. 🙂 Perhaps I could give you my email privately? I’m new to Disqus so I’m still trying to figure everything out lol.

          Oh, and I think I just beat you as far as comment length goes. 😛

          • CandyC

            MJfacts is a great place to discuss Michael in an objective way and you’re very welcome here 🙂 You could say this site is non-biased but I think sometimes if you’re an “MJ realist” it’s quite difficult not to be a a little biased!

            I’m glad I’m not the only one that reminisces occasionally about my days as a “fan”… Michael does have such a charm about him and he has a way of making you feel like he is the victim and you can start to feel sorry for him but really when you take the emotion away that’s the opposite of the truth! But you’re correct in that the fans are brainwashed and it is tempting to just choose to be ignorant again but when you learn the truth, you can’t just forget it.

            I too regularly browsed DSSL before it was taken off the web, it was such a great site. I never commented on Desiree’s blog entries but I practically read every article she published and she was the one that made me realize the truth, I guess. Yes that letter was sad, to think such an innocent young girl was made to feel so bad and rejected by Michael was upsetting. It would be good if she can get the site back up someday.

            Honestly, I’m not sure how long it’s been since you ceased being a fan but I do not feel sorry for the remaining “f’loons”, they are unfairly vicious to anyone who disagrees with them and it’s just not justified, they take it way too far with defending MJ. Many of them are choosing to be ignorant because MJ gives so much meaning to their lives somehow, I’m sure you know what I’m saying, however I respect your feelings. I understand how you feel, when I first learned how much I had been sucked in by the lie of his pure, innocent, man-child persona that was a victim of the world and media and nothing more I felt a sense of betrayal and I resented MJ for a while, I felt a lot of ambivalence afterward though.

            It is a shame there is so little available in the way of sites like MJfacts and DSSL and anyone who searches for his name is bombarded with sites like “Vindicate MJ” and not knowing any better they take what the fans sites say as the truth, I agree that it is annoying that the truth is twisted on Wikipedia and sites like it, the fans want so badly for Michael to be innocent, which would be nice but with all the evidence we have there’s little chance of that.

            Speaking of his music, Stranger In Moscow was actually written in late 1993 when Michael was in Russia on the Dangerous tour, at the time the allegations had recently been made public and if you study the lyrics they actually tell you how upset he was that he had been “found out” basically and his boy loving tendencies were now imperil. So really that’s why the song sounds so depressing, but admittedly the instrumental is beautiful, it does fit well on a rainy day so the short film is fitting.

            It is annoying how much he complained about being “misunderstood” by both the world and media when he basically started the medias gossip himself! He sent out the story of the hyperbaric chamber and maybe a few other early stories because he wanted to be seen as eccentric, however then the media started making up untrue stories about him so his plan backfired. I could discuss so much more with you.

            Anyway, I can empathize with you Celestia and we seem to have much in common so I’m happy for you to email me if you ever would like to vent to me and honestly discuss him with no judgement, if you would like to just send your email to MJfacts (just go the main page or the “contact us” page) and I’m sure they will be able to forward it on to me, no pressure though!

          • Celestia

            Yes, it’s a great place for discussion indeed! I think almost any site you go to about Michael is going to be a little biased but as someone who has officially been on both ends of the spectrum—fan sites like Vindicate MJ and this one—I can confidently say that MJFacts is the least biased and at least looks at Michael objectively versus painting him out to be human perfection like other fan sites have the tendency to do.

            Yeah, I try not to reminisce too much but sometimes it just comes out of no where and I have to quickly check myself and move on. Michael does have a certain charm about him, it’s exactly like the way you explained, you see the “vulnerability” and the way he paints himself as a victim and eventually he draws you in and you start to really feel bad for him; it’s pretty much like the equivalent of seeing a dog battered and bruised on a street somewhere and feeling bad for it. I hope that as time goes on and more information comes out that more fans will open their eyes and try to learn the truth the way we had to.

            DSSL was a wonderful site; her blog entries were all very well written and tastefully mixed humor with objectivity. She had such a way of making you laugh and then making you think with her writing. I remember that she even wrote some fan fiction too (like the one about Tom Sneddon and Diane Dimond) but that’s another subject for another time. 😉 It sucked though to see so many fans badgering her for telling the truth and then taking the petty road by making sites that mocked her. It was very sad to see. I hope someday she will have the courage to start the blog back up again as well.

            I stopped being a fan a good while ago, perhaps 2 or 3 years ago. I can totally understand why you don’t feel bad for them. They are VERY vicious and downright nasty to anyone who even tries to question Michael’s behavior, so in that particular aspect, I don’t feel bad for them either. I guess I sympathize with their position because I was once in their shoes but really what I feel pity about the most is their inability to let him go because they’re too attached like you mentioned. They’re in too deep and I hope that eventually more fans will start to let him go completely but I can’t feel bad for their conscious decision not to. Their intentional ignorance and blatant disregard for the truth I don’t feel sorry for.

            I really wish there were more sites like this one because it seems like for every one good site that you find (like MJFacts) that realistically analyze Michael, you also find 10 more that worship him and make him seem like an angel. It’s such a terrible ratio, but one can only hope that more sites will come around like this one. One relatively new website I found that I regularly frequent is Michael Jackson and the Boys on WordPress. You’ve probably heard of it, but I like it because it looks at Michael’s relationships with boys individually and focuses on the interactions of MJ and one special friend at a time. It’s pretty cool and seems to be updated on a regular basis.

            Candy, I had no idea that “Stranger in Moscow” was written in 1993! I just always assumed that it was a song Michael wrote specifically for the HIStory album. That explains so much though, because I recently watched a documentary on YouTube about Michael that centered around his time in Russia in 1993 and I got a subtle air of sadness and melancholy on MJ’s part from it. It was pretty nice but it did have some interviews in it from people that were fans of him and stuff. If you can get past that, which I had a hard time doing, then it really sheds a good light on his time in Moscow. It’s still one of my favorite MJ songs and it is a great listen on a rainy day, road trip or just anytime you feel a little blue in general.

            The melody is absolutely beautiful and the short film for it was cool as well, but I couldn’t help but think that Michael looked A LOT more feminine than usual in it. Perhaps it was the long wig (weave?) he was wearing and false eyelashes, but at certain times he looked just like a woman. Maybe that’s just me though.

            Michael was a confusing individual because he claimed that he wanted you to understand him, but consistently he did things on purpose to confuse you so that you couldn’t figure him out and then had the audacity to still be upset that no one understood him. It’s so crazy it’s almost laughable, and in Bob Jones’ book, he writes in depth about Michael’s obsession with how he was presented in the media and why he planted fake stories about himself in the tabloids—like the story about the hyperbaric chamber, the Elephant Man’s bones, wanting to purchase Marilyn Monroe’s skeleton, etc.—so he could be gossiped about like other celebrities at the time. But later on, things went too far for him, I guess, and he started denying everything like how he did in his 1993 interview with Oprah. Such a weird character Michael was. :/

            We do have a lot in common, don’t we? I don’t know very many people here so it’s awesome to have someone I can relate to. 🙂 I’ll take you up on your offer; I’ve already messaged MJFacts via the contact page with my email address like you said so I’ll just wait them to forward it to you and I hope to hear from you sometime! Of course we can still discuss things here, but as you said, a lot of us former fans have a lot more specifics to talk about. 😉

          • CandyC

            Yes MJfacts is quite objective, they don’t mix emotion with the facts and evidence to draw a conclusion. That is important in anyone who is a writer, as I would know, one of my interests happens to be writing and hopefully I will improve… anyway, back on topic!

            I honestly think there will always be fans that will cling to him no matter how much evidence comes to light, however for the others I believe they’re headed for the harsh truth one day and that day will not be enjoyable for them.

            The blog Michael Jackson and the boys that is on WordPress happens to be written by Michael Jeffery (sic?) who also happens to comment on this website! I’m not sure if you were aware. Although the English is not up to scratch (but that’s forgivable) I find his articles interesting nevertheless. I know the documentary you’re referring to, he looked good in that footage but there was an air of melancholy and we know why, the allegations were only recently made public and the magnifying glass was now on him. Contrary to that though is how much the fans like to put the magnifying glass on Michaels alleged victims rather than Michael himself who they automatically assume is innocent, when they could easily look at both sides.

            I’ve noticed how you mention that Michael was “strange and weird” I understand how you feel that way of course but I actually don’t see him that way too often — he’s more of a mystery to me, someone who maybe even secretly enjoyed controversy and the public viewing him as a “freak”, how eccentric he was is what I previously found attractive, he had a magical quality about him, he was extremely unique and I liked that.

            It’s been great conversing with you Celestia, I’m definitely looking forward to hopefully emailing you soon. As you said, there are many more things I’d like to discuss with you that I believe you will relate to that I’d rather not post publicly, some things are best kept a little secret. 😉

          • Celestia

            MJFacts doesn’t blend emotion and facts together, and that’s what I love about it. When you go to fan sites like VMJ, one second they lovingly talk about how amazing Michael was, but then angrily rant about how “ridiculous” the allegations made against him were the next. Showing emotion is okay, but there’s a time and a place for it and when you’re showing a supposedly “non-biased” piece of writing, getting overly emotional isn’t really the right time to do it. I don’t know if it’s evident in my writing style, but I enjoy writing as well. English was always one of my strongest subjects in school and something I loved (and still enjoy!) doing, so there’s something else we have in common! I love writing essays (persuasive and non-persuasive), fiction, nonfiction, journal entries, responses, you name it. It relaxes me, especially when you listen to some nice music while you’re doing it… It’s heaven. 🙂

            Yeah, some of the fans are due for a rude awakening and if they go through anything like what we went through, then the truth is really going to hurt them. 🙁

            I wasn’t aware that Michael Jackson and the Boys was written by Michael Jeffrey. I took a break from MJFacts a little while back so I could read up some more information about MJ and then come back, so perhaps I missed seeing his comments while I was gone. His English is good enough for me as well and his posts are quite interesting; I’ve learned a lot of new information from his site, so perhaps I could personally thank him someday.

            MJ did look great in the documentary. Even though he was under a lot of stress he certainly didn’t let it affect his appearance and let himself go, which is respectable. I can understand why he was sad, he must have felt very alone at the time, but at least we got a good song from it. I noticed though that when he visited an orphanage that it seemed to perk him back up again. He was very touchy with all the kids, and while it was cute on the surface, keeping in mind his previous inappropriate liaisons with other young boys, watching it made me feel a little ill to my stomach and kind of anxious to see him surrounded by so many children. I know he would never have tried anything with a child in such a public setting, but it worried me nonetheless. It’s akin to the feeling of having a known pedophile in your neighborhood and having a bad feeling when you see him in a playground or at a school because you know he can’t really be trusted around children.

            I do call him “strange and weird,” but that’s mostly because of his behavior or Michael-isms. I know he was an eccentric dude and that’s what drew me to him as well amongst MANY other things I won’t talk about here… But that’s all expected when you’re talking about MJ. He had such a way of mixing eccentricity with this certain lovable charm that it just pulls you in and wraps you up. I normally don’t think of MJ as being weird most of the time either, but when talking about certain aspects of his behavior he does seem weird or at the very least abnormal. If we were discussing anything else about him, I don’t think I would feel this way. He was very mysterious and attractive but his plastic surgery WAS ridiculous. It was honestly such a shame to see someone blessed with so much natural beauty just throw it all away and destroy themselves because of insecurity. He didn’t look bad after his first couple of nose jobs, he still looked very handsome, but he took it too far because he was never satisfied with the man in the mirror. 🙁

            Thank you, Candy, it’s been great conversing with you as well. You’re very intelligent and I’m looking forward to emailing you too; some things really are meant to be discussed in a non-public setting, especially when it comes to Michael. And I agree, it’s always wonderful to have someone to confide these things to, and it’s even better if that person gets exactly where you’re coming from. 🙂

          • Michael Jeffrey

            I got that personal ‘thank you’ 🙂
            You’re welcome and thanks for the positive feedback.

          • Celestia

            Hi, Michael! It’s nice to hear from you. I’m glad you got my thank you; your site is well researched and all of your articles are so nicely put together. I hope to read more articles from you soon. And you’re absolutely welcome. 🙂

          • Michael Jeffrey

            I was busy making it more professional.This is how it turned out:
            The kids are now in a list and it has a homepage etc.I will of course write more articles soon 🙂

          • CandyC

            You’ve done well Michael, not many people are willing to put in the time and effort it requires in writing extensively about MJ, your site is excellent and I’m looking forward to more articles from you 🙂

          • Michael Jeffrey

            It costs time indeed,you spend many weekends on it. I have now more main topics/sections and I will add my posts to them,similar to MJFacts.I’ve lately found a rare picture of Brett Barnes in his late teens with Jackson and I added it to his article. Do you believe Gavin Arvizio? I added him the boy list,even though I never believed that he was molested…

          • CandyC

            Do I believe Gaving Arvizo? Good question, I’ve never particularly looked into his case, now I have heard that there were a few suspicious things about the Arvizo family that made the whole thing dubious but Gavin was still in a vulnerable age range and he is a male, so I think he was at risk of being a victim although as I have not thoroughly researched his case I can’t comment for sure. He may be less believable then the other alleged victims but we still can’t say 100% that he was never a victim, why do you think he wasn’t molested, Michael?

          • Pea

            I think it’s good to research into it for oneself, Candy — I, too, had been operating on the “He probably was because Jacko’s a pedophile” for a long while simply because I hadn’t researched into it at all (besides reading Aphrodite Jones’s sum up of the 2005 case in her book). At any rate, having read a bit of the transcripts (both trial and grand jury) — certainly not all of them — I don’t believe Gavin’s claims at this point. I configured a timeline to at least see if the claims, as alleged by them in their shifting story, were possible. They didn’t fit as they said. That was about the most objective measure I could think of, and they failed….

            I would also point out that I’ve always been dissatisfied with Ron Zonen’s discussion of the case post-verdict. All discussion by all sides, generally speaking, has contained no especially explosive revelations. But I expected more of the Prosecution — surely they had to have something that perhaps didn’t make it in? Instead, they focused solely on “character evidence” to vindicate the family. For me, it’s just not enough.

            In researching the case, don’t hesitate to review fan-uploaded content on YouTube. I know, I know — but a lot of stuff is merely news footage or interviews, which is objective, in my view.

            I know you asked that of Michael Jeffrey; sorry about that. 🙂

          • Michael Jeffrey

            Mainly because of the testimonies by his mother and brother. Some of the things they claimed were impossible.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Looking at the site, you have a lot of good research on the boys specifically and really good pictures. But I will say, in regards to the “Proof Michael Jackson was gay/homosexual” post, it wasn’t you who proved it. That happened back in November 4, 2010 on the now defunct site Desiree Speaks So Listen (DSSL). She proved it and as one of her earliest readers, I remember how many page views she said she got from fans on IMDB because someone linked it. That was her most read post and she even had a second one — an addendum — because fans were trying so hard to deny it! No fan had heard about the semen stains before she wrote about it because the Santa Barbara county website was tricky to navigate and that document was buried among hundreds, plus you had to look carefully for the unredacted version.

            You even have the exact pictures of the documents she created for DSSL! I saved many of her posts before her blog was deleted so I know. Not to mention your title is similar (well, the same by using the word “proof”). The content and organization is similar, too.

          • Michael Jeffrey

            You will laugh,but I have never seen her blog. I tried to search for it,but it is not available anymore (deleted?). I have used her pictures most likely,because they are everywhere since that post was published. I never tried to say that I did something anyway :-). I also look in our people’s researches (MJ.Facts as an example). My articles are mostly collections from everything I was able to find in the whole web.It is just me who writes it down. Thank you for your feedback though 🙂

          • ShawntayUStay

            Well okay. I see that video was uploaded January 2012, and that person very clearly took all his/her information from DSSL, including the exact pictures from her post. Hers was the only website at that time to even talk about the semen stains or whether MJ was gay in any substantial manner.

          • Michael Jeffrey

            To me it is funny how people can deny that he was gay…fans are not even cool with that.

          • CandyC

            Yes we have seem to have a few things in common, I’ve noticed we also have a similar writing style, would that be fair to say? I’m looking forward to more in depth conversations with you via email, I’m sure it’s going to be both scandalous and interesting, lol!

            I’ve decided to create a temporary email address you can email me your email to, as I think it would be easier, it’s:

            Hope to hear from you soon! 🙂

          • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

            Hello again, wow I am post happy this morning. I did want to add that I hope I am not coming off as vicious or attacking you two fine ladies..You both seem like you have your reasons for leaving the MJ fandom behind(and I understand you both were emotionally invested in ways I am not as a fan) I think when you see MJ as a pure victim it can play head games with you..The fact is I have never ever seen him that way. When I was a kid the guy was larger than life, awesome dancer, great live performer (probably the best I have seen) but also spoiled and filthy rich. I maybe for a month thought he was some sort of victim(as an adult) but once I actually sat down and took the time to read and think about all this, (prior to that I did ask myself, if you invest all this time, get more into his private life and his music and find out he is guilty what will you do) I said to myself, I can still listen to his music becasue I never was that taken with him as a human being. And that is the truth, the real him was never shown, it was all masks like one of you ladies said above so I never felt like I knew him or wanted to coddle him..nope

            MJ was lacking in so many things, and a ton of that was not his fault what was his fault was playing victim to his fans (and himself)which just fed this false image right back to MJ, so it confirmed whatever he had originally thought. In my mind superfans helped kill him, by not letting him ever see the real truth about himself, he had become a freak and scary in the end I am sad to say but it is true.

            I think for me and other fans the real difference is I like the music and dance..Most others (not all) but most well point blank say it is not about the music anymore, it is how great a human being MJ was. How wonderfully kind and sad he was how lonely he was and how that helps fans somehow see themselves in MJ..For me, I cannot relate to MJ at all. I also was not ready to kill myself and MJ saved me from it like a lot of these fans feel and have told me. I am a bit of a misfit in the MJ forums but I do stick to my guns and say that yes, he could be guilty and NO I will not feel bad listening to his music. Anyhow just wanted to add that as I read through these nice posts..and thank you for being honest, I sure hope that I am not coming off as deluded and mean or even defending MJ his sleep overs his use of fans as some sort of tool for him, his drugs or anything for that matter..I must include his lack of paying his bills and people who worked with him, that is something pretty darn bad as well.

            Keep posting maybe I can find you both on other boards as well..take care

          • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

            Hey there:)
            I am an actual fan of Michael (only up until the late 80s though) I will tell you I am probably rare, as I know he was a drug addict, I know he lied constantly, I know he had really weird relationships with kids I also know he had a very cruel streak. As a fan who has come in contact with other fans even ones that seem a tad more sane, I am worried about most of them. Many are so emotionally invested that they will break apart if say Wade wins this civil case. For myself, I can deal with that all, as I was never a big defender of him anyhow. He may be guilty as sin, would not stop me from playing OTW. That makes me a very small percentage of people who might post on forums or boards and many fans find it really upsetting that I even say these things. I do not believe MJ brainwashed me, as I can see all the mistakes he made and dumb actions that too many fans want to make go away with any story they can make up or exaggerate.

            One fan asked me the other day, what is your fav personal trait that MJ had, and I just said. Nothing, I never knew him personally and I feel he put on an act as to who he was so I have nothing to say about him personally.(I was being nice I guess) They want to believe MJ was MOSTLY good, I try to stay with a 50/50 balance as of right now, but hey if it drops it drops, I will still listen to Thriller..I fear that a ton of these fans will be devastated like you say, I am not sure how someone gets in so deep myself..I would like to think it is just teens but sadly I have talked to 60 year old women just caught up in all these lies it is not even funny.

            If there were video of MJ doing something, many of these fans will still deny it becasue their very core is addicted to him and they need him to define themselves they will even admit it is not about the music or dance, it is becasue somehow MJ saved their lives somehow, I suppose that did not happen to me so I do not have that level of worship for the man, it is music for me and fake persona that is it. (and many of these people I would call online friends of mine) but I can see where they get in a bit a huff if I straight talk them. Anyway, I just wanted to add I am a big fan of the 70-80s MJ, but if I saw a video of him doing things criminal I would not deny it. Even his trial I still question, he had money and power to win so. I am pretty sure I do not sound like a typical brainwashed type. I have no excuse as to why MJ was like he was..He was damaged goods from the jump as far as I am concerned. I love his art MJ as a man, well, personally like I said I did not know him, and he came off as just an image, sure at times a sexy in your face image, but it is plastic, and not real..Most people I talk to (not all) cannot get out of the fantasy all the way, though they claim to all the time.. I just wanted to state as a fan I am worried a bit for the folks that tell me MJ saved them or stopped them from killing themselves, I just see that going real bad for them if they ever are forced to reconsider his guilt. sorry for the ramble, please take care and keep posting..I actually love reading you Celestia and CandyC

      • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

        I will disagree with one point. In SC video he actually had some chemistry with all the females in that..Do not ask my how or why at that point in his life he was able to transmit this, but he was able to,. He did not do that with Ola, nor Tati Iman or LMP, but he did it in SC..That was the only time I have seen him anything like that..His duets onstage with females were forced and fake. Sure he was sexy back in the day with swag like 70s 80s MJ, he was a beast on stage, but around women not at all. As performance art yes, he had a very in your face highly sexed persona in the 80s(late) In the 90s it was gone. It is my belief that the 80s MJ( which I am a fan o)f just was rolling out another persona than he had before..And even odder guy at that point but now with hyper-sexual actions on stage..No not just crotch grabbing either. On his own, without a woman to worry about onstage or video yes, extreme sexuality, next to a woman nah. Never bought it myself and still do not get when he “faked” stroked a lead singers thigh why fans in the crowd screamed even louder, not sure why that is, maybe they wished they were the woman up there, who the heck knows. Eddie was known to have uh some love for transgender people so, maybe he found MJ hot, doubt MJ found eddie hot though..And as I said above, I highly doubt the highly sexed guy he appeared on stage during his bad tour was ever even slightly like the real him

    • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

      CandyC, while I do not agree with everything you say, I will tell you on some rare fan forums(yes I am a fan, just not full of delusion about who MJ could really be) there is debate and discussion on MJ being autistic (or at least on the spectrum) I have said it is possible but no way to tell. Personally I think he had a much more Bipolar personality, with mania and depression cycles, he also might have had some personality disorders, which would not shock me at all. I also do not think anyone ever got to see the real Michael Jackson even in that Doc..After reading so much about him, talking with people that knew him or knew someone close to him, it appears as if he had a very real cruel streak in him as well. No person is one dimension and someone like MJ had too many sides to him really. I never thought that MJs music said that much about him (well besides he never trusted women) other than those types of songs and the fact that he wrote very very few true love and romance songs (that was all done by others) I believe he was a hyped image and he was a master at portraying what HE wanted to portray for most of his life..Playing the victim actually pulled in fans who were easy marks, that continue to hype his innocent child side still to this day. As a fan I can admit fans were sold a bill of goods as to who MJ really was. That does not matter to me so much becasue his life off stage and how he lived it might interest me but I got no emotional investment in that side of him, I know he was so very flawed and never got help..I am a rare fan who will say he was even more than 50 percent responsible for his own death. I also never liked him after the 80s and still do not:) So I can totally look at his life after 87 or so as a non fan at that point and be much more critical even if I am called a total hater by other fans..That is their problem..

  • CandyC

    Believe me he had a lot of control over his artistic work and creation, he was known to flat out dismiss his employees if they ever disobeyed or disputed what he wanted, I don’t doubt it was the same with his artistic direction, he was very much a businessman.

    We are not trying to diagnose him, it’s merely harmless speculation. Yes he was responsible for his actions but I think he truly thought he was invincible and his fame and fortune was his ticket out (and it was in a way).

    But I agree… the decorations and figurines inside Neverland were creepy, same with the Peter Pan stuff, the pictures of the “secret room” contained within his own room gave me the creeps… who knows what it was used for, I think we can accurately guess however.

  • Celestia

    It is possible that a director could have had some say so in the artistic direction for his music videos, but believe me, if Michael really didn’t like something it wouldn’t have been used for the video since he was so heavily involved in the production. So I think it was mostly Michael’s vision that you see in his videos and songs. As far as mental health goes, you are completely right, I’m not a professional and therefore I am in no way qualified to diagnose anyone, including MJ and I would never try to. But as someone that closely studies Psychology recreationally, I can speculate and guess based off of what I see in Michael’s behavioral patterns, early upbringing, and traumatic history what caused him to live his life the way he did.

    Michael was responsible for his actions, that’s correct, but depending on what mental illness someone suffers from, they can still function normally—like bathing, dressing ones self, eating, interacting with others, having a job and making an income, etc.—and still have a mental illness or personality disorder. If Michael was schizophrenic or showed signs of schizoaffective behavior and severe delusions, then no, he wouldn’t be able to function or be responsible for his actions. But a personality disorder—which Michael may or may not have had—would be less severe and not necessarily affect his functioning but perhaps some of his decision making, behavior and interactions with other people.

    For example, we know that Michael had a very apparent sense of grandiosity and believed that he was royalty (as evidenced in his King of Pop persona, love of crowns, thrones and his incessant need to be knighted by the queen in the mid 90’s), believed he was a savior of children and also believed that he was beyond all moral, societal and legal standing (like not believing that his inappropriate behavior with boys was unnaceptable by society’s standards or that he should have been punished because of it and that it was “something the whole world should do”) so that, to me, shows a very high probability of him having Narcissitic Personality Disorder.

    Wikipedia has this to say about NPD:

    “Narcissistic personality disorder is a long term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a lack of understanding of others feelings. People with the disorder often take advantage of their interpersonal relationships. They can be excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy, power, prestige and appearance. Those with NPD generally lack awareness into their own condition. The behavior typically begins by early adulthood, and occurs across a variety of situations.”

    Does this not fit Michael to a T? We know he had exaggerated feelings of self-importance—like his penchant for wearing military gear, having huge statues made in his likeness for the HIStory tour promotion, marching armies behind him, etc.— a strong excessive need for admiration or respect—like his meltdown he had at the 1979 Grammys because he only won one award instead of having a clean sweep like he would later do for Thriller or his alleged refusal to show up at award shows unless he was introduced as the King of Pop—and demonstrating a lack of understanding for the feelings of others—like how he coldly dumped his special friends once they reached puberty or his blatant disregard and hatred for his own family members—so, with all of this information in mind, this leads me to the conclusion that Michael mot likely suffered from NPD. But let me reiterate once again, I’m not a professional, this is solely just mere speculation on my part. 🙂

    Neverland was very creepy inside and with all the porn, alcohol and drugs that was found it really does unfortunately show us how disturbed he really was. But he lived a very troubled, disturbing life, so who can really blame him? The only thing we can really blame him for his not taking it upon himself to seek help. 🙁

  • FunkAnarchy84 ☭

    Lol have you checked this entire site? Posting tabloid crap with no real substance. That’s what I meant. Also saying they wanna help protect kids from anyone acting like they think MJ acting but yet seem to take more interest in the books MJ possessed that they considered MJ “dangerous” for having in his possession.

  • FunkAnarchy84 ☭

    You know the author of that book was a pedophile, right?

  • Hi Sofia

    We have moderation because of abusive comments and comments that add nothing to the debate, not because of comments that disagree.

    I f we didn’t have moderation our comments would be filled with nonsensical comments from fans, such as “All of you are so pathetic, Michael was innocent”. That wouldn’t make for a very interesting comments section nor encourage vigorous debate, wouldn’t you agree?

    We welcome all points of view as long as the arguments for them are put forward with intelligence. If you believe there are any errors on the site or you have come to a better conclusion based on the evidence presented feel free to put down your thoughts.

  • I would have liked to see your longer reply George.

    Why the strawman argument? I said:

    There is a vast imbalance between the life experiences and brain development between adults and children, and children do not have the cognitive abilities, nor the awareness of the consequences, to consent to a sexual relationship with adults.

    That still stands whether the age of consent is lowered or not. At the moment the age of consent attempts to strike a balance between the reality of children having sexual feelings, and the fact that there are adults out there who are ready to take advantage of the naïveté of children and teenagers whose brains are not yet fully developed.

    Adults don’t need to have sex with children. There is no reason for it except to satisfy the adult’s lust.

    • george

      I disagree, the need for sex is something we all have, and need, like breathing and eating etc. There is no proof consensual pleasure is harmful for all ages, again see Rind 1998. If sex is special in some way, we need objective evidence, right now, It just ain’t there!

      As I’ve said before, much of the pedo-hysteria is culturally, socially and politically manufactured. As a result, kids maybe more harmed by society’s suppressed, self-denying, ignorant attitudes towards sex – especially where kids are concerned – than they are by the actual sexual activity itself.
      Perversely, the opposite is the case where physical violence is concerned. You may’ve loved rugby; I loathed it! For a skinny kid with glasses, getting smashed into, knocked to the ground, ground down in the middle of a scrum – that’s physical abuse! 🙂
      Even worse was hockey! Bloody hell, getting walloped by one of those sticks in the shins was a nightmare. And as for cricket: how can shivering in a thin shirt waiting to bat when you’re last in line (and unlikely to be called) be physical exercise or education? And those bloody balls – as a fielder, you can catch it slightly wrong and do your finger or thumb in.

      Britain has long tradition of inflicting physical pain on kids in all sorts of ways – toughen the blighters up, then send ’em to war – while denying ’em pleasure; especially sexual.
      What a wonderful world.

      • Kat

        How do children have a need for sex? They can’t reproduce, their bodies haven’t developed yet, and they have no interest in sexual activity – unless an older person grooms and seduces them into wanting it.

        Kids aren’t harmed by sex itself; they are harmed by being betrayed, the victimisation they experience, the shame and guilt that they carry. Someone works hard to gain their trust and then abuses them. Even if children don’t connect their trauma with sexual abuse, many abused children develop physiological responses to it. They become withdrawn, they wet their beds, they have mood swings, they develop promiscuity; all of these are clear indicators that a child is damaged.

        • george

          Only in the unbalanced few (those in media) Kids do have sexual feelings and can orgasm (dry) before puberty see Kinsey et al, and also Rind et al for the assumed harmfulness of ‘abuse’

          • ShawntayUStay

            What societal benefit is gained by allowing adults to have sexual relationships with kids, especially pre pubertal kids? Like seriously, why would that be a better policy than what we have now, i.e. it’s a criminal offense? Children themselves are not asking to sleep with adults; it’s some wacky adults who want to sleep with children.

            For instance, JonBenet Ramsey was 6 years old when she was murdered, and her autopsy described her uterus as measuring 3 by 1 by 0.8 cm. That is extremely tiny, and considering the vaginal canal is the width of the lower portion of the uterus, that is way too small for any kind of intercourse to occur without some sort of internal damage. It is biologically sound to preclude sex with children, not to mention culturally and socially.

          • george

            People are getting locked up for consensual activity, I suppose its collateral damage when men are concerned. What benefit? less stigma for paedophiles — People who are accused getting beaten up or much worse, whether they’re guilty or not. Yeah, that’s grounds for a better less sexually repressed society, everything is ‘anything goes’…Unless they’re under 18 then its a mortal sin!

          • Pea

            George, if you’re going to be our resident “Pedophile Mascot”, you could at least attempt to do your ilk some favors by not devolving into rants….

            Please answer the following question: what does society gain by permitting adults to have sex with children?

          • ShawntayUStay

            Less stigma for pedophiles? The stigma is deserved; they have obsessional sexual fantasies involving children, many to the point of either actually offending or consuming child pornography aka filmed child sexual exploitation. So don’t give me that as a benefit because it’s not a legitimate excuse for allowing adults to have sex with children; no one will buy it.

            No really, tell me, I’m curious: What creates pedophiles? Some say it’s biological, others say it’s purely environmental. Some so called “experts” say it’s a sexual orientation. What’s your explanation?

          • george

            I’d say its an orientation, It is no longer a disorder in the DSM 5 (paedophilic disorder is) Not paedophilia in and of itself. If it causes you distress in everyday life and/or you act on it, only then is it considered a disorder. It was not long ago that homosexuality was in the DSM…See where I’m going?

          • ShawntayUStay

            It’s not an orientation. It’s a paraphilia. A fetish. And yes, you are correct about homosexuality, and I’d agree that it was likely an arbitrary removal at the time. But studies into brain activity have differentiated the brains of gay and straight adults from those of homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles, respectively; the latter have a much higher than normal response to sexual stimuli, which supports the hypothesis that pedophilia is indeed a paraphilia/fetish because this activity is more similar to the brain activation responses seen in other disorders based in ordinal behavior and fixation (like OCD).

            So while we can legitimately discuss whether homosexuality is biological or a learned phenomenon involving the sexualization of emotional wants and needs of some sort that were missing during formative years, gays and straights are more similar to each other than to either a homosexual or heterosexual pedophile — and that’s the most important problem with your argument.

            But I’m asking something more specific: what is the specific etiology of pedophilia? Inborn? Learned? What?

          • george

            Sounds like a clinical study, OCD!!! its a sexual preference and these so called heterosexuals they were compared to, Can we assume they would have 0 interest in child stimuli, Though there was a smaller study, It showed then the ‘heterosexuals’ were aroused to some child stimuli. But as you say, I take DSM5 with pinch of salt, They are not free from political pressure (homosexuality)

            Not sure the etiology of paedophilia, I reject that its a disease
            This may interest you though:

          • Pea

            “Kids do have sexual feelings and can orgasm (dry) before puberty”

            So? Really, George — so what? That’s purely physiological. Children, having improved upon their motor skills, figure out that when they touch certain places, it’s pleasurable. It’s no different than when they eat a cookie and go back for more because they enjoyed the taste.

            How does a child’s desire to re-seek purely physiological pleasure and achieve a purely physiological outcome from doing so mean that adults should be allowed to have sex with kids?

          • george

            I suppose sex is enjoyable (like eating a nice cookie) where are you going with that, I agree!
            How about a kid with another kid, Or slightly older, What age would you draw the line?

          • Pea

            LOL. George, there is a claim that, allegedly, pedophiles have lower average IQs than the general population. Wouldn’t you hate to prove that point? Because you’re coming dangerously close….

            Please answer the question, which was: “How does a child’s desire to re-seek purely physiological pleasure and achieve a purely physiological outcome from doing so mean that adults should be allowed to have sex with kids?”

            Can you do that, George, or is it too difficult?

            “What age would you draw the line?”

            The AOC in my state (I live in the U.S.) is 16. It’s a logical number — it’s the age of someone who is usually a sophomore (10th grade) or junior (11th grade) in high school. At 16, the attendant lack of impulse control that typifies “youth” is still there to a generous extent but it is balanced by an increased ability to delay gratification and be forward thinking. That’s not to say that at 16 every teen is responsible, but, proportionally speaking, there is more rational thinking done at that age than at younger ages. It’s just a reasonable marker between childhood and young adulthood.

            (I’ll add that young people shouldn’t be focusing on sex with other people anyway. They have their whole adult lives to have sex with other people, not to mention sex is far more enjoyable for a woman when she’s confident and knows who she is and what she wants. Young people should be focusing on school.)

            Yes, children, as they already do, should be permitted to experiment with other children. It’s natural and, largely, this is already allowed. However, I’d put some restrictions to avoid the abuse of younger kids by older ones — which can and does happen given basic cognitive differences between development stages. Kids 11-14, which are usually reflected in grades 6-8 (in America), and kids 14-17 (American grades 9-12) should not be legally restricted from experimentation — i.e., if they are in the same school (here, middle school and high school, respectively), it’s not legally forbidden. However, between the groups, and bearing in mind the cognitive differences at each age, there cannot be more than 2 years difference. So that would prevent a 17yo from having contact with every child in that first group, which could indicate tacit manipulation or even pedophilia. Essentially, the dominant factor is the children/teens being peers in the same environment (i.e., school).

            Now, none of this is to say that there shouldn’t be social restrictions on teen sex. Because, as I said, they have their whole adult lives for sex, love, and heartbreak; it’s a waste of time at that age. However, no adults allowed at those younger ages (the AOC at 16 would protect 18yo boyfriends or girlfriends, or other adults where the sex was consensual).

            Again, you don’t need a child for sex, and they certainly don’t need you….

          • george

            I wondered how long it would be before you started with the old cliches and ad-hominems

            Please answer the question, which was: “How does a child’s desire to re-seek purely physiological pleasure and achieve a purely physiological outcome from doing so mean that adults should be allowed to have sex with kids?”

            Maybe if both are in love, and as long as the man is not forcing anything on her. So I say, If they ‘want it’ why deny them. And for girls younger than 12, Nothing more that oral sex, and that is generous. I think you would find if the AOC was twelve, you’d be surprised how many men would show interest. Look at the short careers of models, Many start at 13 -14. I had a 16yo girlfriend, In some states, that would be seen as ‘abuse’

          • Kat

            A lot of victims of sexual violence are scarred exactly because they experience pleasure. People are abused and still get erections, ejaculations, orgasms. This is normal. However because of this the feelings of shame and guilt increse. People feel confused, blameworthy and dirty – they feel like they wanted it and that adds to the self-blame. I don’t know how in the view of that it should be allowed for kids to seek out purely physical pleasure. I’m still flabbergasted at how woefully ignorant you are about why unwanted sex is harmful. Or have conveniently decided to disregard it…

            I for one don’t know any man who wants to have sex with a twelve year old girl, and can only hope I’ll never meet one.

          • george

            “A lot of victims of sexual violence are scarred exactly because they experience pleasure”…Thankyou for making my point, This is not reserved to minors, Some men feel the same for enjoying the company of other men, And as a result, feel shame and question their masculinity. Though, its not always been like that, Note ancient Greeks, Very barbaric, Yet no masculinity issues it seems. And of course pederasty was highly valued, Much more than homosexuality. With all the ‘protectionist’ and victimology, I wouldn’t advise anyone to have a relationship with a minor, Maybe when attitudes change — and they do change despite peoples certitudes
            you think men don’t find adolescent girls attractive, well it seems men downplay their attractions

          • Pea

            It wasn’t so much an ad hominem attack as it was a warning, George. Personally I’ve never believed pedophiles had lower average IQs, but as you’re the only representative of your subspecies here, wouldn’t you prefer to not disabuse me of my faith?

            “So I say, If they ‘want it’ why deny them.”

            First of all, a prepubescent kid is not going to organically “want it” from an adult — at those ages, a child’s concept of an adult person is as an authority figure, not a “sex partner”. Kids will instead explore sexuality with each other. A child “wanting” sex with an adult would therefore have to have been exposed to that concept by an adult.

            As for pubescent children, even though they’re experiencing a flux of hormones that will increase sexual impulses, it’s still largely the same mindset: adults are authority figures and there is a chasm between the two groups. A kid may have a crush on an older person but, knowing of the gulf, they would still need to be prompted by the adult to do anything further. Children simply do not seek out adults for sexual contact!

            So, your argument that a child “wanting it” is some valid reason to allow pedophiles wholesale access to kids is pure junk from a fantasist. They don’t.

            I wasn’t going to point out the truism that deferring to a child’s whim is usually a bad idea (candy for breakfast, anyone?), but it is obvious that kids often don’t know what’s in their best interests (because they are developmentally immature). So it’s moot.

            “I think you would find if the AOC was twelve, you’d be surprised how many men would show interest.”

            Um, I doubt it.

            What’s wrong with the AOC being at 16? Why does it need to be at 12? Because a 16-year-old is “past their prime”?

            (And by the way, George, let’s not pretend you don’t like boys. I’ve read some of your other Disqus comments. Mentioning girls seems like some ruse you’re pulling, as if heterosexual pedophilia is more palatable. It’s not at all.)

          • george

            You are correct, It was not meant to be a ruse, Most paedophilia is man/girl related, Of course in all boy institutions it may seem like the opposite is true; As for me, I will not lie, I like all ages including adults, So I can have a sex-life within the law, Though I do think the law is an ass!

            Is horse riding or Judo in their ‘best interest’…The onus is on you lot…The anti to prove that there is something special about sex, and when I say sex, For those under twelve I do not mean coitus, Just light oral that they are not forced to do.

            You think kids do not fancy adults, I assume you are also talking adolescents here, considering the child abuse industry make no distinction, So why should I!
            We have so much hysteria about ‘internet grooming’ catch a predator etc, and don’t shift the blame onto ‘grooming’..The kids are often aware that the person they’re meeting is older etc, I don’t condone that though, I understand it can be dangerous, But that applies to lone men and women too.

            Often you will find kids do behave sexuality not just towards kids of the same age, But adults too, its just the adults respond with cold rejection, Even when their desires are at odds with what they’re thinking.

          • There is no mental and intellectual stimulation a 10 or 12-year-old girl would be able to offer a normal adult male. There is no “love”, it is merely lust in the man who is leading an impressionable young girl on. If a prepubescent girl ‘wanted it’, it would almost certainly be at the prompting of the adult, and if it wasn’t the adult should demur rather than risk the damage that molestation can inflict on the child (who, eventually, will discover that the adult wasn’t “in love” with her after all).

          • george

            You seem to underestimate girls of that age range, You can get a far more mature twelve year old then some eighteen year old’s
            Who are you to decide what is ‘love’ and who feels what, Should sex only be permitted when people are in love! How very Victorian. It seems Michael Jackson was in love with many of those boys; The only tragedy was when the relationships were discovered. I may as well bring back MJ since this site is about him, And he is a good example of man/boy relationships before society interferes.

          • George, I do not underestimate girls of that age range at all. And yes, it’s true that you can get a far more mature twelve-year-old then some eighteen-year-olds but that is a rare case, it is far more statistically likely that an 18-year-old is more intellectually mature than a 12-year-old.

            Should sex only be permitted when people are in love! How very Victorian.

            I was merely responding to your answer as to why adults should be allowed to have sex with kids – Maybe if both are in love – and nothing else. If you want to debate, do try and remember your answers from the day before.

            It seems Michael Jackson was in love with many of those boys; The only tragedy was when the relationships were discovered.

            There is no evidence that MJ was “in love” with those boys. He was only interested in them insofar as he could get what he wanted. If the boys didn’t cooperate or were reluctant, he played them off against one another or dropped them entirely; when they had outlived their usefulness he moved on to the next boy without explanation, (James Safechuck wrote of his heartache after being dropped by MJ for a younger Brett Barnes, leaving him emotionally shattered). MJ was only in it for himself and any benefits for the boys was incidental and a result of his grooming, much like most pedophile “relationships”.

          • george

            Its been a while since I read the book, So a bit rusty in places.
            About Safechuck, Was that not after the relationship was discovered, You understand there is only so much a human can take. Court cases, Money etc. Maybe he wasn’t in love but its obvious he was very attached to some.

            Many kids are capable of pleasure and can act upon their attraction, So there is no reason to deny them the freedom to choose, Even if its one in one thousand. The P.I.E from the 1970s had an age of consent at ten, Here in the UK that is still the criminal age of responsibility. Society wants its cake so to speak! The owner of ‘consenting humans’ blog has written a blog on here, I hope you will put it through moderation?

          • ShawntayUStay

            “Many kids are capable of pleasure and can act upon their attraction”

            Do you hear yourself? Sex, sex, sex. You really are proving the point discovered by researchers that pedophiles are unusually fixated on sex, above and beyond normal non deviant adults. Why? Why so obsessed? Why are you seeing children as sexual objects, George? Yet more questions you refuse to answer.

            “So there is no reason to deny them the freedom to choose, Even if its one in one thousand”

            What’s with this “choosing”? Kids do not organically seek out sex with adults. Stop deluding yourself! One in a thousand is definitely not good evidence that the law should change. So 999 children have to risk being predated upon by pedophiles emboldened by a new revised law because 1 child winked at an adult (which was probably just a friendly wink but pedos will see a kid bending over to tie their shoes as an invitation)? Uh…no.

            That’s what is so funny. Pedophiles always put the bulk of their behavior on the shoulders of the child. Talk about failing to responsibility for one’s actions! Yet another indication pedophilia is the result of maladaptive childhood experiences; the failure to take responsibility is the hallmark of most personality disorders, and criminals. It’s also very immature. Perhaps you folks are emotionally and sexually stunted which is why you go after kids?

          • Kids do not organically seek out sex with adults.

            Pedophiles need to frame their arguments under the pretext of “children’s rights” because nobody ever bought what they are truly peddling – pedophile’s “rights”. They then wrap this all up in a smokescreen of “sexual repressiveness”, even though the only sexual repression they object to is society disallowing them to act on their lust for children. For the most part, children are allowed to experiment sexually with each other, and if found out, are not exposed to harsh consequences from the law, and will only receive standard punishment from their parents should the parents object. I’m sure one of our pedophile visitors will step in here and give us some examples of teenagers who have been arrested for having sex with each other, or teenagers who have been arrested for possession of child porn because they have been found to have compromising images of their boyfriend or girlfriend (of the same age) on their phone, however these cases are not the norm nor are there similar cases in younger age ranges.

          • george

            “Why so obsessed”…We are discussing paedophilia are we not; That’s how discussions work, They stay on subject!

            If the law was relaxed, It does not mean people would be free to ‘molest’, Without reasonable consent; Like the NCCL proposals in the 1970s they put an AOC at age ten, Only if it can be demonstrated that the kid understood and was happy to continue. You are the deluded one if you think kids don’t find older adults 20s 30s sometimes older attractive; It is rather obvious.

          • A ridiculous concept, that even a sizable percentage of 10-year-old children would have the cognitive ability to consent to sex with an adult, and consider the consequences; or even that 10-year-olds yearn to have sex with adults without prompting. That’s why this will never happen.

          • george

            All you need to do is read stories from homosexuals (I’ll stay with boys, Cos this is about MJ the boylover) Many are interested even before puberty, Adrenarche (mini-puberty) But when they hit puberty, The interest intensifies. most ten year old’s do understand what sex is, So long as they’re not pressured in the way of threats, violence etc. If its all about cognitive ability, You would have to deny people with mental disabilities. There was one case where one disabled person had the mental age of 8.5 and it was decided they could give simple consent to sex with his homosexual partner.

          • ShawntayUStay

            MJ dumped of many of his boys way before “society” interfered and exposed him on 1993. He was doing the typical pedo “pump and dump”, using these boys as objects. You clearly know very little about MJ, about how he saw children as objects existing solely to make his mood better. He was very narcissistic, as are most pedophiles because they only care about themselves and not the children. You been proving that point this whole time, too, George!

          • george

            Were Jackson’s relationships with boys harmful?

            They do not appear to have been coercive in a physical sense, although Jackson was manipulative (e.g., crying after rejection). He also apparently led Jordie Chandler to believe that Jordie could get into legal trouble if they were found out. O’Carroll thinks that it is telling that, inmost cases, the boys remained friendly with Jackson long after they were spending much time together. O’Carroll does not seem to believe that Jackson’s sexual attention was notably harmful to any child; however, he is critical of Jackson for his treatment of some parents. Jackson could be cruel in encouraging his boyfriends to ignore other important people in their lives and to focus their love and attention on him.

            As a parent, I can imagine how hurtful and enraging this would be. The child most clearly harmed by his relationship with Michael Jackson was Jordie Chandler, who believed, at various times, that he had betrayed his best friend, lost his best friend, and been betrayed by his best friend. After the settlement, Jordie became estranged from his mother and had an acrimonious relationship with his father until the latter committed suicide in 2009.

            But O’Carroll assigns most of the blame to Evan and society, who he argues collaborated to make a complicated, forbidden situation much worse than it would have been — worse for both Jackson and Jordie. Evan, a dentist, extracted Jordie’s confession during a painful dental procedure and then compelled him to cooperate in the case against Jackson, despite Jordie’s heart break. O’Carroll plausibly argues that this represented child abuse. Jordie Chandler remains a haunting and haunted figure who has not spoken publicly about the events or their aftermath.

            Pedophiles in general, and Jackson in particular, have been accused of exploiting children in their preferred age ranges and then abandoning them when they get too old to be attractive. In general, Jackson does not appear to have abandoned his boy friends in this way ,although one observer noted that he seemed to have ‘‘boys of the year.’’ He remained good friends with many of the boys he appeared romantically obsessed with, even after they grew up. (Chandler is the major exception, but that was not Jackson’s choice.)

            O’Carroll suggests that this is the natural course in pedophilic relationships, at least with boys. This is because most of the boys will become heterosexual men and their heterosexual interests will rapidly replace any romantic or sexual interest in the pedophile.

            O’Carroll believes that at times Jackson flaunted his pedophilia because, as one of the most famous, beloved, and wealthiest men in the world, he could. O’Carroll is disappointed that Jackson passed up the opportunity publicly to defend his pedophilia, choosing instead to deny it. However, had Jackson done the former, it is difficult to imagine any end other than the rapid deterioration of his legacy.

            Jackson was not as thoughtful or articulate as O’Carroll, whose mission is as quixotic as they come

          • Much of this is false, Tom O’Carroll saw only what he wanted to see.

            Jordan realised he had been manipulated by Michael Jackson into having sex

            Wade Robson said the same

            James Safechuck was treated terribly by Jackson once the pop star’s sexual interest waned

          • george

            Its been a while since I read the book, But how long after are we talking. I remember one of them being interviewed after his death Accusing MJ of ‘abuse’, But you can’t ignore any possible financial motives.

          • Kat

            I don’t know if you’re actually oblivious to the harmful effects of CSA or have simply decided to ignore the reality of them because it doesn’t fit well with your beliefs. Anyway you should educate yourself about depression, post traumatic stress disorder, low self esteem and many other problems that plague the lives of people who were molested.

            Only a person with no moral compass would seek to engage in sex with children. Even among pedophiles there are many who don’t act on their attraction to kids, because they know it’s wrong and a crime. It’s only the remaining few that are demanding for it to be perfectly fine, because according to them children aren’t harmed by it. The rest of the population (that would be around 99%) have made it illegal and realize the negative effects of adults having sex with kids.

          • george

            Oh I do, But what is the causality, Many factors to consider, societies negative message, taboo, Victim label, physical abuse etc. The negative effects are in the Rind study, But when consensual with no coercion the effects were different. So if kids cannot consent, Why should coercion make a difference?

      • ShawntayUStay

        Research seems to suggest people interested in sex with children are much more obsessed with sex than the average person (it’s likely some form of OCD). Why is that; why are you so obsessed? Most pedophile activists seem to fit the bill, obsessed not only with sex but also with the idea of the allegedly soul-crushing dangers of so called “sexual repression”. Pedophilia is a fetish; you see children as sexual objects, not as sentient beings with emotions.

        You claim the hysteria against pedophilia is manufactured, and I’d agree that is true to a certain extent in the sense the most common form of child abuse in the United States is neglect and physical abuse (they account for over 80% of all cases) and yet no one covers this in the media to any degree of similarity because, unfortunately, I believe many people have a prurient interest in child sex abuse (e.g. online vigilantes like the “Pedophile Hunter” guy, “Perverted Justice” and NBC’s “To Catch a Predator”). It’s why this stuff still happens: (a must read for anyone who claims to care about children)

        But it cannot be denied that there is a particularly repulsive aspect to the notion an adult would choose to take out his/her own sexual desires on a child. There’s an inherent imbalance of not only power but also interest; the kid has to be groomed if he or she is pre pubertal.

        And whose children are you pedophiles going to go after? Your own, or other people’s? Most pedophiles have little to no access to children, a reality that causes even more obsession with children and preoccupation with sex. Tom O’Carroll and other pedo activists talk about the destructiveness of the family and how children are “owned” like chattel, not allowed or free to “roam” into the arms of pedophiles! And I say “So what!” These are their children and they are “owned” because they were made by the parents and carried in the womb of the mother for 9 months; no outsider has any right to a parent’s child, especially for sex. Pedophiles cannot get around the protection imbued by the family so they want to lower the age of consent; this takes away any control by the parent. But it’s a lost cause. So… whose kids are you going to go after?

        • george

          I suppose the homosexuals seemed ‘obsessed’ before 1967, don’t they ever stop hanging around those toilets!

          “whose kids are we going after”..hopefully none at the moment, For those that value liberty.

          Thankyou for proving a point that I always point out on this matter; Parents see their kids as property!

          Of course we see kids as sentient beings, This objectifying BS is not reserved to looking at kids, its about all men who enjoy looking at porn.

          • ShawntayUStay

            No, pedophiles are absolutely more obsessed with sex than the average male, for example. Look at yourself! You’ve said nothing but “Lower the age of consent” (SEX), “Kids can orgasm” (SEX), “sex is enjoyable” (SEX), etc etc. Your comments further demonstrate that most pedophiles, if not instructed to try to stop being pedophiles with CBT, are no more than a big pulsating genital! Why is that? Perhaps you have internalized your so called sexual repression you claim to have experienced when you were younger she knew you just can’t get over it and have run in the opposite direction. It is the evil “sexual repression” you folks rail against, correct? Many have also grew up in a less sexually promiscuous society and have turned out well (i.e. not sexually deviant), so it clearly isn’t the problem. What is?

            Why fixate on kids? Why not on adults? Don’t give me you see kids as sentient emotional beings when all you people care about is whether you can have an orgasm with them and not go to prison over it. That’s pure objectification! Kids are sexual objects to pedophiles. You could only come up with the benefit of “less stigma for pedophiles” when pressed, saying nothing at all about a benefit (there is none) for the children. Completely selfish and only thinking about it from the pedophile’s point of view. Typical pedophile narcissist.

            Yes, men who watch porn obsessively are likely losers and probably have a hard time in relationships, but it’s not the same thing at all. Normal adults don’t solely view their partners for sex. They desire spiritual and intellectual companionship, love, friendship, co parenting offspring. What do pedophiles want? Considering a pedophile has specific age preferences, and those dictate whether he/she will be sexually aroused only, pedos aren’t looking for anything long term. They dump the kid once he or she has outgrown sexual usefulness. So it’s only about sexual gratification. Kids haven’t the emotional or intellectual maturity to stimulate an adult.

            As for parents, that’s right, the child is theirs! Theirs to love and protect and teach and help grow into hopefully law abiding, functional happy adults. That’s the goal of every parent of any species. If the protection provided by a parent is seen as ownership, just because you and your ilk can’t get your grubby hands on them, so be it. It’s the parents’ job! But what would a pedophile know about the genuine love, care, and protection given by a parent to their offspring? You only see children as a means to an end, the end being an ejaculation.

          • george

            Before I comment further, I think you need to address your ignorance on the subject; Here is 18 misconceptions about paedophiles, Maybe you will show some decorum after reading this, But I won’t hold my breath!

          • ShawntayUStay

            A pedophile website? That’s not a legitimate source, and especially considering the immensity of the general human capacity for denial and self deception, this capacity is more than likely higher in populations with aberrant behavior patterns.

            And the website says don’t generalize about pedophiles being bad but it basically wants those who read that page to generalize in the opposite direction, to think of “most pedophiles” as harmless. It’s laughably absurd. If I can find one pedophile whose actions disprove every point he listed, his argument is moot. And that’s a simple feat, George.

            It’s not an orientation. It’s a fetish, look up what that is if you’re confused. You can keep telling yourself that it isn’t, though, but it doesn’t make it true. Tell me what evolutionary, biological purpose does having sex with prepubescent children serve? Females are not reproductively viable, and male children cannot have offspring. Plus, pedophiles are primarily concerned with sexual arousal/stimulation when it comes to children — they aren’t contributing to any advancement of the species with their behavior.

            Decorum…well excuse me but I’ve never talked to a pedophile. It’s quite understandable I’d have negative reactions to a fully grown man wanting to have sex with children. Sue me. Plus, you’ve squirmed out if thoughtfully answering most questions put forth to you. That’s annoying and counter productive.

            All I want to know is why pedophiles are like this (etiology), and most importantly, why target children? If you pedophiles (especially the exclusive types) think adults are too reprehensible in appearance and/or manner, why should a child be subjected to such a monstrosity, forced/groomed to have the old wrinkled body of a Tom O Carroll, for instance, on top of them? You see that logic? Pedophiles are essentially despising themselves. Yet more proof it’s a dysfunction of the mind and not an orientation.

          • george

            “Tell me what evolutionary, biological purpose does having sex with prepubescent children serve”…Again, I could just flip that onto the recently liberated LGBT movement, Maybe they need to add a H and a P on the end of that acronym!

            You dismiss that website just because it belongs to ‘a pedo’..Please try and attack his arguments, They can still be legitimate when coming from bias.

            As for O’Carroll, Maybe he’s seen better days, So I guess he would not get the attention from young girls that a younger guy in his 20s and 30s would get; Think Brad Pit

            As for an evolutionary; its all speculation just like homosexuality, You could argue, Like homosexuality, There is no reproduction. Africa’s population will soon be one billion people, How can we sustain huge explosions of population growth, With around only 400, 000 elephants in competition for landmass, They will loose!
            Also…This is just speculation, But some say when we were hunter gatherers, We would look after and teach lone children, who could help us later, Remember the short lifespan they endured.

          • ShawntayUStay

            I did not dismiss that pedo’s website. You clearly lack reading comprehension. I said he’s not a legitimate source because he’s, like most deviants, self deceptive. I said he’s generalizing in the opposite direction, and wants us to assume most pedophiles are harmless. He’s absurd. I can find an example to all his points that would render them moot because all it takes is one. Why? Since pedophilia is by its very nature pointless and absurd, one example of harm is all that’s needed to sanction it. The burden of proof is on you people.

            But you still haven’t addressed my question: Why do you and your pedo brethren target children for sexual activity? To make it easier for you, think about your own motivations. See, it’s funny to me you haven’t answered this question when you pedos are apparently desperate to shake off the monster label. So convince us, the majority population, why a teeny 1% sized group of people should have unfettered access to other people’s kids?

            Oh, and tell me this, George. In your “I’m attracted to all ages” mind, you think pedophilia is fine and dandy. But does your logic extend? Let’s compare to other mammals. Do you think it’s okay for an adult dog to mate with a puppy? A bull with a calf? A silverback gorilla with a baby gorilla? A buck with a fawn? A lion with a cub?

            Before you cry false equivalency, it isn’t. The generation time of these animals is sped up so they are analogous to the developmental stages of human children — the ones pedophiles believe they should have the right to have sexual activity with. Do you think these adult-child pairings are acceptable? If not, how is what you’re advocating any less ridiculous?

          • george

            “A silverback gorilla with a baby gorilla”..Your really scraping the barrel with this one. Try researching the Bonobo, See how they practice incest, and you will find similar with many primates and mammals.

            “: Why do you and your pedo brethren target children for sexual activity”..sorry to disappoint you but I don’t ‘target’ anyone, You fantasist!

            I could say homosexuality is pointless, But that these days is seen as a hate crime. Good job you have the ‘pedo’ to vent all your frustrations on, sexual or otherwise!
            Also we are far more than 1% when you bring minor-attraction (kids who have started puberty) Then its a much larger demographic.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Aww, yet another refusal to answer questions! Not surprised. Must be that dastardly low IQ Blanchard and Cantor found amongst pedophiles!

            Incest? I gave you relevant examples of proposed pairings between older and younger animals in a species, and you mention incest amongst Bonobo apes (I won’t even get into how absurd it is to apply human behavior labels to animal behavior). I get it, you know it’s completely unconscionable for those sexual pairings to ever take place. So why not just say it? So if it’s obviously absurd, how can’t it be to have sex with a child?

            Here I’ll make it easy: Why do you desire/seek out/are attracted to preferentially children as sexual partners? Etiology? Try to take a stab at the question.

            Minor attracted…okay, dude. The percent of individuals preferentially attracted to children is tiny. Teeny, teeny, tiny. Hey, if you give us your name and address, I’m sure we can locate you in the UK and find a way to get you a first class ticket to Coalinga hospital in California. You’ll be in good company for a very very long time!

          • george

            Ok you want more species that mate with the young; Stick this in your pipe:

      • Pea

        “There is no proof consensual pleasure is harmful for all ages, again see Rind 1998.”

        Yes, Rind et. al. may have demonstrated that some definitions of “child sexual abuse” fail to imprint upon some victims long-enduring trauma. However, they did not prove that pedophiles should be indulged their peccadilloes and allowed sexual access to kids. Sorry, no study has proven that — “no harm” does not indicate “benefit”.

        “kids maybe more harmed by society’s suppressed,
        self-denying, ignorant attitudes towards sex – especially where kids are
        concerned – than they are by the actual sexual activity itself.”

        Meh. Even if I was to be generous and argue, theoretically, that your position was the case, in what way does the banishment of sexual “suppression”, “self-denial”, and “ignorance” justify adults being allowed to have sex with children? Not seeing the connection there, George — the aforementioned society can easily exist while also making sure pedophiles are punished for crossing boundaries.

        But do enlighten us on how “wrong” we are….

        • george

          Now change paedophilia with homosexuality, They were the same blinkered arguments — and let me tell you, Homosexuals were seen as the danger to kids, the corruption of youth, the old videos are on Youtube.

  • Please allow time for moderation. We are busy and don’t intensively tend to the site.

    I don’t believe your stance is neutral, and as this is a benign dictatorship and not a democracy, forget the “free speech” mantra. This is not a place to promote pedophilia.

  • ShawntayUStay

    Neutral stance on pedophilia my ass, George. I’m all for free expression of opinions — even controversial ones — but let’s not pretend you are neutral. This is a comment you wrote, correct?

    • george

      I agree with that (I said it lol) Still not sure what your point it, self interest is a ‘strawman’ In that my argument may still have merit. I am neutral in that some acts of paedophilia are bad, But just like other orientations (homosexuality is prison rape) there is good and bad. That’s pretty neutral I’d say.

      • ShawntayUStay

        My point is you are not neutral for the purposes of this discussion. You support pedophilia in all its iterations.

        Do you mean homosexuality in prison rape? Or are you really suggesting it’s akin to prison rape?

        • george

          I’m just treating homosexuality with the same ignorance that you are with paedophilia.

          • ShawntayUStay

            You aren’t. It was a typo. I get it.

            Please enlighten all of us about the origins of pedophilia and why it’s not savage. You folks spend so much time chatting to each other using fakes names and identities but really — if your claim about the “normalcy” of pedophilia is true — you should be speaking to the masses.

            So, what are the origins of this behavior and why should we care enough to treat pedophilia the same way homosexuality has been treated nowadays? And again: whose children are you going to be molesting? Mine or your own? Because I’ll tell you right now… it won’t be mine!

  • Kat

    Children and young teens may be sexual and curios about sex, and masturbating, but that doesn’t mean they are ready for a full-on sexual relationship, especially with an adult. Studies show that girls nowadays are developing earlier and getting their first period at the age of twelve for example, when a hundred years ago or so sixteen or seventeen was the standard age. There’s no way a twelve year old is a mature person ready for mature things, even if she may technically be considered a woman.

    Also, only a tiny proportion of the population is in fact attracted to children and someone like Carl Toms is a pedophile writing books for other pedophiles. They are a marginalised group that wants to be accepted into the society. That doesn’t change the fact that from a medical standpoint pedophilia is considered a disorder, even if there’s no cure for it.

    • george

      Well regarding the age of consent, In England the AOC was indeed twelve for centuries, It was raised because of child prostitution in England’s major cities. Girls can start puberty around nine to ten, So an age of consent at twelve is about right. We know girls married off around that age, did they need to be mature then? There is nothing magical about sex!

      You are wrong, Not all men are paedophiles, But many are ‘minor attracted’…those that have started puberty, check this link out on the subject:

      As for Tom’s book, its not just for paedophiles, its free for anyone to read!

      • Kat

        Apparently you fail to understand that puberty and going through the process of becoming an adult is not the same as real maturity and ability to make adult decisions, with full understanding of consequences of one’s actions. Human brain is still developing even when a person is about to turn twenty, hence kids and teens should be protected from their inability to make wise decisions and judgments.

        The vast majority of men have no interest in wedding a twelve year old girl, I’m sure the same was true when child brides were OK to have. Men with normally developed psychology and sexuality desire to be with real women that have adult bodies and minds.

        • george

          Then you should lobby to get the AOC raised to 25 though, the brain doesn’t stop until around 25 So maybe you think the AOC should be that, Since sex is so dangerous that it may cause such trauma to a developing brain?

  • Michael Jeffrey

    George,have you ever talked to a survivor of so-called “the child wanted it as well”-abuse?Well,here you have someone.I was molested as a young boy and I was not fighting it of…my whole youth afterwards was still a mess! I said “yes”,but only because I wanted to have a father figure (my dad died when I was 5!).My abuser did take care of me,like a dad would & I still have mixed feelings for him-I do hate and like him.
    Regarding MJ,have you seen Wade Robson’s interview and have you read how much James suffered ? They both protected MJ,but they suffered,after the abuse.Their life was a mess.How do you know how his other defenders feel? How do you know if Jonathan is okay? Just because they are defending MJ,it doesn’t mean that they are not psychologically harmed by him! Take it from me,I am in my 20s now,still have major trust issues,because the man I loved so much,used me for his sexual needs when I was only a child.Because of all the years he took care of me (like a dad),I still have positive,sometimes even loving feelings for him.With MJ’s other victims it is the same,just like Wade and James reported.You suffer because they use your brain that didn’t even know what sex is (especially same-gender sex!!).It harms,at least in 90% of all cases (there are indeed cases were no harm is caused but that is a really small number and it’s mostly only kids who were young teens)

    PLEASE,never say again that you are for that,it broke my heart,when I read your comments.U have never been through it,so please keep your mouth closed.

    There is no way to compare it to homosexuality.Gays love each other (a kid does love the abuser like a mentor etc but not like a partner!) and they both know exactly what sex is,so they can have it.

    • ShawntayUStay

      “Regarding MJ,have you seen Wade Robson’s interview and have you read how
      much James suffered ? They both protected MJ,but they suffered,after
      the abuse.Their life was a mess.”

      You know, I’ve been thinking. I agree James suffered, but I’m not so sure about Wade. I personally think he was never “harmed” by the entire relationship, save the current and understandable embarrassment he has now. I think his “anguish” is more the result of the removal of the “Michael Jackson Effect” on his career after MJ died. Wade Robson was only popular and sought over because he had MJ in his back pocket as a reference. Let’s be honest. He could say “I know Michael, he’ll put in a good word for me” and he probably knew that would make him standout in the world of choreography. It’s not as if this guy was the best choreographer by a long shot. But he still had this relationship with the King of Pop to his credit. I think his realization of the loss of the “MJ effect” was felt shortly before his first breakdown. Fans talk about the Cirque de Soleil show and the fact he talked about it as if he had the job in the bag, only to be passed up by Jaime King.

      I’m not suggesting Wade wasn’t molested; I think he was absolutely. I just think his motivations for speaking out have more to do with the trauma resulting from his career downturn rather than what actually occurred between he and MJ behind closed doors.

  • ShawntayUStay

    Is this fake news, or is it real? When I looked it up, it seems to be fake news associated with making Hillary Clinton look bad.

  • CandyC

    You are grasping at straws, George. Pedophilia will never be seen as socially or morally acceptable in the near future. As others have pointed out, it causes significant harm both mentally and sometimes physically to the child being abused (and it is abuse).

    Why are you even here? No one here, as far as I know, is pro-pedophilia what-so-ever and debating to the commenters here will never change that stance they have.

    Pedophilia is an extremely selfish fetish that takes advantage of a naive, inexperienced, innocent child for the sake of the adults sexual pleasure. So far all of your so called arguments have pointed to you solely being interested in sex with underage children, like most pedophiles.

    Pedophilia will never be accepted on a major scale, even homosexuals still find it difficult and that’s an adult to adult relationship and to boot it’s legal, unlike the former.

    • george

      Ha ha…Don’t assume all time leads to now, Think suffragettes, Homosexuals, working class having a vote, Blacks sitting on the front of the bus etc, But I agree about other countries regarding homosexuality, They are often more concerned about that then paedophilia in some places.

      Its only in the west we have this obsession and hatred of paedophilia, Other developing countries are to busy, well, developing! As for it being illegal, If that’s not a strawman I don’t know what is; Example; it was illegal for blacks to sit in front of busses, also it was once legal to keep a slave, So why are you using the legality as some sort of moral compass?

      • Kat

        Homophobia and racism are entirely different, IMO. It’s too complicated to delve into the history of these things, I think suffice is to say that people realised prejudice and discrimination does more bad than good. Or a lot of bad and no good at all. Then there’s also the issue of human rights, and establishing equality for all humans is the reason why discrimination was fought against and discriminatory laws abolished.

        All of that is very different from pedophilia, as you can see. It went from being unacknowledged and unregulated not that long ago to being made a felony crime. Not just because people who were molested were left damaged by these experiences, but also because specialists studied children and their brains, and concluded that they don’t have the capacity to consent.

        Many experts have also expressed the belief that pedophilia will never be acceptable, not many years in the future. Not just because it’s clearly damaging to someone who isn’t developmentally ready for sex, but also because being attracted to children is just not normal, no matter what day and age you’re living in.

        It’s doesn’t really make a strong point if all you do to try to prove you’re right is suggest we read books authored by pedophiles and visit pedophile websites. Perhaps you should read accounts of people who were sexually abused instead – some of the stories easily found on the internet are truly harrowing.

        • george

          “studied children and their brains”….What study was that, pedo-hysteria goes back to the 1970s with the rise of 2nd wave feminism, And radical feminists jumped on the bandwagon of ‘child-abuse, Which later got replaced by ‘child sexual abuse, DESPITE PHYSICAL/EMOTIONAL ABUSE FAR MORE COMMON. But what better way to bash men!
          Then you have all the satanic ritual abuse that came from America, With psychologists claiming repressed memory syndrome. Look up the Mcmartin preschool hysteria — By this time the evil pedo has developed into public consciousness, and soon across the pond to the UK.

          Again…,those studies you refer to are usually clinical, And focus on the worst case like ‘children who have early sexual experiences suffer harm’…’their brain is still developing’..with nothing objective to offer in the way of proof. There is plenty of pseudoscience on this matter — and when exposed for the BS it is, all hell breaks loose, I refer back to the Rind study 1998

          • Kat

            The McMartin preschool case was a unique occurance; Michael Jackson’s sleazebag of a lawyer Tom Meserau likes to mention that case as some kind of proof that instances of false child sexual abuse claims are rampant, when in fact the opposite is true. In contrast to a rare McMartin case when allegations were proven to be false there are countless instances of real CSA cases not going anywhere. The child never reports, the perpetrator is never punished, the criminal case goes nowhere due to a lack of evidence.

            Physical abuse and bullying are common, and they are being addressed in the modern world. See the numerous celebrities that have spoken out against bullying, the ‘It Gets Better’ campaign, and so on. But child sexual abuse is actually a crime – its effects are so detrimental that they harm the welfare of the society at large, not just individual people, therefore it must be made illegal and punished severely. It’s preposterous to claim that something which is outlawed in contemporary developed world isn’t actually damaging. Should we make murder, rape, kidnapping and arson legal as well? Or maybe drugs should be sold freely? If the damaging consequences of CSA are fictional and results of propaganda and paranoia, as you say, then I’m sure the reasoning can be applied to all other serious crimes. There is no real harm, it’s all just a giant conspiracy!

            And if children would be given the right to consent to sex, then should they also be given all other grownup rights? Should kids be allowed to vote, buy a house, drive a car, hold a job, have free access to alcohol and cigarettes? It seems ludicrous to me – children don’t have the maturity to handle such responsibilities just as they can’t handle sex with adults.

            Again lots of what you say comes down to only one thing – you’re either ignorant of or completely ignoring the actual harm molestation causes kids. I suggest you educate yourself about this and maybe then we can have some sort of a discussion. Try watching YouTube videos of talk shows with CSA victims as guests, and then try to tell me these people weren’t left deeply scarred by what happened to them.

          • george

            Driving machinery is completely different to consenting to sexual stimulation. But I will say, Growing up in an agricultural environment, I was riding quad bikes from the age of nine, and driving tractors at fourteen. These are false equivalences though.

            Smoking IS harmful, Safe sex is not. Again, I smoked at ten, But soon stopped off my own accord, When the danger warnings were there.

            In family law (in the UK at least) Kids are granted more rights the older they get, Like treatment to change their gender, What parent they want to stay with during divorce proceedings etc. Therefore they should be granted more autonomy over their sex lives.

            As for ‘harm’…its getting rather tedious now, Studies that report on consensual adult/child relations have a different result which they NEVER show in media, Only to condemn.

          • Again lots of what you say comes down to only one thing – you’re either ignorant of or completely ignoring the actual harm molestation causes kids.

            George and his ilk are living in an echo chamber, only listening to opinions which confirm their stance and dismissing other arguments as being a result of a “sexually repressed society” or a “lack of children’s rights”. They believe that any harm is a result of society’s attitudes to child molestation, not the molestation itself. They are deluded and self-serving.

  • george

    Here is a review of ‘Dangerous Liaisons’, About Michael Jackson’s relations with boys

  • Your arguments are spurious at best.

    – Less taxes spent on needlessly incarcerating males. This could then be spent on more useful activities such as healthcare or tax breaks.

    It is not “needless” incarceration. Man (and women) who choose to break the age of consent laws know that it is possible they will be caught and jailed. Whilst one could make the argument, as you attempt to, that relaxing age of consent laws would result in lower incarceration rates, the same could be said for stealing, drug, or assault offences. Society puts laws in place, if enough people disagree with them they are changed. Nobody of consequence can see any overall benefit in allowing adults to have sex with children so these laws will not be changing anytime soon.

    – Less human suffering for those caught in the merciless state machinery. The United States has nearly 1 million registered sex offenders. ONE MILLION!!!

    It is not “state machinery”. The age of consent laws are exactly as society wants them.

    – The families of convicted sex offenders, particularly their children, are also punished as a consequence. This results in children living in poverty, being bullied at school and generally have a hard start in life.

    Even more reason for adults to resist their urges to molest children.

    See this girl’s story for instance (she is a child of a falsely accused sex offender)

    One story does not change a thing. In contrast to that one story, there are millions of stories of children damaged by adults molesting them.

    – More male teachers (as male teachers won’t have to fear being jailed on spurious child molestation charges anymore) giving boys better role models to help close the “education gender gap” whereby boys underachieve compared to girls

    Male teachers who follow child safety protocols put in place by education departments around the world do not need to fear “spurious child molestation charges”.

    – Improved inter-generational knowledge transfer. Allowing youths to form deep meaningful relationships with older partners will allow them to learn important life skills that otherwise would be much harder to come by.

    Adults do not need to have sex with children in order to teach them important life skills.

  • Apart from the fact that there is a real chance children will be harmed by sexual contact with adults, and that there is absolutely no reason for adults to have sex with children, this will not work because there are unscrupulous pedophiles who will groom children into believing they want to have sex with their “adult friend”. This is no edge case — it is acquaintance molester MO to do just that.

  • Trying to compare pedophilia with homosexuality is false equivalency. What consenting adults do together sexually is of no concern to anybody else; when adults who have an obsession with having sex with children attempt to complete their aims by convincing naive, trusting and easily manipulated boys or girls whose brains are not able to cognitively realise the long term consequence of their actions (nor ascertain the true agenda of the adult who is subtly pressuring them to give the adult what he wants).

    Much of what you said is true – that children need role models, mentors, friends, and that some children can feel unloved, unappreciated, and disrespected. Nevertheless, society does not need pedophiles who want to have sex with children to fill that void.

    • george

      You make it out like ‘sex’ is all we want, That ‘we’ somehow are never interested in them emotionally, Sexuality is only one part of the picture. I refer back to MJ it seems they enjoyed many activities, Sex (which was for the vast part oral) was just one part.

      • Kat

        How is oral sex performed without agreement any better that penetration performed without agreement? All unwanted sexual activity is bad, including indecent exposure, when a child is exposed to a grown man’s erect penis, for instance. That’s sexual abuse too, even if no physical contact is involved.

        • george

          Answer…It is not if the child’s wishes are being respected. Some young boys and girls would be interested in the male penis. When you listened to sexual experiences of gay men describing their first sexual interests, some have described just wanting to see and touch a mans penis.

      • The principal motive for pedophiles is sexual gratification. That negates any interest (real or feigned) in a child’s emotional development.

        • george

          The principal motive for homosexuals is sexual gratification; And don’t start the ‘consenting adults’….That is a fallacy!

          • That is not the principal motive for homosexuals, because homosexuality is not a paraphilia. Pedophilia is defined as intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children.

          • george

            But it was not so long back, That’s one example of how science is not free from political pressure. I do believe they were going to class P as orientation without going through the info again, But backed down due to political pressure, and vilification from religious groups.

          • ShawntayUStay

            You know, I wonder what is driving the largely quiet push to reevaluate pedophilia in the psychological community. My hunch is someone — who is sexually attracted to children — strongly desires the ability to be allowed to pursue his fetish without threat of legal repercussions. And this individual (or individuals) is persuasive and intelligent enough to sway others to their point of view.

            Of course it’s a gradual thing because it’s so alien in our modern world to want to exclusively have sex with prepubescent children, so this individual would first have to convince people that pedophilia is not a disorder/fetish/paraphilia but something “immutable”; that the people with pedophilia are not subhuman animals but largely “normal”….etc etc.

            Considering that some CSA researchers like Susan Clancy was funded by World Bank to try to invalidate the idea that most CSA is harmful, it makes me very suspicious who’s behind this. Rind is very obviously a pedophile supporter (or “minor attracted” person himself). Dr James Cantor clearly does not condone pedophilia at all, but since he’s a homosexual man desperate to dissolve the link between pedophilia and homosexuality in the minds of the public, he goes too far to suggest (with crap evidence) it’s a neurobiological (i.e. immutable) issue while basically ignoring more probable environmental factors. As a result, he’s allowing his theories (which are garbage by and large but considering he’s one of the few researchers, he’s important) to be used to advance a slippery slope false argument.

            If you call it a sexual orientation but still say it’s wrong, should be classified as a mental illness in the DSM, etc, logically someone can say “If it’s a sexual orientation and immutable, how can be justify ‘denying’ them the ability to live their lives?” Erroneously calling pedophilia an orientation, like being gay, is dangerous because it’s ignoring more likely explanations to satisfy political objectives (such as Cantor’s), at the expense of child safety. It’s horribly frightening.

            I fear this is a “He who has the gold makes the rules” situation. Allegedly, one of the reasons Catalan Spanish near Barcelona is spoken with a slight lisp on certain words is due to the King of Spain having a lisp and imposing the pronunciation on the public. Not sure if it’s true, but it would show, just like communist brainwashing and cults, that a leader or persuasive person can convince people to do whatever this individual wants done. And it could be normalizing pedophilia.

          • Mélanie

            People are trying to normalize pedophilia. And, they use the same arguments that have successfully convinced society to embrace homosexuality.
            Does genetics determine morality?

            A major argument of the homosexual lobby is that attraction for the same sex is genetically determined, that people are born homosexual. Because if this is the case, the next argument is that if you say that homosexuality is bad, you are as hateful and fanatical as if you condemn someone for the color of his skin.

            Gay activists denounce any effort to change someone’s sexual orientation as morally reprehensible (reprehensible only if it’s a change to heterosexuality, because I’ve never heard a homosexual say that it would be a mistake To persuade a heterosexual to become homosexual). After all, how can you try to change someone’s genetic destiny? They believe that, morally, the right thing is a full unrestricted expression of this supposed innate tendency.

            So if genetics determines morality, this notion has some serious implications.

            The mastodon of today’s homosexual orientation began as a small movement. Now there is another small movement that is developing more strongly, a movement that wants to extend the same kind of genetic morality argument to a new group of people: Pedophiles. These are people who are sexually attracted to children.

            Michael L. Brown, author of the book A Queer Thing Happened to America, wrote in The Christian Post: “Some psychiatric leaders who helped remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders of the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 Fought to remove pedophilia as a mental disorder also, not to justify child abuse, but rather, to say that being sexually attracted to children is not a mental disorder. (28 September)

            “Many researchers take a different view on pedophilia,” reported the Los Angeles Times on January 14, 2013. “Pedophilia was once thought to come from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts consider it a profound predisposition that does not change “.

            “The Toronto Center for Mental Health and Addictions scientists have discovered a series of associations that suggest pedophilia has biological roots,” the Times reports, adding that more and more people are accepting the view that Pedophilia is “a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. The Times cites a man who was arrested for child pornography by saying that the court ordered him to go on therapy. “These people felt they could stifle this desire, or make them ashamed to the point of denying their existence,” the Times said. “But, it is as intrinsic as the heterosexuality of the next person. ”
            In his book, Michael Brown documents how the main arguments that have successfully normalized homosexuality now support the normalization of pedophilia. The Christian Post report lists eight of them:

            Pedophilia is innate and immutable; People are born this way and can not change.
            Pederasty is richly attested in many different cultures throughout history.
            The assertion that sexual relations between adults and children cause harm is largely exaggerated and often completely inaccurate.
            Sex between adults and children can actually be beneficial for the child.
            Pederasty should not be classified as a mental disorder because it does not cause distress to the pederast to have these desires and the pederast can function normally as a contributing member of society.
            Many of the illustrious homosexuals of the past were pedophiles.
            People are against intimacy between generations due to archaic social norms and puritanical sexual phobias.
            All this is about love, equality and liberation.
            Look again at each of these arguments and replace pedophilia or pederasty with homosexuality. This is exactly the kind of reasoning that has favorably normalized and touted homosexuals.

            You might think that this practice will never become legal, even less popular. But in 2005, how many people thought they could one day see the White House bathed in the colors of the homosexual flag?

            However, with pedophilia, there is a twist to the argument. It’s not simple, we’re born that way, so you do not have to judge us. They add this: And, do not worry, we are not a threat to your children.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Sorry,Melanie, for the long comment!

            I agree with everything you just said. I’ve looked into all of this and it’s true the narrative being advanced is exactly the same one used by LGBT activists, who actually were doing their own spin on the civil rights movements for Blacks in the US and the women’s rights movement of the 1960s. I mean, it’s a successful bit of logic: if the characteristics of an individual are used as a reason to legally and/or socially discriminate against them, but these characteristics are also immutable and out of the control of the individual, it would be cruel and unethical to use it to justify discrimination.

            One has to wonder, though, why some behaviors are chosen to be “legitimized” through this process while others are not. Are some chosen because we now have better science to (allegedly) discover the origins of complex phenomena, or is it political? That’s what I don’t know, but I tend to think it’s sometimes political. There has yet to be any definitive scientific proof on homosexuality being genetic, for instance, and the only study that claimed to find a “gay gene” was never able to be replicated, which in the science world means it belongs in the wastebasket. Yet that has not stopped anyone from declaring it’s genetic, even without one iota of evidence, and pushing any other investigatory theories that revolve around “mutable” explanations to the wayside. Then again, it’s completely understandable since they want to eliminate discrimination, gay-bashing, etc. I mean, no one would care to stop discrimination if they thought people were choosing to act against the dominant mores and norms intentionally.

            Still, it’s a dangerous slippery slope to use the “immutable biology argument” to describe complex human behaviors. Humans, like many other primates, are unique in that the majority of our actions are learned through our environment. We are not as instinctual as other animals. Most of our brain is developed outside the womb and the brain will continue to change with different types of stimuli — whatever is needed to survive in a given setting. So if that’s the case, using a biology only argument is specious and ignores that fact that humans are more than just a set of expressed genes (and even genes can be modified by the environment: epigenetics). So again, how would you pick and choose which behavior will be normalized? It’s really very arbitrary and some could bring up legitimate issues of fairness.

            I can see only three outcomes if the dominant paradigm on pedophilia becomes it’s a “sexual orientation” and “innate”:
            1) Pedophiles must be identified in the community, apprehended, and interned indefinitely. This is allowed in the United States but currently only applies to those who have committed offenses and were incarcerated, not free pedophiles.
            2) Pedophiles, it will be argued, cannot be denied their right to a normal life, which includes the ability to carry out “consenting” relationships. This would in turn cause a change in laws.
            3) Pedophilia genes must be identified prior to birth so that this future pedophile can be aborted. It’s very Margaret Sanger/eugenics but that would be the least costly way of preventing harm to children and society in the future.

            But I’m sure all but number 2 would be seen as a violation of human rights (perhaps not number 3 because no human rights activists care about fetuses now).

            “Michael L. Brown, author of the book A Queer Thing Happened to America,
            wrote in The Christian Post: “Some psychiatric leaders who helped remove
            homosexuality from the list of mental disorders of the American
            Psychiatric Association in 1973 Fought to remove pedophilia as a mental
            disorder also, not to justify child abuse, but rather, to say that being
            sexually attracted to children is not a mental disorder.”

            This is very alarming, and also interesting. One wonders why both were considered to be removed, but only homosexuality made the cut. But considering the climate at the time, the counter-cultural revolutions happening, etc, it’s not surprising. The gay movement at one point in time did support the inclusion of pedophiles for various reasons, including simply because they were underdogs and were going to support anyone else who they felt were also underdogs. NAMBLA was created out of the gay liberation movement but for whatever reason, gays dissolved all ties with pedophiles.

            I’m sure, Melanie, that you have heard that the APA (the American Psychological Association) has to issue a correction because they “accidentally” called pedophilia a sexual orientation? People were outraged. But it was only an accident in the sense they got caught; the so-called “experts” in the psychological community just didn’t want anyone to know what was going on behind closed doors. So who is behind the push? Apparently, at least at one time, it was the same people who wanted homosexuality removed, assuming that quote is correct. But what about now? And why? The only gain I see is the ability of some people to act out their most deepest fantasies without retribution. Maybe the urban legends about elite pedophile rings are true??

            Actually it’s already happened; the DSM has sort of removed pedophilia and replaced it with “pedophilic disorder”. The idea was that pedophilia is not a “problem” if the sufferer is not “distressed” over having an attraction to children OR if he/she has never offended. The word disorder is the opposite of order so apparently to the APA, it’s completely fine to want to have sex with children if you are/can be a functional person. But this simple revision leaves out the main reasons why pedophilia is in fact mental disorder! The fixation/obsession with sex (common to all paraphilias) and sex with children; the viewing of children as sexual objects; the lack of empathy; narcissism and/or narcissist attitudes (the late Dr Richard Gardner astutely said pedophiles are narcissistic — he was right); delusional projection of their own thoughts/desires onto children. Of course there’s fact that they are attracted to prepubescent children, who do not have the hormone-induced brain changes to make them desire romantic/sexual relationships. (Pedos say kids can feel pleasure and that’s enough for them [example of narcissism and lack of empathy], disregarding the fact that is only due to functioning nerves, not erotic longing.)

            So why ignore these other features and leave it up to the individual to determine if they have a problem? Most people will not condemn themselves, and many will not give up long held ideas which are their security blankets. Therefore, one cannot expect a pedophile to responsible for his own treatment.

            “However, with pedophilia, there is a twist to the argument. It’s not
            simple, we’re born that way, so you do not have to judge us. They add
            this: And, do not worry, we are not a threat to your children.”

            Absolutely right. That so true. That’s the basis of the self-labeled “Virtuous Pedophiles”, who claim they do not act on their proclivities. They are celibate and claim to revile pedophiles that have sexual contact with children (as we can see from one of the pedophiles, Leon, who left comments here, he claims celibacy and also claims (erroneously) that “most pedophiles” don’t want to have intercourse with children, which is of course an absolute lie and desperate and delusional thinking on his part!). Thus they do not believe they are a danger to children and can safely be around kids. However, not acting on one’s pedophilia does not mean they have ceased the fantasizing or masturbation over said fantasies. I don’t know of any who are undergoing chemical or physical castration, either. So in my opinion, they are simply ticking time bombs, the only thing preventing them from acting is a fear of incarceration.

            ” “The Toronto Center for Mental Health and Addictions scientists have
            discovered a series of associations that suggest pedophilia has
            biological roots,” the Times reports”

            These so called associations were mostly laughable: whorl pattern in scalp, left handedness, fraternal birth order, height, ear shape…among others. Just a bunch of nonsense correlations that if true, we’d have a pedo epidemic on our hands! These researchers should be ashamed of themselves.

          • Mélanie

            ShawntayUStay Thank you for your very very informative comment. These researchers should indeed be ashamed of themselves!
            I also read that Michael Jackson has been an inspiration to many groups of people all over the world. One group in particular saw him as the perfect messenger for their crusade, these people had the hope that Jackson would set the record straight and make it clear that there was nothing wrong with loving young boys.

            In the mid-1990s, the North American Man Boy Love Association published an article, celebrating the results of their own poll, showing that a significant percentage of the general public would still admire Michael Jackson, even though it was conclusively proven That he had sexually assaulted young boys. NAMBLA’s analysis of Europe and America proves that Michael Jackson has helped to undermine the taboo of sexual relations with children.

            On June 15, 2005, members of NAMBLA rejoiced when MJ was found not guilty of all charges of sexual abuse of boys, the group considered his acquittal as a justification for their association. “Michael’s innocence is something that is very pleasant to us,” said one representative at the time. Many of us like little children, and take them to bed every night. Loving a child is not a crime and Michael has proved it to everyone. Some members of NAMBLA felt that this was an innovation for them and hoped to see amended laws, such as the prohibition of “loving” minors and lowering the legal age of consent at the age of nine and Thus considerably reducing the number of trials involving sexual criminal cases.

            Imagine that! Homosexual pedophiles, have seen Michael Jackson as a great civil rights leader defending their cause !!

            And then there is also this site
            That explains that pedophilia is a curse that can not be lifted, and will resist.

            The comment under the article is also interesting, it goes in your direction and in mine!

          • Mélanie

            Today, the medical profession largely disagrees with the assertions of pedophiles that sexual relations between adults and children are not harmful to children; No study of results in favor of pro-pedophile ideas has been accepted by the scientific community.

            The psychiatrist and French judicial expert Michel Dubec declares: “All pedophiles claim their love of children and speak of” new love “. But for them, it goes without saying, to love is to kiss. These great “intellectuals” rationalizing pedophilia advocate a search for a “different childhood”, totally emancipated. But they do not say that this emancipation is first theirs, that which allows them to free themselves from the prohibitions and to seduce the children.

            The French psychoanalyst Pierre Lassus, director of the French Union for the Rescue of Childhood, declared: “I can not stand a small circle of mundans defending this pose of the pedophile esthete. Their defense is perversion itself: according to the well-known inversion of discourse, the victim becomes the executioner. ”

            William E. Prendergast, an American clinical psychologist, considers pro-pedophile speeches about the benefits of adult-child sexuality ridiculous and considers that the groups supporting these views are intended to provide justification for sexual abusers.

          • ShawntayUStay

            If what you said was true, gays wouldn’t have bothered complicating their “sexual gratification seeking” with calling for marriage rights. You know, the recognition of the validity of the union between two consenting adults in love, the tax rights, the right to see their partner in the hospital and to make legal decisions on their partner’s behalf, if necessary, etc etc.

            That’s nowhere similar to a paraphilia. Your attempt at making a point was garbage.

          • george

            Meet ‘Harry Hay’, The founder of Gay Liberation, Who supported man/boy love having, himself, Had relations with a man in the Navy from the age of fourteen.

  • ShawntayUStay

    Many of these things can happen without adults having sex with children. Intergenerational knowledge transfer is not sexual activity dependent. Are you kidding me?! Parents transfer knowledge to their kids all the time, for example.

    Perhaps you can answer this question better than George can: Why do you folks target children to be your sexual/romantic partners?

    • george

      Can I ask why you think we all do? Many paedophiles/hebephiles don’t break the law, Though may have these kind of relations if the law was relaxed. And remember, Not all ‘pedos’ are exclusive, Therefore can legally chase adults.

  • ShawntayUStay

    Children do not organically ask adults to have sexual activity with them. They have to be somehow exposed to sex (e.g. by sexual abuse, exposure to pornography etc) to know about it and its effects to ever want to involve an adult in something that — again without prior knowledge — is purely physiological and without emotional meaning. Notwithstanding your likely disturbed upbringing, you do remember what it was like to be a little kid, right? You don’t think about having sex.

    So, answer this: Why do you preferentially target children to be your sexual/romantic partners?

  • ShawntayUStay

    Compare the intellectual, cultural, and scientific achievements of these tribal societies that allegedly allow “freer” sexuality amongst its junior members with the achievements of the allegedly sexually repressed West. I’ll wait while you search in vain.

    Find anything other than zilch, nada? Of course you didn’t. Thus, one could quite easily make a compelling argument that limiting the base instincts (e.g. sex) of a population in pursuit of more time for intellectual contemplation is a much better thing for human progress, than being a naked, likely parasite-riddled tribesperson obsessed with stimulating genital nerve endings (assuming these tribal anecdotes are even real, which I have my doubts). Just saying.

    • LeonSisMann

      >”Compare the intellectual, cultural, and scientific achievements of these tribal societies that allegedly allow “freer” sexuality amongst its junior members with the achievements of the allegedly sexually repressed West.”

      Ok – how about ancient Greece for starters – that produced Socrates, Democracy, drama, Homer, Plato, Aristotle, the Acropolis, the scientific approach to medicine (Hippocrates), Sappho’s poetry, invented History, gave us the Olympics, the rules of maths and geometry (Euclid), etc etc – the culture that set the foundation for civilisation and whose rediscovery sparked off the Enlightenment – man/boy love was elevated to a virtual religion there.

      Then there are the achievements of Islam – which does not recognise an age of consent and whose ‘prophet’ married a six-year old girl and raped her when she was nine (yes, ‘raped’ – I despise and unreservedly condemn islam’s attitude towards women and girls – the islamic model of ‘paedophilia’ is worse, much worse than the West’s embargo on child sexuality. If I cite it here it is simply in answer to your suggestion that no culture that condones ‘paedophilia’ can achieve much, and despite my absolute condemnation of islam’s treatment of little girls, it can’t be denied that it has achieved some things and had an impact on the world).

      How about Europe? – no country had consent laws relating to age till well into the Enlightenment. The laws of marriage controlled sexual behaviour, not age-related laws. If a girl or a boy was married they could consent to penetrative sex – there are few statutes relating to non-penetrative sex with children.

      How about Americans? In 1880, the age of consent for intercourse was set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7.

      Globally speaking it is only with the development of capitalism that age has become an issue in the conduct of sexual relationships – though rape and intercourse have always been controlled in one way or another .

      But as a paedophile I am only concerned with laws concerning mild and non-penetrative sensual interactions – before the Enlightenment I have found no legal embargoes on light sexual play between adults and children.

      >”Find anything other than zilch, nada? Of course you didn’t. Thus, one could quite easily make a compelling argument that limiting the base instincts (e.g. sex) of a population in pursuit of more time for intellectual contemplation is a much better thing for human progress, than being a naked, likely parasite-riddled tribesperson obsessed with stimulating genital nerve endings (assuming these tribal anecdotes are even real, which I have my doubts).”

      Gosh, that’s a bit strong – I hate to think that my comment might have made you hate small societies and indigenous peoples…

      >(assuming these tribal anecdotes are even real, which I have my doubts).

      Ok – don’t trust me – trust this, have a browse through this (The most authoritative and complete scholarly thesaurus of cultural traditions around childhood and sexuality.) :

      • ShawntayUStay

        You mention ancient Greece, ancient Islam, as if that justifies the elevation of tribal societies allowing, frankly, repulsive sexual practices between children and adults above the modern world who, according to pedophile activists, deny them sexual access to children. It simply does not.

        As for ancient Greece, according to what I’ve read, pederasty didn’t involve young children, but teenaged boys, so it was more akin to homosexuality than pedophilia. Likewise not everyone in society participated in pederasty; you’re acting as if it was a mainstream thing. That goes for Islam as well — it wasn’t ubiquitously practiced. And please, your indignation of the horrible treatment of females in some sects of Islam does not given you any moral superiority.

        “Globally speaking it is only with the development of capitalism that age
        has become an issue in the conduct of sexual relationships – though
        rape and intercourse have always been controlled in one way or another .”

        How’d you figure that? That makes little sense, and sounds more like a grasping-for-straws, nonsense correlation-based argument to me.

        “But as a paedophile I am only concerned with laws concerning mild and non-penetrative sensual interactions”

        “As a pedophile”… as if you speak for all of them. I think you meant to say “But for me personally….”, because as I’ve pointed out to you, many pedophiles are most definitely concerned with more than “mild, non penetrative sensual interactions” — whatever that even means. I again implore you to check out the panacea of the pedophile penetration-filled sexual fantasies in the stories at That I can find even one pedophile that dismantles your oft-repeated appeal? reassurance? self-delusion? that pedophiles don’t desire sexual intercourse with children, means your argument is invalid and based on a false premise. You might want to use a legitimate qualifier.

        “Gosh, that’s a bit strong – I hate to think that my comment might have made you hate small societies and indigenous peoples…”

        While I am indeed repulsed by the idea of any society that would ever think it’s right to molest/fondle/have sexual intercourse with a child, I am more repulsed by the delusions pedophiles such as yourself, Tom O’Carroll, etc create in order to somehow justify your behavior. I’m completely sure these societies would reject their uneducated heathen ways with help, while more intelligent individuals like pedophile advocates only double down despite the voices of families, parents, and victims of sexual abuse. That’s what I hate.

  • ShawntayUStay

    It’s not. Your confusion is a reflect on your inability to be self-reflective. I mentioned JonBenet only in reference to the actual size of a 6 year old child’s prepubescent uterus, and by extension, her vaginal canal. Its small size demonstrates that sexual activity with a female child is absurd and pointless. It had nothing to do with rape, so hold your Strawman arguments for another time.

    Sex means sexual activity, in all its iterations. There is no reason an adult should have sexual activity with a child, and you and Georgie Boy have provided none.

    “I don’t know of any paedophile who finds the idea of penetrating a prepubescent anything other than wrong. “

    Well, I guess you know very little about your people because as you attempt to make generalizations about pedophiles not wanting to penetrate “anything prepubescent” — self-serving, mypoic generalizations — I’ll kindly direct you to the gay website nifty dot org’s “Adult-Youth” story section where these pedophiles write stories about penetrating children/boys. Pedophile Tom O’ Carroll supports penetration in his book “Paedophilia The Radical Case”, as just one example. Shall I link you the documentary “Chickenhawk” wherein a pedophile discusses who he had anal sex with a boy he was “in love” with? Or the documentary “Pervert Park”, where one woman describes having intercourse with her father starting when she was 5 or so. Or what about the instant case, Michael Jackson, who is accused of using his fingers on James and Wade, and used his penis to penetrate Wade Robson in a failed attempt at anal intercourse? And MJ was as childlike as any, according to people around him. I could go on and on. So much for your, again, self-serving generalizing statement “… paedophiles, whose sexuality tends to echo child sexuality in its intensity and nature.” Clearly that isn’t the predominate case, is it? Not surprised, seeing that the biological/evolutionary function of the penis is for penetration!

    So the question becomes: Are you lying, or have your pedo friends been lying to you?

    “…using the word ‘sex’ and thus transferring the teleiophileic goal-oriented, sweaty, violent, penetrative desires”

    Wow, so angry! But thank you for giving me insight into your mental illness. From this statement, I sense feelings of sexual inadequacy and impotence, and psychological immaturity. Is this why you have directed your sexual desires unto little girls?

    • LeonSisMann

      >Its small size demonstrates that sexual activity with a female child is absurd and pointless.

      But nobody I know of is arguing that adults should be allowed to penetrate children. I certainly am not. Even under reformed laws a man penetrating a prepubescent child should be answerable to the law in the same way as he would be under current laws.

      >”Sex means sexual activity, in all its iterations.”

      No it does not. I’m not going to be forced into defending the indefensible – which is what you’re trying to make me do.

      I want to defend the forms of intimacy that the huge majority of paedophiles instinctively would like to share with the child they love – not the most extreme forms of abuse.

      I could cynically choose to include rape in the denotations of adult-on-adult sex and then accuse you of condoning rape when you defend adult-on-adult sex.

      >”Well, I guess you know very little about your people because as you attempt to make generalizations about pedophiles not wanting to penetrate “anything prepubescent”

      I am a member of several (all legal) fora; I have studied paedophilia and related phenomena as part of my university career; I’ve afterwards continued studying and researching the sociology of paedophilia (and related issues); I am and have been a counsellor in several contexts helping and advising paedophiles with mental health issues and helping them to keep from breaking the law; I count as friends some of the most prominent and authoritative authors and thinkers around paedophilia; I have written at length on the subject… I could go on…

      >you attempt to make generalizations about pedophiles

      and when you imply that all paedophiles want to have penetrative sex with children are you not also making a generalisation? and when you do so on what evidence are you basing that statement?

      >” Pedophile Tom O’ Carroll supports penetration in his book “Paedophilia The Radical Case”

      Really – I’ve read it several times and nowhere does he suggest that penetrating prepubescents should be anything but illegal. It’s certainly not his stance nowadays.

      Could you find me a quote in which he actively supports it? There are places where he quotes anthropological literature concerning tribal customs which involve penetration – but his comments on these usually make clear his condemnation of anything coerced, manipulative or penetrative. Here is a link to the book online – could you supply me with quotes to support your assertion?

      You mention Chickenhawk and ‘Pervert Park’ – yes, some paedophiles do abuse their authority and some paedophiles do penetrate children. It’s quite simple – I don’t condone either – and both should be answerable to the law, whether under current law, or under any reformed law. Some teleiophiles also act unethically towards men and women – that does not invalidate ethically conducted teleiophilic relationships.

      If I pointed you towards documentaries about The Yorkshire Ripper and other serial rapists – you would rightly accuse me of misrepresenting heterosexuality.

      Also concerning such ‘documentaries’ – ask yourself what would the public reaction be if they showed a documentary about man and a little girl of, say, 9 who were in love with each other and the man was neither in a position of authority over the child, treated her with great love and respect, and the child loved the man – and the documentary showed footage of the man helping the girl with her homework, teaching her how to ride a bike and swim, encouraging her to take an interest in nature and culture, and showed them staring into each other’s eyes lovingly, holding hands, kissing – and mentioned that they occasionally took baths together and engaged in light petting?

      The public and media would go wild with outrage, wouldn’t it?

      The public has an infinite appetite for representations of the worst that can be (mis-)labelled ‘paedophilia’ – but is absolutely incapable of even acknowledging the best of paedophilia. And understand this – the average decent paedophile does not aspire to treat children cruelly, rape them and kill them, but dreams of and aspires a relationship that is tender and loving and good for the child.

      But the public doesn’t want to know that it is possible for a man and a child to love each other ethically, consensually and caringly. All they want to hear about are the worst examples, the abuses, the manipulations, the rapes. Yes, these bad relationships occur, but so do the good ones – but it’s only the bad ones that are considered acceptable for the public discourse to acknowledge.

      • Pea

        In fact, Leon, Tom O’Carroll was not “anti-penetration” at all in his book — assuming that e-copy of “Paedophilia” is the same as the hardcover version from 1982, which I am currently reading, O’Carroll states in the chapter “Towards More Sensible Laws” that he doesn’t want to be “dogmatically precise” about when receptive sex is should be permitted but, in making allowances for late bloomers, he suggests age 12.

        O’Carroll said he was going against PIE with a current stance instituting an AOC for specific sex acts, as well as going against his previous remarks. Perhaps the evolution is explained by the fact “Paedophilia” intended to be not only a manifesto for fellow pedophiles but a work to be read and hopefully accepted by all of society.

        I would also add that O’Carroll’s language was a bit strange, at least to me, when it came to the intercourse issue. While he explained why the anatomy of toddlers couldn’t handle such “stress”, he seemed to lament that in “freer” environments, a six-year-old would know for herself (naturally, for the pedophile, the responsibility is always placed upon the tenderer mind!), having doubtless already been penetrated in “sex play” with other children, if she could “take” an adult penis. He then writes a long endnote about the Lepcha tribe where girls do have intercourse with men at 8, suggesting that perhaps it would be a good thing for the hymen to be removed so intercourse could never be painful for the female at any age.

        Oh, and not to mention his insistence in “Childhood Sexuality: What Do We Mean?” that a Western ethnographer’s skepticism about “young children” being able to handle adult penis was unwarranted. He seemed almost giddy by the idea they could!

        You see, Leon, to we non-pedophiles, O’Carroll’s two-faced proscription is something of a Trojan Horse, especially if he is now saying intercourse between kids and adults is monstrous. I suspect it’s nothing more than a ruse to get the consent laws abolished — “No need for them, folks, because we just like to kiss and cuddle!” It’s a lie; as Shawntay pointed out, many pedophiles want intercourse with a kid at some juncture.

        (Funnily enough, O’Carroll used an example of a 12-year-old boy “enjoying” anal intercourse with a man to explain how PIE’s laws would work. In the example, a father can go against it, but if the boy is happy to continue the sex, the pedophile won’t get into trouble. He then seems sad to point out that the 12-year-old would have to be “a very determined, self-knowing youngster indeed to resist the inevitable pressure on him to say that he wanted to give up the relationship,” something he was certain would not be possible until at least age 15 or 16.)

        • ShawntayUStay

          Pea, you read the book too! Much more recently than me, LOL. Such a disturbed, vile, arrogant man he is. I had to read it in stretches or I’d be fined for destruction of property for burning it! 😉

          • george

            Twelve for coitus is about right physiologically, O’Carroll acknowledges the differences between the average 8yo and the average 12yo and has maintained twelve for as long as I can remember. Grooming as just a pejorative term for seduction, A tool for the child abuse industry upon discovery of a relationship between an adult and a minor.

        • george

          I put that question to him…Answer

          In the basis of long tradition going back even to Roman times, when 12 was considered an appropriate age for a girl to marry. Boys were thought ready to assume responsibility for married life at 14. There were marriages at much lower ages too, but those would have been without societal approval of their consummation.

          My approach was not historical though. In my Radical Case book I was going by average physical development. I wrote:

          “What might such an age be, if it were to be based purely on the physical development of children in general to a stage when they were able to experience such activity as pleasurable rather than painful? (Emotional factors, knowledge of the world, etc., are dealt with elsewhere.) We have seen that in other cultures custom allows children to receive penetrative sex by adults from as young as eight, and it seems improbable that such customs would persist if they proved to be physically damaging, 11 though it is still possible that they may be endured, rather than enjoyed, by some children. I do not want to be dogmatically precise about any particular age: it may even be that the appropriate minimum age for coitus is not the same as that for anal intercourse, but on the basis of the medical opinion I have sounded informally, making allowance for slower developing children, I feel that in both cases twelve would probably be about right.”


          • Pea

            Yes, George…. O’Carroll is not anti-intercourse with children, as I pointed out in my comment. And why would he be when the goal of the book is not only to be read by people skeptical of pedophiles, but also by pedophiles themselves? He’s not going to demonize the very sex act his “brethren” so desperately hope for and enjoy, but merely gives them a “socially palatable” age to mark when they ought to reasonably proceed.

            What are you correcting exactly?

          • ShawntayUStay

            Exactly. Tom O’ Carroll supports sexual intercourse with kids, just like most pedophiles. Leon the Pedo denying this fact (and why wouldn’t it be a fact? The phallus of all organisms is made for penetration! It’s evolution!) is either because he’s delusional, his pedo friends lied to him about what the want from kids sexually, or he’s lying to us in order to placate our very understandable fear and indignation at adult-child sex.

            Or Leon, being obviously sexually inadequate with women, has an overly soft nub incapable of penetration and he’s just mad. LOL.

      • ShawntayUStay

        “But nobody I know of is arguing that adults should be allowed to penetrate children. I certainly am not.”

        Tom O’Carroll explained in the early 80s version of his book that he supports (penile) penetration of children at the age of 12, even though he also says he doesn’t want to be dogmatic about the specificity of the age of the child, a tacit admission that the age could in fact be younger. He also was not hesitant to give a verbal High-Five to cultures that allowed children to have actual intercourse, and made a comment basically saying a girl in one of these cultures would be able to know when she could “handle” a man’s penis — it may be younger than 12!

        You say 12 isn’t prepubescent, which of course is laughable. A kid just out of elementary school (5th grade) isn’t a kid? Is able to have sexual intercourse? Are you kidding me? Although I’m not surprised 12 is the arbitrary age given since most pedophiles have zero knowledge of actual child development. You think the majority of children are physically “ready” to take on sexual intercourse, but what about the concomitant emotional aspects? Ironically, since you claimed otherwise, it is you people who are goal-oriented, focused so much on the child’s body being ready to engage in sexual activity to satisfy your desires.

        “You mention Chickenhawk and ‘Pervert Park’ – yes, some paedophiles do
        abuse their authority and some paedophiles do penetrate children. It’s
        quite simple – I don’t condone either”

        Why not? The guy in Chickenhawk was pretty adamant that he had anal sex with the boy under no duress and in the confines of a “loving relationship”; he sounds no different from you or any other pedophile. Strange you’re so arbitrary when you want us to accept pedophilia in totality, in general. You can’t have it both ways.

        “Some teleiophiles also act unethically towards men and women – that does
        not invalidate ethically conducted teleiophilic relationships.”

        False equivalence. One, we are not dealing with a DSM, ICD mental illness when we talk about “teleiophilic relationships”. Two, adults who act badly in relationships with other adults are not acting in accordance to their sexual orientation, but rather with some other possible mental/interpersonal disturbance (e.g. a serial rapist is not raping being he’s heterosexual but because he’s a psychopath). Three, “badly” defines all pedophile relationships by default simply because it’s a paraphilia and illegal; that isn’t the case with a normal relationship between age-matched romantic partners.

        “Also concerning such ‘documentaries’ – ask yourself what would the
        public reaction be if they showed a documentary about man and a little
        girl of, say, 9 who were in love with each other and the man was neither
        in a position of authority over the child, treated her with great love
        and respect, and the child loved the man – and the documentary showed
        footage of the man helping the girl with her homework, teaching her how
        to ride a bike and swim, encouraging her to take an interest in nature
        and culture, and showed them staring into each other’s eyes lovingly,
        holding hands, kissing – and mentioned that they occasionally took baths
        together and engaged in light petting?”

        Wow, just…wow. You really believe this is completely normal. How deep are your delusions? Not a single normal, healthy adult would ever, ever think a relationship with a 9 year old child is fulfilling. Ever. Do you know see how sick in the head pedophiles are, and how much they desperately need psychiatric help, if they believe a child is emotionally and intellectually capable of stimulating an adult with a fully developed brain? I’m sorry but this is frankly shocking.

        Firstly, your narrative is nothing but an idealized fantasy. As any parent will tell you, raising a child is not all rainbows. It’s hard, and especially considering children are not the happy little angels you seems to think they are. They have lots of bad days, tantrums; they can be annoying. They are require lots of attention and are literally black holes where time and energy go to die. You really think this fantasy 9 year old is going to be smiles everyday, ready for you at a moment’s notice? LOL. Delusional. Pedophiles don’t live in the real world but a fantasy world. You have never had to spend 24 hours a day/7 days a week/ 365 days a year worrying about meeting the needs of a young child you may have “befriended”. Pedos just see the final product made by the years of daily sacrifice made by loving parents.

        Secondly, I’m seeing a very common theme of projection/transference of adult behavior patterns onto children. So-called “sexuality” you claim to see in a child is not sexuality. It’s playfulness and capricious curiosity. It represents nothing sexual at all. Pedophiles, therefore, are no different from men who think a woman “wants it” because she’s wearing a short skirt! Kids don’t want anything you have to offer sexually. Stop projecting and learn some empathy.

        “the average decent paedophile does not aspire to treat children cruelly,
        rape them and kill them, but dreams of and aspires a relationship that
        is tender and loving and good for the child…the public doesn’t want to know that it is possible for a man and a child to love each other ethically, consensually and caringly.”

        Why can’t a “tender, loving, and good” relationship be completely devoid of sexuality? You’ve emphasized the alleged benefits of repealing anti-pedophile laws before and all of them can be accomplished by not having any sexual contact at all. No parent wants you to have sex with their child. Why can’t that be respected???

  • ShawntayUStay

    Obsessional = fixated. Fixated on having sexual activity with children. It’s designated as a paraphilia/fetish for a reason.Just look at the title of your blog “Consenting Humans”! I’m sure the consent you refer to is not about simple friendship because no one cares about whether a child and adult are friends. It’s about sexual relationships with children.

    As for evidence, here’s a few quotes from three research papers:

    “[T]he pedophilic inpatients in the current study achieved striking values in several scales, such as the sexual obsessiveness scale. The exceptionally high value corresponds to a percent rank of 80 and indicates the high sexual fixation of
    the pedophile subjects…” from Neurocognitive and Personality Factors in Homo- and
    Heterosexual Pedophiles and Controls, 2009

    “In contrast, the sexual lives of some boy-object pedophiles may be completely focused on their preferred victim type (Freund & Watson, 1991; Quinsey, 1986)….[D]eviant sexual interests are most prevalent among those who victimize strangers, use overt force, select boy victims, or select victims much younger (or much older) than themselves (Barbaree & Marshall, 1989; Freund & Watson, 1991; Quinsey, 1984,1986).” from Predicting Relaspe: A Meta-Analysis of Sexual Offender Recidivism Studies, 1998

    “Although a difference of opinion exists concerning which illnesses should be included in the category of OC spectrum disorders, the symptom domain (i.e., the presence of obsessions or repetitive behaviours, or both) is the usual startingpoint for determining whether a given disorder is a spectrum candidate. Apart from obsessive–compulsive disorder, OC symptoms can be found in several disorders, including Tourette syndrome, body dismorphic disorder, hypochondriasis and trichotillomania; it is often hypothesized that these disorders belong to the OC spectrum. However, the eating disorders, autism, pathological gambling, kleptomania, depersonalization disorder, sexual compulsions and paraphilias are sometimes also included in the OC spectrum.29 Not only are all these disorders highly comorbid, they also share phenomenological similarities and biological correlates and may therefore resemble alternative phenotypic expressions of a related genetic background.30 This hypothesis is in line with the concept that a genetically driven state of reward deficiency is a common denominator in the delineated spectrum.31,32….

    In this experimental fMRI study, we analyzed the processing of visually induced sexual arousal in homosexual pedophilic patients and homosexual control subjects. In contrast to sexually neutral stimuli, the presentation of sexually arousing pictures of homosexual and pedophile content led to an activation of brain areas known to be involved in processing visual stimuli with emotional content, including occipitotemporal and prefrontal cortices, in both groups. However, during the presentation of the respective sexual stimuli, the thalamus, globus pallidus, substantia nigra and striatum, corresponding to key areas mediating sexual arousal and behaviour, showed significant activation in pedophiles, but not in control subjects….

    In pedophiles, compared with homosexual control subjects, activation patterns during visual sexual stimulation seem to refer more strongly to subcortical regions that are possibly involved in the context of processing reward signals and also play an important role in addictive and stimulus-controlled behaviour.” from Brain response to visual sexual stimuli in homosexual pedophiles, 2008

    Considering pedophilia is not an orientation but a objectifying paraphilia/fetish, it’s not surprising pedophiles have fixation problems. In Louis Theroux’s documentary “A Place for Paedophiles”, they talk to a pedophile who underwent physical castration to get rid of the incessant, intruding thoughts about sex with children. Another pedophile is overheard talking in group therapy about the intersection of thoughts and frequent masturbation (he was trying to decrease them).

  • ShawntayUStay

    Hi Jean. I think the Snopes article was pretty convincing in my opinion. Not to mention the fact that there is zero evidence. But they always say a good conspiracy theory is one that can be neither proved nor disproved! LOL

    Those images are weird but does Podesta own those actual images? That would be more convincing to me if he did. And while I agree Hillary Clinton was crap before this, LOL, is her involvement with a pedophile sex ring implicit or explicit according to this theory?

    I just don’t buy it. It’s no different than the illuminati conspiracy theories. The words “pizza”, “hot dog”, etc etc as code words for pedophiles? I think it’s reaching that they apply in this case. I think it’s dangerous to speculate. As noted in the Spopes article, the most common form of sex abuse is intrafamilial, which makes sense given access to children is limited as one moves farther away from the home. You probably heard about the nutjob opening fire in the restaurant recently? It’s getting out of hand.

    As for MJ, despite what Wade Robson, James Safechuck, and now this new accuser’s lawyers want us to believe, I doubt MJ was involved in any organized child sex ring.

    • Jeanne D’Arc

      Re! 😛
      So I’ve made some more researches, and it seems like yes, those paintings were present (and maybe still are) in his bedroom, his bathroom and his living room, according to the many guests Podesta received over the past few years.
      Here is a short entrevue of Jessica Dawson about it :
      Personaly I don’t believe Clinton has ever been explicit in this theory. I think she may have some of those persons in her close relationships/acquaintances and some strange rituals going on, but I don’t think she took part in that story. She’s probably just covering the whole thing, if that thing is indeed true x).
      I neither don’t believe Michael was part of such a ring, he was rather kind of a “loner” I guess, but that wouldn’t surprise me if he, himself, had been victim in his youth of such predators. That would explain some things according to me.
      Without talking about Jermaine Jackson suggesting in the early 2000’s that Michael was capable of such things.
      He even talked about how his father would sometimes come pick up Michael at night, to some kind of “party”, to only return the next morning, Michael looking sick as hell.
      When Michael heard about the potential book (Legacy – Surviving the Best and the Worst) Jermaine was writing about his family, he found a way to cancel his publication, fearing the revelations Jermaine would make in it.
      And yes, I heard about the fire in the restaurant, but only via Internet, news here are obsessed with our coming elections. I hope nobody was harmed. Some say it was an actor lol

    • Mezza

      Same. If MJ was in a sex ring, I believe it would’ve all come out years and years ago. Too many opportunists.

  • george

    The owner of the blog ‘consenting humans’, has replied to some of the comments on here, Yet where are his comments, Why don’t you be fair and give the man a chance to defend his blog from the criticism from a select few?

  • The question “What does society gain by permitting adults to have sex with children?” was directed at you by Shawntay, not me.

    …homosexual sex produces intangible gains – those associated with people loving and caring for each other, with people learning from one another, happiness, pleasure, security, social cohesion.

    That is all very well, but once again comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is false equivalency. One is between consenting adults, the other is between an adult, who is seeking sexual gratification from children, with intellectual capabilities and life experiences far beyond the children they target.

    My comparison was to suggest that caring, consensual, mild intimacy between a child and an adult in a committed relationship can produce similar gains.

    Those gains are illusory, for it isn’t intimacy in a committed relationship – it is intimacy which only endures until the child becomes too old for the pedophile.

    The society you are defending is actually abusing child sexuality – by co-opting it and turning it to its own venal ends.

    I don’t believe society condones the sexualisation of young children which has taken place over the last several decades, if you took a poll most people would disapprove. In any case, it is not as widespread as you make it out to be.

    This is evident from my own history – when I was a child in the 60s and 70s my friends and I had enormous freedom compared to children today

    Those freedoms were due to the lack of awareness of how acquaintance molesters operate.

    …the hysteria round child sexuality was much much less than it is today – my friends and I used to play sex games, and were occasionally caught. Today we’d be sent to therapists, or labeled as sex offenders. Back then people just considered it as a normal, if maybe slightly embarrassing, aspect of childhood.

    There is no hysteria around child sexuality. That is something you’ve invented in your mind to justify your “children’s rights” mantra. Kids just don’t get into trouble for fooling around with each other. Except for rare cases, they are not sent to therapists nor labeled as sex offenders if caught. Children discovering sex with themselves and each other is still a normal, if maybe slightly embarrassing, aspect of childhood. What there is is concern about adults wanting to have sex with children.

    The truth is that a freer and better society for children is also a society where children have more sexual agency, knowledge and confidence.

    Even if that were true, it is still not an argument for allowing adults to have sex with children. There is no need.

  • If you were truly celibate, you wouldn’t be here advocating adult/child sex. Don’t treat us as fools.

    Children do not automatically think of having sex with adults, nor do they require it, so if a child wants to have sex with an adult that means the adult has guided the child in that direction. That is grooming. Stop blaming the child for having “sexual feelings” – there is no need for adults to have sex with children and the adult, being in a position of responsibility, just needs to say no.

    Pedophilia by definition involves “intense and recurrent sexual urges towards prepubescent children” so it is not unreasonable to assume that pedophiles want to have sex with children. Nobody knows when so-called “virtuous pedophiles”, over the span of their adulthood, will slip up and be weak around children.

  • CandyC

    Shana Mangatal recently released a book and she’s now reminding me of Tatiana Thumbtzen, desperately wanting some sort of affair with MJ to be true. What is with everything in MJ’s life being painted as “secret”, why the secrecy? Wouldn’t you want the world to know you were a normal heterosexual if you were one, in the face of child sexual abuse allegations? Even the women, and they’re few and far between, that claim to have alleged liaisons with MJ aren’t even that credible.

    I don’t believe Shana Mangatal at this stage, I think she was just obsessed with MJ like Tatiana, she never got over his charm, understandably. She was probably led on.

    Maybe I am being unfair since I haven’t read the book (I can already guess what it’s contents would be anyway) but what’s everyone’s opinions on Shana? There’s literally no more than a handful of photos of them and most of them are just photo-ops — there is, however, hundreds of photos of MJ with children though. It’s obvious who he preferred as company.

    • Shana Mangtal is a fabulist. MJ’s new female accuser has more evidence of a deeper relationship with MJ than Shana ever had. It’s always been the way that the supposed “girlfriends” were super secret, yet the boys were flaunted at every opportunity. That makes zero sense. Even Debbie Rowe and LMP have been unable to convince anyone but the Lipstick Alley crowd that there was any kind of hot heterosexual sex going on 🙂

      • Melissa

        Even Lisa admitted he was somewhat asexual.

      • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

        MJfacts, you had me cracking up about the lsa crowd, yes they hype MJ as an aggressive male who had sex with anything with 2 legs, whom he would use then throw in the trash for his next sex fest. I am a fan but I know MJ was no way into women. Nor do I need him to be really, I am not that emotionally invested in the guy no matter..I like the music does not mean I need him to be some aggressive lover of women. nah..Makes no logical sense whatsoever..The idea everything had to secret and he used kids to help keep these women secret is just well stupid and non thinking. Once I read an interview with Mj when he was real young but his brothers were all married. Off the record he said the record company told them to lie about the marriages so that fangurls would not be upset. I get that at 16 but MJ was a grown man who still hinted that he would lose fans if he had a woman..Totally not believable either. If anyone has heard and believes those Glenda tapes it is clear, he basically says he was still a virgin (with women anyhow) at the age of 33- 34, so make of that what you guys will. I am still clueless how making MJ be a user of women makes him less guilty, I have been trying to tell these women that in fact it actually would make ME think he is more guilty as stats show most abusers are married or have had sex with women tons of times..These LSA crowds and fanboard crowds do not tend to think real well.

    • ShawntayUStay

      Shana Mangatal is a liar and opportunist. I also think she’s an obsessed fan trying to get attention off other fans. No different from Joanna Thomae…but much crazier.

      I haven’t read the book but here’s a list of the sexual stuff she claims:

      • CandyC

        Thank you for the upload, Shawntay. Those are some salacious claims and they don’t seem legitimate at all to be honest.

      • Mezza

        Shana is an idiot. I love the YouTube clip of her hanging outside the hospital as a fan supposedly when she was fucking MJ. So sad actually. She is a beautiful girl. Obviously completely insecure.

        • Hilal Alsameraaii

          It appears that Joe Jackson can’t seem to handle any sort of suggestion that his son wasn’t a heterosexual. In the documentary Louis, Martin and Michael, he’s asked by Louis Theroux if he’d like to see his son settle down with a boyfriend or girlfriend and those words alone were enough to piss him off.

          • Melissa

            Yeah. He and Majestik. If Michael had been gay obviously he couldn’t let his father know. Even his mother allegedly called him the f word.

        • Melissa

          Joe in the pic with the book seems old and like she forced him to stand there. Even fans see it.

        • She has certainly tried to make the proverbial silk purse out of a sow’s ear!

        • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

          Well Mezza, Joe would do that. He is a typical alpha male who could not stand the thought of his son even possibly being gay/asexual/bi or yes even a child abuser of course. I myself do not hate Joe, but he is not really a good source for what is believable or not:) As it is said MJ had really not been close to his family for about 25 years, they all learned more about him at the trial than they had known in over 2 decades..Now I like the Jacksons music, but they will lie or just make up things to make their brother look better, and really can we not expect that? Of course they will say what they have to.

    • Pea

      I’ll third the comments made by Shawntay and mjfacts — Shana Mangatal is a nobody, and not worth anyone’s time or interest. She’s actually quite boring. 🙂

      A number of fans on Twitter used to keep tabs on Shana around the time her book was set to be released; unfortunately, they often believed some dubious claims about her purely out of envy. I would suggest wading through the negative reviews on Amazon with boots — many of the fans have not read her book.

      However, one fan did read her book, and she wrote a fantastic review of it, giving it 1 star out of 5 (naturally, she believes Shana is full of crap). It’s a great summary and very thorough:

      • CandyC

        I agree with you, I never was interested in her — she seemed to enjoy the publicity that came with sheepishly claiming to have a “secret” relationship with MJ, though. I think it’s all for attention… thank you for the link. 🙂

    • Melissa

      Even the most part of MJ fans don’t believe her!I read she wrote “she kissed it” when they were in the bathroom. I believe if she was really a girlfriend she wouldn’t wrote such an intimate thing.
      Also I can’t recall exactly, but it seems she also wrote not so nice things about him, too. I think some even have to do with boys. I’ll investigate better but many fans aren’t pleased.

      I read that MJ has an obsession with married women and if he kept his women secretive that was the reason…it would be believable if we don’t knew his obsession with boys.

      Fans basically mock her. She thought a wax figure was him! LOL

      • CandyC

        Melissa, if what Shana says is true (and I doubt it) that is quite trashy of her to publish such private infomation in a book publicly, but people will do anything for money and publicity, which I think is what she wants. I heard she said a few critical things about him too, I haven’t got too much involved in her story however, I don’t think Rhythm of the Tide or any other fan site is a credible source, LOL.

        Where did you read that MJ had an obsession with married women? If true (and again, I highly doubt it, he seemed very mysogynistic) why would he go after them, of all women?

        I thought the fans would have lapped her claims up enthusiastically given how much they want MJ to be heterosexual, I’ve never seen them mock her but then again, I don’t pay any attention to the fans. And for the purposes of respect I will refrain from making a joke about the wax figure thing, LOL.

        • Melissa

          I read somewhere in a board but I shouldn’t believe it of course.

          Believe or not, a lot of fans don’t believe her. I understand some want to believe her, she’s a pretty woman. But she behaves more like a fan than a true girlfriend.

      • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

        All the circles superfans get into to try and explain away that Michael was one strange ass man is just over the top. I am a fan of his art, but not really him as a man. Shana is a fool and wants attention and money..She is just like Tati with her delusion. Shana claims she had some 20 year fling with MJ..OK. Well if that were true it is pretty clear that MJ was totally embarrassed of her to hardly be seen with her anywhere..Either way I hear her book she says something pretty nasty about MJ and the boys so who knows what she is even thinking with her fanfic. One would think that some groupies would be believable but none are and to tell the truth with millions of fans, one would think tons of “stalker groupies” would be claiming left and right they had sex with him..But only very very few do. Like this Shana chick..Just so silly.

    • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

      I am a fan of MJ but I am not a total nutcase who will deny that he never did wrong, and that he never mistreated a child..This is why I read up on MJfacts. Anyway regarding Shana, I believe she also claims she has a bar of soap from never land(and she thinks this help proves something) and a few photos of her and MJ which you say are press ops. I post on some fan forums and many many fans believe that MJ was just a regular red blooded male and that Shana and others including Tati and all the “secret” women help prove this. IMHO, I agree with you, IF MJ was a straight male, why not be proud of a woman he loves or cares for. Super fans go on and on how he wanted to not embarrass these ladies by “parading” them around paps, but that is just so ridiculous. I have even heard some bloggers say that MJ used the KIDS to hide his relationships with women and to keep them (you guessed it) secret. As far as Shana she did post an unseen video on her youtube channel of Michael with Ryan white. That alone proves nothing and yes most fans do not buy into the Shana saga..Plenty buy into Tati, Diana Ross,LMP and all the secret ladies nobody has seen..I for one do not believe the guy was a regular hetero man. Still grappling with what he might have been, could go either way for me. I can pull apart the artist and the art, and MJ is a great reason people should do that. Shana is a liar and a weirdo just like Tati and all the other women that get off on MJ being some sort of ladies man. Actually they get off on MJ having been some sort of half rapist on women, who uses 1000s of women and dumps them for new ones weekly. ..Seems to be the story many push and I am pretty sick of it..BTW, have you read Tatis books? Sounds like a 3rd grader. Honestly there are probably 1000s of pictures with children tbh. MJ never had a believable relationship with a woman or man. Either he was asexual who had sex and porn curiosity (and yes some asexuals have sex and look at porn at times) or he was so confused and drugged out he did not know what he was.. OR hate to say it, yes he could be guilty..I cannot say I think one way or the other..Either way, the secret lovers, secret kids his whole life is such a secret, eh, He was a master at PR in the early days, but he lost that magic later. He was exposed as a liar and a drug addict..Great artist not sure about the man.

  • The definition of pedophilia is “intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children”.

    I know a lot of paedophiles and pretty much all of them are involved in chaste friendships with children.

    So why are you advocating for the right for pedophiles to have sex with children? Please don’t say “for the children”, there is no reason for adults to have sex with them.

    • ShawntayUStay

      “So why are you advocating for the right for pedophiles to have sex with children?”

      Exactly! It makes zero logical sense to advocate for lower age of consent laws and lament the “sexual freedoms” afforded to children in (oxymoronically) modern Paleolithic tribes, while simultaneously saying pedophiles (notice his lack of qualifiers in many of his comments) only want to be friends with kids, don’t desire “penetrative sex”, and would only be interested in “childlike” “light petting” (whatever that even means).

      Yeeeaaaah, sure. Methinks I smell a pile of bullshit coming from Leon the Pedo’s direction. There is zero point of NAMBLA, PIE, or any other past or present pedophile organization to agitate for lowering the age of consent if they don’t want to have sex with children. Talk about self-delusion! Or is it more like a “Trojan Horse” kind of thing to try to hoodwink the public?

  • ShawntayUStay

    If their involvement is chaste friendships (so they claim), what’s the point of defining themselves as pedophiles? Why not just say you’re a friend of a kid? Remember, you use the term “teilophiles” to describe people who are sexually attracted to age-appropriate peers. So am I correct to assume these allegedly chaste pedophiles are still very much sexually attracted to these kids? If that’s the case (and I’m sure it is), how can you be so sure they don’t desperately want to have sexual intimacy with them but are simply too scared of going to jail?

  • Pea

    Leon, if you get this easily tripped up over semantics, please avoid your shadow, as well. Wouldn’t want you hurting yourself….

    The point made was that the only parties agitating for sexual congress between children and adults are the adults so interested. You agree, naturally, because it’s a fact. I know that probably bothers you a great deal: see, for all the anecdotes traded between pedophiles on their message boards that insist said-little-kid-I-met-today-really-really-wanted-it, there is no way to objectively prove to non-pedophiles that your interpretation is legitimate.

    But since you, Leon, put so much stake in children’s “consent”, the lack of a cohesive child’s voice on these matters — a function of the reality that they are really, truly not into you — should resonate with pedophiles. Kids aren’t so much instructed that it’s “wrong”; they simply don’t think about having sex with grown-ups.

  • ShawntayUStay

    “Children DO experience sexual feelings – they have fully functioning
    erogenous zones with respect to sensation (though not spermatogenesis or
    oogenesis), and they can also find other humans physically attractive,
    or attractive as persons…..[Nauseating retrospective anecdote about babysitter]”

    So what? It’s not yours to manipulate for your own selfish gratification. Period. Why are pedophiles so fixated on sex? My God! As for your babysitter anecdote, can’t you see your inherent bias affecting your memory?

    “As an adult who has had a lot of dealings with children (and note that I
    have always been celibate as a paedophile) I have often experienced
    children trying to push the level of our closeness and intimacy in this
    way, that little step further…..”

    Ugh. Children are not pushing anything. Another hallmark of pedophiles, their blaming the child for their feelings and/or actions, along with seeing things that just don’t exist. She, this 7 year old, was not propositioning you for sexual activity. Convicted pedophiles and child molesters always remark how a kid was a “seducer”, rather than admitting they interpreted innocent curiosity about the body as an invitation in order to satisfy their desires. It is certainly true that in the course of normal development children — between 2 to 6 years of age, roughly — will do things that sick individuals can interpret as “sexuality” including wanting to see what people other then themselves look like naked (body curiosity), exposing their bodies/lack of “shame”, genital stimulatory behavior (this is a simple discovery of nerve endings due to better motor skills, not a desire to engage with adults), and boundary issues (I’d say this was what that 7 year old girl was doing with you). All of this is a normal stage of growth, but it has zero to do with “child sexuality”. That girl wasn’t asking you to ease sexual tension, FFS! Stop projecting onto this poor child!

    “I have no doubt that in doing this she wanted to progress the level of
    intimacy of our friendship. This was nothing to do with ‘having sex’ –
    but just her wanting to take a next step – a step as big (or small) as
    she felt comfortable taking.”

    Again with the language of submission. A common theme of not wanting to take responsibility for one’s actions, and a distinct lack of understanding child development.

    “Sorry, the stereotype of the paedophile having had a disturbed
    upbringing is false. I’ve been very lucky in my upbringing – excellent
    and loving parents and family, very good and loyal friends, a good
    education and a childhood full of varied experiences.”

    Do I have to keep reminding you to use qualifiers and stop generalizing? If I can find one example of a poor or dysfunctional upbringing, your argument is based on a false premise. Michael Jackson has a terribly abusive father, violence in the home, emotional/verbal abuse, and emotional neglect. He was also allegedly molested. He fixated on childhood because of it all. I’ve read many stories of pedophiles who were exposed to inappropriate sexual activity at the hands of relatives and family friends. So, while I’m not saying they represent the archetypal pedophile childhood experience, neither does your story, and you should refrain on presenting it as if it is.

    ” I DO prefer little girls as ROMANTIC partners – I think that there is
    something very wonderful in them – in their freedom, their imagination,
    their refusal to be dragged down by the day-to-day, their untamed love,
    affection and trust – that I’ve never quite found in an adult woman –
    though I have fallen in love with them too.”

    LOL. More fantasizing about ideal children. You are aware that the positives you speak of are not constant? Kids can be little monsters as well as sweet. They aren’t monolithic, as any parent can tell you.

    As for women, CLEARLY I was completely spot on in my assessment based on your verbal tirade about “violent sweaty goal oriented penetrative sex” — you suffer from intense sexual inadequacy with adult women. Impotence, both physical and emotional. No other reason to skewer what is natural and beautiful (adult sex), and denigrate the penis’s rightful function. Is it just obstinance and arrogance that prevents you from undergoing therapy for your mental illness? Do you prefer to stay underneath your security blanket of sexual fantasy involving unattainable individuals? You do realize it’s easier to change yourself than to change society because no one is going to let pedophiles win, despite the efforts of pedophile supporters in academia who are not only so out of touch with reality, but also likely closeted pedophiles themselves. The US Supreme Court has ruled that it is completely constitutional to indefinitely intern pedophiles in secure facilities. Such a sad life you live.

    I’m done here. Peace. No need to discuss this further.

  • Kat

    If pedophiles would really love children they wouldn’t molest them. That’s the only truth I agree with. For me it’s quite black and white and I don’t feel there’s a big margin for a debate on the issue. Not that long ago I was on a discussion forum with several self-admitted pedophiles posting. One of them, a man in his fifties, said that he had been attracted to little girls his whole life, but had never touched one, simply because being a pedophile wasn’t preventing him from separating right from wrong.

    I wonder why all pedophiles can’t be like that? Why can’t they accept that what they want is immoral and damaging, and that no loopholes should tried to be found? Covering up their sexual desires with concepts such as love, friendship, and mentorship only makes it worse. If pedos wouldn’t want sex with children they wouldn’t be seeking it, or advocating for the lowering of the age of consent, or claiming that kids are wanting and initiating it, and so on. You probably think that it’s easy for me to say that because I’m straight – my sexuality is fully accepted by the society and not illegal. Maybe I don’t know what things are like for you. But even if I can’t fully relate, I am even worse with understanding how can child molesters harm kids that the claim to be in love with and justify their actions by calling it love.

    Even if a pedophile genuinely just wants to be friends with a child (what an eerie concept – choosing friends based solely on their age and lack of maturity!) it is still dangerous. A pedophile is still attracted to the child and at some point may want to take it further than just holding hands.

    As for gay people – they have monogamous relationships, they get married, and many of them are better parents to surrogate or adopted children than biological parents are to their own flesh and blood. The feelings that they have can last a lifetime, and the same can’t be said about pedophiles. Their type of love only lasts while a child is a child. When puberty comes whatever infatuation they may have had disappears, which creates the question if what happened can be called love at all.

    You’ve also mentioned that we are sexually repressed or something along those lines. I would have to disagree – we live in a time when you can identify as hetero, straight, bi, transgender, pansexual, gender fluid, drag queen and so on, and nobody will give a crap. It’s only the criminal sexual tendencies that remain in the not OK area. By the way – I do believe we could all learn to accept people with paraphilias as long as they don’t act on them and realize why they’re inappropriate.

  • Pea

    Your good buddy Leon said: “But nobody I know of is arguing that adults should be allowed to penetrate children. … There are places where [Tom O’Carroll] quotes anthropological literature concerning tribal customs which involve penetration – but his comments on these usually make clear his condemnation of anything coerced, manipulative or penetrative.”

    I then described what O’Carroll wrote in his book, as Leon requested. O’Carroll does support sexual intercourse with children; Leon’s contention was that he did not at all, which is incorrect. I proved he was incorrect by pointing out that O’Carroll gave a “coitus” age of consent of 12; I also noted his comments that make it known to the reader that, in his opinion, if we lived in a “freer” society, even younger children — and, importantly, not the law! — would be able to make their own judgments as to whether they could handle intercourse.

    So, I’ll ask you again: what are you correcting? What did I write that was false, George?

  • Hilal Alsameraaii

    I found an oddity in one of the notes from Michael Jackson to the Jane Doe accuser. I believe that she’s telling the truth, and I hope this peculiarity doesn’t mean she’s lying, but:

    This image here shows one side of the note from Jackson:

    This is the other side of the same note:

    If you look at the second side, you can see the writing that is on the other side. On the writing where the name should be, there is nothing. No name, just blank space. And it’s coincidentally the only area that is not visible.

    Of course, the explanation might just be that they found a way to censor the name on the other side as well, but a part of me feels that they wouldn’t go that far.

    • ShawntayUStay

      Interesting! Could it be that the lawyers redacted the name before they scanned the note? If they did, it wouldn’t have shown through the other side of the paper. Funny, too, considering they were sloppy with her identity in other places in the document where an astute eye could easily figure out her name.

      • Hilal Alsameraaii

        I believe you may be right about the lawyers redacting the name before scanning the note:

        I still find it odd that the word “girl” doesn’t show up on the other side. Perhaps they covered that part up between the scanning of the first side and the scanning of the second. That could explain why they digitally added another black bar on the scan.

        I haven’t yet been able to find her name in the document. I was figuring I’d be able to find a name in that image, but my efforts have proved futile. I’ll look harder.

        • ShawntayUStay

          Her first name is in there but you have to be really observant. Honestly I’m shocked none of the fans know yet since they are so obsessive. Personally, I don’t understand why she’s seeking money and yet is trying to file as a Jane Doe. If those checks are legitimate, she already got gobs of money; you don’t see Jordan Chandler filing again! Plus, Wade and James are public. I hate to be suspicious but part of me wonders if she’s trying to stay hidden because she doesn’t want to be fact-checked. :-/

          • Hilal Alsameraaii

            Just to make sure: Is the letter containing her name in the document that MJFacts put out on a temporary link back in October?

          • ShawntayUStay

            It’s not in a letter. It’s in one of the documents put out by the lawyers. All letters are redacted.

          • Hilal Alsameraaii

            So it isn’t in a letter. Is it not in a cheque either?

          • ShawntayUStay

            No, all the pieces of evidence are completely redacted. It’s actually a technical glitch in the pdf itself when you are looking at the exhibits. You just have to keep your eyes looking very closely. Pea actually found it first. 🙂

          • Hilal Alsameraaii

            Is it in this document?
            (Sorry, I feel like I’m asking too many questions.)

          • ShawntayUStay

            Yep, it’s this one, but view it through a pdf viewer program on a computer; it’s important. You know, I feel a bit bad for my subterfuge even though anyone should be able to know her name given the fact it’s accidentally in a public document. I guess out of the tiny amount of respect for her attempt at anonymity, I don’t say her first name out loud but instead mage you have to find it like Pea did and I did. Sorry, Hilal. 🙂

          • Hilal Alsameraaii

            Yeah, that’s why I felt like I was asking too many questions, I didn’t want to her name to be revealed on this discussion. I’ve taken the document down from that link now so that it won’t be as easy for somebody else to find her name.

            Thanks for the help you’ve given, it’s much appreciated.

  • ShawntayUStay

    George, if Rind was a pedo sympathizer, it does cast shadow on his work because his biases could have affected how he organized the approach to testing his hypothesis. Some of the criticisms lead me to suspect it did, especially the valid point about him not including forensic or clinical populations and instead relying solely on college students. His conclusion was that contrary to popular belief, CSA allegedly does not cause harm. But by ignoring clinical/forensic populations of CSA victims, he is potentially minimizing the extent of CSA’s negative effects. He is also potentially ignoring the type of people who would be more susceptible to negative effects of CSA. I mean, as a pedo sypathetic researcher whose likely aim it is to normalize pedophilia in the eyes of the public, one would think he’d try to identify those that he could say should not be “off limits” instead of making sweeping statements that basically lead to the idea that all kids can be molested without injury.

    Susan Clancy should be ran out of town because she sought to write about CSA harm as false memory. It’s heartless and only serves to validate pedophilia. What’s her point?

    “…And you think that’s a bad thing? Even the Vir-Peds would agree that treating peds as subhuman is not the answer ,and does not ‘protect’ kids from the sexual activities they’re so scared of.”

    Of course Vir-Peds don’t think that’s the answer, LOL! I disagree that treating pedophiles as subhuman is anti-protective for kids. I don’t see how the two are related. It’s not like with other types of felonies where the ostracism of the ex-con by the community leaves them with no other option but to commit more crime because they are shut out of government assistance, the job market, etc. Labeling pedophiles, though, would only help.

    I agree with the idea that sex offenders shouldn’t necessarily be treated as monsters if they demonstrate they have changed or want to change. also if the crime was minor, such as flashing or something done under intoxication. But unrepentant, obstinate pedos? All bets are off. IMO

    The DSM is rapidly losing all credibility, and increasingly becoming a political body. If gender dysphoria is removed, they are completely irrelevant.

    • george

      Rind was an amalgamation of many smaller studies, 59 samples, I think non-clinical is good to avoid itrogenic bias. Rind used neutral terms when discussing ‘abuse’…He would change his questioning to more neutral terms like adult/child sex.

      “The DSM is rapidly losing all credibility, and increasingly”

      Well, we can agree on that re homosexuality, hebephilia, paedophilia — they change their stance more than a chameleon.

      • ShawntayUStay

        Having looked into Rind more, it’s obvious his aim is to validate pedophilia and adult-child sex in general. He’s still doing this “research”. So again, that’s why his conclusions are suspect. And I’m aware it was a meta analysis so the issue is still his methodology: why exclude studies using clinical/forensic populations? You mention “iatrogenic bias” (LOL at assuming the harm would more likely be from being in a less likelihood or forensic setting than it being from CSA…typical), but don’t you see how choosing studies done on healthy populations is more than likely validating his conclusion before he even begins data collection and analysis?? Healthy populations mean less likelihood of even having mental or emotional problems, in general.

        Not to mention Rind has recently been re-analyzing Kinsey’s sample to validate his opinion that child-adult sexual relationships are not harmful. Kinsey had really poor methodology in both his “Human Male” and “Human Female” studies. His male sample had a high proportion of inmates and homosexuals, it wasn’t a representative sample of the typical American male as he claimed. Kinsey left of populations that would invalidate his claim that a large amount (about 20%) of men are gay, and a majority of men have homosexual experiences, when recent surveys say gay and bisexual men account for only 3-4% of the US male population. Rind’s conclusion using Kinsey’s flawed sample was that adult-child male male sexual relationships rarely caused harm/emotional anguish (only 16% compared to 70% no harm), but I’d expect that result if many of the men in Kinsey’s sample were gay. A straight man would have more problems, such as shame, embarrassment, questioning his identity/sexuality, etc. That Rind would use Kinsey shows he is a biased researcher. End of.

        • george

          “Healthy populations mean less likelihood of even having mental or emotional problems, in general”..That is a good way of having a neutral study, This is about the effects of CSA not CSA and other forms of neglect. Of course there was some in the sample of studies that had emotional problems, Therefore making it difficult to assume all the ‘harm’ is from the sexual stuff (confounding variables)

          Kinsey put forward the idea that not all people are not fully exclusive in their heterosexuality/homosexuality. Some had some sexual attraction but on a lesser scale, Though I haven’t looked into the Kinsey scale in detail.

          • ShawntayUStay

            The point Rind was trying to make is that CSA is not harmful in general. He’s trying to make a sweeping generalization that would apply to all cases without looking at all populations. How don’t you see an error in that logic??? And using Kinsey is a red flag when he had fucked up methodology. I’m trained as a scientist; Rind is confirming his bias. The quality of the results begin with the sample chosen. He and Tromovitch are pedophile supporters and one wonders why they — like Susan Clancy — are so interested in invalidating the wrongness of CSA. But at the end of the day, a data point on a graph is just that — a data point. There’s no human element. Rind’s attempts to normalize adult-child sex ignore the voices of victims who would vehemently reject his attempt to generalize, and parents and families who would do anything in their power to make sure their child grows up without hiccups, which includes keeping their child away from adults who want to have sex with them. Why do pedophiles think they can have sex with our kids? The mind boggles.

            Tell me, George: when has not having a sexual relationship with an adult ever harmed a child? When has it ever been a bad thing for a kid to grow up without having a sexual relationship with a pedophile? Your lot have claimed child-adult sex does minimal harm, but not having child-adult sex does zero harm; you pedos can’t beat that number. Sorry but take several seats.

            Kinsey was a homosexual looking to have proof his proclivities were normal. So he “stacked the deck” and published his findings as if the were representative — they were not. While it may be true that homosexuality is on a continuum, his percentages of its distribution are just false. He inflated the numbers for his own purposes, i.e. for self validation.

          • george

            “Tell me, George: when has not having a sexual relationship with an adult ever harmed a child?

            Now your going into the rhetorical again!

          • ShawntayUStay

            How is it rhetorical? I asked you direct question: when has a child been harmed by not having sexual activity with an adult? Just answer the question.

            Pedo activists claim they do kids a service by being in their lives, and then proceed to rattle off a list of “benefits” that never have anything to do with sexual activity directly while simultaneously saying adult-child sex is not harmful without ever listing one single benefit gained by the child from the sexual activity itself (excluding the purely physiological response of nerve endings, the stimulation of which is not necessary for an adult to be involved with). I can easily point to the harm done by sexually molesting children, but you cannot list harm done by not sexually molesting children. Why?

          • george

            Well I suppose rejection of a child’s affections, That could be hurtful in the short term. I’d say as a ‘paedophile’, I may have a better tolerance to kids, And maybe put up with more by virtue of my attraction.

            It does delve into the rhetorical, You wouldn’t dare say “When has a man been harmed by not having sex with another man”

            There are probably plenty of pedos, pederasts, and minor attracted making a difference to kids lives all over the world.

            “(excluding the purely physiological response of nerve endings, the stimulation of which is not necessary for an adult to be involved in)

            If these physiological responses of nerve endings are pleasurable, There is no reason why adults can’t enjoy them with kids, its not like kids show no pleasure. That Kinsey study proved that regardless of how the information was ethically obtained.

          • ShawntayUStay

            As suspected, you cannot name a single harm. Of course not, because no person has ever or will ever say, “You know, I’m still pissed off society never let me have sex with that pedo down the street. My childhood would’ve been worlds better if they did!” Children don’t think like that, and you have yet to objectively demonstrate they do. The only ones who care are the pedophile adults.

            “There are probably plenty of pedos, pederasts, and minor attracted making a difference to kids lives all over the world.”

            Can you prove that the difference these “pedos, pederasts, and minor attracted persons” are allegedly making kids’ lives have to do with sex? Or is it all the non-sexual stuff pedos use to conceal the real reason they want so much legal access to children? As you even admitted, you only put up with stuff “by virtue of [your] attraction”. So much for you fellow pedo Leon saying teleiophiles are solely “goal-oriented”! You’re basically no difference than a man putting up with a horrible date only because the woman is hot and he hopes to get some. Only thing is, a child would be far more hurt when they realize the manipulation. Look at Michael Jackson, for example.

            “If these physiological responses of nerve endings are pleasurable, There is no reason why adults can’t enjoy them with kids, its not like kids show no pleasure”

            No reason?! How about no one wants you to have sex with their child?! That you are manipulating them to do something they have no mental wherewithal to do organically or consistently without being “taught” by a lascivious older person (adult or teen). Even TOC acknowledges the inherent lack of sexuality in prepubescent children until they are exposed. Again, give me a reason why we should suddenly allow pedophiles to have sex with kids. Still waiting. I sense the only real reason is “Because we want to”….

          • george

            ” Children don’t think like that”….If you listed to Leon’s story, he mentioned a time where his young friend grabbed him down there, But given how society reacts, and because of the trust her parents had in him, He had to reject her. But I concede that I haven’t heard about adults upset over the relations that they never had; What you don’t know, Don’t hurt I guess. There are stories however that fly in the face of the child abuse narrative, Positive testimonials of childhood sexual experiences — See Terry Leahy or Black Swans, Trauma myth and ‘Harmful to minors’

            “How about no one wants you to have sex with their child?”

            Some parents can never let go, Even into adulthood some try and control “their” kids (or property)!

            Yes I put up with a highly strung hot girl once, I had been alone for a while, I can’t believe what I put up with, That’s what happens when your a red blooded male.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Even Leon felt the need to tell himself that he was “certain” she wasn’t sexually abused when he typed it, because clearly most people’s reaction would be, “A seven year old girl is grabbing your crotch and trying to disrobe and get into your bed…yeah, this is probably not her first rodeo.” :’-(

            What 7 year old girl connects a touching a penis and removing clothing but one who’s been exposed to that beforehand? Would you really say that is likely or common for it to happen spontaneously? It’s not. Furthermore, if Leon is to be believed that all the parents of children he’s known knew he was a pedophile, these parents clearly had no interest in protecting their child as to allow her to be near a pedophile’s bed. Therefore it isn’t surprising she acted that way……

            “Some parents can never let go, Even into adulthood some try and control “their” kids (or property)!”

            WTF? Parents aren’t simply “refusing to let go” when they want to actively prevent their child from being molested. Are you demented??

          • ShawntayUStay

            You really think harm and trauma is isolated? That it’s simply the result of “pedo hysteria”? Get real.

            This man, Jay Ram, gave troubled boys a home in a paradise landscape but at a price. Yes, these boys gave the physical signal they felt pleasure, but all are psychologically scarred at the manipulation by someone how was supposed to care for them. Also, Ram exhorted the alleged virtues of cultures of times past’s seemingly freer attitudes about sex between adults and children in order to convince these boys to participate. This sounds awfully familiar to every pedophile ever!

          • george

            I don’t see the point of wasting my time watching that, Don’t you think I get enough of this in the media? In the UK we have ‘football coach historic abuse’, With stories of coercion. I could drop you a link about Dutch boys who made porn with a overt paedophile (the dutch has less pedo hysteria in the 1970s, therefore people could be more open) or look again at MJs relations with boys, oral sex was just one part of the fun, it had no special status and is light years away from what that video describes.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Why so afraid? You ask me and everyone on here to read your links, all of which are foul and loathsome. Yet we still do it. What’s so scary about seeing the eyes of male victims, watching them break down into tears and express anger at the fact their supposed “Dad” was a sick pervert who used them? This, George, is not Rind’s bullshit meta-analysis of college student populations from white countries; these are men of all races and from the most troubled backgrounds Rind wanted to exclude. And no one was “coerced”, but instead groomed to accept it.

            Dutch boys and pedophiles — what’s going on in The Netherlands?! It’s apparently hotbed of perversion the way TOC goes on and on about it! LOL. But those boys are not the norm, George! And it’s erroneous to really even mention them because if AOC laws are lowered, the baddies get at the kids too, not just the allegedly “loving” Dutch pedo pornographer. Or are you also going to limit which pedos get to use the lower AOC laws? Sounds like a legal nightmare waiting to happen. Or maybe you’re a fan of the children’s tribunal idea put forth by Leon and reminiscent of TOC? No doubt it’ll be modeled after “Children of the Corn” because having adults on the children’s tribunal defeats the purpose of letting kids have the “freedom to choose” their partners! Yes, Isaac as judge and Malachi as deliverer of justice! Good luck with that. Completely ridiculous pedo fantasy that would never work in real life. SMH

            “look again at MJs relations with boys, oral sex was just one part of the
            fun, it had no special status and is light years away from what that
            video describes.”

            It’s not. Watch the video. And why do you keep talking about Michael Jackson? You clearly know zero about the case.

          • george

            “Even TOC acknowledges the inherent lack of sexuality in prepubescent children until they are exposed”

            Here is his blog from 2013, ‘The magical age of ten’

            ” until they are exposed”

            Complete rubbish, anyone who knows about childhood sexual development is aware that kids can initiate sexual intimacy without prior introduction. That’s similar pseudoscience that assumes the ‘abused’ becomes ‘abusers’, But you cannot label victims like that now, (1) its politically incorrect (2) There is no objective truth in it.

          • ShawntayUStay

            TOC said in a footnote in his book that children do not have sexuality like adults do, namely the mind-body connection which produces the complex erotic fantasies and desires/longing for sex that adults have. And he said that only comes with exposure to sex. Everything before that is nerve ending based.

            As for his sick blog, he sounds completely mental wistfully writing about oral sex between kindergartners and fetuses masturbating in the womb, among other things. He should be embarrassed. You still think pedophilia is a sexual orientation? Uh, no. It’s quite sad that a man as intelligent(?) as he is spends most of his life writing billions of words trying to convince the public to let him have sex with boys. Talk about obsessed! As if there aren’t more important topics to tackle.

            And so much for all the yapping by TOC fan and fellow pedo, Leon, who insisted TOC thinks 12 is a right age for sex; clearly he likes 10! But his functional age for sexual activity is 4…yikes!

            A quote from ol’ Tom: “There is also evidence that individual children, like the four-year-old
            boy and his five-year-old girl partner at the Carson pre-school, will
            consciously desire to repeat experiences they have found to be
            pleasurable. Belittling this as merely exploratory behaviour is just a
            tactic to avoid facing the fact that children can indeed be truly
            [emphasis added]”

            Firstly, of course children will repeat pleasurable experiences. That’s the same reason they’d continue to eat cookies from the cookie jar. How does that mean kids are equivalent to adults, and we should therefore allow pedophiles et al to have sex with them? This is no more than a reaction to properly functioning nerve-endings. So for pedophiles, it ceases to be wrong and abusive if the child orgasms? Is it still rape if a woman has an orgasm? Yes it is, and children are no different.

            Secondly, that last bit that I put in bold is hilarious because it just further shows who are the main ones interested in the “child as sexual being” narrative. Who are the ones really “belittled” by curiosity and exploration being called just that? Children, or the pedophiles et al who are desperate to get their mitts on children and need these labels excoriated because they believe it hurts their (completely delusional and self-serving) argument for lowering AOC laws? Methinks it’s the latter– it’s always just the latter, never the child, too. Exploration and curiosity are accurate. If they weren’t and sexuality comparable to an adult’s was more accurate, tell me why adults do not continue the exact same things, in both method and mindset, as children do? If it’s the same in childhood why does it not remain the same into adulthood, but instead deepen with the irreversible mixing in of the emotional and spiritual with the sexual? I mean, pedo activists want us non-pedophiles to believe children are mature and completely capable of handling sexual relationships with adults, yet they only emphasize the base reptilian brain responses to pleasurable stimulation of nerves, as if that’s the only prerequisite. Adults know sexual/romantic relationships are always more than that. How are kids ready, then? And TOC and other pedos haven’t provided any reasons why it’s beneficial for an them to be involved in any of this, regardless of what you what to call it.

            You know, George, pedos should simply admit it’s just about wanting to have sex with kids and stop covering it up with the “children’s rights” narrative. You, et al, don’t care about kids, and we all can clearly see that’s true; no one’s stupid. Admit it’s really about “pedophiles’ rights” to touch kids without criminal sanction.

  • Pea

    I didn’t ask you what “coitus age” O’Carroll was comfortable with (he helpfully provided that himself in his book) — I asked what about my comment was incorrect. It is clear to me that nothing I wrote was wrong or a mischaracterization; in fact, the only one mischaracterizing O’Carroll was his fellow pedophile Leon.

    I think this issue is now done and dusted, George. Move along.

  • Pea

    Yes, you’re the last pedophile standing until the others are released from moderation (not my call, but, naturally, as this is a website that has, as one of its core features, an anti-CSA/anti-pedophilia credo, comments vigorously advocating either can’t sit around being unchallenged).

    “You would have to find an exclusive pedo and ask him”

    No, the question is for you, too, even if you are “non-exclusive”. The relevant point here is not whether a pedophile can or can’t find a legal “outlet” for sexual urges, but that they are attracted to kids. As Michael Jeffrey said, “Do you love the child/personality or the prepubescent body?” — in other words, if a person labels themselves “minor-attracted” or “pedophile” or “hebephile”, is it not a logical conclusion that they are only attracted to the youth of the beloved and that when the natural process of aging occurs, they will lose interest?

    You should be able to answer that, George.

    In fact, your good buddy Leon tacitly admitted our worst suspicions about pedophiles when he wrote: “I DO prefer little girls as ROMANTIC partners – I think that there is something very wonderful in them – in their freedom, their imagination, their refusal to be dragged down by the day-to-day, their untamed love, affection and trust – that I’ve never quite found in an adult woman”.

    The precise reason much of that exists in a young girl, as opposed to a woman, is due to the fact she has not aged. Michael Jackson even sang about this very thing in his song “With A Child’s Heart”: — how realistic is it that an adult woman, having at least normal intelligence, can maintain the characteristics of the girl Leon and, doubtless, other pedophiles prefer, when it is the normal process of biological development (not to mention the world itself to which she is not immune!) that changes her?

    It is a nearly impossible task, and only a narcissistic user who prefers control and dishonesty would have, as a condition for “romance”, an adult behave or think like a “kid”.

    So, the question is again: will you still love the child when they cease being a child bodily, emotionally, and mentally?

    • george

      Well I can answer for Leon because I remember his previous conversations on other sites and also on here….He said ‘romantically’, He finds little girls the most attractive, But he also likes fully developed full-breasted women; Therefore its not that hard to imagine if these types of relations were sanctioned (within reason) by society, The relationship could last many years; Who are you to say he’s not capable of long term love. Many couples are together long after the sexual interest has run its course.

      “Do you love the child/personality or the prepubescent body?”

      Well like most attraction, You first find (s)he aesthetically/sexually pleasing, But after, like with other ‘humans’, you can develop a close bond, But god forbid in this society!

      “when the natural process of ageing occurs, they will lose interest” No because paedophilia/hebephilia are not mutually exclusive from love and bonding beyond the preferred age range. But I will say this, Most are non-exclusive anyway.

  • Michael Jeffrey

    I mentioned the relations to victims because I’ve sent you a link with it saying that only one lasted until his death.
    I agree that the kid could end it as well. But mostly it becomes so usual,that they don’t really think about it.I doubt a girl would end it…maybe a boy. But a girl ? no…

    • george

      I have known girls who have gone through many boys, Including me!

  • …do you assume that all paedophiles who believe in child-adult intimacy have no self-control, no sense of respect for the law (arguing for reform of the law is *not* the same thing as promoting breaking of the law), no sense of ethics vis a vis children and their parents

    No, that is not what I assume. I do assume that some, if not most, pedophiles will take advantage of any relaxation of the age of consent laws to take advantage of children. As Pea has pointed out, you do not speak for all pedophiles and we cannot risk any child being harmed.

    …all of the children I’ve been closest to have been children of friends – friends who know that I’m a paedophile btw

    That is either a lie, or there is something seriously wrong with the parents. No loving parent would willingly hand their child over to a pedophile.

    Your use of the word blame betrays an ingrained negativity towards child sexuality and its expression, as if it were ‘blameworthy’.

    You incorrectly assume there is such a thing as “child sexuality”. All children have is nerve endings that if stimulated feel good. A seven-year-old girl is not seeking out sex with an adult, nor do they want a “sexual adventure” with an adult. That is your projecting adult behaviours onto a child.

    I have to pick you up again on the use of the word ‘sex’ – I know that when you use that word your imagination conjures up ‘penetration’.

    No it does not. Please stop pretending you are inside my brain. Sex is anything sexual pedophiles do with a child.

    Your tack of arguing has been about trying to oblige me to defend positions that I have explicitly and repeatedly rejected.

    You only reject arguments from your own personal prism. For instance, you argue that because you don’t desire penetration, then no pedophile desires penetration. This is clearly untrue, as even Tom O’Carroll, the activist you have been quoting, desires it. A lot.

    But it’s one thing to admire a diamond in a jeweller’s shop window – it’s a whole other thing to get a gun and steal it from the shop at gun point.

    This is a false analogy. You argue that the only thing stopping pedophiles from having sex with children is because it’s illegal. If they were handing out diamonds to anyone in the street, and you liked diamonds, of course you would take one. That is what you are advocating for, children to be handed to pedophiles on a platter.

    You still have not argued the point as to why children need to have sex with adults. There is no reason, children don’t need it.

    • Kat

      Leon and George haven’t helped to improve my opinion about their kind at all. No matter how much they whine that children are sexual beings too, that children want to have sex with adults and experience pleasure, or that kids can otherwise benefit from a relationship with a pedophile, it becomes clear quite quickly that they are pushing their own agendas and are projecting their wants on children. It’s rather transparent and sad.

      • george

        Maybe its you who are projecting your zealotry onto us, If a child wanted/desires one of us, People like you would deny it.

        • Kat

          I remember being a child quite well, and probably the last thing I wanted was to get it on with a fully grown man decades older than me. And none of my friends wanted it either. It’s not really what you’re thinking about, when your main interests are playing with clay, and climbing trees, and learning to ride a bicycle. Someone who’s at that age mentally is clearly not ready for adult things like sex.

          As for children being sexual beings – I recall being curious about the human anatomy, learning how boys and girls differed for instance, and then later discovering more and more about sex and sexuality, as teenage years neared. But even when I learned about it, to me it still remained something that was meant for adults. Pedophiles may see all twelve years old girls as Nabokov’s ‘nymphets’ – seductive child women enticing older men. But in reality how can someone who’s only learning about and discovering sexuality initiate and then navigate the complex dynamics of relationships and sex?

          Of course I would deny it, even if the child wanted it. Any consent given by a child is false consent, as they don’t have the maturity required to actually agree to sex.

          • george

            “. Any consent given by a child is false consent, as they don’t have the maturity required to actually agree to sex”

            What utter absurdity, You must also deny them ALL agency going by your logic, its funny, only in sexual matters does this pedantic set of rules apply; Not when they’ve committed a crime, Then they are punished, Albeit to a lesser degree, But accountable under the law — Criminal age of responsibility in UK is age ten! There is a famous case in the early nineties when two ten year old boys walked off with a toddler and brutally murdered him on a railroad; Tell the mother that they are not responsible, That they don’t understand!!

            As for your experience, I known a girl from eight (when I was around ten) that was very flirtatious with me. And remember how I was which I will keep to myself; Though with all the negativity, My sexual feelings left me feeling confused and dirty.

          • Kat

            The way you’re writing it’s like you believe I’m the one setting all these rules! It’s quite amusing, frankly. While I didn’t come up with all this, I do agree with most prohibitions that are put onto people until they reach legal adulthood – age eighteen in most countries.

            I don’t think people under the age of eighteen should drive, be allowed to buy alcohol and cigarettes, get married, bear children, vote, make big purchases such as buying a house, and similar. While you may argue that lots of kids are mature enough to do some of these things when they are sixteen, and it is true, lots of youngsters are still juvenile in their thinking even in their late teens. I was like that myself – I remember myself at that age and I’m horrified about how childish were some of my antics and beliefs. I also recall how I really wanted to get a tattoo around fifteen or sixteen. Had I been allowed to do that, it would have definitely turned into a regret by now. I girl from my school did get a permission from her parents to get one, and she got something tacky and meaningless.

            People who are underage do get punished for criminal activity. The punishment just isn’t as harsh, again because their brains are still developing. And it’s not something I personally invented.

          • What utter absurdity, You must also deny them ALL agency going by your logic, its funny, only in sexual matters does this pedantic set of rules apply…

            Not at all: children are not permitted to smoke, drink, live alone, leave school, nor many other activities. In actual fact, a child will not be answerable to the law for having sex with an adult, so what you are selling – more children’s rights by lowering the age of consent – is valueless.

            Criminal age of responsibility in UK is age ten…

            This is the age at which most children know wrong from right in the limited number of illegal activities they may commit (stealing, assault, vandalism). For the most part, first-time offenders are cautioned, only repeat offenders get into any real trouble; only very serious crimes, where the child perpetrator is pschologically assessed as to culpability, are treated harshly by the courts and imprisoned.

          • Pedophiles may see all twelve year old girls as Nabokov’s ‘nymphets’ – seductive child women enticing older men.

            I agree, and it’s clear that the pedophiles here (and I believe in general) are projecting adult sexual behaviours onto kids. A child’s grab for the crotch which is no different from a child’s grab to an arm or leg is perceived as some sort of seduction for instance. Or a child getting naked means that they are ready for sex, rather than just, well, being naked. Kids are kids, no need to view them as adults in little bodies for any reason.

        • Just as a responsible parent or carer would deny a child candy for breakfast, unlimited ice cream, letting them play ball near a busy highway, etc etc. It’s not zealotry, it’s making decisions for children that they aren’t emotionally or mentally equipped to make for themselves.

  • Adults (generally) need a sexual relationship with one another. Children do not need a sexual relationship with adults, so there is no need for a debate about consent.

    If there was, as has been pointed out, children do not have the cognitive capacity to understand the consequences of a sexual relationship with an adult just as they do not have the cognitive ability to understand the consequences of having candy for breakfast every day. Never mind the fact that there are unscrupulous pedophiles who, using their superior cognitive abilities and life experience, will take advantage of any relaxation of age of consent laws to subtly coerce and manipulate children into giving the consent needed to stay within this new law. You can’t guarantee that won’t happen, will you Leon.

    Irrelevant factoids about adult consent ignored

    • george

      How is the fact that homosexuals consent was not recognised in the past an ‘irrelevant factoid’, In UK we have the criminal age of responsibility of ten: Again, going by your logic, They are not permitted to do anything before they’re informed on the matter, Hoe does one obtain sexual experience, By practice, As long as there is no penetration before twelve; For reasons already discussed, and its kept at the child’s level, Then there is no good reason to deny it.

      Of course I’d take advantage of any relaxation of AOC laws, But within the confines mentioned above, For those that would go further and use coercion, force or penetration before the said age, Then like Leon I’d support punishment upon the individual.
      But yes, I would feel emboldened to look at some kid with his parents in the street, and not worry about the parent having the full weight of the state punish me for just admiring an attractive girl or boy.

      • ShawntayUStay

        “Hoe does one obtain sexual experience, By practice,”

        Why does a child need to obtain sexual experience in prepubescence?? He or she has their entire life to have sex, and it certainly isn’t rocket science that needs years of childhood practice, FFS! Sixteen is legally reasonable (although it still can be socially prohibited for some reasons, like teen pregnancy prevention), and any demurring from the pedo crowd is only because they believe most 16 year olds look “too old” and past their “prime”.

        “As long as there is no penetration before twelve; For reasons already discussed, and its kept at the child’s level, Then there is no good reason to deny it.”

        You’ve given no good reason to allow it.

        “Of course I’d take advantage of any relaxation of AOC laws,”

        So the only thing preventing(?) you from acting is fear of incarceration. I guess all those Vir Peds would cease to exist as well. So much for all their BS about thinking sex with children is wrong! It’s all in the plan; create a group of non-offending pedos to enable the idea of an immutable orientation to take hold to “quiet” the public’s anger while the others work on studies to “prove” CSA is not harmful so when the time is right, there is the “evidence” necessary to push for law changes. It’s all textbook.

        ” But within the confines mentioned above, For those that would go further and use coercion, force or penetration before the said age, Then like Leon I’d support punishment upon the individual.”

        No you wouldn’t! Come off it already. TOC believes in the magical age of 10 (or is it really 4?), where boys in New Guinea tribes were having sexual intercourse at that age. Or the Lepcha people of India allowing girls and boys to have sex with each other and adults, even at 8. So we all know you people have arbitrarily chosen 12 as if it’s actually a real marker for sexual maturity (it isn’t) because you all think it sounds more palatable to the public than the age “whenever-[insert pedo’s name]-feel-like-doing-the-kid” — because that’s the reality and you’re attempting to sugarcoat it.

        • george

          Many false assumptions as usual!

          “? He or she has their entire life to have sex, and it certainly isn’t rocket science that needs years of childhood practice, FFS!

          Ys I agree, Sex can be ‘child’s play’, at the level that kids are comfortable with.

          Regardless of whether (s)he has all of their lives to contemplate sex, try telling that to a horny pubescent, Wanting to ‘have it on’. wait till your a magical 16…yeah right!
          I can include pubescent’s can’t I, Many of MJs “victims”, were. and we’d still be called ‘pedo’, and incarcerated for having sex with them. I agree that when puberty hits, Many more kids would be ‘up for it’, But younger kids can still be sexual but to a lesser extent, No reason to deny them though!

          “You’ve given no good reason to allow it”

          its on you people to prove its harmful, Beyond coercion, force etc; Just like the burden of proof lies with the religious to prove there is a god, Not those that are not religious to prove that there is not!

          “. I guess all those Vir Peds would cease to exist as well”

          As much as I can’t stand them, Like you say, were all individuals. It would be unfair to tar them with the same brush. I assume some really believe its wrong.

          ” where boys in New Guinea tribes were having sexual intercourse at that age”

          Where did he say coitus was OK at that age, I think he was very sceptical about some of the practices they partake it, Like oral sex whilst having a sharp rod stuck up your nose.

          ” . So we all know you people have arbitrarily chosen 12 as if it’s actually a real marker for sexual maturity”

          He gave a concise reason why it should be twelve, and I agree with his stance. Sorry to disappoint you, But I don’t think under twelve is appropriate despite the fact that some girls may well take some men virtually pain free.

          • …its on you people to prove its harmful…

            No, it isn’t. Pedophiles are the ones who want age of consent laws reformed, so it’s up to you to give a very good reason why. So far none of you have given a reason why children need to have sex with adults so ipso facto no change is necessary. In any case many children have been harmed by having sex with adults for the reasons already spelled out (shame, embarrassment, rejection, pschological scarring as a result of manipulation, not to mention STDs and other consequences of children “consenting” to something they don’t have the cognitive or emotional maturity to consent to).

      • Homosexuality has nothing in common with pedophilia. One involves adults, the other adults and children. As children are not equipped to make adult decisions they can’t be compared.

        For those that would go further and use coercion, force or penetration before the said age, Then like Leon I’d support punishment upon the individual.

        One thing you and others have studiously ignore is whether pedophiles who use manipulation to achieve their aims should be discovered and subsequently punished. Adults have proportionally vastly more life experience compared to children, this is the reality – it would be easy for a pedophile to influence and maneuver a child into a sexual relationship. As this is, and will be, the most common method used by pedophiles to get children to have sex with them, how can any law possibly deal with that if the child believes the sex was “their idea”?

  • Leave red herrings out of this please.

  • for stealing and assault, well, those are crimes that cause harm and have a motivation..

    As for child molestation, well, that is a crime that cause harm and has a motivation (sexual gratification for the adult).

    They are passed by a small deranged elite, most people are not involved in the decision making process nor are they informed of the alternatives so age of consent laws are more a show of power than consensus.

    Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds? Age of consent laws are fairly uniform the world over, which recognises that children do not have the cognitive abilities to understand the consequences of consenting to sex with an adult.

    So you support North Korean style “Three Generations of Punishment”, nice. You are really giving paedohysterical folk a positive image.

    Strawman argument. My comment reflects reality, in which (as you stated) children of molesters are shunned. My comment also reflects the fact that pedophiles, when given the choice of acting on their impulses or focusing on the wellbeing of those around them, sometimes act on their impulses.

    What “child safety protocols” that say you mustn’t touch a child? That say you mustn’t be alone in the same room as a child?

    These are standard protocols in schools and youth organisations, in response to pedophiles taking advantage of children in their care. Why would anyone have a problem with them?

    And finally, anything a child says against a male is taken as truth, so no, even if a man follows all your absurd and impossibly vague rules then he will still end up in prison for child molestation as some point.

    False allegations of child abuse, outside of bitter family law cases, are extremely rare.

    Then they won’t teach them important life skills. And so the future generation loses out.

    Thank you for your honesty in pointing out that pedophiles only care about children if they can have sex with them. It’s as I and many have suspected.

    • As for child molestation, well, that is a crime that cause harm and has a motivation (sexual gratification for the adult).

      No, as already pointed out Rind shows this to be nonsense as well as plenty of other individual testimonials.

      Age of consent laws are fairly uniform the world over

      Totally wrong, age of consent laws are far from uniform. Historically the age of consent was vastly lower in most countries, and in numerous places even parts of the USA e.g. Delaware the age of consent was 7. Even today the age of consent in much of Mexico is still 12 and in Spain it was 13 until a couple of years ago. Increasingly the age of consent is rising globally, however, this is as the world becomes governed by a single feminist elite with their deluded ideology.

      Strawman argument. My comment reflects reality, in which (as you stated)
      children of molesters are shunned. My comment also reflects the fact
      that pedophiles, when given the choice of acting on their impulses or
      focusing on the wellbeing of those around them, sometimes act on their

      No you’ve just walked up your own arse there. You initially implied that punishing the children of sex offenders would act as a deterrent, yet you now claim sex offenders are unable to control their impulses and so a deterrent has little affect.

      Either way, your desire to make children suffer is hypocritical given your claim that you hold “protecting children” in the highest regard when it’s blatantly obvious that your motives are more related to punishing sexuality than protecting children.

      These are standard protocols in schools and youth organisations, in
      response to pedophiles taking advantage of children in their care. Why
      would anyone have a problem with them?

      Because those policies are disgusting, sexist, ageist and morally wrong. Many normal people object to those policies but are overwhelmingly either too lazy, too ignorant, too frightened or all of the above to fight them.

      False allegations of child abuse, outside of bitter family law cases, are extremely rare.

      Nope, large amounts of compensation is on offer, people can also decide to make allegations purely for revenge. It is a much better idea to accuse someone of child molestation than to stab them – if you accuse them of child molestation they’ll endure a worse fate than being killed, plus you have absolutely no risk of anything bad happening to you (at least you didn’t, though if I was accused of child molestation I’d probably kill my accuser at all costs. It’s funny most sex offenders don’t – could it be because sex offenders are all some of the nicest people you’d ever meet? Unlike me!).

      Thank you for your honesty in pointing out that pedophiles only care
      about children if they can have sex with them. It’s as I and many have

      Everyone is selfish. Including you. The problem is you are trying to deny your own selfish inclinations by wrapping it up in some “virtuous” wrapping paper. I’m not buying it!

      • ShawntayUStay

        “No, as already pointed out Rind shows this to be nonsense as well as plenty of other individual testimonials.”

        Rind is a pedo supporter who is still to this day trying to support his preformed conclusion that pedophiles are good for society. He’s to be taken with a grain of salt; he’s not the be-all, end-all on the subject. SMH

        “Totally wrong, age of consent laws are far from uniform. Historically the age of consent was vastly lower in most countries, and in numerous places even parts of the USA e.g. Delaware the age of consent was 7. Even today the age of consent in much of Mexico is still 12 and in Spain it was 13 until a couple of years ago. Increasingly the age of consent is rising globally, however, this is as the world becomes governed by a single feminist elite with their deluded ideology.”

        All your yapping about AOC laws, why don’t you just move to another country that has the AOC laws that reflect your age preference if you’re so hard up? Then you can rest your angry little head and not worry about the evil feminist she-monsters because likely the places you’ll have to move to hate women already!

        “You initially implied that punishing the children of sex offenders would act as a deterrent, “

        MJFacts did not say that. In reply to your comment “The families of convicted sex offenders, particularly their children, are also punished as a consequence. This results in children living in poverty, being bullied at school and generally have a hard start in life. “, MJFacts said, “Even more reason for adults to resist their urges to molest children.”. How does that imply punishing the relatives of molesters will deter molesters?? LMAO! MJFacts’ point is that if a molester cared about his or her family and their safety and reputation, and don’t want them to be marred by the molester’s actions if he/she is caught, then he/she should not commit molestation! MJFacts mentioned it as yet another reason why adults having sex with kids is harmful — the real life collateral effect it has on family and friends. Don’t be so obtuse.

        “Either way, your desire to make children suffer is hypocritical given your claim that you hold “protecting children” in the highest regard “

        Irrelevant point based on false premise. See reason above.

        “Many normal people object to those policies but are overwhelmingly either too lazy, too ignorant, too frightened or all of the above to fight them.”

        Or maybe they do nothing because they actually don’t object and they think these policies are reasonable and prudent, and it’s actually you who hates them and you’re projecting your feelings onto these normal people?

        “if I was accused of child molestation I’d probably kill my accuser at all costs.”

        Well you’d probably never be falsely accused because… you’re a pedo. You’d be guilty. LOL.

        Oh the bloody irony! It is you people why deny your own selfish inclinations by wrapping it up in some “virtuous” wrapping paper! Are so you lacking in self-reflection? My God! Check your comment for example

      • Pea

        …though if I was accused of child molestation I’d probably kill my accuser at all costs. It’s funny most sex offenders don’t – could it be because sex offenders are all some of the nicest people you’d ever meet? Unlike me!”

        Interesting how you didn’t use the word “false” to describe an “accuser”, and you admitted that those accused in your scenario are not “alleged” sex offenders. So, you’re essentially suggesting that you’d kill a child, “at all costs”, who’d be confessing that she was abused by you?

        Do correct me if that is not what you were saying. Because if it was, then you are certainly not a “nice” sex offender, but a vile and sadistic one.

        Not really surprised. After all, you do support child pornography…. (Source: your blog)

        • george

          So what do you call ‘child pornography’?

          • Pea

            Pretty simple: “child pornography” is akin to regular pornography — it’s wide variety included — except the “stars” are children. Also, any image or film showing obviously sexually suggestive posing (e.g., such as intentionally bearing genitals to the camera) would fall into the same category.

            More interesting questions would be, since you are a self-proclaimed pedophile, how do you define it and do you support it? For all the emphasis placed on “loving children” and wanting to ensure their “rights”, pedophiles sure enjoy child exploitation imagery….

          • george

            One point you missed, They don’t even have to be in a sexually suggestive position for it to be deemed CP, If it can be shown that sexual pleasure was derived from it; Look at the ‘innocent’, (as in harmless) pics MJ had, Many people fell victim to those punitive laws. Also in UK since 2003 sexual offences act, And sexual/nude image of someone ‘deemed’ to be under eighteen can come under with overarching definition of CP, Despite the AOC set at sixteen. So you can bang a 16yo, just don’t have a naked photo of her.
            As for images with kids actually involved in porn, its very rare!

          • Pea

            I’m American — the standard here for CP is as I’ve described. Pedophiles can own images of fully nude children as long as they aren’t sexually explicit; the images would be deemed “child erotica”, and be tellingly indicative of the owner’s interests, but are otherwise legal to possess. For instance, Jacko had books from the 1960s peddled by boylover imprints, and they showed genitals, but he was never arrested or charged over ownership of them because they were essentially “nudes” and, therefore, “art”.

            In contrast, owning an image of someone under 18 deliberately bearing (or being made to bear) their genitals or breasts to the camera would be considered CP.

            The argument that someone could so easily get “caught up” owning a misconstrued picture, at least here in the US, is specious. Porn, in general, falls under the Know-It-When-You-See-It dictum; it’s obvious what would be illegal, and, outside of dumb teens “sexting” each other naughty pictures (which shouldn’t be a crime), most people of normal intelligence wouldn’t get caught up unless they were intentionally owning CP images.

            “As for images with kids actually involved in porn, its very rare!”

            I’m fairly certain it is not “very rare” — your statistic is analogous to the claim that it’s “very rare” (paraphrased) for pedophiles to not be chaste, i.e., the statement is only true and/or has value because of current proscriptions. In other words, CP may be “very rare” when a pedophile tries to search Google for it, but not “very rare” in the deep web where it actually exists….

            Using the rarity argument to suggest that all images considered CP shouldn’t be banned is ridiculous. Just as in how abolishing age of consent laws would result in the mass extinction of “sexless” Vir Peds, legalizing CP would increase its availability.

            The questions were: how do you define CP, do you support it, and if it was legalized, would you own it? (This is assuming that the current kid-related contents of your hard drive wouldn’t turn our hair white.)

          • Kat

            As a general rule, images and videos showing children in the nude are considered child erotica and are legal. Child pornography pertains to content that shows underage kids engaging in sex acts, and is highly illegal. Possession, distribution, and making are all prohibited.

            That doesn’t mean that child porn can’t be accessed – I’ve heard there’s a whole secret section of the internet called ‘the dark net’ that’s dedicated solely to it. I just hope that you haven’t found a way to it. Child porn is truly degrading to kids – I don’t know how anyone can want to get their hands on it. Even MJ didn’t have any.

          • george

            If your from the US, I’d be surprised if your country was less draconian than the UK, However, Having nude images on your HD of under eighteens is illegal if it can be shown that you were using said images for sexual gratification — So if MJ was in UK, He’d be done on indecent images of children act IIOC, That in the media, is also called ‘abuse images’, absurd and laughable if not so draconian.

      • Kat

        Just out of curiosity – why would you legalise drugs and do you in all honesty think there’s nothing harmful in them? I’m just interested in why would someone fail to see that selling and using drugs degrades people and our society as a whole, and the vast negative effects it has on people’s finances, social standings (drug users are vastly marginalised) and their health. But if your people don’t see the harm of child molestation, maybe that extends to other types of crime as well…

        There is nothing disgusting, sexist or ageist about boundaries that must exist between children and adults. Does it even make sense to you when you type it? These are in place, because if an adult male spends the night in a room with a child, there is high risk of the child being molested. And no one to account for what happened and didn’t happen, because no third person was present.

        The age of consent is for people of the same age and influence, to ensure that the power balance isn’t tipped. In UK a sixteen year old may have sex with another sixteen year old, but if someone in a position of authority sexually pursues anyone under eighteen, it is considered a crime. In the same way older teenagers can molest younger kids, and while under the law both are considered children, the oldest child might very well be prosecuted. I doubt that the age of consent was much lower before, it was most likely an issue if CSA not being recognized as a real crime, as it is now.

        Mjfacts is not selfish, mainly pointing out that adults are interested in other adults romantically too; a grown person wants someone to be their mate, perhaps eventually a spouse, a parent to their kids, and so on. It isn’t just about sex for us, unlike it is for your lot…

        • george

          “, because if an adult male spends the night in a room with a child, there is high risk of the child being molested”

          Like with MJ Huh, We know the same boys spent many nights in his bed, So why all this concern about ‘molestation’ (breaking one of societies golden rules) It may seem abnormal in this current society for a pubescent boy to be in bed with a fully grown man, But since its natural and has been around as long as we know (ancient Greece) we have nature on our side, You just have bigotry and fear.

          • Kat

            I will have you know, George, that I didn’t make these rules. I suggest you address youth serving organisations such as Boy Scouts and urge them to change their policies about adults not being allowed to sleep with children or share the same bathrooms/showers, if you disagree. However, I doubt you’ll succeed with that!

            Cannibalism was once widely practiced, too. Do you think we should go back to eating other people, just because it was a normal practice for native Brazilian tribes?

          • george

            Strawman alert…You are comparing cannibalism with say, MJ performing fellatio on willing boys — If you remember Baden Powell he loved watching boy scouts playing naked, It shows how moral panics occur. it brings a new meaning to ‘scouting for boys’ haha!

  • ShawntayUStay

    “In the case of breaking age of consent laws there is no harm done and thus, like for drugs, there is no case for incarceration.”

    Um, are you serious? Drugs absolutely do harm! Just watch one episode of Intervention and you can see the effect is has not just on the user — who is usually unemployed or criminally employed and has no other focus or goal other than getting high — but also the family and friends of the user, who are harmed by the fact their loved one has become manipulative towards them just to get money and necessities. You clearly don’t know how much potential is wasted when drugs are involved. Just ask recovering addicts.

    Likewise, please provide proof for your claim that breaking the age of consent does absolutely no harm. Meaning no one is ever harmed by it. Thanks.

    You can try to make broad spurious arguments about “sometimes” it causes harm but that has no place in law. The law must be specific not broad and prejudice-based. Would you have a law that said all black men must be on a register because they are more likely to commit crimes than white men? That is basically what you propose with your age of consent nonsense.”

    Don’t mention race in your defense of having sex with kids; it’s fallacious, irrelevant, and looks dumb as hell. No, the law needs to be broad but applied narrowly and prudently. Broad so that bad acts can be prosecuted and not slip through a loophole. Example, there was not specific law to cover the acts that collapsed the US economy in 2008. Billions — trillions — of dollars lost, a recession triggered that we’ve still recovering from, and yet not a single person went to jail. Had we had a broader law that could cover those particular acts as well, folks would’ve been punished for the evil they inflicted on the entire country. Likewise, age of consent laws are broad to cover most acts. While it’s true some people may get caught up in the process, how typical is it? Not that typical at all; it’s atypical. There’s a decent point to be made that 18 is a tad high for AOC, and I’d personally say 16 is reasonable since most minors are post-pubescent by this point and they’ve likely undergone the brain development necessary to understand the majority of sexual consequences, but you’re suggesting we throw the baby out with the bathwater just because some cases are not “as criminal” as others! That’s ridiculous and anarchical and only serves a small group of people at the expense of many.

    “I beg to differ, there are a few stories, not millions and those stories are either not what we’re talking about (e.g. actual rape or murder as opposed to feminist AOC fantasies) or the individuals concerned seem to have some kind of radical feminist mental illness (trust me, you would rather your child has cancer to feminism – and most people agree!).”

    LOL, these are not the only “reasons” for someone to experience harm from CSA. How about manipulation, abandonment, embarrassment, violation of trust? My God, do you see shrill hairy-armpit feminists in your nightmares or something? You’re obsessed.

    “And that’s ignoring the “under the surface” discrimination which means female teachers are given far more leeway than male teachers. You’re just making up idiotic rules for the sake of discriminating against men. These rules destroy student-teacher relationships, make men afraid of going into teaching and reduce teaching to a mindless bureaucratic exercise as opposed to the innovative profession that it could be.”

    I agree with you that there is absolutely a double-standard, and it is wrong. However, the fault does not lay with feminists or whatever nebulous she-monster you accuse; it lies with men and the patriarchy. They are the reason male teachers are treated differently when they are accused of having sex with a student. Why? Because men have made enduring assumptions about the power dynamic between women and men: they claim that women are harmless and thus even if she is older and wiser than the male child victim, he will still be above her.

    Alternately, if the older and wiser person is a man and the child is a female, he has taken advantage of her and destroyed her. Don’t believe it? Just check the comments under any story involving a female teacher and a male student. These loser men are giving him virtual High 5s while consistently saying, “If it was a girl and a male teacher he should be locked up. That’s just reality. Girls are different” blah blah sexist, ignorant blah. Men see women and girls as both delicate flowers and harmless, and also as property of which no other man can defile. The only people who ever defend the child are women and they never discriminate based on the gender of the teacher. So while I’m personally not a fan of today’s feminists who do seem to fallaciously label everything as “rape culture”, supporting “rape culture”, or a “sexist microaggression”, the only one to blame for sexist treatment of male teachers are men. Period.

  • george

    And FGM Is abuse whilst MGM Is just ‘hygiene’, Double standards if you ask me!

  • Pea

    “Yes I would love to have sexual relations with kids”

    But why? That’s been the question put to you repeatedly. It’s apparent you’re more hedonist than activist, so I’d like to hear a genuine answer in explanation, rather than you repeating talking points about “love” or it being your destiny.

    One would think a non-exclusive pedophile could wait until the kid is legal, but that’s clearly not the case. Even though humans live to be 75-80, on average, and have decades to practice and perfect sex post-adolescence, pedophiles insist kids need to be exposed to real sexual relations when they are most concerned with playing outside and watching cartoons. That’s repellent and absurd.

    “But just to assume my arguments don’t have merit because of self-interest is a fallacy.”

    Well, pedophiles’ intense obsession with children’s genitalia does obscure reality, but your arguments lack merit without assumption…. 🙂

  • ShawntayUStay

    If society’s social norms are allegedly the reason why kids are not “spontaneous”, why would you ever assume a child in the West — where we are allegedly Super-Stiflers of “child sexuality — would ever do anything like that 7 year old girl did “spontaneously”? How does that even make sense to you?

    And your anecdote involving two children is innocent and demonstrates curiosity. You’d likely deny this but unless you’ve been a pedophile since you were young — which is unlikely — your “memory” of having desire is colored both by your current pedophilic inclinations and your need to defend pedophilia in the instant.

    What the seven year old — I repeat seven year old — did, assuming it’s accurate, was completely different and if you were honest, you’d acknowledge it. It was toward a man, and seemed to couple touching a penis with taking off clothing and getting into bed. What kid knows this spontaneously without having learned these sequence of events beforehand? Not many in the West!

    And no one in their right mind would call a child touching another child’s butt a sex offender. Seriously, leave that crap out of your arguments, please. It’s silly.

  • Pea

    No, George — you are obsessed; if you weren’t obsessed with children’s bits-and-pieces, you wouldn’t ingest pedophilia apologia like it was some eating competition. Please, let’s not deny it — the lies are transparent and pointless.

    Now answer the question: why do you want to have sexual relations with children?

    Is your difficulty due to you having something to hide (likely), having a lower average IQ (maybe), or some other constitutive problem, like being a troll?

  • ShawntayUStay

    “Personal choices, personal responsibility. And besides, criminalising drug use still hasn’t stopped drug addiction,”

    You know, it’s extremely easy to make that statement when you live in a society that isn’t overrun with problems caused by rampant drug abuse. You can dwell in the Theoryland without having to worry about reality taking a pin to that bubble of yours. So I’ll just let what you said go through one ear and out the other. It’s absolute nonsense!

    “It is like driving a car, usually it’s fine but sometimes accidents happen 😉 Yet we don’t ban cars. And I’d say breaking age of consent laws is safer than driving cars.”

    False analogy. A car’s usefulness outweighs it’s danger, which is mostly the result of human error anyway. What other purpose does lowering AOC laws have besides giving hedonistic perverts the ability to act against children without a parent’s or the court’s intervention? You can deny harm of CSA all you want and insulate yourself from reality with Rind’s bullshit, methodologically flawed studies, and emphasize the so called “positive” adult-minor interactions that are few and far between, but it doesn’t change the fact it’s still a fantasy.

    “Both are an example of prejudice. That’s a fact.”

    It’s not and that’s another false analogy. A law requiring a black male registry is generalizing all black men as criminals a priori based on statistics that aren’t necessarily representative. An AOC law just says you can’t have sex with someone until that are [insert age]. It makes no discriminatory presumptions about any group in particular, and the only assumption it makes is that most minors are capable of simple consent to sexual activity at the designated age. That’s reasonable and prudent. You haven’t provided and evidence or argument that anyone is a victim of prejudice under an AOC law.

    “I think feminism and all it’s associated rape laws – including the age of consent – only serve a small group at the expense of the many.”

    LOL. Tell me how, in your nightmares, is feminism responsible for age of consent laws because it’s a little fuzzy. How is AOC feminist? I remember learning in high school that many feminists actually believed AOC laws were a tool of the patriarchy to control a female’s body and make her the property of her father. So where’s your proof? I also recall learning that the main goal was to prevent unwanted pregnancy affecting young girls, the idea being that prior to a reasonable AOC law, men could have the way with a young girl and get her pregnant, possibly abandoning her and leaving it all up to the parents to raise the child until the young mother was of age, burdening the entire family (the family traditionally headed by a father so yet another nod to the patriarchy!).

    Since it is a statistical fact having a baby as a minor makes you all but guaranteed a life below the poverty line, a mouth forever latched onto the government’s teet, it’s patently ridiculous to ever suggest AOC laws “serve a small group at the expense of many”. That’s just wrong; it’s just another protection against overpopulation and strife (among other things).

    But maybe you meant to say AOC laws “serve many at the expense of me and my libido.” Yeah, I think that’s what you meant.

    “The whole “child sexual abuse” charade is just a way to make money.”

    Why make these sort of statements? You sound nuts. But perhaps if you developed this a little more I’d maybe agree there is probably some aspects of CSA media talk that is unsavory and used to generate clicks and to sell papers. Likely there are others who are just getting vicarious gratification from the whole thing, as well. It’s personally extremely sad to me that no one seems to care that the majority of all child abuse — and deaths from child abuse — is neglect (physical, medical, emotional, etc) and physical abuse, but that doesn’t sell papers, unfortunately, and I personally do question the motivations behind preferentially highlighting what is only 9-10% of all child abuse cases in the US. But to say CSA in general is about making money — no. CSA is a form of abuse. How is that possible? It’s not.

    “No I see that it is often feminist women who are pushing the idea that a male teacher is a paedo. Men engage in it too, however, they are often just white-knighting politically correct males trying to either score cheap political points or save themselves from the coming feminist holocaust of men.”

    Nope. I challenge you to read a story about a female teacher and a male student. Just do it. Regardless of his age, he’s “the man”, not a victim. It’s always men that say this and they say a girl is always a victim and the male teacher is a pervert and a loser. Their comments ooze patriarchal BS and stereotypical ideas about girls and women. Perhaps you just hate women too much to see reality. Feminists do not control society. If they did, would Donald Trump be President?? No! LOL.

  • ShawntayUStay

    Well now that you mention it, pedophiles can indeed argue for “children’s sexual rights”… because it’s their invention! And only the creator knows enough to argue about it’s creation at maximum capacity.

    “But just to assume my arguments don’t have merit because of self-interest is a fallacy.”

    No, my only error was to forget that there is no such thing as “children’s sexual rights”. My mistake. I cannot argue against a point based on my opponent’s imagination.

    “Of course kids see ‘sex’ different to adults, They may not describe it
    in words, But have these feelings anyway. I can remember being a kid
    myself, and having these impulses, Only to be made to feel dirty for
    having them.”

    Kids do see sex different than adults so why is there a push by pedophiles to give them agency to make adult level decisions about sex? You can’t have it both ways? Are kids different or the same?

    You act as if you were the only kid ever. Most kids don’t continue to fixate of childhood exploration past puberty like Tom O’Carroll did, or have parents that censure them for being curious (Maybe that’s the cause of pedophilia?! LOL). Likewise, since you grew up to be a pedophile, I can almost guarantee that you should not be seeing yourself as representative of most children by any stretch. You’ve said it’s an “orientation” as well, so I’m supposed to presume it was there since birth, correct? Yeah, then you’re probably atypical.

  • ShawntayUStay

    Oh please! Do you even know what rhetorical even means? You’re throwing it out there left and right, not to mention calling things strawmans when they aren’t; I’m quite sure you aren’t aware of proper terms and usage.

    What’s so hard about answering a question about your etiology? Most people hear have never talked to anyone with pedophilic inclinations. We just want to know your opinion. That simple. It’s not rhetorical. If you asked me why I desire men, I could tell you easily, so you’re just being difficult for only God knows why.

    And Leon answered they question put forth to him about why he likes girls. So there’s no excuse.

    You don’t have a 144 IQ, come off it. If you did, you would know basic English grammar rules such as commas do not end sentences and words in the middle of sentences are not capitalized. You’d also be able to defend your arguments with your own words without linking to other works. No need to pretend that internet IQ test you took for fun was valid.

    • george

      I admit my grammar is not perfect, Sometimes I just don’t bother check, Something gets in my head and I just type.
      I have a friend who is dyslexic, His grammar is hideous, But on other matters he has a sharp mind, Like making fast mathematical calculations in his head; You should know this coming from a background in science? Though tests like that do not measure emotional intelligence. My friend has 165 so I was disappointed somewhat.

      “And Leon answered the question put forth to him”

      You and others came across as passive aggressive in your questioning; I made the comparison to asking a homosexual or heterosexual the same thing; its like asking, Why do things exist.

      • ShawntayUStay

        So your friend has dyslexia and still allegedly has a 165 IQ (will ignore likely fraudulent claim by internet person for argument’s sake). What does any of that have to do with you?? Nothing at all. Adding superfluous/suspect information about your friend doesn’t make your lie more convincing. FYI

        Do you realize an IQ of 144 is considered “genius”? That only around a quarter of 1% of people have an IQ that high? That 165 IQ is even more rare? Hell, the average IQ of a PhD recipient is 125!

        Please cut the charades; it only makes you look dumber. I can see with my own eyes, as a college educated person, you lack anything resembling genius. Besides your grammar errors, you have trouble with basic comprehension and staying on point (“debate ADD” as I call it).

        As for the etiology question, it’s legitimate, but you clearly don’t want to answer why you like “adolescent and younger”-aged boys. How are you ever going to convince the public your predilection for boys is normal and acceptable if you won’t explain the “how” and “why”? The mind boggles. But it’s fine, just stop scapegoating gays in your responses. So…shall I assume it’s like second nature and therefore you were born a non-exclusive pedo-hebephile? I’d then say that’s highly unlikely.

        • george

          Well my friend has no PHD, But he is good at mental calculations, So who knows. Why do you continue to throw out ad hominem attacks; I don’t make a living in front of a screen, and went many years without a PC. my first 2006.

          “, but you clearly don’t want to answer why you like “adolescent and younger”-aged boys.”

          The question was not framed in that way; It was a rather aggressive “why do you want sex with kids”…So is it any wonder when I respond with “why do gays want sex with men”

          I find adolescent and younger boys feminine, With their slender taught bodies. I have a homosexual friend who obviously likes men; Though, We share the same taste in some adolescents: Sometimes i also like older pretty ones like Justin Bieber.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Who knows? I know. It’s rare; it’s statistically unlikely. As for ad hominem attacks, they weren’t. I’m simply pointing out the observations that challenge the obvious lie. Lying is unnecessary. And with a 144 IQ, it would take you 10 minutes to figure out how to use a PC, not 10 years. Just sayin’. LOL

            “It was a rather aggressive “why do you want sex with kids”…So is it any wonder when I respond with “why do gays want sex with men””

            It is a wonder because they are simply not the same, and one does demonstrably more harm than the other. It’s also anathema to normal people, the idea of having sex with little kids, so indignation is easily fueled when a person claims to want that and is willfully bold about admitting it.

            At any rate, you think young boys are feminine and therefore attractive. Where you born like this? Or did you develop it? And why should you be allowed to have an outlet to act on these feelings of attraction with impunity? That’s what I want to know.

          • george

            Lack of qualifications do not necessarily mean lack of intelligence, They’re not mutually exclusive was my point.

            “and one does demonstrably more harm than the other”

            But what is the causality, Nobody can pinpoint what is it about it that causes negative reactions. At the moment we have stats from people with horror stories, But are they representative of adult/child relations, Or are many like that of MJ, who was not perfect; Playing son against father etc, But at least there was no coercion or force in his relations with boys.

            “were you born like this”….I remember a twenty something woman saying “I was sexy” when nine or ten (female paedophile?) and I responded by pointing out two boys playing, as we drove past saying “but they’re sexy too” and remember at around eleven thinking about a certain boy in my village as being sexy, Despite going to a boys boarding school this one was the Cindy Crawford of boys I guess.

          • ShawntayUStay

            “Nobody can pinpoint what is it about it that causes negative reactions.”

            See, the problem is you and other pedos/hebes/MMAs are focusing on the sexual act as if it exists in a vaccum. Excluding deformities, a child’s body works and will react in kind if stimulated. This is somehow always taken by pedophiles as a signal that what they are doing is not harmful. “The child didn’t tell me to stop, so I couldn’t have harmed them”, or “She/He wasn’t crying so it’s cool”. Even rape victims can have orgasms while being raped but does that mean it wasn’t rape? No one would would ever suggest that, so why do we as non-pedophiles have to defend the idea that child sexual abuse is abuse? Just because a child isn’t crying or telling you to stop is not consent… not from the mind or heart, anyway. It’s as Pea said; it’s “genital consent”, and even a rapist who gives orgasms to his victims gets that. But again, that orgasm wouldn’t be an affirmative defense against a charge of rape. So why should pedophiles use a child’s body as the sole basis for whether their behavior should get widespread acceptance? It’s unfair and wrong.

            Why is it that pedophiles place on the child the responsibility of the act being accomplished? They say the child wanted it because he/she felt pleasure and kept coming back. But for the pedophile’s manipulation (gentle or otherwise), the child would never have been abused. But for the sexual desires of the pedophile, the child would never have responded to the touch with his/her body. So how can the onus be on the child for an act that would not have happened if not for the pedophile’s own selfishness? This is why there is so much shame: the improper placement of culpability for the abuse onto the child by the pedophile (and not by society, contrary to pedo rhetoric; victims are never blamed for what happened).

            I suggest, George, that you watch that documentary I linked so you can become aware of the harm CSA causes. Or this doc You will see the harm. One of the men illustrated it well when he said he wanted to ask his abuser, “Did you realize the damage this would cause me, or did you just not care?” The harm comes from the manipulation, the abandonment, the feeling of being used, alongside the embarrassment and shame from feeling somehow culpable in their own abuse because of their admiration of the abuser, their body “liking” the sexual relations, or not telling sooner, etc. It’s a multitude of things.

            “Or are many like that of MJ, who was not perfect; Playing son against father etc, But at least there was no coercion or force in his relations with boys.”

            Was there no coercion? That’s why I had asked in another comment what’s your definition. MJ did coerce his boys into doing what he wanted. Jordie Chandler said he would cry and run a guilt trip that other boys would do it, so Jordie felt compelled. MJ also manipulated June Chandler into letting Jordie sleep in his room by crying and saying she was preventing them from being a “family”.

            And I know you have a thing about it’s only wrong if it’s coerced/forced sex, but CSA with acquaintence molesters like Michael Jackson happen in the confines of a emotional relationship as well. When James Safechuck started to show signs of puberty, he said MJ focused on Brett Barnes who was younger. He said he felt the need to act “extra nice” and befriend Brett so MJ would still talk to him. I’d say that was pretty coercive in the sense James felt the need to act a certain way just to maintain the friendship. That’s manipulative considering many of these boys were huge fans and admired MJ; who would want to be kicked out by their idol? James clearly knew that if MJ wasn’t sexually attracted to him, he would be out in the streets (so to speak). That’s very damaging to a child.

            “remember at around eleven thinking about a certain boy in my village as being sexy, Despite going to a boys boarding school this one was the Cindy Crawford of boys I guess.”

            But how does this mean you were born that way?? You were the same age as them, it sounds. To me, it just seems gay. LOL

          • george

            “He would be out in the streets (so to speak)”

            So to speak, indeed! By ‘so to speak’ what you really mean is ‘if you buy into my outrageously emotive and inaccurate characterisation of what happened’. There was no question of young Jimmy being put ‘out in the streets’, which implies he might have been reduced to begging or turning tricks as a rent boy. The truth is that he turned out to be academically strong at school, with good mathematical skills later put to remunerative use in hi-tech employment.

            Not that he necessarily needed much money. There are strong indications (denied in his court filing) that his family were aware of the nature of Jackson’s relationship with a boy and were bought off, like Jordie Chandler and Jason Francia.

          • Pea

            Silly George, you know damned well the use of “out in the streets” was idiomatic, demonstrating that James Safechuck was no longer the “Star Boy” in Jacko’s eye. Jacko himself told James, when James started to pubesce, [paraphrased]: “You will see me with other friends but we will still be together.”

            In fact, however, that is not what happened. There were incidents where James was made to sleep on the couch while Jacko shared his bed and bedroom with a newer, younger boy; that same younger boy had accompanied Jacko on a trip, to which James was also invited, but when Jacko partitioned himself in a room with that boy, James cried and Jacko ousted him from the trip.

            Notice that James never stopped being in love with Jacko (and you can call it “love” — he was “Star Boy” for a few years while he was young and tender, and such duration can drum up feelings of affection); however, Jacko stopped being interested in James because he went into puberty. He got too old.

            Yes, idiomatically and symbolically, he was “out in the streets”, no longer housed by Jacko’s ardor — and these are all James’s own characterizations. What about this terminology causes you to struggle, George? Or is it because it touches upon the fundamentally problematic fact of fleeting pedophilic love?

            “The truth is that he turned out to be academically strong at school, with good mathematical skills later put to remunerative use in hi-tech employment”

            So, a pedophile is not responsible for breaking a boy’s heart and casting him to the side for the next tender “hottie” in the pipeline, but he is responsible for the boy’s school and employment successes?

            Again, if pedophiles love more than the kid’s age and its trappings, why do they fall out of love with them when they get older? And if you demur to that point, insisting that is not the pattern (it is), why can’t a pedophile then wait for the kid to grow up before having sex with them?

  • ShawntayUStay

    Peer review doesn’t mean anything at all! Are you kidding me? Peer review basically just makes sure the study was accurate in its analysis of the data that was used in the study and was appropriately written. It’s not necessarily rigorous at all, more “quality control” for the journal than a large check on bias and ethical issues.

    A famous example demonstrated that the process is largely hit or miss when a paper was submitted to a journal and was accepted for publication, only it was complete nonsense and written using “appropriate jargon”. The paper was published only because it met the peer reviewers “quality control standards”, i.e. it was written in jargon that was seemingly legitimate. There’s also an issue of who the peers are as well.

    So the fact that Rind’s paper was published is not an objective measure of its quality, accuracy, or lack of bias. He used college populations from all White countries and purposely excused relevant populations — how is that representative of all cases of CSA globally? You only refuse to acknowledge obvious methodological flaws because it suits your agenda. So while Rind may have meta-analyzed his cherry picked papers accurately, his summation is still flawed on its face and cannot be used to generalize the effects of CSA.

    “Abuse happens anyway, mostly in secret, these proposals would only allow people who are known and trusted etc”

    How do these two thoughts go together in your mind? It would be a general law of the land, correct? So how can you guarantee proposals such as lower AOC laws would not apply to unknown people? I mean, that’s simply idiotic. You can’t know because by its very nature, as you acknowledge, most of it is secret. You can’t keep out anyone.

    “I understand about ‘what parent would allow a pedo in their house’, But lets not assume all parents give a f**k about their kids”

    Glad you finally acknowledge that knowingly letting kids near pedophiles is a a sign of bad parenting. Progress.

    “And a non-familial friend could be a good sanctuary for a kid from a broken home; “

    Sure it could, but why does it have to involve sex? Kids from broken homes have enough stress. Why add extra by predating upon these kids’ inherent vulnerability? Because you know they are desperate and will therefore acquiesce to the adult’s demands. It’s no small wonder why kids from poor environments are at the highest risk for acquaintance molestation. That doc I linked illustrated as much. Just look at Jerry Sandusky and his “Second Mile” program; it was like shooting fish in a barrel!

    As for MJ, you aren’t abreast of the intricacies of the cases. That much is clear. So it looks silly for you to discuss it. I’ve been researching him for over 6 years. I know what is and what isn’t.

    • george

      “? So how can you guarantee proposals such as lower AOC laws would not apply to unknown people?

      Oh you misunderstand, They would also apply to strangers.
      TOCs proposals were similar to NCCL whom were affiliated with P.I.E but not directly part of the organisation. NCCL put forward an AOC at ten, Providing that if a sexual relationship is discovered where the one party is much older, The kid would be questioned as to whether (s)he was coerced or not. If the kid was not forced in any way, and is happy for the relationship to continue, Then no further sanction would be taken, with the exception of parental disapproval. Leon has a whole blog dedicated to these proposals. There is also more emphasis on civil rather than criminal courts for this matter.

      “As for MJ, you aren’t abreast of the cases’ intricacies”

      But I read TOC’s book about the relationships he had; He was not perfect, But hardly the monster the media likes to paint when it comes to paedophiles.

      “Jerry Sandusky and his “Second Mile” program; it was like shooting fish in a barrel!”

      I don’t know enough about that case, From what I read, He was more of a pederast then paedophile, and described being in relationships with many boys. Again, his punishment is hyperbolic — anybody would think he’s Ted Bundy!

      ” how is that representative of all cases of CSA globally”?

      Is there any such study? How could we be sure western bias would not be introduced? There are different attitudes the world over regarding marriage, AOC, child labour etc.
      Some countries may have no problem with the “Sandusky’s” of this world; And that includes his ‘targets’ too.

      • ShawntayUStay

        Who would man the children’s tribunal? Adults? Kids? Who’s helping the immature make decisions? And why am I not surprised the emphasis is on civil remedies over criminal! That’s what’s keeping a lot of you people away, the threat of prison — not morality.

        Interesting sanctions are added if the parent disapproves. Doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of lowering AOC laws? The goal was to take away the threat of a parent initiating the criminal process through complaint. It would take the power of one adult over the child and give it to the other adult (the pedo). Am I correct on that? Sounds incredibly convoluted.

        Anyway, TOC’s book is not unbiased, you do realize that? Of course he wouldn’t portray one of his own as a monster. He’d be tarring himself in the process.

        “From what I read, He was more of a pederast then paedophile, and described being in relationships with many boys.”

        What’s the difference? Sounds like semantics to me. My point was that Jerry Sandusky used his Second Mile program to find boys with troubled backgrounds. They are the easiest to victimize. Why do that to a kid who trusted you? How does that help your argument that pedophilia is beneficial?

        “Is there any such study? How could we be sure western bias would not be introduced? There are different attitudes the world over regarding marriage, AOC, child labour etc.”

        Is there any such study?! That’s my whole point! Rind’s study is garbage because of that very reason! It’s not representative and thus, it’s not a legitimate conclusion that should be put to practice. And yet you and other pedos absolutely love to say Rind “proved” CSA is not harmful…using no qualifiers, just a sweeping generalization. While it’s true some people are not “harmed”, it depends on the exact nature of the abuse and duration. “Some people’s” experiences — the minority — cannot be used in a blanket manner (nor will it ever be persuasive enough evidence for a wholesale change in laws, mourned, and mores). But that’s what Rind did, and that’s what pedos/hebes/MMAs are doing. But it’s wrong.

        • george

          “Who would man the children’s tribunal? Adults? Kids? Who’s helping the immature make decisions”?

          Think it was referred to as a children’s court. From what I remember, without referring back to the proposals, If a relationship that the parent deems bad for the child in any way (I’m sure you’d reply with 99.9% would disapprove), But lets just pretend we’re in less hysterical times, Could take civil action: maybe the relationship could continue but ‘sex’ for whatever reason may be sanctioned against as a condition for the relationship to continue, I.e the child wants to continue to visit the adult.

          “.using no qualifiers, just a sweeping generalization”

          That’s exactly what we get in the media, So I take these clinical studies with a pinch of salt. Quite often no distinction is made between an unwanted grope, and full on rape!

          “They are the easiest to victimize. Why do that to a kid who trusted you? How does that help your argument that pedophilia is beneficial?

          Here you are using words like ‘victimise’, Maybe, Maybe not! Someone from a poor background can still benefit from being taken in, As long as they’re not forced in any way. I have no problem with him, If he can seduce them without coercion then the morality of it is relative. If I got a Filipina wife, I would have the ‘power’ in terms of financial resources, But as long as I’m not making her have sex with me, What’s the problem. I do understand the teacher/pupal power dynamic, But again, if consensual, the loss of his job would be enough. Thinking about this reminded my of the fact that my sister’s first husband was her art teacher, and he was a good man.

          “Anyway, TOC’s book is not unbiased, you do realize that”

          TOC adds nuance to public perceptions of paedophiles, He gives paedophilia a human face that the media love to pummel.

          • ShawntayUStay

            No, he said a children’s tribunal. Yes, all parents would disapprove, even with the law changed. I’m still not understanding the why. Why is the sexual part necessary?

            “That’s exactly what we get in the media, So I take these clinical studies with a pinch of salt. Quite often no distinction is made between an unwanted grope, and full on rape!”

            Well, I agree that there are some hysterics involved in some sex crime reporting, particularly date rape. But two wrongs don’t make a right. There’s no need to run to the opposite extreme and try to make a (false) claim that all CSA is harmless just because you’re mad about media sensationalism.

            “Someone from a poor background can still benefit from being taken in, As long as they’re not forced in any way. I have no problem with him, If he can seduce them without coercion then the morality of it is relative.”

            What’s your definition of coercion? Just physical? Verbal threats? When impressionable (and vulnerable) children who will more than likely always defer to adults are involved, coercion can be mental. Coercion can be obligation. How is it right to do that if the original intent of the kid even being taken in has nothing to do with sex? Furthermore, you have yet to tell me what is the benefit of the adult getting to have sex with the kid is.

            “If I got a Filipina wife, I would have the ‘power’ in terms of financial resources, But as long as I’m not making her have sex with me, What’s the problem.”

            LOL…what? No one thinks having a Filipina wife is a crime! Two adults? Please. Plus, “wife” is not the same as “prostitute”. We’d have a different argument otherwise.

            And TOC just sounded utterly delusional. I think by virtue of his pedophilia, he could explain MJ better than, say, a fan, but I wouldn’t say it was a “must read” to understand MJ’s pedo psyche.

          • george

            “Why is the sexual part necessary”?

            It isn’t, that’s the point, If the kid doesn’t want it, Then it must not continue; But for some, It can be part of the fun. it can be pleasurable for both after all.

            “What’s your definition of coercion”?

            Well I wouldn’t attribute it to MJ crying to get his way lol
            But yeah, it doesn’t just have to be physical, any type of threat would be considered coercion I’d say.

            Ok then, what’s wrong with a Filipina prostitute, Disregarding if shes been trafficked.

            When we look at relations between children and adults, Sometimes the adults are servile to the child’s needs: Parents who spoil their kids with no discipline is one example.

          • Sometimes the adults are servile to the child’s needs: Parents who spoil their kids with no discipline is one example.

            You need to find a better example. What parents do with their children (within the law) is of no concern to anybody else.

          • Quite the slip there George, according to your earlier comments a pedophile would not need to “seduce” a child because it’s always “the kids who want it”.

        • Who’s helping the immature make decisions?

          How could a child, with little life experience, know if they have been manipulated into a “consensual” sexual relationship with an adult? They wouldn’t. Pedos would be relying on their inevitably powerful hold over children to ensure compliance. We have seen that with Michael Jackson’s victims, some of whom believed that the sexual component of the relationship was their idea, not the pop star’s. The victims who have not yet come forward also likely believe that.

      • The kid would be questioned as to whether (s)he was coerced or not. If the kid was not forced in any way, and is happy for the relationship to continue, Then no further sanction would be taken, with the exception of parental disapproval.

        The obvious question is would a child be questioned as to whether they were manipulated or not, and critically, would they even know the difference if they were. There is the main difficulty in your “pedophile utopia” – preventing naive children from realising too late that they’ve been used and then discarded by a pedophile seeking sexual gratification.

  • ShawntayUStay

    Right mind, “right” being the modifier. What you described is not a sex offense, period. You would not, by any stretch, be considered a sex offender. It’s hyperbole for the sake of argument.

    As for youth offenders — well it depends. Firstly, let’s get this straight: these kids are accused of far more heinous acts than trying to touch another kid on the butt. Secondly, most of these kids were victims themselves and are acting out on other children; that seems to be the predominant case. And I agree, labeling them as sex offenders is not the right approach since children are much more responsive to treatment. But on the other hand, a small percentage could become a danger to society if they evidence other maladaptive traits, such as antisocial behaviors. The sex offences could then be just the tip of the iceberg!

    “It makes sense, They are spontaneous, Only, its short lived, They have it stamped out as ‘inappropriate behaviour’, Then sometimes replaced by a sense of ‘wrong’, Bad, dirty etc.”

    It doesn’t make sense. At all. And it’s absolutely inappropriate! Why wouldn’t it be? A girl of 7 should never ever touch an adult man like that. There’s no reason to! It’s dangerous because contrary to pedo delusions, she would at risk for rape and thus severe injury, STDs, you name it. You say no one wants to penetrate a prepubescent but stats don’t bare that out; child pornography doesn’t bare that out! Kids are indeed being sexually penetrated. Crawl out from under the rock.

    “That was only the start between us, I digress!”

    Still fixating on that, huh? You’re fitting the mental health profile of pedophilia nicely. Just like TOC. Maybe you all should get help with that.

    • george

      “, she would be at risk for rape and thus severe injury, STDs, you name it”

      Under TOC’s and the proposals from NCCL (when they were a proper civil liberties organisation) Like today, The man would get arrested.

      “Crawl out from under the rock”

      I’ve been out for ages, You should try it, Your assumption that only ‘abused’ kids act out is as delusional as they come.

      • ShawntayUStay

        “Your assumption that only ‘abused’ kids act out is as delusional as they come.”

        Ignoring the hilarious irony of a person with a DSM, ICD described mental disorder calling me delusional, there are only a few logical ways a 7 year old child — pre pubescent — would know how to do the sequence of behaviors described: 1) she saw it in a movie, 2) she watched or was made to watch porn, or 3) she knows from first hand experience and is repeating it because it brings about the intended results, of which are abuse.

        Little kids don’t know seductive behaviors like that, they just don’t. They don’t do it organically either, even TOC agreed. They have to be taught. Period. If Leon is to be believed about his openness with his pedophilia, that her parents would allow a known pedo around their daughter makes me suspect it was the worst of the 3 choices.

        • george

          Nope, You debate well, But you are on a sinking ship on this one! There are loads of testimonials out there that disprove your conjecture, Like my own. Why did I want to grab that girls butt on the TV when ten?
          Or how about this guy:

          • ShawntayUStay

            That link is idiotic, but doesn’t disprove me.

            Firstly, he’s viewing his childhood through an adult lens, so it’s rife with bias. The innocent crushes or admiration he had for male figures in his life are sexualized because as an adult, he sexualizes most of his encounters with males today.

            Secondly, he and many other LGBT people are keen to put forth the idea that they’ve been homosexual since birth, so that’s another reason he’d sexualize his early childhood (because being gay is, at his basic level, about sexual attraction, just to the same sex). How is this really true, “I had crushes on Mister Rogers, and I had a crush on Jesus. Any kind of masculine figure in my life, I wanted to be having sex with them.” I mean, come on; he was a child!

            Thirdly, his “underwear dance” for the garbage man was a result of a 4 or 5 year old doing choice #1 I gave above: ” I don’t know what that dance was like; I just picture in my head some
            kind of really horrible, seductive dance that I had seen somewhere

            Lastly, he’s a member of a sexual minority group whose origins are still up in the air; he’s hardly representative of every kid, even while considering individual variation.

            “Why did I want to grab that girls butt on the TV when ten?”

            Ten? I thought you claimed you were younger? Wanting to touch someone’s butt at 10, which is benign, is not the same as a sequence of seductive behaviors done at 7.

          • george

            At ten I was referring to another occasion, That’s my fault, The other example was good enough!
            But wanting to grab a butt is still sexual; I may have been clueless about coitus, But that’s how sexual curiousness evolves. There is often an attraction or interest that starts with the way that kid flirted with the garbage man. And I have noticed how some boys 10/11 look at me, I can spot the young homosexuals in a heartbeat, Just like what was said about MJ.
            No I do not ‘act’ upon these subtle observations; However, I can imagine in a different epoch what boys would be (maybe) willing to partake in a sexual relationship with.

          • ShawntayUStay

            MJ was never described as knowing how to spot “young homosexuals”, LOL, especially given that none of his special friends are gay. I think you meant he was said to know which families were “wooable”.

            “But wanting to grab a butt is still sexual; I may have been clueless about coitus, But that’s how sexual curiousness evolves.”

            It’s a given that children have crushes, etc, but why do you think you, an adult, need to be involved in the evolution of their sexual curiosity? It’s certainly not an equal dynamic, and your maturity far exceeds their on. Most people go through their childhood and adolescence perfectly well without an adult in the mix. I’m still not seeing the need to involve pedos.

          • george

            “Most people go through their childhood and adolescence perfectly well without an adult in the mix”

            Well, are we still referring just to sexual situations? Kids usually benefit from adults in all sorts of ways, Especially when the adults like like them, and give then the time and day.

            ” but why do you think you, an adult, need to be involved in the evolution of their sexual curiosity”

            Why not, We are still humans. Should adults be part of children’s musical development, When many kids can learn music without tutoring from adults?

          • ShawntayUStay

            You know what I meant, George. Sexual situations, not in general.

            “Why not, We are still humans. Should adults be part of children’s musical development, When many kids can learn music without tutoring from adults?”

            How can you even begin to think about comparing musical development with the issue of adult-child sex? You might not be the brightest light on the Christmas tree but you’re not a complete idiot! You know very well they are not equivalent.

            Don’t say, “Why not?” — there are a multitude of reasons for an adult to not take advantage of a child’s guilelessness and autonomic acquiescence to an older person. They aren’t meaningfully consenting to anything because, fundamentally, there’s the issue of asymmetric information between the adult and the child. You know more than they do.

            You didn’t respond to this comment yet. I’m waiting!! I think you need to step out of your comfort zone and put yourself in victims’ shoes, then maybe you won’t say, “Why not?” From all of the pedo comments on here as of late, I’m sensing a huge lack of empathy and a whole lot of, “Me me me, I want to be able do whatever I want!” It’s pretty damned selfish.

          • george

            Lets not go throwing insults if you want a civil response!
            As for the video, its over an hour, give me a chance.

            “I think you need to step out of your comfort zone and put yourself in victims’ Again, you throw strawmen around. These coercive incidences are not necessarily representative of adult/child sexual relations: Many of these liaisons never get reported, So it would be unfair to assume they are all like in the video. From the first part of the documentary, He mentioned being in a tent and having another guy, who is unfamiliar, Getting into his sleeping bag, and whispering to him while masturbating himself.

            I agree, its well out of order, I would never do that to a young friend — I would be to jealous for a start. That teacher obviously had no real feelings for the boy, Or he wouldn’t do that, Neither would MJ!

            As for the rest of it, I will have to respond when i have seen it all. But I will say, Institutions of old were too top heavy regarding the power structures, So is it any wonder that some abused their position. Whenever you get situations like this, or other non-sexual situations, its human nature, people in general are self-serving. you accused me of just that, But we all are to some extent.

          • george

            I like how you use qualifiers like ‘meaningful’, when describing consent. I have watched that video, and I must say, I sympathise with them; What they went through was not consensual. I can relate to what they said about wanting to be in this scary mans ‘good books’, At my boarding school there was a rather sadistic member of staff; Head of staff too!
            He hit me once, and I witnessed him booting another boy in his guts after getting on the wrong side of him.

            These boys were scared to say no, Unlike many man-boy relationships that go off the radar, cos what journalist is going to allow a positive story about pederasty?

  • ShawntayUStay

    “I’m unaware of any societies with liberal attitudes to drugs that are overrun by drug abuse. The Netherlands is the closest and they seem to be doing quite fine. And historically drugs were more legal.”

    According to Dutch law, the only drugs that are legal to use are marijuana and mushrooms. They do not allow the sale and use of hardcore narcotics like heroin, cocaine, and their respective analogues and derivatives. So I wouldn’t use the legalization of “soft drugs” as a metric for determining how the legalization of all drugs would affect society. It’s just not representative.

    More importantly, you act as if legalization stops drugs from being addictive. They still have the same active compounds that do the exact same thing to the user. How do you regulate against withdrawal symptoms? You can’t. Does alcohol being legal stop alcoholism? No it doesn’t. So it doesn’t matter whether it’s legal or not; in places where drug use is high, it’s a shithole for the community. Example, US urban cities during the crack epidemic in the 1980s; US rural communities now during an epidemic of heroin. Crystal meth in the US Pacific Northwest. There is no redeeming value for legalizing highly addictive substances.

    Marijuana is legal in a few states in America, so we will finally have the ability to do medical research on its affects. The increase in takotsubo cardiomyopathy in males who smoke weed is troubling, so is reduced blood flow to the brain, and the worsening of psychotic effects in susceptible individuals. I can see the likelihood of THC dependence in newborns a possibility as well. Dummies think because it’s natural, it’s not as bad. But so is asbestos, which causes cancer. Time will tell. You can continue to be delusional, though, because mass legalization isn’t going to ever happen.

    “Pleasure, Happiness, Knowledge sharing as well as pregnancy and giving birth to the next generation! Like with a car, sex’s usefulness outweighs it’s danger.”

    Nice Strawman. So why don’t you leave the fallacies on the doorstep and tell me the benefits of sex with children/teens. Still waiting.

    “An AOC law is generalising all of those who have sex with underage individuals a priori based on statistics that aren’t necessarily representative. The idea that those who have sex with underage individuals all “murder” their “victims” or deliberately act with malicious intent is an example of this unrepresentative view.”

    It’s not. The only assumption made with an AOC law is that a minor isn’t able to give meaningful consent. Period.

    “AOC laws are identical to racism, that is, real 1930s America lynching blacks off of trees racism (as opposed to the politically correct someone called me a nigger and I got triggered racism).”

    You’re either a just troll or really stupid to ever compare an age of consent law to a lynching of Black people in America. Do you even realize the terror of lynching during the Jim Crow era? The fear it caused black people? And the glee to which whites did it, complete with post cards and photographs of bodies? We’re talking about murder here, not your inability to have sex with young girls and watch child porn with impunity. There’s no need insensitively mention White terrorism against innocent Blacks to try to make a “point” (you failed, by the way). It’s false analogy. And furthermore, what the hell would you know about whether or not covert racism is “politically correct”? How dare you?! It’s beyond all measures of human decency to call someone a nigger in a racist manner. You’re a white Brit, so you’ve never been on the receiving end. So, kindly shut your mouth and take several seats.

    “The feminist movements of the late victorian era were responsible for raising the age of consent to near to the high levels seen today…. I expect if you look at who was behind campaigns to raise the age of consent in a lot of countries you’ll find similar feminist figures.”

    I read that this morning on Wikipedia and I thought, “So what?” They had good reason to do so — protect children, girls, from child prostitution. How is that wrong by anyone’s metric? It’s not. And what do you expect a feminist to do but protect a young girl from harm like that? Why wouldn’t a woman want to protect a nascent woman? There’s nothing wrong with it. Men surely weren’t going to do it, and by your own words — such as you saying “All teen girls need is cock”, you wouldn’t either. But AOC laws were meant to protect virginity (and hence a father’s “property”), and feminists called bullshit on that as sexist. AOC laws didn’t protect boys either, and feminists thought that was wrong, too.

    But it’s not a feminist thing. AOC laws are changed all the time, lowering and raising them multiple times, and for various reasons. Many of the requests to raise them were made by conservative politicians in America — and conservatives and feminism are oil and water. Not to mention many abortion laws are authored by and bandied about in male majority legislatures. Hardly your feminist fantasy.

    “That’s just not true, particularly if it’s a young girl with an older guy as he’ll have lots of money.”

    Can you guarantee that every young girl who has sex under your proposed lower AOC law will be with an older guy having “lots of money”? You can’t. Will you create a Sugar Daddy website that matches young girls with rich men to prevent dead beat fathers? Pure lunacy. The facts are the facts: if you have a child as a young teen, you are more likely to be in poverty. Most women don’t have babies with men with “lots of money”, so why would that be any different here? A lot of teen moms are from low socioeconomic backgrounds even now. It would be no different under a law change. So that’s yet another reason to keep AOC at its current level, as I already said.

    “And actually that brings me on to the reality of male-female attraction which is that women tend to go for older, wealthier males and men tend to go for younger more fertile girls.”

    It’s a statistical fact that teen mothers, particularly you 13-15 year olds, have a higher rate of complications from pregnancy, including stillbirths, bleeding, premature births, fistulae, and birth defects, than women in their 20s. It’s actually a false equivalence to argue historically about young girls and marriage because they had significantly shorter life spans and generally more harsh conditions. So to them, it made perfect sense that a woman who would likely die at 40 (if she doesn’t die at childbirth, which was very common before modern medicine) should begin when she’s a few years from the onset of pubescence. That’s not today’s reality. Life spans for females stretch into the mid 80s in the First World, and woman can have children even into their late forties because of later menopause. So while I’d agree that men seek youthful appearance, and women are hypergamous, that doesn’t mean men are interested in girls under 16 wholesale. The pervert that made that doc is reaching.

    “Of course it’s possible. You have a politically correct cause that no one criticises, that can earn money through charitable donations, through putting pressure on government and gaining funding from them,…The motive for each player in the game is that the more sensational they can make something the more likely they can get promoted/keep their jobs etc (more outcry means more money for the child sexual abuse industry)”

    Are you wearing a tin-foil hat and a stait-jacket? It’s one thing to have criticisms for how some cases are handled, to which I could agree with you; it’s quite another to label all instances of CSA false and the result of a scam for money. That’s just not reality, and you have yet to prove it.

    “The reality is, though, that most sex offenders are harmless people victimised by a society that has long gone off the rails.”

    Depends on what type of sex offender you’re talking about. Is it your nuisance flashers or Peeping Toms, or your situational molesters, or you pedophiles/acquaintance molesters, or your pedo child pornographers, or your serial rapists? They’re all different. Some are indeed you typical law abiding citizens such as your pedo priests/coaches/teachers etc, while some are violent and sex offenses are one of many other crimes committed by them. You have to specify who you’re talking about.

    “through a small number of sexually jealous women having an intense desire to raise the age of consent”

    How is AOC laws related to sexual jealousy? Sounds like another misogynist fantasy to me.

    “No it’s the other way around, Men’s Rights Activists, particularly AVoiceForMen have long been pointing out this hypocrisy and calling for female teachers to be punished more harshly and jailed for longer.”

    Men’s rights. LOL. Men made the Western world, how don’t they have rights? They are “default”. Millennia of treating women as unequal and they have the audacity to think they have no rights. If that isn’t male privilege talking! Guess a threat of real equality is a bit too much! And that’s the problem because they (representing the minority of men) are absolutely right about female teachers, but misogyny clouds their ability to be taken seriously. Sorry guys!

    “It is feminism that is the problem, not patriarchy.”

    How so? Feminism, in its purest sense, is about complete equality of both genders under the law. Everyone is the same, man or woman. I support that. And if men and other women didn’t destroy the attempt at ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution, that what we’d have. it protected both sexes. I don’t support the so called feminism that plays both sides, female-male equality and feminine passivity. You hate the “feminists” that do this, using the idea of feminine passivity to place all the blame on an regretful intoxicated romp on the man because he can penetrate. It’s idiotic and I agree with you.

    But you are still very wrong about the patriarchy’s preeminent role. Look at the female teacher stories; those men in the comments are sexist pigs, playing off stereotypes of feminine passivity. And who created that stereotype? It’s anathema to real feminism! Perhaps “feminists” are using the male-created stereotype to get back at men, but that’s a little too conspiracy theory. But the legal inequality of teachers with students is men’s doing; they’ve been making the law since Hammurabi’s Code!

  • Mezza

    Michael was addicted to heroin? Never heard that one?!?

    • Possible she means Demerol?

  • Mélanie

    In France Before 16 years: It is forbidden to enter a drinking ground without being accompanied by a responsible adult (parent, guardian).
    Before 18 years: it is forbidden to sell or offer an alcoholic beverage to a minor.
    It is forbidden to make an 18-year-old child drink drunk.


    An abuser is the one who has authority over another person, be it a child, a handicapped or weaker person than himself, and who abuses his body in multiple ways, either by touching or having sex , Or by forcing the other to have sexual acts on his own person.

    Sexual abuse generates consequences for the victim who may be:

    Generally, when a child experiences this reality, he has not yet constructed his own notion of his own desire in relation to himself.
    When we evolve as a human being, throughout our history we learn, through our own consciousness of the body, to go within the limits of what can be dangerous, what can make us suffer, and In proportion, we learn to manage our desire, to see its risks and dangers. Which allows us to create within ourselves, psychologically and physiologically, limits, frames, and this to avoid any attack on our own physical or moral integrity.

    When a child develops, he creates boundary frames. It also receives it from the outside, because the adult knows that the child does not know the danger that he risks, and therefore since he does not know it, it is important to give him frameworks and limits until he / That he has learned, within his own limits, that there is a risk. Then he can continue to evolve and push back the frameworks and limits that will be those of his learning.


    This adult intervenes on a child, who has not yet built his desire for sexual reality on the other.

    A child, who develops “normally”, will approach his own sexuality in a progressive way. He will first know his own desire, through solitary pleasure and others, and as he goes, he will build the limits of his own desire. He will know that his desire is first of all with respect to himself: the desire to be satisfied. Then, it will pass in the desire to be satisfied with someone else. There are, of course, steps followed by steps that will go as far as satisfaction in the relationship with someone else. This begins in pre-adolescence, adolescence and then in the pre-adult age where then, indeed, the relationship with others can provide pleasure.

    If in the “psychological” spaces that it is built before, in adolescence, in pre-adolescence, even in childhood, someone else intervenes in its physical and psychological territory, it will not have Still the maturity of being able to manage the sexual relation. It will be then, simply, to manage the verbal relationship, to learn the codes of communication. He will not yet be in the availability of the consciousness of his body. He will not be able to manage a sexual relationship.

    Generally and unfortunately, abusers are often close relatives with whom the child has an emotional relationship. He will not be able to say “no”. He does not yet know his own limits or the limits of his desire in this space. He has not yet sufficiently experienced his own sexuality to know what is pleasant or disagreeable to him. From this point on, the adult who intervenes in this reality makes the child accept a reality, which he can not integrate into his psychology, which he can not therefore include in his Own experience. When a child makes a painful experience, which is expected, such as falling and maybe hurting himself, he can include that reality in his experience. One might say that he had, as it were, the intention of making this experiment. While in the course of an abuse, he undergoes the experiment. That’s why he can not include it.

    It is then that will happen at that time, a classic phenomenon in psychology. This child will generate a dissociation. Since he can not include this experience, he will be psychologically obliged to disassociate himself from it.

    As with children who have experienced extreme violence linked to fighting, armed wounds, conflicts or wars, and who can not include this experience in their reality – they do not have the psychological preparation To live this experience and therefore, they do not understand its meaning. It is the same phenomenon when a child is abused, he can not understand the meaning of this experience because it is not he who has constructed its meaning because it is “the other” , Which obliges him to go in a direction, which is not his. Thus he will create, in his physiological experience first and then psychologically, two solutions: either he will live the pleasure he feels, or he will cease to feel what he feels, since he May not include it. He is likely to generate a dissociation, “a kind of psychological anesthesia”, where he is not going to have consciousness of his body in order to avoid experiencing this experience that he will not include.

    What will give, if we make a metaphor with respect to a territory, a kind of “no man’s land”, “virgin”, where he will no longer be able to access. This experience, since it can not have any meaning in the evolution in which the child finds himself, this experience will be relegated to nonsense, in a space of nonsense, that is to say That this experience will have no connection with his whole life. He may not even be able to access it.

    – That is why, in adulthood, many people do not remember abuse, have forgotten the abuse, not because of some repression, but simply because they Were unable to construct a continuity of meaning of this experience, in all of what made sense in the rest of their experience. There is therefore a kind of “no man’s land” inaccessible to consciousness in order to avoid suffering, which would produce the meaning of something that does not have, something that is an abuse.

    In the evolution of the person, there is going to be a sort of psychological “no man’s land”. This means that it will no longer access the consciousness of that space. Which will produce in some adults an absence of sexual pleasure in order to avoid being in this space, because this space is a potential danger, the “other” being able to come on the territory and on the Ground of psychological construction.

    – In the physiological space of an abused person, there will be a refusal or rather an impossibility to give meaning to a perception, which it does not have the means to integrate, to include in its experience. A child who falls with a bicycle includes this experience in the whole learning of balance: the fall is somehow inevitable, almost intentional. No one intends to experience the abuse. The child has not decided to live it. It is another who decides for him.

    • george

      ” He will first know his own desire, through solitary pleasure and others”

      And who are the ‘others’, At what magical age does it become ‘abuse’, What difference to his senses does it make whether the fellatio is done by a minor, adolescent or adult?
      We can argue to toss over when kids become ‘sexually aware’, But if its not unwanted, There is no difference apart from widespread disapproval by society, and the taboo nature associated with having relations with paedophiles.

    • george

      ” No one intends to experience the abuse. The child has not decided to live it. It is another who decides for him”

      That sounds very much like coercion, why don’t you look up the monster of Melbourne; About a guy that would pickup young hitchhiker’s in the 1960s and 70s, Before the young ‘child protection’ was high in public consciousness. This guy had thousands of boys that he would seduce; Most were adolescents but a smaller proportion were ten/eleven years old. Many would come back for sex despite supposedly being heterosexual. So if its something that, as you say, can’t be included and ‘shut out’, Then why did many come back for sex?

  • ShawntayUStay

    “Indeed many get 100s of years in prison for thought crimes like possessing child porn, or if they are released then they are put on a public hit list designed to encourage and facilitate vigilante violence against them. I think it’s identical to Jim Crow’s America.”

    Well, you’d be wrong. I have to laugh, too, at your debate ADD. You compared AOC laws to racism, and when I called BS on that, now you switch to child porn laws? As if that helps your argument? Being killed just for being black is not the same as a pervert making the choice to download child porn. If he doesn’t want to get raped (which is horrible, I agree) and beaten and possibly killed in prison for being a chomo, he shouldn’t do the crime. See the difference here? CHOICE…one has it; the other did not.

    “The way the courts and “culture” tends to operate is that it is more lenient towards close in age sex as opposed to where there is a significant age gap. So it actually encourages the opposite of what I would suggest is an optimal relationship!”

    You didn’t refute the fact that most women are not having babies with rich men — which is absolutely true — but instead substituted your unsupported belief that the courts encourage poverty by being lenient in close in age AOC law violations. Since most men are not rich, and most rich men are not looking to knock up 14 year old girls, being lenient on all AOC law violations will not get rid of the teen motherhood pathway to poverty. I bet if we look at the typical or potential adult violator of AOC laws, you’d see a perverted loser living in a trailer park or his parent’s basement. Hardly the Prince Valiants you’re dreaming about. LOL.

    “It shows that the risk of child birth for women over 30 is greater than that for 15-19 and as for your idea of giving birth at 40+ well that’s a very dangerous age to have a child.”

    LMAO at your debate ADD! Really hilarious. You also love Strawmans. I was comparing multiple risk factors between teens far younger than AOC of 16 (recall this is reasonable given the fact most would be post-pubescent) with women in their 20s. Where did I say women over 30? And you did not disprove the fact women in their 40s can bare children, but I wasn’t comparing those ages. Plus, that’s simply looking at mortality, not other forms of complications that cause harm but not necessarily death. That study doesn’t help your argument at all.

    1) because it’s a J-shaped curve — slightly higher risk for younger mothers compared to women in their 20s, and it’s likely even higher for the young teens (and tweens) you want to impregnate with your lower AOC demands.
    2) 15 to 19 year olds — these groups, except the 15 year old, are over the AOC, so why continue to rally for lower than that when the J-shaped curve only predicts higher mortality as the age of the mother decreases?
    3) You’re trying to make a biological argument when fecundity is not just about being a baby oven. It’s about whether the offspring survive to reproduce. Older mothers 20s and above are more stable, more mature, tend to have more resources at their disposal, than a mother in her teens, especially young teens. So whose child will be more likely to thrive? Statistics and common sense say the one from the older mother.

    “I would consider an upper bound age of consent so as to protect women over the age of 30, using your logic.”

    You mean using your logic? The relevant J-shaped curves for our discussion are from the developed world, Americas and Europe listed on the graph. Statistically speaking there is little difference for any age group before 40 studied, especially in Europe; mothers survive well there pretty uniformly. The US is little different as well. And given the fact that older mothers (20s+) are better when all factors are considered, your argument for lowering AOC is once again garbage.

    “You are the one who thinks branding everyone with the same “sex offender” brush is a good idea! You are the one who wants to put those who break age of consent laws in with violent rapists, not me.”

    I’ve never said such a thing and wouldn’t. Please find quote where I’ve suggested all sex crimes are equal and should be treated as such. Thanks.

    “When an older woman sees a man with a younger woman she feels a sense of jealous rage. This can end up resulting in her desire to punish the man thus raising her own sexual market value as she removes all the young girls from the sexual market”

    LMAO at your misogynist fantasy! Delusional much? Sure women like to look young. So do men, but thanks to the patriarchy pushing the idea old dudes on Viagra with low sperm count/quality are sexually viable, it’s to a much lesser extent. But to 1) suggest that all men are into tween and teen girls like you are and would repudiate any attractive woman their own age, and 2) equate “young woman” with “young girl” which are two entirely different things, is utterly ridiculous nonsense. Keep living your psychosis, though.

    As for your feminism comments and “male discrimination stats”: I’m not a feminist but real, true feminism — not the current 3rd Wave BS feminism — is about equality. Women being equal to men. That’s what they marched for. Any other definition is wrong. Those include from misogynists and misandrists.

    – Male suicides are 3-4x that of women, yet a greater proportion of female suicides seem to make the news.

    How is this discrimination and not do to another cause, like female suicides being tied to hot button topics like cyberbullying? Perhaps male victims of suicides have less loved ones that would bring their cases to the forefront. Confounding variables.

    – Men are frequently denied access to their children in custody battles.

    I agree with this one, and it’s flat out wrong. But women are the ones that bare the child and spend more time raising the child so it’s understandable why the law favors them. Perhaps the law needs to be updated from the former patriarchal view of mother = primary caregiver. Not sure if feminism caused this, or is it just being taken advantage of by them.

    – Men are far more likely to go to prison than women, 95% of the prison population is male. Studies have shown this is because men are actually discriminated against

    Wrong. The Y chromosome is the reason for the inequality. Testosterone is not only the male sex hormone, but also the libido hormone (in both sexes) and the hormone that causes aggression. By virtue of being a male, you guys have it in way higher amounts while women have very little, and estrogen is not linked to aggression. A higher libido increases the risk of committing sex crimes, and a higher tendency for aggression can lead to violent crime and also risky behaviors. Blame biology, not feminism.

    – It is seen as acceptable to mutilate a male babies genitals whereas female genital mutilation is seen as a horrific crime.

    While you can disagree with circumcision, at least it has documented benefits and little, if any, risks. Foreskin protects the penis and keeps it moist and responsive, but it also can act as a reservoir for various bacteria and viruses (e.g., HPV and HIV). Some of these bacteria seem to play a role in infertility. Circumcision does little harm when performed correctly and there is no statistically significant decrease in sensitivity or sexual responsiveness. FGM on the other hand has zero benefits and a lot of risks. There’s absolutely no analogous tissue that can be removed; removing the clitoris is akin to chopping off the glans! Feminism/male discrimination is a specious argument. If you wanted to be really out there, you can blame “MGM”/circumcision on the influence of Jews in the West. Prior, most males in Europe and America and Australia were uncut. Historically circumcision was a mark of difference between the Jews and everyone else. I wouldn’t be surprised if they foisted circumcision in order to decrease being “othered”. Many Jews were/are prominent medical and science professionals (among other achievements).

    – Men work longer hours than women and die younger. (it should also be noted that the working longer hours is the reason for the gender pay gap – women don’t get paid less they just choose to work less and get paid accordingly).

    So? Men die younger because evolutionarily speaking, they aren’t as important as women for the survival of most species. It’s obviously an evolutionary check of some sort. Also, I’m pretty sure it’s also a fantasy to many men to be the breadwinner while the wife is a stay at home mother — a sign that they’ve “made it”. Working longer hours is men’s own choice. How is that discrimination? It’s not. As for the gender pay gap, most jobs are geared toward men in terms of work hour flexibility, and women often have the added obligation of balancing work with child rearing. I’d say that’s grounds for reversing the pay gap in favor of women! LOL

    • Well this conversation is going to go on for eternity at this rate and I’m afraid I don’t have infinite time.

      I’ve got my views, you’ve got yours and it’s quite evident to me that, irregardless of the arguments, you have an inherent bias towards the feminist line of thought. I mean making retarded arguments intended to waste my time and derail the debate like claiming child porn laws are not the same as AOC laws – yes technically they are different but for all intents and purposes its part of the same issue – the point I was making isn’t affected whether its child porn or AOC, either way its an injustice and men are sentenced to draconian sentences for both. In any case, minor attraction is like race not something one has a choice in, you can argue one then has a choice whether to break the law, but all this free will nonsense is questionable. It’s perfectly possible to architect things such that in essence, there is no free will. If you know the characteristics of a certain individual (e.g. minor attracted) then you can predict what they will be likely to do (bang a 15yo) and so you can ingeniously setup a trap (AOC law) to imprison this person and then claim it was their fault “they had the choice”. Sure we can argue over technicalities regarding its comparison to racism in America all day but as far as I’m concerned AOC laws are pretty damn nasty and they have a similar level of irrationality about them as racism and that’s that.

      I bet if we look at the typical or potential adult violator of AOC laws,
      you’d see a perverted loser living in a trailer park or his parent’s

      Another example of your needing to sit down and spend just 5 minutes thinking through the stupidity of your claim. Of course most “violators” you’ll see live on a trailer park or in their parent’s basement, you know why? Because a consequence of their conviction is poverty. That’s got nothing to do with what they’ve done, that’s to do with the law and how it punishes those that violate AOC laws. Remove AOC laws and you’ll see as many congressman as trailer trash banging 15yos.

      As for the rest of your arguments I suggest you sit down and rethink through them. Some of them are so blatantly sexist and anti-male I just don’t know where to start and in some cases I already refuted what you said (e.g. I gave the reason why men are more likely to go to prison is NOT only testosterone, read what I said again).

      If you want to condense it down to one or two questions then do that, but trying to reply to 101 different points in every post is too much and I feel that the purpose of every post just ends up being to find some way to disagree rather than actually having a meaningful debate. If you care then I would suggest you do some more reading on this topic. Read up on Men’s Rights, Libertarianism, Sex Offender Rights etc, understand what they are fighting for, then come back to me. Or, as I suspect is most likely, just take the blue bill and continue to live in your feminist “utopia” – at least for as long as it lasts, since you might have noticed but Donald Trump won the election despite being seen as an antifeminist icon. Tick tock!

      • ShawntayUStay

        I can see you are on the verge of a complete meltdown because you cannot defend your beliefs under intense scrutiny! Fair enough… I didn’t expect much because your worldview is absurd. You want to have sexual relations with tweens/young teens and be able to watch child pornography. Those positions are immune to vigorous, rational support. Likewise, you have an irrational hatred of women, which explains your penchant for young teen girls. Easier to control than a fully grown women, eh? SMH.

        “I’ve got my views, you’ve got yours and it’s quite evident to me that, irregardless of the arguments, you have an inherent bias towards the feminist line of thought.”

        I have no bias towards anything. I’ve said I agree with some of your points; you’ve agreed to none of mine. I’m also not a feminist, as I’ve said. It is you who has a bias towards misogyny.

        “I mean making retarded arguments intended to waste my time and derail the debate like claiming child porn laws are not the same as AOC laws”

        Um, I think you should go over the trajectory of the conversation. You made a poor analogy comparing racial registry laws with AOC — I called BS. You doubled down, again with little evidence/support, saying AOC laws are akin to lynching and Jim Crow. I called even more BS on that.

        Instead of admitting it was a ridiculous analogy in the first place because AOC violators are actually breaking the law while Blacks were killed for just being black, you tried to change your argument to an emotional appeal, giving a detailed description of a home invasion by cops and the brutal consequences of being in prison… all because of “a thought crime”. But you’re still ignoring that it is choice creating the difference between a brutal outcome cause by willful breaking the law, and a brutal outcome cause by just having darker skin. It’s not a derail to call a dumb point dumb.

        “either way its an injustice and men are sentenced to draconian sentences for both”

        Perhaps a point can be made about whether sentences are too long and the propriety of sex offender registry laws being made open to more than just law enforcement, but it’s still easy to avoid what is currently “draconian”: don’t break the law.

        “In any case, minor attraction is like race not something one has a choice in”

        Really? You have proof it’s like race? On which gene does the “pedo” allele reside? Or is a polygenic trait? Is it X linked or on the Y chromosome? Please, it’s absolute nonsense! No one is born a “minor-attracted person” and there isn’t one iota of evidence. So you want me to believe that at a certain point in time the brain or whatever makes the decision, “John is going to stop liking his age-matched peers as he develops; he’s going to stagnate in his attraction.” There is no purpose gained from being attracted to prepubescent children, they aren’t viable. I won’t include an attraction to post pubescent teenagers because they are physically adults. But to little kids? No. Hell no. I say prove it. I’m pretty sure there are reasons you are attracted to young teen girls that has nothing to do with heritable traits. Your misogyny is a big hint to the origins of your proclivity.

        It’s also funny to me that “minor attraction” is trying to get the greenlight to become a sexual orientation, even when it’s a pointless attraction and has no evolutionary value. Yet zoophilia is just as pointless and it gets no shine. Having sex with a toddler is equally as reprehensible as having sex with an animal, so why does pedophilia get the “not a mental illness” stamp of approval? Makes no sense.

        And for argument’s sake, let’s just say pedos, et al are “born that way”. So what? Does it make having sex with children less immoral, less absurd? It does not. You just be the product of aberrant genes.

        “as far as I’m concerned AOC laws are pretty damn nasty and they have a similar level of irrationality about them as racism and that’s that.”

        It’s not “that’s that”. You’ve not proved AOC laws are irrational. You mention “bang 15 year olds” but what’s so difficult about waiting one more year until 16, or two or three? Or, again, if you’re so hard up on this, you can move to any of the countries that allow sexual relations between adults and minors lower than the UK’s AOC law. Problem solved.

        “Another example of your needing to sit down and spend just 5 minutes thinking through the stupidity of your claim. Of course most “violators” you’ll see live on a trailer park or in their parent’s basement”

        I was being cheeky, but thanks for proving what I suspected. LMAO. My point, though, was that adult heterosexual men who are or would be violators of AOC laws are typically the most pathetic — ones who desire control and cannot tolerate their partner having a mind of her own (I’ll leave out your homosexual “minor attracted” men because I’m beginning to realize the etiologies of heterosexual and homosexual “chronophilia” are not analogous). Since children and adolescents have deference toward adults, it is no small wonder they’d prefer a young girl to a fully mature woman. It’s not just due to physicality. Again, your own militant misogyny supports this hypothesis.

        “Remove AOC laws and you’ll see as many congressman as trailer trash banging 15yos.”

        Don’t act as if your kind represents all men. Not all men want to have sex with tweens and young teen girls. Plus, you just said it was an orientation that’s beyond free will, but now you’re acting as if it’s a choice that would be ubiquitously acted upon by most men? Which is it?

        “Some of [your arguments] are so blatantly sexist and anti-male I just don’t know where to start”

        None of my arguments are sexist or anti-male because I am neither sexist nor anti-male so it’s impossible. Your being an ideologue is preventing you from coming up with any cogent arguments — it has nothing to do with me. You refuse to look at any of this from another perspective besides one that benefits you. That’s the definition of egocentrism. Perhaps you should take your own advice and think about what you are proposing and the repercussions thereof because nothing happens in a vacuum.

        “in some cases I already refuted what you said (e.g. I gave the reason why men are more likely to go to prison is NOT only testosterone, read what I said again).”

        Please point out all your refutations because I think I missed them. LOL. As for men’s higher rate of incarceration, you claimed feminism/male discrimination but that is simply not its ultimate cause. Men are more violent and have higher rates of recidivism. They also commit more crime in general. How is it discrimination to incarcerate those who happen to be more violent? To re-offend? You’ve yet to demonstrate in any meaningful way male discrimination is the core cause of the disparity.

        “but trying to reply to 101 different points in every post is too much and I feel that the purpose of every post just ends up being to find some way to disagree rather than actually having a meaningful debate. “

        You don’t like a good fisking?? I do it because I personally feel it means one is actually listening and digesting what the other person is saying. It just so happens that in terms of this discussion you’ve said a lot that needs to be checked. As for disagreeing, you’re being very myopic. I’ve agreed on some of your points, such as the unfairness of women always getting custody. But you’ve yet to acknowledge any of mine… not that I expect it because of your “goals” for AOC etc.

        “Read up on Men’s Rights, Libertarianism, Sex Offender Rights etc, understand what they are fighting for, then come back to me.”

        So the prescription for your inability to debate is for me to look up your side? LOL. How about you look up why child porn is harmful and the stories of survivors of CSA to complement your knowledge of “sex offender rights” (and by rights, you mean the ability to get their life back on track after incarceration? I support that). There’s always two sides to a story. I’m also well aware of Libertarianism and men’s rights.

        “Or, as I suspect is most likely, just take the blue bill and continue to live in your feminist “utopia” – at least for as long as it lasts, since you might have noticed but Donald Trump won the election despite being seen as an antifeminist icon. Tick tock!”

        So when will you stop seeing feminist she-monsters around every corner? It’s an untenable position to blame all of your ills on a philosophy. Perhaps you should take Michael Jackson’s advice and look at the man in the mirror. You’re probably no different from poor white racists who when economic or some other trouble strikes, they try to find a convenient target for their animus. They choose blacks and other minorities while you’ve chosen feminists. But really, how has feminism directly impacted you?

        As for Donald Trump, I supported his election because I despise Hillary Clinton and her obvious corruption and need for power. So… oops, you’re wrong; there’s no “feminist utopia” dweller here. I support equality. Guess you should stop being such an ideological jackass. It’s embarrassing.

  • Pea

    “Adults don’t NEED sex (other than to reproduce) any more than children do – and their needs are the same (though admittedly generally at different levels of intensity) – the need to feel loved, the need to love, and the need for pleasure.”

    Well, as you’ve suggested, “need” is an improper word (perhaps if one is male, it seems the right choice to describe the place sex supposedly has in an adult’s life?), but, even so, you don’t invalidate the premise made by MJFacts in your above explanation. If adults and children have differing intensities of desire, which may be so unequal that the former group’s desire can be properly described as a “need for sex” by comparison, a compelling argument can thus be made that an adult is a wholly inappropriate partner for a child on that basis alone. Adding in other realities, such as children’s natural deference to older people and adults’ superior intellect — both of which allow for kids to be molded with the smallest suggestion — the problem of adult-child sex[ual relations] is compounded.

    So while we all desire to love, feel love, and experience pleasure, in acknowledging that there are differences between what those “needs” entail for adults and children, there is no reason — and you certainly did not prove your case — to allow adults sexual access to them. An older person can easily fulfill each of those needs for a child by protecting and nurturing them, and, as far as pleasure goes, taking them for, say, an ice cream cone.

    “You’ve given no evidence or reasons to support the idea that children can’t consent (and withhold consent) to certain forms of intimacy.”

    The onus is not on the non-pedophile to justify his proscriptions against pedophilia when pedophilia’s very premise is absurd; it is the pedophile’s job to disabuse us of our “eek!” reaction…. However, in partially addressing your comment, just an intuitive understanding of child development can tell you that a child, especially a prepubscent (your preferred age range), cannot give the kind of meaningful consent that is necessary to receive in even the most mild sensual interactions between adults. That is a fact. Tom O’Carroll admitted in his book, in the chapter “‘Consent’ and ‘Willingness'”, that there is a base level of manipulation involved in getting children to behave sexually with adults.

    And, by the way, what are these “certain forms of intimacy”, Leon, that you claim are preferred by all pedophiles (not likely)? Be descriptive, too: I don’t know what “stroking, touching” — stroking/touching where? — “kissing” — how deep? — and “tickling” mean in the pedophile’s mind. All of those can be totally non-sexual if done by a parent, but, as you’ve included each on the pedo sexuality menu, there must be something different about them.

    Or perhaps you could be honest like George attempts to be on occasion and admit to wanting “light oral”, too?

    “What are the consequences, say, of a girl asking an adult she likes to stroke her bottom and that man doing so?”

    An adult man, even a pedophile, is not sated by “bottom-stroking” alone, so please do not pretend that that particular activity is so globally desired that it would be the first thing that comes to mind. Pedophiles, including yourself, do not advocate for abolishing/lowering age of consent laws just so they can stroke a child’s butt — that much is evident by a cursory visit to the archives…. If that represented the upper limits of your sexual desires, you could simply become a girl’s basketball coach and do it in spades!

    “If children can’t find pleasure in intimacy with adults, then they won’t ask for it. Therefore you may as well grant children the capacity to consent since no child would make use of it…”

    (“Ask” — always putting all the blame on the kid for the activity happening…. No wonder victims feel so much shame and self-hatred.)

    If a child’s body works, of course they can feel pleasure. In fact, that seems to be your entire ruse: “consent via genital”, in which, because the child lacks the mental development to undertake lucid decision-making, the pedophile only ever cares to gain approval from the body. Kids are the basest form of human; they are pleasure- and experience-seekers as they learn and grow. Pedophiles seize upon this to introduce higher sexuality (which even O’Carroll admitted in his book that they don’t have!) and, especially, genital pleasure, thereby ensuring the child’s return. MJFacts’ “candy” analogy was correct — or cookie jar, too. It is troubling that the pedophile takes advantage of physiology and uses its proper functioning to absolve his guilt.

    If you truly loved the person the child was, why can’t you wait until they grow up? Even if you thought there was no harm, legitimate love for them would prevent you from even risking it.

    • LeonSisMann

      (this reply is long – apologies – I hope, if you choose to reply, you can be more succinct than I’ve managed to be…)

      >”If adults and children have differing intensities of desire, which may be so unequal that the former group’s desire can be properly described as a “need for sex” by comparison, a compelling argument can thus be made that an adult is a wholly inappropriate partner for a child on that basis alone.”

      I acknowledge that it is possible that an adult may have a stronger sex drive than a child who is seeking intimacy with him/her.

      But that is far from the whole picture:

      First of all – most adults are capable of self-control – provided the adult is not drunk, drugged, severely depressed or suffering from some mental illness.

      An adult who plays football with a 6 year old boy plays in an entirely different spirit to the way he would play with other adults in a local league: when he plays with a six year old he lets the child score goals, he doesn’t kick the ball at full power, he is careful in his movements, he does everything for it to be a positive experience for the child. The adult knows that if he treated the kick-around as if it were a serious match the child could get hurt, be scared and would come to fear and mistrust the adult.

      Likewise with intimacy – the goal is that the child should feel loved and experience pleasure, desire and happiness. If a paedophile feels love for a child, feels tenderness for him/her the *very last thing* he or she will want to do is distress or scare the child. That is in itself a very powerful control mechanism.

      But add to that that the desires of paedophiles (like the desires of everyone else) are adapted to the nature of the ‘object’ of desire:

      The mistake teleios make about normal paedophiles (by ‘normal’ I mean the paedophiles I know personally, or through fora – or who represent the huge majority in studies) is to assume that their desires are the same as those of teleios, but transferred, en masse, towards children.

      Teleio sexual desire is penetrative, goal-oriented (either orgasm or penetration) – and assumes sexual knowledge or experience of the partner. Paedophile sexuality is essentially playful – and child-centered – it is not about MY pleasure – but the child’s pleasure and the child learning and discovering. My own fantasies and dreams consist of cuddling, kissing, tickling.

      I know the difference between teleio desire and paedo desire – because I am both – I know that the way I desire women and little girls is entirely different – my desire for women is intense and goal-oriented, my desire for little girls is dreamy, romantic and playful.

      >” An older person can easily fulfil each of those needs for a child by protecting and nurturing them, and, as far as pleasure goes, taking them for, say, an ice cream cone.”

      I kind of agree with you.

      Certainly in contemporary western culture I think it is generally ill-advised to engage a child in ANY illegal activity – especially sexual ones – since the risks to the child are very great – of stigma, of being discovered and put through the legal system, or being ostracised by family, friends and community.

      Whilst I believe children *can* consent to certain forms of intimacy with adults – nowhere have I ever advocated breaking the law.

      And, as a celibate paedophile, I have had great happiness nurturing and loving little friends chastely – and been entirely happy that way. Indeed intimacy has always been a minor preoccupation with me – the idea of it has always felt like just another way of expressing and sharing love (‘sharing’ because it’s not a one-way thing – I HAVE had little girls wanting to share intimacy with me – wanting to express their love or affection for me physically).

      But I’m also convinced that there is, of itself, no harm in a child and an adult engaging in certain forms of mild intimacy.

      >”just an intuitive under standing of child development can tell you that a child, especially a prepubscent (your preferred age range), cannot give the kind of meaningful consent that is necessary to receive in even the most mild sensual interactions between adults.”

      I don’t see what aspects of child development you are referring to.

      There is no difference in the feelings of pleasure a child and an adult gets from its erogenous zones. Both are equally capable of orgasm – time taken to reach orgasm varies little between infants, children and adults.

      The only differences would be those that involve penetration. But I would only support a reform of the law if it maintained the current proscription on adults penetrating children. An adult seeking to penetrate a child is prioritising his own pleasure and well-being over that of the child.

      As to consent – consent to mild non-penetrative activities – why can’t a child consent to those? You give no reasons.

      >” All of those can be totally non- sexual if done by a parent, but, as you’ve included each on the pedo sexuality menu, there must be something different about them.”

      Well, I suppose a difference are *what* parts are being stroked. One little girl I was friends with used to like me stroking her back – but often she would pull down her pajama bottoms and ask me to stroke her bottom. I never did. If I had done so I would probably have been breaking the law and risk complicating our relationship and exposing her to future stigma, so I didn’t.

      But as far as I can see – her asking me to stroke her bottom was a clear act of giving her ‘consent’ to me doing that (and only that). I can see no reason why that consent should not be valid – any more than a little girl asking for an ice-cream is her giving consent to being offered an ice-cream.

      Now here comes an interesting (well, for me anyway) nuance. Your case would be stronger if you admitted children *can* give consent, but that that consent should not be recognised by the adult in question.

      This is my position – a paedophile should not act on a child’s consent because we know Society will make the child pay for her consent as she grows up – she’ll be taught that she was a ‘dirty little girl’, that she was a freak because she wanted and enjoyed her ‘abuse’ and even loved her ‘abuser’, will make the love that she experienced and enjoyed seem evil and seedy. She will ‘recontextualise’ what happened and turn what was positive into a negative that will poison her life.

      If you are interested in exactly what are the sources of harm – read Susan Clancy’s ‘the Trauma Myth’ ( )- she is certainly no apologist for paedophilia – but she makes it clear that it is *stigma* that causes the trauma so often associated with childhood experiences of sexuality (increasingly that with other children, which is becoming increasingly stigmatised).

      >”An adult man, even a pedophile, is not sated by “bottom-stroking” alone, so please do not pretend that that particular activity is so globally desired that it would be the first thing that comes to mind.”

      How many paedophile men do you know?

      >”Pedophiles, including yourself, do not advocate for abolishing/lowering age of consent laws just so they can stroke a child’s butt”

      Yes, I do. Please note that nowhere have I advocated that it should be anything other than illegal for an adult to penetrate a prepubescent child. My desire is to be ‘intimate’ with a child I love – not to do specific acts – I love seeing little girls enjoying their sensuality and sexuality – and my biggest kick is accepting that sensuality and sexuality as they present it – the idea of imposing my wishes goes against the whole mechanism of my desire.

      Anyway – I’ll restate – I’m against penetration of prepubescents – I’m against (on an ethical level, on an emotional level and on a sexual level) manipulation or coercion. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that the paedophilic component of my sexuality is of a different nature to my teleiophilic side shows that you are merely wanting to believe whatever confirms your prejudices. I’m not even that much into fucking and penetration when it comes to adult women, never mind little girls – my happiest moments with adult women have been cuddling and kissing and just feeling happy together.

      >”Or perhaps you could be honest like George attempts to be on occasion and admit to wanting “light oral”, too?”

      OK, yes – I’d love to ‘go down’ on an eager little girl.

      Is cunnilingus that terrible? It’s probably the least selfish sexual activity that a man can do to a female – all the physical, sexual pleasure is hers. And we have to shave first and then wash our face afterwards…

      >””Ask” — always putting all the blame on the kid for the activity happening…. No wonder victims feel so much shame and self-hatred.”

      It’s not me putting ‘blame’ – it’s you! and society who label activities they may have requested and enjoyed as ‘blameworthy’!

      Research shows (Clancy et al) that what causes feelings of guilt is exactly the stigma *you* sustain and stoke up around consensual intimacy when you attach labels of ‘blame’ to such intimacy – think: if a girl remembers asking the man to be intimate with her – what kind of dirty freak she will remember her childhood self to be with all the hysteria in the media and the public narrative nowadays. Stigma is what causes the harm.

      >” Pedophiles seize upon this to introduce higher sexuality (which even O’Carroll admitted in his book that they don’t have!)”

      Ehh? I’m not clear on this – I can’t remember O’Carroll saying anything like this. Could you give me a quote?

      >”If a child’s body works, of course they can feel pleasure….”

      What’s so wrong with ‘pleasure’?

      And you forget that, as with teleio lovers, ‘pleasure’ is only a small part of the relationship – it can make the relationship stronger and more rewarding – it can create a bond.

      But, honestly, I think that happiness and pleasure – provided they have no harm associated with them (you will say that consensual mild child-adult intimacy *is* harmful – I would reply that is only harmful in a culture that makes it harmful)- are unquestionably good things.

      >”If you truly loved the person the child was, why can’t you wait until they grow up?”

      First of all most paedophiles refrain from engaging in intimacy with the children they love – so your question is misdirected.

      Secondly – ‘Because the child may not want to wait.

      thirdly – because I think that generally if a child wants intimacy it is because she knows that it is what she needs and what is good for her.

      fourthly – ask the same question of some other stigmatised loves – say an (adult) daughter of fundamentalist moslems and her kufr lover, living in a sharia state? “If you truly loved the person, why can’t you wait until he converts?” – this couple live in a culture and society that profoundly stigmatises their love and, yes, it would be expedient for them to hide their love, to forget each other.

      But who are the real culprits? the couple? or the society that turns their love dangerous, secretive, shameful and embattled?

      • Pea

        I plan on replying more fully (but not so long, hopefully) to this comment, Leon; however, there are “grey areas” in your language and a good response requires accuracy.

        Can you define “mild intimacy” — I asked for a clarification in my previous comment, but I am still not clear as to what you mean by this term. What does “mild intimacy” constitute to a pedophile who would also “love” to perform a bona fide sex act (cunnilingus) on a prepubescent girl?

        As you might recall, you’ve spent a quite a bit of time insisting that we were all “strawman-ing” you when we used the word “sex” to describe what pedophiles want from children, yet you now admit that you desire it, too…? Because there’s nothing “mild” about cunnilingus; it is sex….

  • Kat

    Teens drinking in the supervision of their parents is acceptable, even if personally I would give such parents a side-eye, because I don’t think parents should encourage their own kids to consume alcohol. Kids having access to alcohol on their own is definitely not OK. In ninth grade my classmate thought it would be fun to mix together multiple alcoholic beverages and drink them, and it ended with him vomiting, in pain, and the ambulance being called. It’s what you get when you give a fifteen-year-old unlimited access to alcohol.

    Children and teenagers can’t make mature decisions, or even worse – will deliberately make stupid ones, because that’s where they are developmentally. So they must be protected from themselves in a way.

    You know I was thinking – and this also relates to your pedo buddies that are posting on this site – if none of you identifies as exclusively attracted to children, but attracted both to kids and adults – why go after kids at all? You can fulfil whatever sexual and emotional needs you have with an adult person, so your efforts of trying to convince us that pursuing children for pleasure should be considered normal, even though it’s illegal and immoral, seem redundant.

    • george

      Yes, Mixing drinks can be dangerous, But you don’t need to be a teenager. I have been ill many times for mixing beverages; And a friend of mine had at least two visits to Hospital for doing the same: Both in our twenties. There is no magical age where suddenly we can foresee trouble ahead, Just like the song!

      The teenage brain is more risk averse, But on a cognitive level, Much the same as adults. Like learning to drive etc. They are just as capable as you or me at learning the functions of driving, But knowing the hazards takes experience and it seems boys are more prone to dangerous driving.

      “Children and teenagers can’t make mature decisions”

      That’s a bit patronising, especially regarding teenagers. There is call in the UK to lower voting-age to sixteen, for those engaged in politics.

      And as for teens drinking with their parents, I was referring to much younger kids. They have no problem, its not ‘encouragement’, its just about trying new things in moderation; It must work, Just compare say France to the UK, Once teens get their hands on alcohol, They go crazy.

      ” why go after kids at all”

      Well those of us that stay within the law do not ‘go after kids’ as you put it. But every time we hear negative stuff in our name, It can bother us. And others have had experiences that go contrary to the dominant narrative, whether as kids themselves, or as adults,with the mutually enjoyed experiences they have had with kids.

      • Kat

        I’m against alcohol in general, I think it should be made illegal like all other drugs. Many will disagree with me, but alcohol is just harmful, not beneficial in any way, so I don’t see why it should be openly sold. A lot of people think that drinking can’t possibly be as bad as shooting up heroin for example, but more people die of excessive alcohol consumption than of overdosing on hard drugs.

        Teenagers are at an age when many of them think that smoking and drinking is cool. I know that because I also went through that stage at one point. I don’t want to patronise, I just remember what it’s like to want to try those things at a certain age without caring for consequences.

        Returning to our main topic – if you really just want to have sex with someone you end up using them. I’m not judgemental of adults who do it. If someone is into casual sex, hookups and et cetera, it’s not my place to judge, as long it’s an adult doing it with another consenting adult. But if you want to have that kind of thing with a child, it’s cruel and you’re merely using then. I know you’ll say that kids should be allowed to experience pleasure and so on, but many of them long to be loved, too, just as we grown-ups do. MJs little boyfriends were under the impression that they were loved, up until he swiftly got rid of them when their developing bodies turned undesirable.

        • george

          To claim MJ just dumped them is unfair; Maybe there is some truth in some of the relationships, look at Macaulay Culkin, They remained friends and MC has never said a bad word about him. Kids especially adolescents are ready for fleeting sexual encounters, Sometimes its better to learn early (as long as your not made to learn). If you read about ‘The Monster of Melbourne’, You will find the relations with mainly adolescent boys were varying with onetime encounters to regular meetings of a sexual nature.

  • Pea

    I did not seek the clarification to bait you, Leon, or for prurient, tabloid-y interest. I also wasn’t asking for a list, per se, but more of a general idea. It is just very vague to repeatedly use the term “mild intimacy” — what does it mean? Wouldn’t it be in the public interest for non-pedophiles to know a pedophile’s intentions when their ultimate goal is changing societal perceptions such that consent laws are abolished and sexual access to our kids is permitted? (Invariably, it would be our children; pedophiles tend to have decreased fecundity.)

    I must also say here that I find your reticence a bit ironic. If our position is not so much that children can’t befriend pedophiles (even if we didn’t like the idea, there is no real way to proscribe against this — short of being told directly, or seeing a hard drive or book collection, there is no real way to know who is a pedophile), but that pedophiles aren’t to have sex[ual relationships] with them, why would pedophiles not seize upon the sex issue directly to disabuse us of our fears?

    In other words, why would you be worried that the true definition of a pedophile-style “intimacy” would be misunderstood or misrepresented? I mean, the assumption is already that pedos seek to have children as sexual partners — explaining that that would also include cunnilingus, fellatio, and, possibly, by age 12 (if using Tom O’Carroll’s rules), penetration would not really drum up an abnormal level of “shock”.

    In my opinion, I think the whole point is to avoid details — to explicitly avoid the word “sex” while amplifying “love”. Not because spelling out the details would be too pornographic, but more that it isn’t really helpful to the Cause for everyone to know that, essentially, a child has supplanted an adult in the equation. There is no doubt that pedophiles want sex — again, a visit to the Adult/Youth section of the archives serves as testimony to that fact. But saying it is another story, as if typing it in black-and-white for everyone to read dredges up cognitive dissonance (i.e., claiming that you’re being as “innocent”/”playful” as a child but then doing acts, like oral sex, that are nearly always on the adult-adult sex menu) and, at least in some small way, the realization of pedophilia’s absurdity.

    “what really moves me and turns me on are not children’s bodies, not sexual acts, but ‘child sexuality’ – what turns me on are children enjoying their sexuality and desires at whatever stage they are in their discovery of them”

    First of all, that’s just an integral part of the paraphilia, and then adding yourself into the mix and controlling the progression through tacit “encouragement” adds to the excitement….

    But does “child sexuality” even exist? It seems more the realm of a pedophile’s headspace. Yes, children have areas with a denser collection of touch-sensitive nerves, and a Skinner Box-like mentality draws them toward those places once they are discovered. It’s not any more complex than that, but pedophiles complicate this needlessly to serve their own ends.

    And, again, if the “ends” are sex acts of whatever variety, why not be open about them if it’s the truth? It feels like you are manipulating the (non-pedophile) response to your message by using certain “safe” words.

  • Really!? So what happens if an adult goes without sex with another adult for a while? Their heads explode?

    Let me put it in a way more easy for you to understand. Adults, in a relationship, (generally) need to have sex with one another.

    I’m not sure if you saw my previous comment, but all this dissembling is pointless unless you can answer the statement posted at the end:

    You still have not argued the point as to why children need to have sex with adults.

    I suspect you can’t answer, because there is no need. Children can cope quite fine without an adult having sex with them.

    What you are truly advocating is the right for adults to have sex with children, anything else you say is incidental to that aim. Even if we take your arguments at face value, and that there are children who desire sex with adults and hence the law should be changed, you cannot guarantee that there won’t be pedophiles who will manipulate other reluctant children into what the child believes is a consensual relationship which opens the door to future shame and anger that they were duped. That already happens, so lowering the age of consent will only cause more children heartache, anguish, and pain.

    You know that already happens, that pedophiles are damaging children every day. It’s no excuse blaming “bad” pedophiles because they are the ones who will gain a foothold should you and your fellow travellers succeed in your aims. It’s better that pedophiles seek treatment for their paraphilia and stay away from children, rather than trying to impose their narcissistic agenda on a society which knows better.

    • LeonSisMann

      mjfacts – I thought I had already addressed this question elsewhere – though it is entirely possible that in the ‘fog of battle’ your question got overlooked. Apologies if this is the case.

      But also – at one point I think I had three or four people addressing each comment I made, and I had unwisely made several comments at the same time. I was simply unable to reply to them all, having, as you may notice, some trouble in being succinct.

      So, anyway – “You still have not argued the point as to why children need to have sex with adults.”

      Well, a glib answer would be ‘because if a child wants to, why not?’

      The answer I thought I’d given was also a little glib and rhetorical, but I’ll stand by it because it contains more truth than words:

      ‘why do *homosexuals* need to have sex with other homosexuals? ‘

      After all, unlike heterosexual sex, homosexual sex doesn’t produce offspring.

      What does it produce? pleasure, happiness, love, cohesion and bonding.

      Likewise *intimacy* (I won’t use the word ‘sex’ because it’s principal denotation is ‘penetration’, and I won’t be manoeuvred into defending that) between children and adults – provided that it isn’t stigmatised – it produces pleasure and happiness for both parties, it expresses and reinforces love and its components, and strengthens the bond between them.

      As to boosting the population and creating new consumers? – no; an economic benefit? – no; creating a market for cheap housing? – no; creating a market for wedding planners? no… so on those more practical aspects I’ll concede that allowing children and adults to share consensual intimacy has few economic benefits.

      >”Children can cope quite fine without an adult having sex with them.”

      Arguably, you might be right if you take ‘children’ as a unitary population-wide concept – though also be aware that those societies where fear of paedophiles is at its most virulent (UK, USA most notably) are, not coincidentally, societies with the lowest scores for child happiness – the next lowest is Hungary – but still a whopping 3.5 points above the US on a 20-point scale. (see table – ‘child well-being in rich countries – a summary table’ – )

      But again – the population of adults coped fine with homosexuality being illegal – Victorian society was very successful and prosperous and most adults were fine, despite homosexuality being banned.

      Nearly every adult who didn’t have the desire for homosexual intimacy was fine with homosexuality being illegal – if you don’t want it, you don’t miss it.

      Of course individual homosexuals suffered terribly – but statistically they were no more significant in number than that small minority of children today who find they love an adult and would like to share intimacy with him or her but who can’t because their desire is illegal.

      No, it probably won’t kill them not to have that intimacy – but nor would it kill homosexuals to not be able to experience intimacy with each other – they’ll find a way of coping, and if they can’t, well, that’s their hard cheese.

      As the above suggests it’s not a numbers game – you can take 100 children – maybe 99 of them will have no interest in sex, will find the idea of being intimate with an adult disgusting. That’s fine – nothing in this discussion applies to them – other than they will retain the same protections they have today.

      But what about that one child that has strong interest in sexuality, who is attracted to, say, a handsome, young friendly neighbour, and who maybe masturbates in the bath thinking about him? I say, provided he reciprocates her affection and he is considerate why shouldn’t they engage in consensual intimacy?

      One of the costs of living in a society with age apartheid is mental illness – children need a range of adults in their lives – not just adults who are in authority such a parents, teachers, priests, policemen, social workers and ‘play professionals’ – children should be able to make friends with adults in the same way that they can make friends with other children – such adults can be hugely enriching, providing a kind of relationship, experience and education that ‘authority-adults’ can’t.

      I’ve seen child-friends blossom in such friendships – to the point that their parents noticed it, acknowledged it and did everything to encourage the friendship. A child knowing they are taken seriously as a person and are an equal to an adult brings out the best in them – and, I believe, in the adult too.

      Now, you’ll object that this kind of friendship is not the same thing as ‘paedophilia’ – but it certainly is a significant PART of the ‘paedophile dream’ – the ideal relationship for most paedophiles is one where the adult and the child are equal, where the child feels respected and empowered (and this, of course, does not imply the need for any illegal or otherwise intimacy).

      As it is children are locked into a routine of family/home and school. The only adults they encounter hold positions of authority. We are weakening society – the generational structure should be like that of the diamond – 3 dimensional; age-apartheid makes the structure of our society more like that of graphite – 2 dimensional – the generations are estranged one from the other.

      This leads us onto bigger questions of what is dysfunctional in our society – and what kinds of society would be better – but that is a huge question which I won’t address here.

      • Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is false equivalency. What consenting adults do with each other has no relation to an adult using an emotionally and cognitively immature child to satisfy their sexual desires. The adult, due to their sexual proclivities, has a vested interest in minimizing any possibility of harm in the child and interpreting innocent, exploratory behaviour in children as something related to adult sexuality. This is the course you have taken consistently and it is merely self-serving and narcissistic.

        …be aware that those societies where fear of paedophiles is at its most virulent (UK, USA most notably) are, not coincidentally, societies with the lowest scores for child happiness

        It is a coincidence. There is no causality shown between “virulent fear of pedophiles” and child happiness in the report you quoted.

        But what about that one child that has strong interest in sexuality, who is attracted to, say, a handsome, young friendly neighbour, and who maybe masturbates in the bath thinking about him? I say, provided he reciprocates her affection and he is considerate why shouldn’t they engage in consensual intimacy?

        Prepubescent children do not naturally have erotic thoughts about neighbours. Once again, you are projecting adult sexual behaviours onto children, a result of your obsession with children as sexual objects.

        One of the costs of living in a society with age apartheid is mental illness – children need a range of adults in their lives – not just adults who are in authority such a parents, teachers, priests, policemen, social workers and ‘play professionals’ – children should be able to make friends with adults in the same way that they can make friends with other children – such adults can be hugely enriching, providing a kind of relationship, experience and education that ‘authority-adults’ can’t.

        This can be true in some cases. However, as you yourself have pointed out this has nothing to do with lowering the age of consent, or as an excuse for adults having sex with children.

        As of now, you are yet to make the case that children need to have sex with adults, you merely state Likewise *intimacy* (I won’t use the word ‘sex’ because it’s principal denotation is ‘penetration’, and I won’t be manoeuvred into defending that) between children and adults – provided that it isn’t stigmatised – it produces pleasure and happiness for both parties, it expresses and reinforces love and its components, and strengthens the bond between them.

        There is no need to “strengthen the bond”, the adult is not interested in the child as a person, they will merely discard the intense relationship with that child and move on to the next when the child passes the pedophile’s age of attraction. Oh, and don’t try to reframe sex with children, which is what pedophiles want, using weasel words such as “intimacy”.

        We are weakening society – the generational structure should be like that of the diamond – 3 dimensional; age-apartheid makes the structure of our society more like that of graphite – 2 dimensional – the generations are estranged one from the other.

        This is a problem which can be fixed without allowing pedophiles access to children or their bodies.

        • LeonSisMann

          Ok, I suspect that we’re approaching a whirlpool and may end up going in circles.

          But I’d like to look more closely at your assertion “Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is false equivalency. What consenting adults do with each other has no relation to an adult using an emotionally and cognitively immature child to satisfy their sexual desires.”

          It violates some of the most basic rules of logic – first of all it is an example of ‘begging the question’, secondly it betrays a lack of understanding of the function of equivalence and comparison in discourse.

          Ultimately our disagreement boils down to the question of whether children can consent to certain forms of intimacy with an adult or not.

          When you say:

          “What consenting adults do with each other has no relation to an adult using an emotionally and cognitively immature child to satisfy their sexual desires.”

          in order to invalidate all and any comparisons between paedophilia and homosexuality – you do so by assuming that the overarching question (that of consent) has already been resolved in your favour. It has not been resolved either way in our debate. You can’t legitimately present that as a premise in our debate until you have proved that children can’t consent. You are ‘begging the question’.

          More interestingly you are mistaken in invoking ‘false equivalency’.

          Here is text-book examples of ‘false equivalency’ –

          Hitler had moustaches and was evil;
          Jesus had moustaches.
          ∴ Jesus must have been evil.

          false equivalency, as this example should make clear, is drawing an inference from one comparate to the other on the basis of them sharing a trait, or traits, which are either irrelevant, or insufficiently relevant, to justify the drawing of inferences between the comparates. Having Moustaches is not a relevant quality by which to infer evil from one comparate to another because ‘all men with moustaches are evil’ does not follow on from ‘Hitler had moustaches and was evil’.

          Let’s look at what I was proposing when I compared homosexuality and paedophilia:

          homosexuality is a form sexuality
          paedophilia is a form of sexuality
          ∴ both share the defining features of ‘sexuality’

          you were over-hasty in assuming that I was merging their middle terms (‘form of sexuality’) to give: ‘homosexuality is paedophilia’. That would have been to commit the fallacy of the ‘undistributed middle term’.

          notice that the structure of the argument is entirely different from that of false equivalency. I am stating no conclusions other than they share a common definition and therefore common characteristics of that shared definition.

          try the same structure with other things

          echidnas are mammals
          humans are mammals
          ∴ echidnas and humans share the defining features of ‘mammals’

          dogs belong to the canidae family
          wolves belong to the canidae family
          ∴ dogs and wolves both share the defining features of ‘canidae’

          Clearly dogs and wolves are more closely related to each other than humans and echidnas – but if one chose to compare an echidna to a human one would be able to infer between them ALL the defining characteristics of mammals, and then add to that a certain number of non-defining characteristics too (e.g. both are land mammals, both are omnivorous…)

          So where does that leave us with the paedophilia/homosexuality comparison – well, they share AT LEAST ALL the defining characteristics of a ‘sexuality’ and almost certainly more (they are, as far as I’m concerned even more closely related than just ‘sexuality’ – they are both ‘sexual orientations’ but I chose not to use that as the shared definition since I knew you’d cavil at that and the discussion would veer off course again).

          One way of determining the PROXIMITY of two comparates is to ask ‘how many things does one have to change in one comparate before it becomes the other?’ – you have to change fewer things to turn a dog into a wolf than you do to turn a human into an echidna therefore dogs and wolves are more comparable (more inferences can be drawn) than humans and echidnas.

          So how many steps does it take to get from ‘homosexuality’ to ‘paedophilia’ – just one as it happens: the age of one of its participants.

          When you suggest that you can’t compare homosexuality with paedophilia you are classing the comparison alongside comparisons between things with NO (or very tenuous) shared definitions – ‘the smell of roses’ with ‘a broken big toe’, ‘the Eiffel tower’ with ‘worrying whether you left the gas turned on’, or ‘a Mozart Symphony’ with ‘an elephant’s afterbirth’ – if I’d been proposing such comparisons then, yes, you would have been right to suggest that the two phenomena couldn’t be compared.

          As it is I’ll repeat the list of OBVIOUS similarities between homosexuality and paedophilia:

          – both involve individuals who have the capacity to consent (ok, I’m being provocative in starting with that – I’m ‘begging the question’ – see how it works!?);

          – both are sexual orientations and therefore are not chosen;

          – both are, or have been, defined in the public imagination by the worst that could be said, reported and fantasised about them;

          – both have to, or have had to, keep their sexuality secret;

          – people accused of both have, or have had, had their reputations and careers ruined (see Oscar Wilde trial);

          – for a long time, and especially during Victorian times the roles were reversed – homosexuality was stigmatised and persecuted, whereas paedophilia was not only tolerated, it was, in certain circles quite fashionable (see Lewis Carroll, Ernest Dowson, John Ruskin et al in ‘ Men in Wonderland: The Lost Girlhood of the Victorian Gentleman’ by Catherine Robson);

          – both are, or have been, seen as corrupting youth, and people were made homosexual by ‘conversion’ – echoing the contemporary myth that paedophilia is passed on from ‘abuser’ to ‘abused’;

          – right into the final decades of the last century homosexuals have been portrayed as obsessive, hyper-sexual and out of control – echoed in the myth that all paedophiles are obsessional in a way that heterosexual teleiophiles aren’t;

          – homosexuality was synonymous with sodomy in the same way as it is assume that all paedophiles want to penetrate children…

          (describing the previous list as ‘irrelevant factoids’ won’t do the job of discrediting what it says – anyone can call anything ‘irrelevant factoids’ – it’s a hollow phrase. Creationists could describe the evidence for evolution as such – but they will have proved or disproved nothing in doing so – only revealed the weakness of their position).

          • All this guff (and it is guff, you are still obstinately trying to compare sex with children to sex between adults) because you can’t argue the reason as to why children need to have sex with adults.

            I can agree with one thing though, these discussions are nearly at an end. All that you, George, and Holocaust have proven is that you don’t stand for children’s rights in any meaningful way. All you three have done is argue that pedophiles should be allowed access to children so that pedophiles can satisfy their own sexual desires. Children get along just fine without needing to have sex with a pedophile.

            I hate to be blunt but the overarching impression you’ve given to anybody reading these comments is that pedophiles are delusional, selfish and narcissistic.

          • Kat

            Every non-pedophile posting on this site has explained that children can’t consent to sex, as they lack developmental maturity and knowledge about what sex actually is and its possible consequences (pregnancy, injury, sexual transmitted diseases – a child cannot know about these things unless he or she has been given some sort of sex education).

            Grown-ups who pursue children sexually are much older and often in a position of authority, which additionally turns this kind of thing into an unequal, abusive, criminal affair. I actually suspect you’re very well aware of all this, but still continue to stubbornly insist that there is a possibility that children can consent, because it makes you feel better about yourself. You’re not a child abuser, you’re a child lover! It’s what you keep telling yourself and others.

            As for the subject of child sexuality and what children want sexually – who made you a spokesperson for that? Kids are fit to express their desires themselves. When they start shouting that they want the age of consent lowered, so that they can have sex with adults, then we can start talking about changing the laws.

            Pedophilia isn’t a sexual orientation – it’s a psychosexual disorder, and it’s not normal. Homosexuality and pedophilia are in no way related, and it’s easy to prove that.

            But yes, you are right about this discussion going nowhere.

          • Pea

            Honestly, Leon… who cares whether the wrong logical fallacy was cited? It’s totally irrelevant.

            The essential differences between homosexuality and pedophilia are that (a) consent has practically been determined to differ between the two, and (b) pedophilia is a fetish, whereas homosexuality is not.

            Taking point (a), yes, the consent issue has been resolved in our favor, hence why the premise of it lacking in a pedophilic “pairing” was used to shut down the value of your comparison. If, as according to pedophile mascot Tom O’Carroll, children only organically have a “genital sexuality” (i.e., only being able to connect stimulation of genital nerve endings with pleasure, but not with fantasy, desire for another person, body attractiveness, or any of the other psychosexual connections “clearly formed”, to quote O’Carroll, in adulthood) and given children’s lower comparative intelligence and deference to adult whim, pedophilic pairings are inherently biologically unequal. None of those caveats exist in a homosexual pairing because it is adult-adult, and, therefore, assuming both players are of normal intelligence, each is equally capable of reasoning.

            The “consent” of which pedophiles speak and only bother to obtain is false and illegitimate: it only concerns the reactivity of the genitals, not whether the child is affirming with a higher organ, which they simply are not capable of doing given their stage of development. They are incapable of saying, “Yes, lover, I want to chase this ‘good feeling’ you’re giving me because I know this experience will enrich my life.” There is little to no ability of forward thinking or contemplation of complex cause and effect; these are not the realms of the child’s brain.

            An analogous adult-adult case would be a rapist and his victim. If non-violent, his “moves” could induce genital arousal/erection and, in some cases, orgasm. However, the victim was still raped: the rapist only got a genital consent, not a consent involving a victim’s higher brain. To most people, the idea a date rapist could use and then be acquitted with a “She came” defense is repellent and nonsensical. But pedophiles absolve themselves of guilt using the same defense; they benefit doubly so because, unlike adult rape victims who would feel confusion and shame over the differing responses of their bodies and minds, children’s lower comparative intelligence, gullibility, deference to adults, and Skinner-box thinking allows them to be easily molded to participate in the pedophile’s sexual fantasies.

            In other words, there is no “mind” to deal with.

            So, in sum, no, the consent within a homosexual relationship is not the same as that which “exists” in a pedophilic one. If pedophiles want the former legitimate one, they should stay their “love” until the child is at the legal age of consent (16+); then it will be concomitant.

            Regarding point (b), it is self-explanatory: pedophilia is a paraphilia, and, therefore, it is not like homosexuality. That very point alone makes them incomparable. Ironically, while going on about MJFacts “begging the question” with a presumption of the consent debate being decided against pedophiles, you assume that the “sexual orientation” status of pedophilia is set into stone. It’s not because it is not. It’s a kink.

            The pedophile brain activates dissimilarly to both homo- and heterosexual brains, it’s patterning more indicative of someone with OCD. It’s more highly reactive to its desired sexual stimuli (children) than are the former bona fide orientations — another feature of obsessional disorders. Interestingly, according to the DSM-5, OCD is a differential diagnosis vis-a-vis pedophilia; this indicates to me that the disorders are twigs off the same branch.

            Additionally, pedophiles fixate on particular ages and their trappings (again, OCD-like), and when the child ages out, the pedophile’s ardor decreases significantly. We saw this with Michael Jackson; he moved onto younger boys when his previous boys reached puberty. However, there is no analogous fixation in homosexuality. (I’ll also add that one of the core features of pedophilia should be delusional thoughts characterized by prepubescent children possessing the non-existent organic ability to seduce. For example, one pedophile in the documentary “Chickenhawk” casually chatted to boys outside of a store and, in his camera interview, was convinced they were flirting with him. The same believed sexual pushiness is in virtually all pedo fantasy stories I’ve encountered — i.e., the onus of decision-making is on the child — and is also evident in your language.)

            Homosexuality is similar to heterosexuality — the only factor changed is the sex of the partners. To say the only thing changed between homosexuality and pedophilia is the age of one partner is so simplistic as to be rendered false.

            As far as your list goes, it doesn’t indicate much beyond a related perceptual history. It does not address any fundamental similarities.

            “both are sexual orientations and therefore are not chosen”

            I don’t believe anyone actively chooses to be a pedophile or a homosexual, and I am not even a believer in the “born that way” hypothesis. But using “therefore” to modify the addition of “not chosen” is attempting to imply that lack of choice in either case, which may be true, indicates that by virtue of homosexuality being an established “sexual orientation”, pedophilia is one also, which is not true.

            “right into the final decades of the last century homosexuals have been portrayed as obsessive, hyper-sexual and out of control – echoed in the myth that all paedophiles are obsessional in a way that heterosexual teleiophiles aren’t”

            Pedophiles are more obsessive than both groups, as noted earlier, so this point is irrelevant as a determinator of “similarity”. In fact, it strongly indicates difference!

  • If you go back 150 years…

    Thank goodness the world is far more enlightened now than in 1866. The world was not a good place for children then, with many of them forced to work in factories and mines as well as, as you have noted, being used to satisfy adult sexual desires.

  • You will not be able to point out one example of a prepubescent child being labelled a “sex offender” for having sex with a pedophile. Stop this ridiculous nonsense.

  • So now you’d like to shift the goalposts and make this all about gay youth. Can you show us where any gay youths from major Western societies have been arrested and tried by those police and prosecutors for having sex with pedophiles? It just doesn’t happen George. Quit it with these syupid arguments.

    I believe that vulnerable people are better served by giving them more choices, not fewer. Children and youth can be made less vulnerable by giving them more options. Those who need to escape abusive family members or other abusive situations need more options than we as a society currently provide them with. Those who live in poverty, those who face racial, religious, and sexual prejudice — all need more options, not fewer.

    Allowing pedophiles free rein to have sex with abused children will not help them in any way. Moving in with a pedophile is also no “option”. Helping children shouldn’t be on the condition that they “put out”. That’s not helping them.

  • That child was not labelled a sex offender for having sex with a pedophile, he sexually abused his 9-year-old sister. Once again, quit your nonsense.

  • No slip, Some kids do want it!

    Reread my comment, the one you replied to. Your reply makes no sense. As for your argument about homosexuality vs. pedophilia, Pea has already rebutted that here

    Below are the relevant paragraphs:

    Pedophilia is a paraphilia, and, therefore, it is not like homosexuality. That very point alone makes them incomparable. Ironically, while going on about MJFacts “begging the question” with a presumption of the consent debate being decided against pedophiles, you assume that the “sexual orientation” status of pedophilia is set into stone. It’s not because it is not. It’s a kink.

    The pedophile brain activates dissimilarly to both homo- and heterosexual brains, it’s patterning more indicative of someone with OCD. It’s more highly reactive to its desired sexual stimuli (children) than are the former bona fide orientations — another feature of obsessional disorders. Interestingly, according to the DSM-5, OCD is a differential diagnosis vis-a-vis pedophilia; this indicates to me that the disorders are twigs off the same branch (or, as the researchers had put it, pedophilia is one phenotype of OCD).

    Additionally, pedophiles fixate on particular ages and their trappings (again, OCD-like), and when the child ages out, the pedophile’s ardor decreases significantly. We saw this with Michael Jackson; he moved onto younger boys when his previous boys reached puberty. However, there is no analogous fixation in homosexuality. (I’ll also add that one of the core features of pedophilia should be delusional thoughts characterized by prepubescent children possessing the non-existent organic ability to seduce. For example, one pedophile in the documentary “Chickenhawk” casually chatted to boys outside of a store and, in his camera interview, was convinced they were flirting with him. The same believed sexual pushiness is in virtually all pedo fantasy stories I’ve encountered — i.e., the onus of decision-making is on the child — and is also evident in your language.)

    Homosexuality is similar to heterosexuality — the only factor changed is the sex of the partners. To say the only thing changed between homosexuality and pedophilia is the age of one partner is so simplistic as to be rendered false.

    As far as your list goes, it doesn’t indicate much beyond a related perceptual history. It does not address any fundamental similarities.

    • george

      Cantor’s studies on paedophilic brains do not go without its critics. Clinical studies on Prison samples are not representative of all paedophiles. No, not all peds ‘fixate’ on particular age groups, For many, there is crossover into hebephilia/ephophilia; And that certainly is the case for me.

      “Chickenhawk” casually chatted to boys outside of a store and, in his camera interview, was convinced they were flirting with him”

      Anecdotal strawman: Maybe the guy had some sort of mental illness?

      • Pea

        “Anecdotal strawman: Maybe the guy had some sort of mental illness?”

        The irony….

        George, what is an “anecdotal strawman” exactly? No doubt you can’t define was it is because it was claimed in a moment of stupid, but neither of those singularly applies: (a) it’s not an anecdotal fallacy, but an exhibit: you can watch that scene in “Chickenhawk: Men Who Love Boys” right on Youtube — in fact, here’s the link and at the right moment, too:

        If you watch further on in the film (or watch the whole thing from the very beginning to the end), the man clearly does not have some other mental illness and is reasonably intelligent; his “mental illness” is merely that he’s a pedophile and doing what countless pedophiles do: assume that there is some kind of magnetism between themselves and the youths of interest that no one but the pedophile can sense.

        And (b): no one made a strawman out of anyone’s argument — if you can figure out where that happened, copy and paste. Hypothesizing that pedophiles may also suffer from delusions related to the paraphilia, in addition to obsessive-compulsive traits, and then presenting observations / evidence that may support that theory is how science works.

        As for the study, Cantor didn’t author the one I was referring to, so your assumption is invalid. At any rate, studies recruiting their samples from forensic and/or clinical populations of pedophiles is not all that problematic if the goal is to study the brain of a confirmed, dyed-in-the-wool pedophile. For instance, using a clinical pedophile guarantees that the individual is an actual pedophile as described by the DSM.

        Furthermore, yes, you have fixated on the age of your object of desire — if that wasn’t the case, you wouldn’t be a “pedophile”. Non-exclusive designations DO NOT indicate some kind of age-egalitarianism; ultimately, the pedophile prefers youths of a particular age range instead of an adult partner with whom he may be able to “perform”. (That much as been evident in your buddy Leon’s own words about “sweaty, violent, goal-oriented, penetrative” adult sexual relations, which he views as inferior to molesting young girls.)

        Please stop embarrassing yourself each time you post. Matter of fact, it’s getting really, really old checking you; I think you should pack up and go….

  • With the pedo-hysteria gaining new heights, its quite possible. I have admired kids in supermarket, only to have their dads look at me like some kind of demon.

    You aren’t a demon, you suffer from a paraphilia and refuse to be treated for it. Parents are naturally protective of their children and don’t want them around people with a mental illness, an illness which makes the mentally ill person think children are trying to seduce them. It’s highly unlikely thought crimes will be punished any time soon, unless a new device is invented to read minds. Do you think that is likely George?

    Hate to break it to you: Some kids initiate sexual liaisons with adults, Like teenage boys hanging around Toilets waiting for men to enter. I expect you would happily have those men punished?

    Quite apart from selectively quoting me, in your example I believe the adult must say “no”. Firstly if the boys are below the age of consent it is against the law, so yes the men should be punished. Secondly, the adult should be responsible and prevent the boy from partaking in such risky behaviour, the consequences and dangers of which they may not be cognisant of yet due to their incompletely developed brain.

    It’s so sad that there are many obsessed, selfish and narcissistic pedophiles and pederasts who put personal pleasure above the safety of children.

  • ShawntayUStay

    “they [age of consent laws] give undue power to those who already have power — police and prosecutors — while removing power from some of society’s most vulnerable populations — notably, gay youth.”

    How is this true? You’re just saying it without even giving one iota of evidence. How don’t AOC laws protect the vulnerable if the sole purpose is to prevent children — minors — from taking on a largely age-inappropriate behavior that is rife with consequences, e.g. pregnancy, STIs? They also protect them from sexual predators (clearly many pedos/hebes/MAAs are stymied by the threat of incarceration — proof the system works!). So the law is doing exactly as it is intended to do, protecting those who lack the cognitive foresight to protect themselves. So you’ll need to prove your claim; you can’t just throw it out there expecting everyone to just take it at face value.

    What proof do you have that these laws concentrate “power” in the hands of the “powerful”? You act as if the government imposed this law on the people, and parents, whose children are covered by AOC laws, are furious about it. They aren’t. What parent would scorn a law that would only aid them in protecting their kids from your kind, one that would give them a legal remedy if a pedophile groomed and molested their child?

    Fact is, George, the only people crying are you pedophiles. No one else cares. You’re trying to frame AOC laws as a civil rights violation issue, but whose “civil rights” are allegedly being violated? Not anybody who people would give a crap about, i.e. minor attracted persons. Why mention gay youth? They are no different from any other kids; just because they are gay doesn’t mean they’re begging to have sex with adults… That’s what you’re basically implying. And if they have especial needs beyond what “regular youth” require, I’m pretty sure AOC laws aren’t interfering with those needs. Gay youth, like straight youth, have their whole lives to indulge in sexual relationships — they don’t need to start in childhood, and you’ve provided no good reason why that shouldn’t be the case.

    “I believe that vulnerable people are better served by giving them more choices, not fewer.”

    Okay?? What does this have to do with you and other pedophiles wanting sexual access to children?

    “Children and youth can be made less vulnerable by giving them more options. Those who need to escape abusive family members or other abusive situations need more options than we as a society currently provide them with.”

    Children and youth are not vulnerable — they have the protection of their parents, first of all, and also the law. Oh wait…That’s what you dislike! Parents! So in your “more options” plan, you want to supplant the parent’s power over the child with the ability of another adult to come in and assume that same role. In other words, the child’s position is unchanged, they have gained no power. It is the other adult — the pedophile — who has gained power, and it is the power to control the child. “Options” is, therefore, simply pedo doublespeak for unrestricted access to their sexual objects without the threat of imprisonment.

    As for abused kids, don’t act like you care when you think it’s completely fine for a child to go from a chaotic and mentally/emotionally unstable home, to a home with an adult who would make having sexual contact a de facto requisite for food and shelter.

    Let’s be real here, George. A pedophile is a fetishist, not a child advocate. It’s not about “children’s rights”. That’s just more doublespeak. If we look deeper, we see the only “rights” being fought for are the ones that would make it easy for pedophiles to have sexual contact with children. It’s not anything noble or honorable; it’s not genuine caring about the well being of kids. Why continue with a charade that is so utterly transparent to anyone with a modicum of common sense? Stop playing games and talking about “options” as if it really even means anything other than access to a child’s body.

    Get help, please.

  • Hilal Alsameraaii

    I don’t know if anybody has already brought this up. There were rumours in 1977 of Tatum O’Neal and Michael Jackson skinny dipping. Jackson denied it at the time, saying that they were in bathing suits:

    I can think of two possible explanations:
    -Jackson was telling the truth and the rumours were false.
    -Jackson knew that it was wrong for a 14-year-old and a 19-year-old to be naked together and lied.

    I guess I might be grasping at straws. I just think it’s interesting that this was the same person who, down the line, would have six molestation claims against him and several claims of inappropriate behaviour.

    • Melissa

      Yeah I heard this but what I heard is, MJ claimed Tatum was his girlfriend but she denied it. Of course the floons think she’s the liar here.

    • I don’t think it’s true he was skinny dipping with Tatum. That’s just based on gut feeling though.

      Here’s the story, it would be good to get some other views on it. I can see that MJ had already formulated the idea that “rumours are a sign of success” so it’s little wonder he encouraged rumours about himself. He was also beginning to see scrutiny as “jealousy”.

      • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

        Case in point…Here is the handwritten note he penned in Aussie when the “horrible tabloids” were leaking bizarre stories about him…Notice though it is NOW KNOWN that it was MJs idea to leak the very stories he is talking about being so upset about in this letter..

        Also, let me point out how he talks about himself in a “Christlike” way even in 87. The MJ camps statements was this was THE ONLY statement that MJ would make about those “bad horrid” lies in the tabloids that of course the Jackson camp wrote and sold (and MJ posed for pics) to the tabloids.

        One can easily in hindsight with the above (stories and lies means I am famous) that he was trying for the “victim Christ long suffering” pity party type of persona EVEN then…Attention whore smh. It sadly worked and still works with most fans to this day…

        “Like the old Indian proverb says, Do not judge a man until you’ve walked two moons in his moccasins. Most people don’t know me, that is why they write such things in which most is not true. I cry very, very often because it hurts, and I worry about the children, all my children all over the world, I live for them. If a man could say nothing against a character but what he can prove, his story could not be written. Animals strike not from malice, but because they want to live, it is the same with those who criticize, they desire our blood, not our pain. But still I must achieve. I must seek Truth in all things. I must endure for the power I was sent forth, for the world, for the children. But have mercy, for I’ve been bleeding a long time now. MJ.“

    • peter

      aftr the bashir doc she said he used to call her on the phone for hours and his main topic of interest was sex…so a 19 year old calling to a 13 y old talking about sex…ok it was the70s so not a big deal then but you see he wa curious already

  • Paulina Jaye

    quick question..when did Jordan reconcile with his mom?

    • Pea

      According to the fan websites who make it their mission to keep track of Jordie Chandler, he was living with his sister and mother in 2008. He must have rekindled a relationship with June around that time or before it.

  • Michael Jeffrey

    Has anyone here any opinion on Brandon Adams? :
    I am personally very unsure about this kid. But the first picture that appears in the post was actually taken during the BAD-tour somewhere,so I wondered if he might have known James Safechuck. They were around the same age there as well.

  • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

    Hello there Frankly,
    Not sure if you read here any longer, but I am curious about the mafia connections as I have never heard this before. I do not need you to site sources, but maybe if you could broaden on the statement that they were known to be criminals? As a fan I have come to believe that MJ was a shady person who not only treated people badly but he did it on purpose as well. I could get into all the horrid ways he has treated those who cared for him or worked for him, but I am guessing most here would not like to hear it. But I myself would enjoy knowing more about the mob connections. From what I can tell the family was anything but rich..Owned a pizza shop and the father used to manage a swanky hotel that Mj stayed in, now maybe that job is mob connected, I would not be surprised, but if this family has mob ties I would think they would appear more well off, but that is just a guess on my part. Anyway if you have more to share that would be great. Thank you.
    PS. Peter pan syndrome I kinda buy but I know it is not MJs whole story, there was something else going on as he never claimed in the 80s he was peter pan..I mean we (the world at large) probably could have believed it then as he was coming off as a bit odd to begin with but he was still young enough we could brush it off with a smirk..At 45 well, he was a bit too old to be going on about that, yet I could see where is social cues and odd speaking voice came off as mentally deranged (I think in that Doc, it seemed like one take MJ was high on uppers, the next take downers) not to mention whatever psych issues he never got treated for..And yes, I will say again, I am a fan, but not of the actual man really. BTW other fans on any board other than this one call me an total hater so I am not your regular type who wishes MJ facts death, or denies MJ was a drug addict etc.

  • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

    Hello everyone, I wanted to let you all know that in reading this site, talking to fans who are not all convinced that MJ was innocent. I have now come to the end. He did at the very least abuse Jordy. It has been two years of searching reading and thinking..I know it now..Will I give up that part of my childhood when he appeared so innocent like a helpless doe eyed Bambi when he owned the world but acted like such an innocent and pure man, no. I had doubt from the beginning so I have separated his art from him. For a long time now, and also I only tend to like his very early stuff maybe that helps. Thank you for all the work you do for this site.

    • Michael Jeffrey

      Good for you. I love it when fans give children a chance to speak out. It’s sad that fans hate Jordan strong enough to kill him. He was a child, a pubescent 13-year-old boy when he stated that MJ sexually abused him. Fans do not think a minute about it (that children do not make this up). The stigma of homosexuality also plays a role in it for pubescent boys.

      However, Jackson had many boys around, pretty close boys. The ones he kept as close as family. If Jackson’s motive for befriending Jordan was Hebephilia, what was it with other boys?
      Check this out before answering:
      Would you adopt a complete stranger boy into your family (who has a family already?)

      • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

        Thank you. With MJ (1 was very removed from all the allegations) I had not tv and banned myself from news..I did not even know he died until 3 years ago..But I have been a fan mostly since 77. I read jordys psyche interview for the first time about 6 months ago, and it gave me pause, but I wanted to believe that if MJ did this it was because he was so innocent and clueless possibly delusion and a 10 year old in a childs body..Reading it again, I realize MJ was no child, no not really. He was not Hitler, but he certainly used his power and whatever cleverness he had to mess/scheme and plan to almost take over jordys life. Isolated him, used the guilt tears and “if you love me line” I came at this considering maybe MJ was traumatized a Asexual, because of what was happening when he was young. Possibly his brothers would tease him to have some EXP with the groupies etc and that messed him up women wise (he never seemed to trust women, just by most of his own songs, he distrusted women) MJ may have thought he was showing them love etc, but I tend to think now that MJ got off on the powerplays, increased his feelings of being above the law and he got a lot of pleasure out of manipulating the families. I do think Wade and Jimmy probably do have a claim. Jimmy even more than wade.

        • Michael Jeffrey

          Well, in my personal opinion you can be a fan of the music (as many people are), but still accept that he was a child molester. Jordan was telling the truth, so did Wade, Terry, Jimmy, Gavin & Jason and also “Jane Doe”.
          Jason Francia wasn’t even a special friend of Jackson, just the young son of a maid. However when he accused Jackson of molestation, Jackson paid him 2.4 million dollars to avoid a trial. Proven case…

          Have you read the link I’ve sent you? This is a link to my website. You always see the same pattern with all the boys Jackson had around. I’ve sent you my article about Jackson & Omer Bhatti:

          You pretty much see the same as you did with Jordan. He isolated the kid by taking him away from Norway where all his school friends were etc. He did that with every kid.

          Why do you believe Jimmy moreso than Wade? Is it because James appeared to be a lot closer? I agree with that. Jimmy was a special friend while Wade was not that close.
          However, Wade spent 176 nights with Jackson:

          (work done by MJFacts)

          176 nights is a huge number and he could have done everything to Wade in those nights… Why does an adult feel the need to spend that much time with a kid between 7 and 14 anyway???

          • peter

            youve done an awesome job with that website.It helped me see the mini-me patern,his crying of loneliness to every family on the phone,how he played the lost childhood card time after time,firt showing interet for the whole family,then the sibling nd the last phase was isolating the child and become his evrything.his father figure,his best frien and how coldhearted he was to drop the boys at some point and embrace a new family and mini-me that was his best friends forever…you know that ultrasensitive passionate MJ voice that makes any serial killer melt….yes he knew how to use his power.he played the victim,and he seemed emotionally immature weak and asexual.But behind that there was the same MJ we see on stage.A very smart strong sexual mature and in control individual. He learned early that in the US money buys anything.Matter fact he has a whole song explaining it in his History album.
            Its also worth to mention when he says he was a child that never grew up…what age was he suposed to be? I dont see 12 year old male kids holding hands or sitting ont heir lap.MJ acte more like a mother to that child in a mans body doesnt make ense.the asexual peter pan storie doent make sense either with all that porn.

          • Michael Jeffrey

            Thank you so much Peter! Since you have been on my website a lot, I also wanna remind you that the old name of the site is deleted. The new domain is:
            Please save this somehow.
            I’ve seen you on my page a lot since the very beginning 🙂

            Yes, Jackson wasn’t asexual, at least not with young boys (sadly). When people bring this up, I usually show them this picture:
            (Jonathan: (read) )
            No 13 or 12-year-old boy would ever sit on another boy’s lap. That’s the age you get called “gay” for everything by your peers.

          • peter

            I think its so obvious that the boys fell in love with him because of the admiration for the artist,the money/gifts and his feminine looks,carefully crafted to look younger than he was and beautiful like a girl.It was that confusion between father figure friend mentor and androgine look that made them fall for him at an age where you are still learning sexual patterns.It wasnt a friend-friend relationship that you see 12 year olds having.Like some of you said 12 year olds dont hold hands AT ALL.

          • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

            You think these kids feel in “love” with MJ due to his looks? I am going to say I disagree. Yes they probably LOVED the attention and probably LOVED him as a friend and that is what he was able to use against them..Yet I highly doubt they were “turned on” by his fem looks and voice. If anything sure MJ was a at ONE time a sexy looking man LONG ago but his act??? His voice and his fem act was a total odd turn off ew I just cannot see a boy being turned on or in “love” like a puppy love of a pre teen..I can see them being confused as hell and again that is what MJ was able to wield and use against them to get what he wanted. …

            I am still open to MJ designing his childman act FOR the express purpose to mislead the public and also to make those families and others around him feel safe with him…It has been said that MJs “act” if it was just an act could disarm you very quickly..As in it took no time at all for you to feel like you had known him for years…Did he design that part of himself or was that the REAL MJ..I still do not know and probably NEVER will..>Despite now knowing he could be abusive and nasty and cunning it can be explained away easy by just saying he “never grew up” …Still that Jordan eval tells me he was beyond advanced in cunning pretty brilliant.

          • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

            I have always wondered if MJ selected the more emotionally and physically “immature boys” that would allow MJ to regress them into more childish boy behaviors.

            Seeing MJ with Spence on the Cap EO set playing pattycake and hide and seek is just plain odd..Spence was 12-13…You would think after he got over the fact that he is with THE MJ Spence would have thought playing those games along with hugging touching kissing hand holding would be just TOO “gay” and too young for him..Heck I am female and my mother would not EVEN try and have me on her lap or hold my hand when I was 9 let alone 13.

            If MJ just selected an already immature boy that is one thing, yet I still am left thinking did MJ set out to get them to act younger and younger.? I also noticed that these boys tended to be small for their age..I wonder if I am the only one that notices this…When I was 13 granted girls mature early I was almost at my adult height(of course not weight) but these boys just look 1 to 3 younger. than what the really were..Maybe I am seeing things.

            MJ and his body tended at least to me look like he was going for a preteen look..With his eating issues and such he never bodily looked like a full grown man and that is HIGHLY clear when looking at his autospy photos in the shadows MJ does not look a day over 14 at least his body did not when he was 50.

          • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

            Hey there,
            I am going to just throw this out there. I have known a few aseuxals and I have read the entire site of AVEN..As far as I am aware Aseuxals can SOMETIMES have sex (usually to please a partner) and they can ALSO own porn and masturbate, sometimes even enjoy it..They just do not have the huge drive that most do..So for myself just because MJ had porn in his home in nor way ever convinced me he was not asexual.

            I do think he had some major issues with sex with a woman/man, yet I also think he had urges that he displaced both physically and emotionally on the shoulders of those families and kids. I cannot blame Michael for the reasons as to why he was like this, his childhood which yes he complained about too much was probably worse at what it taught him about sex, women etc.

            He was lonely but there was a tons of reasons for it, and most of that feeling came about in him because he pushed anyone away who even thought to question him about anything..He liked yes men, so he died with no friends around as he exhausted their feelings toward him as he just fought them on what was best for his life..They all eventually threw up their hands and walked away for their own mental health..MJ sounded at least to me to be one of the most difficult types of people to have any real friendship with…He was going to destroy himself no matter what anyone said

            Michael Jeffery,

            I think Jimmy has a case just because as a fan I have seen hours and hours of footage (during the Bad tour and time frame) and even before I thought he was guilty seeing him with Jimmy constantly holding hands and knowing they shared a bed the whole tour..ON top of Dileo and Q telling MJ to his face to stop it with this KId (course MJ fired them for that) I just feel they spent SOO much time alone it even when I thought he was just a man child that it seemed odd.

            I will say again, part of that childish persona was a PART of who MJ really was, but only a part..I think he loved the powerplays and he got off on manipulation and games..It is very obvious he got off on it with the public (all the lies and embellishments with tears etc)

            Love the art, the man well never was a fan of his off stage antics and odd ways ever.

      • peter

        Hi Im an MJ fan converted realist…I think its about time to face his own children situation.I dont know if you guys are aware that the pdf files that pedofiles share list ways to commint crimes,like study medicine or work on summercamps adopt etc. To me,its interesting that MJ told oprah that he was married to his work and no family plans and blabla and soon later he wanted children desperately.Also why didnt he wanted his own sperm? his obsesion clearly was with white children.There was never black babies pictures next to his bed or dolls. Why he insisting on the children having no contact with their mother at all,isolating them. Why make prince hair blonde when he was akid.It was as if he was dressing them combing them like some fantasy child he had in mind. I saw a picture in google of him kissing Paris on the lips. I would like someone to answer me how common is that in the USA cause where I live in Spain you dont see fathers or mothers kissing in the mouth,maybe a little baby but not the age Paris has in the picture…Im no saying he had those kids with the abuse in mind,but maybe after 93 he wanted to find safer ways. I wonder how bi is the possibility of those kids been abused. Specially now that we’ve discovered he also had a thing for little girls that dates back to the 70s.I have just watched the Neverland raid video and just by seeing his house office etc you can see its the house of an obssesive disturbed individual.Very creepy all the dolls.You can even tell policemen are scared every door they open,they dont know what they will find.sometimes they confuse dolls with real people and the scenario full of toys etc is very creepy.There was a time when I was absorbed with his peterpan fantasy thing and found all that cute.Now in retrospective its clear he was completly out of it.the fame and money and isolation transformed him in a caricature of what he dreamed to be as a child.some kind of ageless white peterpan innocent.In reality he was a black old man,very troubled and perverted,and should have seeked help.One of the policeman asks the maid whoose is this? and she says Its his office…and the policeman still in disbilief that that place can be Michael Jacksons office,asks again.. Michaels office? he had obsesive compulsive behaviors.with buying collecting,lieyng,plastic surgery,drugs,reading,masturbation and children.Such a waist of talent.once he moved to neverland he spent all his time and efforts in his obsessions with very little to music

        • Michael Jeffrey

          In Germany it is actually very common to kiss your own kids on the lips, so I wouldn’t put much attention to that. Jackson wanted his own dream kids, yes. They couldn’t be black right?
          However, I don’t think he abused his children, even though young Prince wanted to become a movie director like Omer, Jonathan and Jimmy. That’s kinda weird. I just believe though that he stole them their childhoods by taking them into such a weird place as Neverland. He even dressed his sons like young Peter Pan:

          • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

            You think that he harmed the kids simply by living at NL? I agree MJ should have been forced into therapy after Jordy and should have never been allowed to be close to kids again, including having his LAB made kids live with him.

            Also he always claimed he did not want them to suffer like he did growing up, did MJ not realize that by having them they would suffer immensely?

            I never understood why he had to lie about them being his seed..He had ALWAYS said he felt no need to procreate when he was younger and all of his fans and the public at large would have taken no issue with him adopting (aside from the Jordy issue) Why lie exactly, unless MJ lied often to himself and was so pathological in his lies that he came to believe them himself, which could be possible. I never got the point of him lying and thinking that the public would not think him even more crazy that he thought we would believe it

            Sadly though too many fans of his will defend that these kids are his by showing pictures of rare African tribes that are paler than most blacks yet they still have black features..The delusion some are in is pretty pitiful.

            MJ was able to convince easy mark fans that are not too smart that he was a peterpan innocent manchild who really had 3 white kids..and 2 surgery’s..

            Either way as I said MJ should never have been allowed around kids again let alone raising them (well his nanny raised them honestly)

        • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

          I am in America and I am a mother to a 5 year old girl, both myself and her father plus even her nanny kisses her on the lips..Not long and lingering but we all kiss her. Not odd for physical affection showing families at all. My mother was the same way with me and all my siblings..

          Have you thrown away all of your MJ albums? Will you never listen to a song of his again? Never watch him dance ever in your life again? I now know he was guilty in at least a few of these cases, yet I always had doubt so it did not come as a shock really..I still listen to the man, yet I can say it was never the inner man I really cared about (I could always do without the guy speaking or his interview theatrics) Just sing and dance and I am cool..

          So for me I have no issues watching him/listening to him at all.

          Now intersting on a MJ fanforum somone posted this very thing you said about NL..That after he left his family home most of his trouble began, but TBH he was already doing shady things before that..From hanging with boys everywhere (safechuck on the bad tour, Spence on the set of captain EO) To MJ insisting to the pres of sony that Quincy jones never helped MJ do thriller and MJ begged the Pres to block Q from getting a grammy as MJ did not want to share with the Legand that was Q, yes even then MJ was a jerk in more ways than one.

          I never felt his peterpan thing was cute, I felt after Bad (well even then) his surgery was telling of a sick mind that needed help..I still do think some of his child ways was actually a part of the real him, but only some of it..His PR team was a shield for many many years and did help cultivate his public image as a man child..Yet, where are the women that SO MANY STANS believe he was with constantly, as if MJ had any believable woman EVER..Not even LMP was real. This also added to the “asexual” “childman” persona..

          For me I do not really care about the drugs so much (most rock stars do them) yet I do know that in 83 MJ said he did not drink or do drugs and never would, and NOW I know that is probably when he first started using them and they quickly lead to MANY different addictions..I cannot blame him for that though..What I do blame him for is not paying his employees, ripping people off, lying for decades straight up when we KNEW he was lying and taking us all for fools, as well as his very obvious obsession with kids.

  • Michael Jeffrey

    My site is gone.

    • Pea

      It is! Oh no — what happened? :/

  • Michael Jeffrey
  • Michael Jeffrey
    • BrendaS

      Why did this kid stand out to you? Michael constantly asked kids to join him male and female. It got creepy to me when he asked to adopt them. Who does that?

      • silverspirit

        MJ never invited female children to be in his bed. Only boys. He didn’t like girls. MJ was a creep.

        • TheLibranQueenOfSwords

          To my knowledge he invited a few girls (not sisters of male victims) I can name to his bed: Allison V. Smith, Nicole Richie, Kelly Parker, Brandi Jackson, and Simone Jackson.
          Allison V. Smith, Kelley Parker, and Simone Jackson alone and repeatedly, to my knowledge.
          Kelley supposedly stated on social media to a Jackson fan that she had sleepovers with MJ that went on for years but “suddenly stopped” when she would have been around 15 years of age.

          • silverspirit

            Nope, MJ never invited those girls either to his bed. Sorry.

          • TheLibranQueenOfSwords

            That’s what these women have stated themselves.
            This is not via some other source other than those individuals.
            It’s one thing if someone doesn’t believe the last accuser. It’s perfectly reasonable to have doubt or have that opinion, as everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. But what I said didn’t come from accusers — they came from multiple people that said MJ never touched them, as his cousin testified to this when asked by Ron Zonen in the middle of her testimony for the Defense against Arvizi & another said she would have testified for the Defense in 2005 if it weren’t for what she felt “a media circus”. Wow.

          • TheLibranQueenOfSwords

            Simone Jackson’s testimony is documented. She said her older 2nd cousin invited to his bed multiple times when she was eight, nine years old.

            Why would I make that up?

          • TheLibranQueenOfSwords

            And I just have to state this (I’m slightly a tad bit confused by the “sorry”): As a CSA survivor I don’t want to think that not only did a World-Famous Musician used money, power, fame, legend-status, and his employees to prey upon kids & get away with it for 30 years, but is still idolized by the World today as five of his victims are stalked, harassed, and bullied by obsessed fans and the others are either still groomed or too scared to speak up. But that happened. I don’t like thinking that happened to either male children nor female children. I KNOW it most likely happened to male children. But I’m open to the possibility it happened to female children as well.
            A man with the accusations (that by his words supposedly dated a pubescent girl from 1975 to 1979) he has had owning the kind of material he did (books of kids & teenagers nude) & having kids in his bed — by their own words — doesn’t look good any way you slice it.

          • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

            Hey there Silver,
            Please correct me if I am wrong did not the Casico sister as well as Wades sister at least spend a few nights in his bed? Along with Macs sis? I thought they said so at least some of them on the stand.

          • silverspirit

            They slept in another room, irrc. Remember MJ was always saying “no girls allowed”. Even if they did, which I still won’t believe. Doesn’t prove MJ was not a child molester. No one who is innocent pays out 23 million for nothing. They’d not spend a dime.

          • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

            Oh I am not saying having girls in any way makes MJ innocent that is twisted logic lol..No I am just remembering he sometimes had a girl in there once in a while..Agree you do not pay if you are not guilty..(these fans keep on insisting the insurance company forced him to which is beyond ridiculous but that is their only card so they lean on it heavily.)

            It is not just to the money either..Prior to Jordon Mj was thought of as strange of course yet he had a very clean rep..VERY CLEAN. He ruined that the moment he let any money go to the Chandlers. That is even more telling the the dollar amount..

          • silverspirit

            There is no insurance company in the world that would pay out for a guy who molested children. That lie was made up by Charles Thomson in the UK. MJ fanatics know that is a lie, yet they keep repeating it. Do they not realize that would still make him guilty? LOL He had the sisters of his victims mostly in other rooms.

          • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

            I have never heard of this Thomonson character…I have been told over and over that MJs defense put in a “complaint” saying that they “object” to the insurance company paying over MJs head. Transworld /Transamerica was it? I saw ONLY MJs sig on the settlement papers nothing signed by an Insurance lawyer or agent.

            I was even told Tmez knew about MJ being “forced” to settle…I eventually was able to find and dig up an old interview where Tmez is asked this very question(and knowing that he had to deal with the 93 case he knows something) he said that NO insurance company settled plain as day…Yet fans still say MJ had NO say in it at all..

            I just do not understand what sort of policy would someone even get for WILLFUL neglect? (neglect being what MJ SAID he did) Some fans would convince you that MJ had a policy that covered him if he just decided to knock out his band member just becasue he felt like it that do…What kind of “all inclusive” policy covers you even for WILLFUL actions child absue, assult or yes even the neglect that MJ claimed he did??? SMH LOL

            I have asked these fans more than once to show me where exactly the protest letter is located or a copy of it, of course that is never shown. I am wrong they are right as always.

          • silverspirit

            These were “slumber parties” which kinda doesn’t count. Right? No matter, MJ was still a pedophile. No one can get around the 23 million payouts to silence his victims.

            Read this.


          • Gilly

            No, no the girls slept in separate rooms or on the floor.

  • TheLibranQueenOfSwords

    My comments were most likely moved to spam, weren’t they?

    • Pea

      I see that you’re using a “guest” profile to leave comments; in that case, you may not have been able to see that your comments were in the Pending queue over the weekend. They weren’t in Spam.

      Moderation isn’t personal. Have patience, please.

      • TheLibranQueenOfSwords

        I didn’t take it personally. It was genuinely a just question 🙂 …

  • Michael Jeffrey

    I am myself not sure if Jackson ever molested a female child. However, I still agree to what you just typed. I noticed that many people are kinda obsessed with the idea that Jackson abused boys and boys only.

    • Pea

      Who are the “many people” obsessed with Jacko only molesting boys?

      In the years I’ve researched Jacko, the worst offenders among those who believe Jacko was a pedophile are the ones holding that opinion quite uncritically, meaning every alleged victim is believed because, “Duh! Michael Jackson was a Big Fat Pedo, period, and we should poke him with a stick….” It is still rare to find anyone with nuance (although, yes, they exist).

      Those sticking to the “boys only” model would do so because of lack of solid, credible evidence to the contrary.

      I personally — at present — am unconvinced he molested any girls (and the female accuser has given me zero to work with at this juncture, having disappeared into the night), but I certainly don’t believe he didn’t like any. I was told several years ago that Jacko had a special attraction to one of Quincy Jones’s daughters; one MJ fan website underscored this by detailing that that Jones daughter would talk to him for hours via telephone. But attraction does not equal or even lead to molestation. I think there were boys he was attracted to that he didn’t and/or couldn’t molest, as well, and the reasons for his failures can be numerous.

      Call me radical, but I think Jacko could control his impulses….

    • peter

      Thats because lets be honest Mj was a very succesful individual and people really enjoyed his downfall cause the human being has envy.. its in our “human nature”(had to throw it lol). I think its obbvious that masive collection o fporn was not there only to seduce the boys,if that was the case 20 magazines would have been enough.MJ collected a lot of things,that was another of his mental illness.And its clear he had a type,Conrad Murray confirms that type in his book.Very slim anorexic girls.And that type fits with that of little girls that have not develope curves yet AND all those barely legal magazines and the extra slim girls of each and all his music videos that he admitte he chose himself. These are the kind of topics where MJfacts looses credibility. Cause you dont want to accept that for a change MJ was like any other adult men thatcraves for teen girls or liked women too.That doesnt mean he wasnt a pedophile I think its very obvious that MJ was a sexually confused individual and the bisexuality you saw in his looks probably also existed in his sex life. There is an interest in labeling MJ as gay.Its obvious he was bisexual,at least at some points in his life. I believe he dated mostly men/boys toward the end of his life where you dont ever see him with female company and his feminin behavior was not timid at all. BUt in the 80s and 90s? Sure I believe he tried with girls. Ibelieve he was in denial about his homosexuality during that time cause of his religion

  • Pea

    Silverspirit, there have been a small handful of women who admitted that, as girls, they slept over with Jacko. These women have also stated nothing happened to them. Their comments exist on numerous fan websites if you care to look it up for yourself. She’s not fabricating that info….

    Fans traditionally pointed to these women to underscore Jacko’s innocence, stating, “Why would a boy-lover want to spend any kind of time with girl children?” The conclusion would then be that he was not a homosexual pedophile. It is with great irony that these handful of women are now being used by some of Jacko’s critics to provide context to the story of this recent accuser.

  • Pea

    (I’m just noticing this comment; it must’ve been rescued from the Spam folder.)

    “I get a bit of an uncomfortable vibe when people are almost salivating all over it when its little boys he chased… When its little girls its perhaps not as ‘funny’ or bizarre anymore..?”

    I don’t believe Diane Dimond has made a single comment on “Jane Doe” to date, though she broke the story about James Safechuck in 2014; god forbid she — our High Priestess of the Cult of Anti-Jacko — only skewered him as boy-lover for laughs or tawdry tabloid grist mill. Honestly, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised.

  • Pea

    Dani, I suspect the ability of a pedophile to control his impulses is along a spectrum: some are better at it than others. But pedophilia itself — for the sake of accuracy — is merely an attraction, albeit a “fetish”, which does make them obsessive and preoccupied, and that can egg on action. Being a pedophile technically does not make one a molester.

    In my opinion, controlling their impulses is dependent upon factors such as strength of personal character (e.g., morals and values and willpower), fear of exposure/prosecution/incarceration, and, importantly, opportunity. Some pedophiles, such as the Virtuous Pedophiles (“VirPeds”), believe that sexually involving themselves with kids would cause a child harm, therefore, they do not offend. Others’ dampen their sexual impulses because the opportunity simply is not there, be it because there is no available willing child, there are too many risks of the crime coming to light, or because society is too “harsh” on pedophilic relationships.

    It was not long ago (late last year) that we had two pedophiles come to MJFacts. One of them was your activist type (i.e., he wanted to abolish consent laws and supported child pornography), and he claimed that he was celibate. So, yes, it is possible; it happens. Not all pedophiles are offenders.

    I should note, though, that in my personal opinion the root reason behind all instances of pedophiles controlling themselves is fear of incarceration. I strongly and deeply believe that if there was no age of consent and all CSA laws dissolved, pedophiles would be far more active than they are today…. And for their proportion of the general population, they commit a disproportionate amount of sexual abuse; it has been estimated as high as 50%.

    As for Jacko, the available evidence shows that he was choosy. Most pedophiles simply like being around children in general, and he spent time around many, many boys and girls, but it was a well-selected child who became his victim. That is why there are so many people who, from their own personal experiences as children around Jacko, believe he was absolutely innocent: he was in control of himself.

    Apropos my previous comment, I suggested Jacko could have “controlled his impulses” around young girls he may have liked simply because molesting a girl-child may have been a personal taboo, may have been harder to deny (had Jordie Chandler been Jordana Chandler, he certainly couldn’t run out and marry a man! LOL), or may have made him a bigger monster if it was exposed, even if he was cleared.

  • Michael Jeffrey

    So, Aaron Carter just came out as bisexual via Twitter:
    Big news, after all he is already 30 years old. As many of you might know, Aaron had a friendship with Jackson. Aaron recalled that Jackson gave him wine & drugs. He also found him on his bed in the middle of the night at 15. Furthermore, he received presents from Jackson and wrote a “love song” for Jackson after he passed away. According to Aaron, he knew that he was bisexual since the age of 13, Jackson befriended him at 14. It seems kinda weird that Jackson had a 3-year-long friendship with a male teen (14-17), instead of a prepubescent boy. I thought that Jackson’s interest in him may have had to do with Aaron’s bisexuality. It’s all speculation of course, but as I read the news this morning, I directly thought about that friendship.
    For those who don’t enough about the friendship between Aaron & Jackson can read this:
    What do you guys think??

    • Pea

      I was not especially surprised when Aaron Carter made his “announcement”; he always seemed slightly effeminate to me, and I wondered whether he was gay.

      The tribute song linked in your post was pretty shocking, especially given that he and Jacko were friends when he was a young tender teen. It was basically a breakup song… and a very passionate one at that. I don’t know if Aaron Carter was molested by Jacko — he always seemed believable in his denials — but anything is possible now with that creepy song he wrote…. :/

      I’m sure Jacko could home in on the boys who would accept his advances. I always thought it was telling when Gavin Arvizo said that when he and his father visited Jacko at the Universal Hilton hotel, Jacko was watching Aaron Carter music videos… Aaron was 12-13 at the time. There’s no doubt, to me, that Jacko wanted him.

  • Pea

    Did you read what James Safechuck said about Cheryl Crow? He said Jacko was jealous that he had a crush on Crow, and then Jacko moved to prove how ugly she was by showing James pictures of her without makeup.

    Jacko was an actor; he could put on a good show for anyone he wanted to convince of anything.

    As for his “outtakes” with Naomi Campbell, I saw a video on Youtube of her giving and interview, and she said that Jacko was very concerned about her touching him in certain places; she basically admitted that it was all for the video. Karen Faye — not exactly a beacon of objective truth, of course, but relevant — said there was nothing going on between he and Campbell.

    As for Frank Cascio, well, he has a vested interest to sell it that Jacko was a normal heterosexual black(?) man, since fans were the main purchasers of his book. I think Michael Jackson was afraid of sex with women.

    • Vanessa

      Wow 😮

  • Dani Lee VanBuskirk

    Well Sheryl had some very dismissive things to say about being on tour with MJ (despite the fact he started her going pro) before he died..She claimed he did not know her name, would not allow any eye contact unless they were onstage and MJ never spoke to them offstage..She also had some things to say about Jimmy and how weird the whole tour was…Of course all of this was forgot about after he passed…

    I get if he had rules over his band and such but everything stated above by Sheryl was HER version of reality and just watching the tour years later released AFTER Sheryl had this critique about it proves she was lying about a ton of it…MJ never forgot one of the bands name etc…Yet offstage I believe what she said before he died was more than likley true…How she went to NO eye contact off stage when MJ was alive to “oh we had slumber parties and Disney visits” after he died is a stretch lolol …Sheryl claimed after he died that she would spend time in his bed watching tv…But where was jimmy then??? yeah she flip flopped..

    Again MJ had more sexual energy and display when he was alone onstage or say with Dan Boyette (bass) who had some interesting moments with MJ that were much more convincing then Sheryl tati or the laughable ITC video..Not sure if you are aware of what Naomi was offering MJ and his disgusted reactions to it. Helps to make one understand why that whole video looks like a charade.

    I agree with Pea on the acting bit, Porn actors act does not mean they enjoy the scene they just pretend to.. MJ was an actor most of the life .Yet for myself he was never a good enough of one to have me suspend reality and believe he and his “costars” were involved. in any way shape or form..If anything MJ was asexual acting with MOST adults. Do you not recall what Bashir had to say about MJ and sex?.

    BTW as far as Sheryl goes (along with MJ being jealous of her because Jimmy thought she was pretty) Sheryl was screwing Greg P the Musical director of the Bad tour who was married at the time, just in case anyone thinks as per the tabloids during that time..>Which all said Sheryl was MJs lover…Not true. Jimmy was in MJs bed nightly NO woman even visited his hotel room the entire tour besides staff maids and room service. 123 dates that is a hell of a long time for a 30 year old man to be alone do you not think? he again was NOT alone jimmy spent almost all those nights snuggled tight against MJs skinny bod.And God knows what else.

    People would love to push a relationship with ANY female that EVER was around MJ…Including Tati yet MJ wanted nothing to do with YUCKY girls…Even if they were so desperate that they had to demean and throw themselves at him onstage and get fired doing so.

    MJ did not like women at least for most of his life. And as far as you saying he got less sexual with age he got more OTT with sexuality that it came off as fake…More aggressive and more tacky…It was a better balance in the 70s..then what it became in the 90s.

    Take a listen to the Glenda tapes and you will see how that MJ himself claims he wanted NOTHING even friendly offstage things to do with ANYONE on tour with him but for James.

  • Andreas

    I’m also curious how that odd rumour started, because Tom Mesereau at a couple of occasions had to awkwardly correctify fans who was under the certain impression an insurance company paid it that Jackson indeed paid it himself.

    Tom Mesereau knows this very well, because he did a public statement on television right before the 05′ trial started (with careful permission by the judge) where he stated on behalf of Jackson that Jackson did pay a settlement but regretted it. In Mesereau’s version it was bad advice by his lawyers.

    My wild speculation is that because Jackson’s 93 tour was at risk as of the Jordy Chandler allegation there was TALK or THREATS insurance companies would step in and pay the settlement to get Jackson back on tour. When the settlement eventually was paid — and Michael’s side of the story always remained foggy — someone probably speculated on insurance companies paid it, so the fans sticked to that story. Thats my guess.

    I’m not sure how the rumor still exists though. There exists photos of the settlement with Michael’s signature online, and he talked about it publically on the Diane Sawyer program.

    Both the insurance company story and the Amytal Sodium story are farfetched stories that seemed to come out of absolutely nowhere, and is still referred to as gospel by many.

    • yaso

      @Andreas, The insurance company story and the Amytal Sodium story BOTH were started by GQ article called ” WAS Michael Jackson Framed?” in 1994. It was Very obvious that this article and it’s stories were created by Michael’ camp/people. I think it started from there and the fans took it as gospel.

      • Andreas

        Yes, the Mary Fischer article. Its possible it was popularized by that article at least. I do remember she took the amatyl sodium story from some other journalist, too lazy to trace him now, but it didn’t originally come from her. I couldn’t figure it out the last time I tried to look into it. I know the Chandlers denied ever using amatyl sodium or even having access to it. Its not a drug that dentists use and its difficult to find today. Its very strange how it suddenly were reported as a fact by serious journalists when it was pure speculation at best — pure fabrication at worst.

        Like with the insurance company story I think its probably a mix of speculation and it being a story that would suit a version of the story Jackson being innocent. For the “balanced writer” to bring some these elements to show both sides.

        The idea was that amatyl sodium was a form of truth serum that once was used under the impression that it got people to tell “the truth”, but there was supposedly occurences where it was used to plant false memories. So the claim was that Evan Chandler drugged Jordy with this drug and planted a lot of false memories that Michael did all these things. Its an incredibly unlikely story, considering the complexity and nuance of what Jordy told, but my best guess is that someone just threw it out there and it somehow stuck.

        • Pea

          The source of the sodium amytal story was Harvey Levin (of TMZ fame), and he allegedly reported this back when he worked for a local Los Angeles TV news station. I’m not sure how he got that info, but my memory is telling me that he claimed it came from the Chandler camp. I don’t believe that — it is probably a fan fabrication, that part, or maybe pulled from one of those books they champion (Lisa Campbell’s book “The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour” comes to mind). If that’s the case, I suspect Pellicano was the source or another Jackson handler.

          • Andreas

            Right, Harvey Levin seems to be correct. When he was working for KCBS-TV back in the early 90s. I guess a comment from Levin about the origins would explain how it orginated. It all seems to come from him somehow. Strange. The Chandlers always denied to have used that drug, so I don’t know how he possibly could have sources to say otherwise.

            It doesn’t help that Mark Torbiner, the guy who was assistant to Evan Chandler when he got Jordy to talk would say “If I used it, it was for dental purposes”.

            For fans thats gold, because it seems like he didn’t deny they used it. The reason he didn’t deny it however was addressed by his attorney. Torbiner(like all health workers) was bound by the doctor-patient privilege, and could not discuss the issue without written consent from his patient. He therefore couldn’t say if he used it or not, or what they actually used. Torbiner’s comment is actually quite denying in that context.

    • silverspirit

      Irrc, Mesereau who is a slime ball admitted it was Jackson himself who paid to silence his victims. He was on some MJ web radio show so it’s on tape.

    • silverspirit

      I do recall some seriously brain dead MJ supporter is still repeating “an insurance company paid” while that would prove MJ guilty as well. Obviously this person has no idea how insurance companies don’t pay for famous people molesting children. It’s soo silly to even think that. That’s same person is still repeating the fake story that those kids admitted they lied. SMH!

      Mesereau is a putz. He’s defending Bill Cosby now. Pfft! He’s got no integrity, imo.

      • Andreas

        I suppose if Jackson was just being stuck with a false allegation holding him back from work for many months and was hindered to go on tour and losing millions of dollar in that process, one could argue insurance companies could come in and pay it out so Jackson could get back on tour. In 1993 he was a money machine, so he probably had a lot of financial investors and so on. Tom Mesereau said it never happened, but there was talk of it MIGHT happening and that was all it was… but I agree it seems odd for insurance companies to pay for out of court settlements in child molestation cases.

        Yes, I was surprised to see him defending Bill Cosby. Tom Mesereau seems to always take people like that in defense, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone too much. He has defended a lot of charged murderers and rapists in the past, people on death row. For free even. I mean, in a sense I find it admirable to defend the people nobody wants to defend, Bill Cosby’s status is slightly lower than whale droppings these days, so in a twisted sense its quite brave.. but I can’t understand how he can look people who probably have been raped or physically abused straight in the eyes and accuse them of lying.