Category Archives: The Ganymede Arena

Guest writings

The Age of Kafka and Consent


Date: September 18, 2015

It was one of the follies of my fifteenth year that I decided I had to read every bit of Kafka that I could get my hands on.

I’d already gone through Sherlock Holmes and was looking for something weirder, something to really twist my brain out of shape. That’s undoubtedly why, on the morning of my sixteenth birthday, I drowsed out of sleep vibrating in a dream where I was a giant insect, a cockroach, with clicking mouthparts and waving antennas. I looked around at my glistening shell through an explosion of eyes. Bright light! I blinked. Huh? Suddenly I realized I was in my bed. I was human. Oh.

“Thank God!” I thought. I shook my head, glad there was only unruly hair up there, nothing that wanted to wave its joints around. How creepy to dream that you’re a bug. The Metamorphosis, I thought: that bizarre book. It just shows you how sweet reality can be. And in real life, I had a few long-treasured plans for the day. Time to get moving!

Breakfast was wonderful. My parents weren’t up yet; it was Saturday and they needed their rest. But the mountain bike I’d been dreaming of was right there in the kitchen, with a card on it, tied with a ribbon. Wow! Silver, sturdy, gears like a math text written in steel and oil. This was going to be great.

Vermont isn’t the most mountainous place in the world, but parts of it get pretty steep. I was up early because I had a plan to meet with my boyfriend and celebrate my 16th in a special way. He was a mountain biker already; he’d been doing it for years. We were all set to try out my new bike together – and something else.

I guess I’d gone out on a limb getting myself a bf who was so ancient – 22 years old, for heaven’s sakes. But he looked like Niall from One Direction, so what could I do? We chatted about geckoes in the pet shop one time and we just kept looking at each other. I’m sure you know the sensation. It wasn’t all about reptiles. Finally I invited him home to look at an infection my male crested had. My mom was there the whole time, a bit nonplussed, but I’d been out to her since I was 13, and she bit her lip. After he was gone, she said, “I can see what’s going on there, but I want you to promise me you won’t break the law. And if you like him, you won’t let him break the law, if it comes to that.”

“Mawwm,” I protested, “there’s nothing going on like that!” But there was, of course. In fact, the next time I saw him, I broke the ice with him by telling him about the promise I’d made to my concerned parent. He grinned sheepishly. “You have a smart mom,” he said.

So this was going to be our day to obey the law – from the other side. And luck was with us – it was radiant out there, sunny, warm, without a trace of thunderstorm. Somewhere, a bed of grass was waiting for us, or some crispy maple leaves from last year.

We met up. He was in Spandex, black and red, like the handsomest gecko you’ve ever seen. I just had my jeans and T-shirt on. We admired my bike, we slapped each other’s shoulders, and then we took off to the west, across the river, up the hill. He had a sketchy map of the trails, photocopied to the 20th generation, and we headed out for the summits, just following whatever looked interesting and scenic. He’d brought energy bars and other snacks; we had water with us; everything we needed was there. But the thing we had the most of was need itself. I’d never felt so much anticipation. It was like I was full of being empty. Someone hug me, please.

After lots of legwork and gearshifting, and a few wild high-speed sprees down the other sides of slopes, we came to a gorgeous spot that was so isolated that we knew it was reserved just for us. Jason, looking hyped with exercise and healthy thoughts, pulled a thin, nylon cloth out of his backpack and unfolded it across the grassy, leafy ground, in a small glade amongst maples.

“I don’t even want lunch first,” I said. “Me neither,” he breathed. We grabbed each other in a hug.

“Thank you for waiting for me,” I said.

“It was a stretch,” he smiled, and then stood back to stretch the spandex off, undoing the zips as needed. I removed my own cottons in seconds. It was warm out here.

“I knew I was going to be impressed, but I’m impressed,” he said, looking at my swaying branch. “You could hang a swing from that.”

“We’re a good match,” I said. It happened that we were around the same height, so I stepped in and tucked mine up against his, along the corduroy of our flat bellies. “I’ll go tip to tip with you any time.” I wasn’t scientific enough to look closely to see who was bigger. Didn’t matter. We were there, that’s what mattered.

“Incredible,” he said, without explaining. And then – I guess I can spare you the details of lips and saliva and admiring glances that would make my friends blush and say ‘you guys are too much.’ I’m glad they weren’t there. It wasn’t too much. It was just enough. Finally. Like a baby getting its first milk, I drank the attention and came to life; I drank for my health.

We rolled in each other’s arms across the blanket, one side to the other. Then we did it – a real sex act. Some people don’t think it’s sex, I guess – it’s something young gay guys can do that people used to name after the university in the next valley – the Yale rub, the Princeton rub – just sliding the distending members pleasantly along one another, sandwiched between two bellies – no penetration, no lube, safe as hell, easy to kiss-and-do, and sooo sooo …

I don’t want to hit him with ‘I love you,’ I thought. “Part of me feels like – we’re flying together,” I said, between kisses. “I hear you,” he said, “it’s like that.” I giggled. “Part of me feels like you’ve tied me to the sawmill track and you’re sawing me in half,” I laughed again, as the sawing motion of his cock across my belly reminded me of some old Merrie Melodies cartoon I’d seen, where the villain threatened to saw the beautiful maiden in half. “You’re weird,” he chuckled, and kissed me to shut me up. And then we couldn’t talk anymore … woah…. woah… oh no, that’s it … ah!… splashdown! other splashdown! …. omigosh.

I will not say ‘I love you.’ Sure wish I could.

“Incredible,” I said. “Incredible,” he agreed, “I guess that’s our word, isn’t it?” I nodded. We had a few napkins that were good for cleanup, and then it was time to eat something, say a few more nice things to one another, and move on. Having come so far, no pun intended, we had to go all the way back. I marked the spot of our forest glade on my phone’s GPS so we could find the same place again next time we came biking this way.

“I think my left foot’s asleep,” I said as we got up to get on our bikes. I shook it. It felt strangely tingly. Even after I got on my bike and started pedalling, it bothered me. But I put it out of mind and carried on. Biking got progressively more difficult, though, and I began to feel distinctly odd.

“Let’s take a short break,” I panted as we came down into one valley about half way home.

“You OK, Nick?” Jason asked me. “Want some Gatorade?”

“Sure,” I said. “I feel weird. My left leg is kind of acting up. I think I’m OK, though.”

“Wow, I hope nothing’s going on,” Jason said. “Maybe you’re just not used to this much cycling.”

“That’s probably it,” I said. Just then some sort of a small fly flew into my right eye. I rubbed at the eye to get the intruder out. As I did so, I caught a glimpse of Jason out of my other eye and suddenly he looked – it was very strange – he looked ugly. “Sick fuck,” I muttered under my breath. Huh?

I shook my head and looked at him out of both eyes. He was as beautiful as ever, and just as friendly. “What did you say?” he asked me. “Oh nothing,” I said, “‘trick leg’ or something like that.”

What the hell was that all about? I was glad he hadn’t heard me. What sort of crazy impulse…?

He came over and gave me a back rub for encouragement. He kneaded my left thigh for a moment, which made my leg jump.

“Something’s going on there,” I said, “but the best thing we can do is just get home and then I can have a hot bath. I hope that’ll sort it out.”

“Me too,” he said, looking concerned. We hoisted ourselves on our bikes and made the long pedal back to town.

At my front yard, I said my goodbyes to him. Didn’t want to kiss him in front of the neighbors, but I said, “well, in spite of my leg, that was amazing. We have to do that again as soon as possible.”

“I’m glad you’re as happy as I am,” he said. “I … I think so much of you. Well, happy sixteenth, have a good cake and all that. Say hi to your parents for me.”

Then he was off home and I was off to a family birthday dinner. I was a touch late because the cycle back had been such a slog, but they overlooked it. They were just glad I liked the bike and had used it so well. I didn’t give details of the events of our trip, but my mom caught my eye and I think my smile gave me away.

By the end of the night, my left leg and arm were both feeling very, very unusual. I couldn’t figure it out. As I went to bed, I thought back on the day and my thoughts immediately turned to those blissful moments, Jason and I, hurtling through the heavens of horny friendship together. Boy, that was so good, that was so good! Then, unexpectedly, I was crying. But why? And I noticed: tears were only coming out of my left eye. The right was fine. But the right was the one that had had the bug in it. Why should the other one get irritated? But was it just irritation? Something didn’t feel right.

Over the next few days, the pain in my left side didn’t go away. It was more a feeling of compression or oppression than pain, really, just a feeling that something wasn’t right. One of the vaguest, most indescribable sensations I’ve ever experienced. Jason told me to go to the doctor and I did, but old Doc Chang was as baffled as I was. He referred me to the sports medicine clinic, and they suggested some exercises, but nothing helped. A couple of weeks went by. Jason and I started meeting at my place, but my body was too out of sorts for me to continue our legal adventures, even though I think my mom would have turned a blind eye when needed. I went back to Dr. Chang and something about the crying left eye made him shake his head. He made me an appointment to a neurologist and a psychologist. “Might be psychosomatic, some sort of stress,” he said. “Have you done anything recently that you have mixed emotions about, or that troubled you?”

“I don’t think so,” I said.

When I went to the psychologist, she gave me a long questionnaire to start off with. There were several questions in it about sex life, and I was obliged to check off that I was attracted to my own sex, and that I was sexually active. Then she talked to me. When she found out that the strange symptoms had begun just after I’d had sex for the first time ever, her eyes lit up.

“I don’t know what it means,” she said, “but there’s definitely a connection there.” I was rather embarrassed, but we talked over all the details. She shook her head. “It all sounds so normal,” she said. But then, clearly, a thought struck her.

“Where exactly was this?” she asked.

“I happen to have the exact location on my GPS,” I said. I pulled out my phone and got the number. “Let’s see on the map where that was. So, is there, like, some place that has poisonous plants or something?”

“That’s not what I’m thinking,” she muttered. Meanwhile, the map composed itself on my phone. I showed it to her. It was just someplace in the middle of a forest, as you’d expect.

“I bet these hatch marks here are the border,” she said. I looked. Yes, there were some faint mapping marks there that passed right through our GPS point.

“Here’s the problem,” she said. “Your sexual act took place exactly along the border of New York State. Do you know which way was north and which direction you were lying in?”

“I guess I was lying to the north,” I said.

“Your right side was in New York,” she said, “but that’s your healthy side. But wait a moment, your right brain governs the left side of your body. Bicameral mind, basic neurology. A bit oversimplified but it still holds to a large extent. But this is unbelievable!!!”

“What is it?” I asked, very confused.

“Here’s what I think,” she said. “Your whole right side, including the right half of your head, was across the border in New York. Your left side was in Vermont. The age of consent in New York State is 17, not 16 like it is here. Your right side has been horribly abused!!”

“But it’s fine,” I exclaimed.

“Yes, but your left side is governed mostly by the right hemisphere of your brain! Your right side wasn’t able to give consent to the act you committed! You’ve been grievously psychically injured in your right brain, but it’s only been able to make its trauma known through the left!”

“Holy shit – sorry to swear,” I blurted. I’d remembered what I’d almost said to Jason when I saw him out of my left eye, when the fly flew into my right. “Does the right brain also connect with the left eye?”

“It does,” she told me.

If I’d known the effect it was going to have, I would never have told her the story of what happened during my fly-in-the-eye incident, but I was so naïve. I told her the whole thing.

“I’m sorry, Nick,” the psychologist told me. “Even though we’re in Vermont, this is an act of child abuse, and I’m professionally obligated to report it. I have no choice. I could be arrested if I don’t.”

“I wasn’t child-abused!!” I said in great annoyance.

“Legally,” she said, “half of you was, and though I’ve never heard of a case like this before, that’s clearly too much. The left side of your brain may have been able to give consent, but the right side was an innocent child and had no ability whatever to do that. And so, on that side, you were horribly, horribly taken advantage of by a vicious predator. We need to do emergency counselling to try to heal your trauma, and I’m afraid the police are going to have to have a chat with your friend.”

I refused to tell her Jason’s name, but that night, a big policeman and an even bigger policewoman came around to my door. They gathered me with my parents and told us that if they didn’t get the name and address of the man who’d abused the right half of me, they’d arrest all of me for obstructing the course of justice. I told them what they wanted to know. I thought I’d phone Jason and warn him, but it turned out the officers had a warrant along with them. They seized my phone, and ordered my parents not to let me use the land line. They went right out and radioed their units, and it turned out Jason was raided within fifteen minutes of my giving up his name. They had warrants all ready, just fill in the blank. His computer equipment was all seized, and agents spent, in total, five hours opening everything in his small apartment, even flipping through the pages of every book looking for hidden porn pictures or whatever. He was taken down to the police station, spent a night in jail, and was bailed by his parents the next day. After putting up his bail, they refused to speak to him. He managed to get a legal aid lawyer signed up and got ready to consider his options.

He was charged with sexual abuse against a minor – I don’t know the exact legalese they used – and possession of child pornography. I didn’t know at the time, but the other charge was based on a National Geographic magazine that had a photo with some naked Thai boys swimming in a river. I eventually saw that detail in an affidavit online, but our local newspaper on Friday, under the headline “No half measures in fighting child abuse, say our cops” only mentioned ‘possession of child pornography.’ I’d have thought they’d be interested in the kind of magazine it was, but apparently, the crime was too awful for that to be relevant. He had a whole shelf of National Geographics his parents had handed down to him, that much I knew. It must have taken the authorities a lot of work to find that picture.

Before long, I was called to testify in court. They wanted me to make a ‘victim impact statement,’ but I refused. Even though everyone tried to prevent me being traumatized by seeing my abuser, I insisted on sitting in the courtroom and watching the proceedings. Jason, it turned out, had been charged at first with offenses that would have given him 25 years in prison. His clever lawyer argued that down to 12 ½ based on only half of me having been abused, the rest being a gay consensual adult who was entitled to respect from the law. Then the prosecutor offered him a plea deal of only 10 years if he’d plead guilty, but in the end, he couldn’t do it. He was convinced that a person couldn’t be split in half for purposes of consent.

Common sense like that is not a major contender in law. The prosecution called an expert witness, a Professor Julia Timbaman, who stated that in almost all right handed people and also the majority of left-handers, the left side of the brain is the one making most of the executive decisions. Since, as we lay facing north so that I could catch the sun’s warmth, his rational, executive left half had been above me in New York, with my artistic, impressionable, illegally young right half below him, he was clearly taking advantage. The power was all on his side. In fact, the kind of sexual deviancy he possessed derived its pleasure entirely from taking power and control over a helpless innocent below. There was no question, the expert said, that Jason was my right side’s rapist. If he were released into society without prolonged treatment under the auspices of the prison system, he would undoubtedly rape again. In fact, he must certainly have other victims, probably over 150 of them, according to published studies, even though none had come forward in response to the newspaper stories. It should be looked into, how he may have intimidated them.

At the end of this testimony, the audience in the courtroom erupted as dozens of people shouted “degenerate fuck!” “Immoral rapist!” “Go kill yourself now!” “Your kind should all die!” and other such phrases at my boyfriend. The judge had to scream and hammer the gavel to get the room back under control.

The defense side, at the cost of every penny Jason had ever saved, introduced a local expert witness who testified that the latest neurology showed a lot of crossover among the functions of the left and right brain, and pointed out, in addition, that my brain had not been studied intensively with MRI scanners to show that its decision-making executive abilities lay entirely in the left. My right brain may have been able to coordinate with my left, giving a unified consent rooted in the legally recognized executive powers of the left brain hemisphere situated in Vermont.

In the legal summations, the prosecution lawyer pointed out that even if all my executive functions were in my right brain, and they consented fully, they were still in New York State, and therefore whatever they decided in terms of consent was of no legal relevance. The contribution of the right brain to the consent formed in the left was immaterial.

“That right brain,” he shouted, just below the top of his voice, “was the right brain of a child, a helpless child. Its innocence was violated. The half-victim’s childhood was thereby wiped out prematurely, and, in the opinion of many, its soul was gutted from his body, leaving him – albeit asymmetrically in this case – prone to every form of despair, devastation and drug addiction, unless hundreds of hours of psychological treatment are able to help his injured half. The arguments of our esteemed local junior professor, the defense expert, are merely duplicates of the cognitive distortions that pedophiles invent for themselves to justify their abusive behaviors. I’ve seen this over and over. The predatory monster who took foul advantage of this victim’s childish hemi-innocence must never walk the streets unmonitored, and must serve a long prison sentence. Even though he will incur the hatred of every other sort of prisoner, including his moral superiors like mere fleshly murderers, he may be fortunate to survive and learn the error of his incurable ways, even though he can never be rehabilitated.”

It only took the jury 30 minutes to find Jason guilty. The crowd was very pleased; they roared their approval. Fists were shaken in the air. Reporters crowded around the courthouse door. They were allowed to talk to me, since I was, in this jurisdiction, a consenting adult.

“Did your right half get some closure from today’s proceedings?” one of them asked me. I had no idea how to answer that. “Are the parts of you that need it getting help?” another reporter shouted at me. I ducked into my parents’ car and we drove away.

I didn’t think I needed help. By this time, I’d cured my left side. One night, I’d read a lot of websites online that I usually wouldn’t dare to surf to, and somewhere in the midst of a blog post about a kid being put on the sex offender registry for having a naked photo of himself on his phone, I got really mad. Obviously my right brain got just as mad as my left brain. I could feel that hemisphere, in its intuitive right-brain way, claiming ownership of its consent and retroactively hugging Jason with all its force. I heard its emotion-laden thought process forming just enough words to say, as a ringing inner shout that reverberated right through me, “New York State and everyone else involved in this travesty, fuck the hell off!” I could feel my body re-integrating completely in that moment, back in perfect health – though my thoughts were more turbulent than ever.

Jason was sentenced to 15 years, plus life on the register of sex offenders. He was enjoined never to communicate with me again.

The night after I heard that news, I could hardly sleep. When I did, I woke up. Over and over, I drifted in and out, trapped between shallow sleep and torment. I can’t begin to tell you how upset I was. I was almost nauseous, and I sweated like a pig, even though by this time, the weather was cold. I was in terrible depression and pain. I couldn’t stand it. I thought of Jason. Mentally, I gave him a kiss, I hugged him, and I finally said, “I love you.” “I love you too,” he said back, with huge tears in his eyes. Sleep almost came after that; I craved it vacantly, but it kept holding off.

Then finally, I felt a moment of confusion, saw some strange shadows, and I looked down and saw that my hands had turned into claws. I tried to talk and I could hear mouth sections gnashing, like polystyrene model parts clicking into place, and I could lift my head on a joint and swivel my eyes, while antennas probed the air for news. A sense of horror I’d been feeling for months swept off me and I was suddenly completely calm. I was a bug again. A cockroach. Not a human.

“Thank God!” I whispered.

This story was written by Kamil Beylant: @Securityconcern on Twitter



Chris Wittwer and the Nigel Oldfield lynch mob…


Date: August 17, 2015

01) LINK
Posted by Bernie Najarian on 2015-August-15

Notice of Raw Links:

Friday, Aug. 7, Maltby, a suburb of Rotherham, South Yorkshire, England. A rumor was getting around on social media.

“Paedo!” the people were typing to each other, or “peado!”, as the case may be.

Lydia Reed was typing to her friend Gemma Johnston on Facebook: “I didnt fkin realise he lived at the top of this road, fumin walk every day with my kids to skool.”

Another neighbor, Carly Louise, got in on the horror: “He just got on our bus and we have 4 young kids with us.”

Then local freelance news photographer Ryan Booth perked up his online ears. “What bus is that?” he messaged.

The lynch mob was underway.

The object of the horror, former chemistry teacher Nigel Oldfield, 54, had never touched a child sexually. He had also claimed steadfastly online that he was not a pedophile, based on the clinical definition. Nonetheless, he had earned himself a multi-year membership on the sex offenders’ registry in Britain in 2002, after he’d gone on a spree of depression-fueled image downloading, 11,000 images in all, of which a handful were considered legally actionable. After doing 15 months of prison time and realizing he was now all but unemployable in the mean streets of de-industrialized Britain, he emerged with the idea that the punishment didn’t fit the crime. He became an online activist and gadfly, sparring with the political leaders of the abuse victim movement and insisting that an image was information, not a person. Some of the victims were sensitive about their own childhood images being out and about, and this didn’t go over well. They also were convinced that Oldfield and other sex offenders should be forever forbidden the right to speak. They campaigned hard to have him removed from the internet, resulting in several prominent newspaper articles and many banned social media accounts. Oldfield, whose motto is ‘always winning,’ invariably re-emerged and began piercing rhetorical bubbles again. Repeated account deletions only served to make him immune to ‘block’ functions in the social media sites.

How exactly he came to live, without any fanfare, in Maltby, is not clear. Life was so secure there that, in July, he offered a ‘safe house’ to pedophile writer Tom O’Carroll. O’Carroll was then enduring a tempest of public fury after he’d told reporters for Australia’s ‘60 Minutes’ television program how a 10 year old girl sitting on one’s knee could consent to sexual activity.

Now, the Maltby house was not so safe.

Some time after Oldfield got on the bus with Carly Louise, Andy Struggles, a chunky 20s/30s guy with a new baby daughter and a Rottweiler, posted the ex-offender’s address on Facebook. (The name Andy Struggles, despite its suggestion of manly battle, appears to be a real name, not fake.) He also put in a friend request to Chris Wittwer, the UK’s best known old-school anti-pedo vigilante, who runs the online 40,000-record “Database of ‘convicted/cautioned’ UK & Irish child abusers & animal perverts.” Among Andy’s 538 Facebook friends or their friends-of-friends was Julie Meese, a young woman tweeting as @Megajules01. She tweeted: “Ugh. Apparently paedo Nigel Oldfield has moved into my locality according to this guy, … who gives an address.”

The result was as described in a later story in the Daily Mail (5).

“The five hour long incident in Maltby, near Rotherham, South Yorkshire, last Friday started when a social media posting alerted residents that Oldfield was living in the house.

Graffiti was daubed on his front door and Oldfield – who was carrying a length of wood – was allegedly assaulted.

A pensioner, who asked not to be named said: ‘I heard glass being smashed around 5pm and saw a group of people throwing objects at the windows.

‘More people arrived – there must have been 100 people outside shouting.’

The eyewitness said Oldfield came out of the house and was allegedly heard shouting: ‘Bring your children to me.’

The pensioner added: ‘He was then attacked. He must be used to getting a beating because I could hear him shouting ‘is that all you’ve got?’

The photo of Nigel with a bloody nose, standing on his doorstep and flourishing a board, was posted early on in the fracas by Ryan Booth, the photographer. Booth also tweeted the insider information that Oldfield had been “spotted by someone who lived in his last town” (Doncaster) and he’d “been here 18 months (and) no one new (sic) who he was.” The name of the person who recognized Oldfield has not appeared online, to our knowledge.

Booth has locked his Twitter account since these disclosures were made and has offered to speak to the South Yorkshire Police about how he gained his intimate knowledge of the mob attack. Our perusal of his media prior to the lock-up, however, showed that he arrives with his camera at most dramatic community events.

After five hours, as the Daily Mail noted, the police eventually saw fit to arrive and Nigel was bundled off. They may have used an unmarked car – Facebooker Zoe Clark, who was clearly on the scene, commented, “Haven’t seen any cop cars but could have been in another car…” She continued, conspiratorially, “and cannot disclose his address on here.” Tammy Perry ‘Née Thompson’ likewise chimed in with “can’t put full address on here x” (the ‘x’ symbolizes a kiss).

Meanwhile, as the mob scene broke up and news of the event got around, new single mom Cheralyn Rose Hogan, a bleach-blond who has worked doing ‘girl-girl’ shoots with softcore porn model Kate-@katieee2610, sent an outraged tweet out to the UK’s other celebrity ‘paedophile hunter,’ Stinson Hunter. She’d got wind that Nigel, perhaps because of his bloody nose, had been taken to the local Accident and Emergency Ward (‘A&E’) of a nearby hospital.

Cheralyn-Rose ?@ChezyMJ Aug 8

@StinsonHunter Nigel Oldfield is in Maltby, Rotherham. Last night he was beaten by locals. He’s currently in rotherham A&E right now.

Stinson was already on the case, publicizing the affair. To fan the flames, he had posted an audio track from his archives in which Oldfield was interviewed on the phone-in show of right-wing radio scandalizer Jon Gaunt in 2012 (1, 2). The show had featured Wittwer and his organization “Children Have Rights in Society (CHRIS). Oldfield had taken on a skeptical, sometimes pugnacious attitude towards Gaunt and Wittwer; Gaunt ultimately had hung up on him. This recording of an uppity paedo-niggra was sure to inflame the lynch crowd.

On Saturday morning, Aug. 8, Wittwer, working closely with mob members stalking Oldfield in Maltby, posted, on his website, a close-range photograph of Oldfield sitting in a chair in the A&E, apparently none the worse for wear (3). Later, another close-range photo was published on a Maltby Facebook crime-reporting page (‘NEW Maltby Crime Awareness Group’) by Becki Content Hoggard, showing Oldfield sitting in the streaming mid-morning sunshine in the A&E, with a couple of quickly packed bags at his feet.

Oldfield, interviewed by my news team, did not wish to comment on the events that took place at A&E. Wittwer stated that Oldfield had been “attacked twice in 24 hours,” and a Facebook poster noted that the boyfriend of a woman she knew had had a confrontation with Oldfield in the A&E. Details of any unrest occurring at the A&E remain undisclosed at this point.

Hoggard reported on Facebook that, as shown in her photo, Oldfield “sat playing on his phone.” In fact, one action he was taking was to set up the latest in his series of Twitter accounts and reassure his friends that he was OK.

A week after the incident, on Friday, Aug. 14, an article appeared in the local Rotherham Advertiser documenting the “hate mob” riot (4). The writer, Tom Sharpe, stated in his background paragraphs that Oldfield “had set up a website in prison from which he played ‘agony uncle’ to paedophiles, attempting to justify their activities and demanding that sex with children be made legal.” We have not been able to verify the last assertion, and the legalization of sex with children is not a position that Oldfield has actively espoused in recent times. Attempts by our team to get Sharpe, who has a Twitter account, to substantiate his statements went unanswered. Sharpe also stated that Oldfield’s blog had advised paedophiles how to download child porn without being caught. Oldfield’s response was to tweet, “It is really the biggest and most dangerous pile of poo written about me …. Evah.” The same “pile of poo” was repeated nearly verbatim in the Daily Mail in its semi-cloned version of the Advertiser story on Aug. 14 (5).

Stinson Hunter’s photo post of the Advertiser story (4) features a revealing statement written in text over the photos of the article: “This is Nigel Oldfield whose address, through various sources, we revealed on Saturday night.” Since the Hunter website is linked to receive content from Wittwer’s website, it is not clear if this confession is from Hunter or Wittwer.

Oldfield’s former Maltby address remains, in fact, on Wittwer’s Facebook page (6) courtesy of mom and titillation trade worker Cheralyn-Rose Hogan

Aug. 8. Cheralyn Hogan. 1 queen mary street maltby rotherham s66 area. He had his house located last night, smashed up and he received a good beating. Search NEW maltby crime awareness group on Facebook for more updates.

As you can see, this posting came well after Elvis had left the building.

South Yorkshire Police are currently in the process of determining if anyone will be deemed to have committed an offense based on the five-hour spree of bottle-throwing, property destruction and alleged beating. In the meantime, members and friends of the Maltby lynch mob are not being reticent about their condoning of the violence.

Kerry Costello Round posted on Facebook “Let this be a warning to all other peados (sic)!! Our ‘Hate mob’ is on standby… I have never been so proud as to say I chose Maltby to settle down in… when shit like this happens, this village unites…”

Also on Facebook, Claire Beaumont has photographed herself making a salute that combines the Nazi thrust arm with the ISIS raised finger. Her message: “Nazi’s r us, we will not let pedophiles live near our children.”

Oldfield himself has done much documentation of the mob that beset him; the results are yet to be seen.

It also remains to be seen if the law, so diligent in dealing with image-downloaders, has the will to do anything about violent lynch mobs and their sinister online coordinators and inciters.


1. Radio interview – Chris wittwer & convicted paedo Nigel Oldfield
from chris wittwer Jon Gaunt talking about the C.H.R.I.S (children have rights in society) campaign naming and shaming convicted paedophiles,where Paedophile Nigel Oldfield rings in to try and justify his actions !







Stinson has hidden his online child abuse 2 years…


Date: March 23, 2015

Notice of Raw Links:

01) BoyChat Link – Original Post

In the 19 March story “Stinson: ‘Pedo Hunter’ Causes Kids Grief for Fun” (, I revealed that the widely celebrated English ‘paedophile hunter’ and reformed arsonist Stinson Hunter (born Kieren Ashby, later called Kieren Parsons) had been immortalized on video vandalizing the virtual worlds that children had constructed in the online version of the game Minecraft.

It turns out that the British press, although they have disclosed the official legal record of Hunter including his 10 years served in prison for arson, have been playing their typical cover-up games with much of the intervening history between his release and his rise to fame. During the days before Hunter ‘unmasked’ himself in Sept. 2014 (1), he had made a track record for himself on Youtube as a “griefer” — a general-purpose malicious prankster — along with his partners-in-pranks Michael Donald (‘Killer Karrit,’ ‘The Karrit,’ ‘MichaeltheDug’) and James Donovan (‘Spartan Jay,’ ‘ItsJamesDonovan’). Videos that were posted and later removed from the Hunter and KillerKarrit youtube channels showed, or purported to show, not just Hunter and friends ‘griefing’ online games, but also priceless items like Hunter apparently vandalizing a hotel room by pouring drinks and sweets from the mini-bar on the carpet. (Needless to say, in those days when he still only appeared in public as his Stinson persona wearing a gas mask or other face-shield, he didn’t post ‘griefing’ videos allowing easy visual identification.) The hotel-trashing video was recently re-posted on Youtube by Tweeter Eric Hardcastle (2). Hunter, although appearing with his features slightly pixellated in the video, is clearly recognizable via a distinctive rounded tattoo on the back of his left hand. Unpixellated, as in later interview videos (3), the tattoo appears to be the head of a female figure with big hair.

We’ve been sent descriptions of several other now-removed griefing videos and audiotapes. Efforts are being made to retrieve these materials.

It appears that Hunter emerged from prison as a dedicated ‘griefer,’ preying on all sorts of targets including children. While building up his Youtube rep, he quickly discovered that the kind of ‘griefing’ that truly had marketing potential was pedophile-griefing. A star was born.

After his emergence from behind the mask in 2014, Hunter made strenuous efforts to suppress knowledge of his old griefing activities, many of which took place in 2012-2013.

Here’s a March, 2013, entry in UK blog about criminal law (4).

Jim Bentley 14/03/2013 at 5:36 pm

Couldn’t agree more John, I attempted to contact “Stinson” on twitter and asked him why he wears a mask, when he responded aggressively I told him that I thought he’s a coward for trying to be a public figure while hiding behind a pseudonym, a gas mask or blurring his face (In some videos he blurs his face out and promises to blur out the faces of his subjects and then fails to do so, in others he suggests passers by should assault his subject). It’s obvious he wants to build a career out of this but is just doing it for kicks.

There are also videos of him on You Tube abusing younger players of the game Minecraft where he destroys buildings children have built in the virtual world and then enjoys winding them up about it and another (since removed) where for no reason he smashed up a bass guitar with a mallet, very respectable public figure in the making.

Anyway, after I told him I thought he was a coward what followed was 12 hours of constant abuse on twitter from his followers, anonymous users and made up accounts (most probably by the man himself) suggesting I may be a child molester myself. Bit sad really.

This poster was recently contacted by our team and confirmed he had seen the videos in question. He was reticent to talk about the matter and asked not to be contacted again.

There’s something about being harassed by multiple thugs online and called a pedophile that some people find a deterrent to further involvement. What a surprise.

There are further comments on other websites during 2013 (5).


Location: newcastle upon tyne
Age: 50

Re: Stinson Hunter Paedo exposer

The more i look into this idiot the more i discover what a horrible man he is .I was shocked to discover that he delights in destroying worlds built by kids in minecraft (now deleted – BN) (now deleted – BN)

and many more

there is some bad language in the vids so be warned

Maggy J
The Invisible Woman
Cable Forum Team
Age: 62
Location: between Portsmouth and Southampton.

Oh what a charmer..and he claims to be protecting children!

Since my original story came out, the videos that I linked have been removed (Screenshots showing the labeled ‘Stinson Hunter’ avatar, and other scenes, remain posted at the @securityconcern Twitter channel). A pastebin version of my article that had been prepared for those unable to access this website, inclusive of the complete transcript of the ‘griefing’ video in which a boy called ‘starman’ is vexed by destruction of his ‘world,’ was also removed by site administrators after receipt of a complaint. The paste version has since been restored in multiple new sites (e.g., ; However, despite extensive notifications sent out about the story to media outlets, the British press have completely ignored the information. Even Hunter’s fellow football fan Sam Dimmer, crime reporter for the Coventry Telegraph, who slavishly writes about nearly every move Hunter makes, had no comment or response to the knowledge that Hunter had actively been involved in malicious pranking of children online.

Hunter’s major financial backer and honorary ‘executive producer’ Doug Melia (on Twitter as @Saferhandling), impresario and chief ‘edutainer’ of the safe childhood enterprise SaferHandling, has also failed to respond to notifications of the story. Clearly, anyone involved in providing safety to children might be reluctant to admit making a catastrophic error in their sponsorships.

To be fair, it’s not hard to see why people might be cautious at first.

The internet is full of tricks and trolls. The appearance of the name ‘Stinson Hunter’ on an animated character, combined with a voice very much like that of Hunter, may not be enough to convince some members of the media that the real Stinson, not an impersonator, can be ascertained as participating in the videos. The main link connecting the real Stinson to the videos is his ongoing interchange with the videos’ producer, Michael Donald.

Confirmation that Donald himself was involved was made easy by his recent admission of the facts in public tweets.

Dug @MichaelTheDug · Mar 20 (6)

This is brilliant someone has written a proper story about some of my old videos because I upset them HAHAHHAHA (now removed following anonymous complaint – BN)

Dug @MichaelTheDug · Mar 20

@StinsonHunter it’s just hilarious because they’ve re-watched the video numerous times to write up the transcript and story hahahah

Dug @MichaelTheDug · Mar 20

@Mzxth i know it’s hilarious, it’s as if they’re trying to make me and stinson look bad but they’re just whinging

Dug @MichaelTheDug · Mar 20

@StinsonHunter you got convicted for arson then you BURNED DOWN A HOUSE (in minecraft)!?!?!??! #Imcallingthesun

Hunter himself, of course, is cagier about the matter, pretending not to be involved. He clearly has no concept that the sociopathic online molestation (in the dictionary sense of the word) of a young boy might legitimately be criticized. The comment “what a virgin” strongly implies that your writer and/or his correspondent, @securityconcern, is simply unsophisticated in the connoisseurship of online video game tormenting and the resulting Youtube fun.

Stinson Hunter @StinsonHunter · Mar 20 (7)

@MichaelTheDug I know. How fucking sad is that? Ah well at least I’ve got solid proof of libel now 🙂

Stinson Hunter @StinsonHunter · Mar 20

@MichaelTheDug I also have a firearms ban and I’ve been playing GTA (‘Grand Theft Auto’ – BN) #dontcallthesun

Stinson Hunter @StinsonHunter · Mar 20

@MichaelTheDug What a virgin.

Stinson Hunter @StinsonHunter · Mar 20

@MichaelTheDug They probably wrote it on the way to the dole office.

Stinson Hunter @StinsonHunter · Mar 20

@MichaelTheDug @Securityconcern Just looked at her screenshots of minecraft – dunno why she thinks that’s me, I didn’t have a PVR then haha

The ‘she’ in question is blogger Anna Raccoon, whom Hunter appears to accuse of being Twitter researcher Kamil Beylant. Beylant says that people often mistake the Arabic male name Kamil for the European female name Camille, and he is not infrequently addressed as if he were a woman. As for the PVR (personal video recorder) comment, the video in question was clearly recorded by Donald, not Hunter.

At this point, the link between the Minecraft videos and Hunter could scarcely be more airtight. Apart from the casual threat about libel, Hunter has not denied involvement. Kamil Beylant asked Donald directly if he or Hunter (who blocks direct interaction with him) denied involvement, and in response received only a sarcastic question implying he used drugs.

Currently, the British press is under fire for being one of the social forces that blocked the information that some members of Parliament and other V.I.P.s had been caught out with underage sex partners or illegal child-pornographic materials during the Thatcher era.

The scandal-rags such as the Mirror and the Mail now relentlessly bugle their hounds down the trail of the elite sexcrimes of yesteryear. They still, however, manage to suppress the relevant news of the present day. Now, it is the mental health issues of would-be paedophile hunters that are the forbidden material. It appears none of the media has the brass to look into reconfirming the Minecraft videos truly pertain to Hunter, and truly show a personality that has strong evidence of serious social problems – in particular, a love of distress, torment and psychological torture.

Perhaps Hunter has merely found the safe spot within general social sadism by choosing the optimal targets. There is still hope, however, that someone in the press will break through the intimidation and show up the hunter of pedophiles for what he really is: a hunter of pain.


2. Trashing a hotel room after a sting.

3. Stinson Hunter Interview on ‘This Morning,’ 1st October, 2014





…My Response…

Like Riley…I’m wondering when this bozo is going to get the Darwin Award…He’s already found himself riding on the outside front of a van, as his target attempted to get away from him…And he’s only been doing this, what?…a year and a half?

If anyone in his life actually gave a damn about him, they’d tell him to stop this before he gets himself killed, somehow…Who knows…Maybe most people in his life would just accept it, as for the best?

…I saw that obnoxious exchange on twitter, which you cite here…and I can vouch for the fact, that Stinson and Dug posted it…even if they deleted it, after the fact.

That these two don’t even comprehend what is going on here, and act all juvenile, trivializing their behavior…it says everything about them…Because they bully innocent people for their own pleasure, and figure that it’s nobody else’s business…or that anyone who has a problem with it, is a prude [or some other insulting label].

…They’re not even self reflective enough, to know and admit when they have done wrong…

…Not that we actually need more evidence, that Stinson is an anti-social sociopath…

…and he hangs out with them, also.

Somehow…they thought they could flaunt this behavior, and it would not come back to haunt them.

– Steve Diamond


Stinson: ‘Pedo Hunter’ Causes Kids Grief for Fun…


Date: March 19, 2015

Notice of Raw Links:

Posted by Bernie Najarian on 2015-March-19

01) BoyChat Link – Original Article

Stinson Hunter is a man who named himself for his vocation – hunting pedophiles.

He was born Kieren Parsons in 1981, but in his 17th year he damaged his brand severely by burning down a school. No one was in the building at the time, luckily, but Hunter, who says “I wasn’t a nice person,” served 10 years in prison. In 2014, the then 32-year-old husband and father told Sam Dimmer of the Coventry Telegraph (1),

“It happened 16 years ago. I have said all along I want to right the wrongs I have done. What I’m doing now I’m doing for the right reasons.”

Hunter legally changed his name to publicize his new start. What he is ‘doing now,’ consistent with that name, can be spun as acting as an unpaid adjunct to law enforcement. Or it can be spun as working as a professional vigilante and showman. His modus operandi is to lurk on online websites where people hook up for sexual encounters. He posts a profile masking himself as a girl whose age is as low as he can get away with under the website’s conditions. Then, when he makes contact with a potential sex partner, he informs the person that he is younger than the legal age (16). If the person keeps talking to him, everything is recorded. He attempts to arrange a sexual meeting, and once a date is set, proceeds to meet his target with cameras and a crew. The resulting videos are posted on Youtube, Facebook and his own website, and tweeted out repeatedly on Twitter. He has brought to the U.K. an old American theme, an amateur version of Chris Hansen’s NBC-TV-sponsored ‘To Catch a Predator’ or Xavier von Erck’s web-based ‘Perverted Justice,’ but he has added a modern, Youtuber flare. He appears cloaked in tattoos and lightly stubbled, like a council-flat Marilyn Manson, a television star for the age of child abuse retribution.

What drives him? Was he ever sexually abused? Not as far as we know, though he claims some sort of abuse in a children’s home – but, of course, when it comes to being outraged about abuse, everyone reads the news. And Hunter is a new dad. Just as one might clear a new flat of bedbugs before moving in, why not do some hygiene, redeeming and employing oneself at the same time, by eradicating some pedophiles from his child’s new global playpen? He wants to do right this time. And much of his society believes in him now. Old youthful sex offenders may never be reliably reformed, in the popular view, but this old arsonist surely is. A Bafta-award-winning director, Dan Reed, loaned his skills to Hunter to produce a documentary on his efforts for British television’s Channel 4. Called ‘The Paedophile Hunter,’ it lauded his efforts while confronting some of the controversies involved. According to The Independent’s Jess Denham in Oct. 2014 (2),

“One man, Mark (perhaps actually Michael Parkes – BN) (3), killed himself shortly after being confronted by Hunter as he arrived to meet a (hypothetical – BN) 12-year-old girl.

His partner and mother of his young child tells cameras she sympathises with Hunter’s crime-stopping intentions, but disagrees with footage being published for his 250,000 Facebook followers to see.

“He claims he is protecting children but what about my child, a real child who is going to grow up without a dad?” she says.

While many Twitter users agreed with Mark’s partner and argued that catching criminals should be left to the police, others praised Hunter’s ‘hands on’ approach to stopping those with paedophilic predilections.”

Hunter is surrounded on Youtube and Facebook with a claque of vociferous, triumphal supporters. On March 18, 2015, their support was crowned with prestigious, official approval when ‘The Paedophile Hunter’ won the Royal Television Society award for best documentary of 2014 (4). According to Sam Dimmer (4)

“Judges described the documentary as: ‘An astonishing film with incredible access – a brave commission and a brave programme to make.’”
Hunter’s reaction was “This started from nothing and now it’s won a Royal Television Society Award. It’s incredible.”

The recipient of the award was director Dan Reed, who Hunter claimed to ‘idolise.’

If you sense another shoe hovering here, then, as they say in dubstep music, get ready for the drop.

March 18 was also the day that a story that has been simmering on the internet for several weeks or months finally began to break out into the open. A story of Stinson Hunter, not the old one but the new, involved in the most unexpected and apparently contradictory activity you could possibly imagine.

It transpires that Hunter, in 2014, actively pursued a hobby called ‘griefing,’ a kind of publicized internet pranking, where his favorite activity was to invade the digital fantasy worlds of young boys in the online game Minecraft, and set fire to their digital buildings.

Huh? Is this story trolling? Is it fake? No. It’s all immaculately evidenced, and even tacitly confessed by Hunter himself.

It begins with a video (5), posted on Nov 29, 2014 on a hosting website called (but possibly first posted elsewhere, some weeks or months earlier) that was produced by an acknowledged associate of Hunter, Michael Donald of Dunfermline, near Edinburgh, Scotland. Donald is 20-something, a dedicated internet trickster and online ‘football ‘ooligan’ who styles himself ‘The Karrit,’ ‘Killer Karrit’ and ‘Michael the Dug.’ He also frequently describes himself as a ‘c—t’ and a ‘bellend’ (a nasty popular insult implying an idiot, possibly malicious).

Donald’s many and diverse pranks have broken into mainstream press reporting on at least one occasion – on 3 Jan, 2013 (6), Donald made waves by threatening to give out all his banking details online if “bottom of the table Queen’s Park Rangers would lose to European Champions Chelsea” in a televised football match. ‘QPR,’ as the Rangers are fondly known, did pull off an upset, but the bank details were not forthcoming.

One of the mainstays of Donald’s ‘KillerKarrit’ Youtube and other video channels is ‘griefing,’ as mentioned above – the destruction of the internal virtual inventories and constructions of online gamers. Here’s Donald’s introductory comment to one such adventure (7):

“Minecraft Griefing – Destroying a Welshman’s World, by KillerKarrit. In this video, myself and Stinson Hunter blow up yet another person’s world. He (the victim – BN) saves it (saves the damaged version to the server – BN) after we’ve destroyed it. If you’re going to cry about it and try to get me to stop making these- don’t waste your time, I plan to make more as the 1.8.2 update (of Minecraft – BN) is brilliant.

Stinson’s Channels:
Follow me on Twitter!
Like my Facebook page!”

Games like Minecraft come in a communal, online version in which friendly users invite other members of the player community into their worlds to game with them. The competition in the games doesn’t turn around the destruction or preservation of the houses and other niceties that the hosting players have erected. The arrival of a gang of virtual thugs bent on destruction, then, is completely unexpected, and causes shock. The aptly named ‘griefing’ hobby consists of video-recording the shocked reactions, plus the gleeful destruction, and posting the resulting videos on the internet.

In the video cited above and a companion video (8), we see the virtual avatars of Donald and Hunter (clearly labelled ‘Stinson Hunter’), and hear the actual voices of these men as they lay waste to virtual worlds that have been constructed by boys whose voices have not yet changed. That Hunter and ‘The Karrit’ are best of friends is confirmed on Hunter’s Twitter channel.

“Stinson Hunter on Twitter (31 Jan 2014): “@KillerKarrit @kaneJL haha enter the karrit.”(9)

(Donald is being welcomed as he intervenes to insult a tweeter who was arguing with Hunter)

Their shared hobby is so revolting that the videos beggar belief. Only the fact that most viewers are not gamers and don’t understand what has happened has protected Hunter from the outrage his activities would surely provoke in the community. A supposed protector of online children spends his spare time causing pain and suffering to online children by trashing their video game constructions. It’s sickening.

Let’s look at what happens in the first video (7). Tweeter Kamil Beylant has made a complete transcript of its dialogue, interspersed with comments on what is seen on the video screen (10). The video is clearly captured from the perspective of Donald’s ‘The Karrit’ Xbox online account.

It begins with a young boy’s shrill voice telling some men that they’re being horrible and asking them to get away. A few cuss words are thrown in. Later screen shots identify the boy as living in the US, and he has a distinct northern US accent.

A small megaphone symbol shows that player ‘Stinson Hunter’ is speaking. He says, “What’s wrong with you? What’s wrong with you?” His accent is clearly from the British midlands. Many online videos featuring Hunter show that he characteristically challenges people by rapidly asking the same question or making the same assertion twice.

The boy complains back, “What’s wrong with YOU? You dropped my house! Everything is gone!”

The video then shows a typed message to the viewer from Donald. It reads, “Then we convinced him to let us back into his world. We helped rebuild his house.”

Donald and Hunter re-enter the boy’s virtual world; the latter is seen as a robot-like figure in royal purple with an overhead banner saying ‘Stinson Hunter.’ Donald is seen from his viewer perspective wielding a device called a ‘stone sword.’ He begins smashing up blocks of debris that litter the virtual terrain, ostensibly cleaning up past damage. He calls the blocks ‘big c—ts’ and makes innuendo-laden remarks like ‘I love smashing c—ts.” The boy complains “this is going to take FOREVER!” Donald then begins smashing a wall, calling it a ‘cock.’ The action immediately provokes an outcry from the boy, since the wall is, he says, part of his “inventory,” the list of items he has won or built in the game.

But this is all a distraction. While Donald is stressing the boy with his slow destruction of debris, Stinson has been over at the boy’s seven-storey house, an item clearly made of virtual wood. Something is happening over there, out of our range of view. The boy suddenly shouts, “My house is on fire, my house is on fire!” Animated flames are bursting out of the fourth level of the house. We see another ‘griefer,’ a player called ‘xTSx iMoNsTeRv,’ climbing the house towards the fire, perhaps rushing to help put it out. Donald’s player enters the house and we see Stinson’s character inside. His player is the only one that has been in the right place to set a fire, though he makes an absurd statement, ‘It’s the forest fire.’ There is no forest.

The boy’s ‘Sharkman12’ black robot character has remained outside the house. Donald then, while out of the boy’s online vision, quickly clicks to his inventory and loads his character with an item called ‘fuel.’ We see his character setting a new fire on the inside of the house.

The boy soon figures out that Stinson and Donald have been deliberately setting fire to his house. He uses his powers as host to expel the adults from his virtual world, but remains in voice dialogue with them. He says,

“First of all, your friend Hunter … I just got stopped making my house and he’s trying to destroy it again … second of all, if you guys ever, ever, and I mean EVER try to invite me to anything again, well? you can go screw yourself, and call yourself a c—t! Yeah! I’m going to use that c—t word!”

There is much coarse laughter among the three adults involved. Donald tries to send the boy a ‘friend’ request that would give him higher access to the boy. The boy, who trusted Donald reluctantly after the first destruction of his property, has now been hardened.

“I don’t like you, and I don’t WANT to like you. Stop sending me friend requests. I DON’T LIKE YOU,” he shouts. “Nobody likes you! Not even Kerrit. Not even Monster. (He is apparently addressing Hunter here). I don’t like you NONE of you guys. So you guys – can f—k it.”

If the boy’s parents knew what sort of company he was keeping online, they would be livid. Though the boy clearly knows a few cuss words, his generous and trusting nature has been abused by a gang of guffawing adult British hooligans.

And the theme of their hooliganism is one you’d think Hunter would think twice about – arson.

The adults are so proud of themselves that they post their sadistic, child-tormenting videos on the internet. The video I’ve described, and a companion piece that shows the virtual worlds of another three boys being set on fire, are said to have been on the KillerKarrit and/or Stinson Hunter Youtube channels for a short while, but then withdrawn. Copies, however, are circulating elsewhere. Tweeter Eric Hardcastle re-posted the first video on his own Youtube channel but was obliged to remove it from public view when he received a violation of copyright complaint.

The official, legally enforceable complaint, according to Hardcastle, came from Stinson Hunter (11).

That’s the tacit confession of involvement that I referred to above.

Hunter makes no effort to claim that anyone is impersonating him in the ‘griefing’ videos, and in any case, given his close, long-time association with ‘The Karrit,’ such a claim would not be believable.

My Twitter researchers have all been blocked by Hunter, so he has not been available to answer questions.

Though it may seem unbelievable that a supposed child rescuer, reformed arsonist and public hero would busy himself cyberbullying little boys by setting virtual fire to their virtual worlds, Hunter’s action fits a pattern that long-time observers of the internet have seen many times.

You only need to ask yourself what sort of a personality type would identify himself as a ‘hunter’ of other human beings. There are many such people on the internet, including many masked members of the shadowy Anonymous movement, and Hunter has much in common with them.

The problem for a writer writing about such people is how to describe them without inadvertently insulting people who have ‘Shades of Grey’ aspects in their sexualities, that is interests in bondage, discipline and sadomasochism (BDSM). We commonly use the word ‘sadist’ to refer to two kinds of people: essentially kind and conscientious people who role-play sexually with whips, ligatures, and so on, and essentially sociopathic people who gain pleasure from tormenting others who are helpless and unwilling. Let’s call the latter ‘sociopathic sadists’ to keep them separate from the former group, which includes many good friends I’ve known.

Long study has shown that most freelancers who track or ‘hunt’ online pedophiles, whether the latter are trying to have sexual interactions with children or not, are not merely do-gooders who aren’t qualified to join the local police force. In keeping with the old saying ‘every prisoner wants to be a hero,’ such people are often sociopaths who are aware of their social shortcomings but also have a desire to feel good about themselves. It’s ideal for them if they can look heroic while doing something that gratifies their sociopathic urges. Humiliating and tormenting people who society despises as sexual deviants fills the bill perfectly. In 1975, people with this penchant, or at least males, would have got together in a cruisy park at night and looked for queers to bash. In 2015, that no longer seems heroic to anyone, so the compass of sociopathic heroism has pointed towards pedophiles.

A typical and well documented sociopathic sadist who made a major impact as an online pedophile tracker was Cynthia Jean Harvey, a 50-year-old computer security professional from Nashville, TN (12). Working undercover as ‘Determined,’ she was the chief administrator of a pedophile profiling website that sprang up under the umbrella of Perverted Justice (PJ). While most of PJ concentrated on chat-based entrapment schemes that caught people planning to stage illegal sexual encounters, Harvey’s department, Wikisposure, concentrated on finding and publishing the identities of people posting in online legal (not connected with child pornography) websites hosting discussions among persons attracted to minors.

It soon became clear that Harvey didn’t care if the people she undertook to expose were involved in illegal acts or not. She portrayed all pedophiles as dangerous, based on the ‘ticking time bomb’ meme that suggests that, since all deviants lack self-control (a residual 19th-century superstition), no one with pedophilic urges would be able to resist committing sexual assaults over the long term. When she uncovered the identity of one of the pseudonymous posters she was tracking, she and her colleagues did everything possible to warn the person’s online and offline friends, his parents, his employers, and so on, that he was a dangerous man who was probably raping children behind their backs. In a few cases, these efforts did unmask some lawbreaking; in many others, they merely resulted in the public hounding of conscientious non-offenders.

Harvey clearly didn’t care. She stalked teenagers online who spoke about experiencing attraction to young children, and she exposed them to the world as ‘sick,’ dangerous pedophiles as soon as they turned 18. She relentless violated the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) legislation by pinching and displaying personal images from private social media she had penetrated, and could not be induced to correct any factual error that had become mixed in with her poisonous rants about the ‘sick’ and ‘perverted’ people she was profiling. When PJ deleted her increasingly illegal web pages, she painstakingly reposted them independently as ‘,’ using complex and costly identity masking techniques to prevent DMCA takedown. This website eventually floundered due to lack of financial support, but Harvey has again reposted its pages in one of the internet’s most consistently trashbaggy defamation websites,, the TMZ of the nobodies.

Harvey was finally exposed, herself, by a dogged online sleuth styling herself ‘azu-info.’ It turned out that beside the pedo-hunting Determined, Harvey had a host of other online handles, and many of them were found on online sadomasochism sites. The most prominent was ‘TrainerC.’ Harvey was and is a sexual sadist, which in itself is arguably benign, but she admitted to several incidents in her past where her sadism had surpassed the usual boundaries. Says azu-info (substantiating links have been removed but can be seen at reference link 12 below):

‘As a self-confessed “rapist” by her own account, she is “not a sensual sadist, using the definition that many people use online.” Rather, she takes pleasure in inflicting both physical pain and emotional distress in her victims.

(Here are two quotes:)

“you WILL suffer for my pleasure,”

“I’m a 40 year old top who lives in MS and TN. I’ve owned and trained several slaves in the past 7 years, and have been a sadomasochist for a lot longer.”

Not long ago she was banned from a major BDSM forum chat-room and community for refusing to stop talking about rape. Though also searching for a ‘mentor’ to help her “deal with the idea that I want to hurt people I like.”

When asked why one would want to rape or hurt their partners, Cynthia explained that, as a sadomasochist, she enjoys “getting off” on the very good illusion of non-consent, though “i’d even wager that sometimes it’s not an illusion.”

With her past exploits for Wikisposure and her new exploits on, as well as more recent blogs, she has clearly found an outlet to let some of her most sadistic urges escape into unbounded real-world torment.

“Now I’m looking for people I can engage with on this level without the yelling and passive aggressiveness, just plain old honest to goodness emotional pain, with the understanding that, yes, this gets me hard, and I hope it does you too, but if not, deal with it. (hell, the latter is more likely to get/keep me hard)”

“I don’t mind causing someone emotional pain while relating something that’s gonna hurt because of the nature of the THING itself (well, I do, actually. It’s hard. But it has to be done). What I’m talking about is causing someone emotional pain for…the hell of it.”’

Once you’ve understood this somewhat parallel case, it becomes clear that it isn’t remotely contradictory for Stinson Hunter to hunt online for people who might be lured into sexually propositioning a young teen, while at the same time spending his fun time tormenting children online by burning their virtual villages. The common themes are the delight of causing pain to the vulnerable, combined with the triumphant ego that is able to parade these acts of humiliation to the world.

The hero of Great Britain is a sociopathic sadist. But British society, in any case, has become something of a madhouse lately. The long-standing British nervousness about sex has been intensely microwaved with petapixels of online pornography and hundreds of new means to make wanton interpersonal connections. Faced with the imagined consequences of such liberal electronic communication, the national popcorn is starting to pop: the UK as a society is having a mental breakdown. A growing movement has arisen online that is determined to find that every member of the royal family, the broadcasting world, the politicians and the police have been involved in a decades-long, massive conspiracy to cover up rings of elite pedophilic serial murderers.

In the comments to a Youtube audio recording where an aggressive Stinson Hunter is heard bedeviling an accused critic, grandmother Jo Callaghan, until she threatens suicide (13), the top comment is

Jonny Parker
5 months ago

More people should be hunting these sick f—ks . Fact is its right at the top, the ruling elite banking families, Bilderberg group etc., etc., all snatch kids rape and kill them, satanic sick f—kers man . But people don’t want to accept that it’s happening and the real truth. Just like 9/11.

Such sentiments are by no means restricted to a small fringe any more.

In this rolling atmosphere of witch-hunt, it is very unlikely that the news that Stinson Hunter is part of a gang that regularly torments 12-year-old boys for fun will make any impact. The matter has already been ignored for months. The whole tenor of the nation now is to omit such inconveniences from consciousness and to crown the pedophile stalker with laurel wreaths. Who cares that some of his suicidal stalkees may have been lured across the line into an illegal hookup by a ‘too-good-to-be-true’ offer that they would never have experienced without his entrepreneurship? Michael Parkes’ child, growing up with no father, may indeed end up suffering, as Parkes’ surviving partner has complained in her accused ‘harassment’ of Hunter.

But as we now know, suffering among children is just part of the fun.




5. Minecraft ‘Griefing’ Video Starring Stinson Hunter.



8. Minecraft griefing Video 2 Starring Stinson Hunter: Adult Males Burning Down a Child’s Minecraft Village.

9. ; screenshot at

10. US pre-teen gamer boy vs. Stinson Hunter and friend

11. Text: eric hardcastle ?@EricHardcastle (tweeted to) @urcrazytoo @Securityconcern Copyright violation was from Stinson so he’s confirmed it’s him. Melbourne, Victoria 7:41 AM – 17 Mar 2015


13. Stinson Hunter – Confronts His Online Stalker (Part One)

Note. 15 screenshots documenting key moments in the first ‘griefing’ video have been posted by K. Beylant, starting at


Gene G. Abel’s Statistical Crimes…


Date: December 08, 2014

Notice of Raw Links:

Gene G. Abel’s Statistical Crimes – a Persistent Blight on the Science of Sexuality

The Mark of Abel – How psychiatric malpractice has made the non-offending pedophile a hypercriminal –

Kristofor Xavier, 2012, minor updates K. Beylant 2014 with permission – article may be freely copied and distributed


In the midst of a recent crisis, a 27-year-old psychiatric study revealed itself as a major influence on the course of events. This analysis looks into that paper, and shows why it should never again be allowed to influence any social movement.

The crisis is one that slipped under the radar for most people, since journalists largely ignored it. In 2012, a subgroup of members belonging to the ‘hacktivist’ movement Anonymous attempted to force all minor-attracted (MA) persons off the internet. The vigorous quasi-military campaign, named OpPedoChat, consisted of blasting MA websites with distributed-denial-of-service ‘lazors,’ and attempting to hack directly into the websites, destroy them from within, and publish member lists and contents.

This effort soon tapered off, partly because MA web administrators were veterans of previous assaults and were able to ward off the attacks, but mainly because most of the participants soon changed their perception of the major group of target websites. They saw that the websites, rather than being centers for scheming about how to assault kids, were highly regulated forums administered and mainly populated by law-abiding people. The website admins and most of the members, however diverse their viewpoints, stood opposed to intergenerational sexual acts that would negatively impact children and teenagers.

As the OpPedoChat campaign refocused on different targets that were arguably associated with exploitation, its ad-hoc leader, usernamed TheAnon0ne (later revealed at his arrest to be Michael Crockett of Kansas City, Missouri,, made one last attempt to keep our legal sites in the cross-hairs by citing a damning research statistic. He revealed that his hardline anti-pedophile attitudes were motivated, at least in part, by information he’d got from a website called He’d read their ‘questions and answers about pedophiles’ page.

The mommies reported a ‘fact’ that “the typical pedophile commits an average of 117 sexual crimes during his lifetime (280 for those molesting boys).” TheAnon0ne, a concerned young computer professional from the Nashville suburb of Fairview, TN (according to his personalized voice mail) with a young daughter and perhaps also a second child, appeared to suggest that the people at our websites shouldn’t be let off the hook so easily. If we, on average, were molesting 117 to 280 kids over the course of our lifetimes, then we were far from benign, and no one should be naïve about the threat we posed.

As someone who has molested zero children, I immediately thought ‘where in God’s name did this statistic come from that tars me with 280 sexcrimes?’ I thought over the people I’d met in the MA community. The vast majority had never been involved in sex with juveniles during their adult years, and were just doing the best they could to live with the orientation. I’d met, or seen posts by, some guys who’d had encounters with actively partner-seeking younger teens – acts that would be legal in some western-nation jurisdictions but not in others. Few if any of these men were continuing in this mode, given the current legal and social situation. And, mostly on the very diverse forum,, I’d seen posts by a few people who admitted to doing time for past events with boys, but who were determined not to get on the wrong side of the law again.

The figure of 280 molestations per male-oriented MA person seemed to be a wild fiction. And yet, it was stated to have come from a study.

I decided to track down this study and see what it actually said.

After getting past a few misattributions to review papers that cited the study, I found the original document . It was a work from the psychiatry shop of Gene G. Abel, then from the Emory University School of Medicine at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta. There were also five collaborators, three of them from Columbia University in Abel’s former home town, New York City. The whole citation is ‘Self-reported sex crimes of nonincarcerated paraphiliacs,’ by Gene G. Abel, Judith V. Beckerman, Mary Mittelman, Jerry Cunningham-Rathner, Joanne L. Rouleau, and William D. Murphy, published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence in 1987, volume 2, pages 3 to 25. Unfortunately, the work appears not to be openly available online.

Abel is by no means a household name, but he should be. A review of his work reveals him as a surprisingly influential figure in current Western society. In particular, a paper he, Beckerman and Cunningham-Rathner wrote in 1984, ‘Complications, consent, and cognitions in sex between children and adults,’ (Int J Law Psychiatry 1984;7:89-103) has put many words onto the lips of the common man and woman. It manufactured the whole discourse on childhood consent and power that you can now hear from any children’s social worker, as well as the discourse on pedophiles’ ‘cognitive distortions’ that provides the stock courtroom response to any suggestion that a child or teen may have initiated or wanted a sexual act, or was not harmed by it. Abel is indirectly quoted by tens of thousands of professionals, editorial writers, letter-to-the-editor writers, and online commenters every year. You could almost say that he wrote the common modern civil attitude towards pedophilia.

(I say ‘civil’ to distinguish the common uncivil, ape-man attitudes like ‘put them in prison forever and let big lusty Bubba have his way with them.’)

The ‘consent’ paper is a review that pulls together some data from previously published papers, but is mostly written in editorial mode. The ‘self-reported sex crimes’ paper, on the other hand, purports to be a scientific study.

It is a textbook study, all right, but it belongs in a book about the misuse of statistics. Let me show you how those of us who are MA but have molested zero children came to have 280 sexual crimes on our theoretical criminal record.

If you’ve ever taken a university statistics course, the first thing you learn is that sampling small numbers of subjects can be very powerful, but only if the sampling is truly random. Wikipedia wasn’t written when Gene Abel and friends put together their ‘self-reported crimes’ study, but the contents of the paragraphs below from the current article on biased sampling were well known:


(from a list of ‘Types of Sampling Bias’)

Self-selection bias, which is possible whenever the group of people being studied has any form of control over whether to participate. Participants’ decision to participate may be correlated with traits that affect the study, making the participants a non-representative sample. For example, people who have strong opinions or substantial knowledge may be more willing to spend time answering a survey than those who do not. Another example is online and phone-in polls, which are biased samples because the respondents are self-selected. Those individuals who are highly motivated to respond, typically individuals who have strong opinions, are overrepresented, and individuals that are indifferent or apathetic are less likely to respond. This often leads to a polarization of responses with extreme perspectives being given a disproportionate weight in the summary. As a result, these types of polls are regarded as unscientific.

Pre-screening of trial participants, or advertising for volunteers within particular groups. For example a study to “prove” that smoking does not affect fitness might recruit at the local fitness center, but advertise for smokers during the advanced aerobics class, and for non-smokers during the weight loss sessions.
[end quote]

Abel’s study is almost completely based on the types of sampling mentioned in these paragraphs on bias. It includes a wide range of ‘paraphiliacs,’ as defined in the then-current 3d revision of the ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders’ (1974), the diagnostic code of psychiatry – commonly called DSM-III. Among these paraphiliacs are groups whose presence would come as a political-incorrectness shock to most modern readers – homosexuals (but only if ‘ego-dystonic,’ i.e., unhappy about it), transsexuals and transvestites. Remember, this is being published in a journal dedicated to studies of ‘interpersonal violence.’

The paper’s statements on how the authors recruited their study population are worded in a beguiling way that makes it seem that the authors are aware of their sampling bias problems, and yet, at the same time, allows them to conceal the most serious of those problems.

Abel writes:

“We recruited 561 subjects through informal discussions with health care professionals, formal presentations at mental health, parole, forensic and criminal justice meetings, and through ads in the local media. Subjects were seen within the context of an evaluation and treatment program for sex offenders voluntarily seeking assessment and/or treatment in a psychiatric setting… Even though the data here are sufficiently numerous to be representative of each of the categories of paraphiliacs, they do not represent, because of preselection, the normal distribution of categories of paraphiliacs in the general population. Therefore, the fact that child molesters were more numerous in this study does not imply that this category of paraphilia, relative to other categories, is more numerous than in the general population.”
[end quote]

This paragraph is a statistical card trick. While the reader is distracted by the true confession that the study may misrepresent the relative proportions of different kinds of paraphiliacs in the general population, Abel discreetly lets the notion slide through that the representation of the whole population within each group of paraphiliacs is okay because the ‘data are sufficiently numerous.’

That’s a serious no-no in science. No matter how large a biased sample is, it is always a biased sample. I’ll talk in a minute about what sort of a biased sample this one is, and how it obtained its bias. But first, the brazen scientific error that starts the study off needs to be addressed. What Abel and colleagues have done here, with their statement about ‘sufficiently numerous’ data, is to imply that they have interviewed so many subjects that they have overwhelmed sampling bias by, in effect, sampling the total underlying population. It is true, in statistics, that if you can collect data on an entire population, you needn’t worry about sampling bias. Your sample can’t be biased because you have polled everyone. ‘Sufficiently numerous’ is a phrase that declares that this condition has, in effect, been met. “We’ve seen so many paraphiliacs that there can’t be any significant chunks of their population that we’ve missed,” is the implication. The assertion is preposterous – the population of the Atlanta, New York and Memphis areas – the catchment areas for the authors – has by no means yielded up all or nearly all of its paraphiliacs to the study.

To be blunt, the viewpoint that larger-than-usual sample numbers obviate the need for statistical randomness is only known in one place in science: on exam papers of people who have failed the introductory statistics test.

Abel and colleagues are so fond of this error, though, that they actually repeat it in their discussion of their results. Again, some verbal sleight-of-hand is used to make it appear that the biased sample problem is being addressed. Then, suddenly, the large numbers involved are again stated to negate the problem:

How representative this group of paraphiliacs is of the population of nonincarcerated sex offenders is nearly impossible to ascertain. Since paraphiliacs frequently attempt to conceal their arousal from others, it would be extremely difficult to obtain a true random sample of nonincarcerated paraphiliacs. Further, since such subjects entered the assessment study in part because of recruitment efforts to obtain rapists and child molesters for treatment, these subsamples of paraphiliacs are overrepresented in comparison with other subsamples. Some categories of paraphilias had a minimal number of subjects and where the number of subjects per category was less than 12, it was considered best not to generalize on these findings. In spite of these limitations, however, the large number of paraphiliacs evaluated enable us to draw some notable conclusions.
[end quote]

The ‘large numbers,’ Abel says, license the use of an intrinsically biased sample. He thus allows himself to draw conclusions about whole populations of, for example, transsexuals, even though he is using people obtained “within the context of an evaluation and treatment program for sex offenders voluntarily seeking assessment and/or treatment in a psychiatric setting.”

In the year 2014, everyone can see that this is outrageous. Why would a representative group of transsexuals be motivated to sign up, ‘in the context of a treatment program for sex offenders,’ for one to five hours of ‘structured clinical interview’ that would make them list their entire lifetime history of deviant sexual events, and count the complete number of partners involved?

This question becomes especially poignant when you look at the list of places subjects were recruited:

Recruitment of 521 subjects (by percentage)

self-referred 5.2
newspaper, radio, TV ads 5.2
probation or parole 16.6
lawyers, legal aid societies 31.2
therapist, physician, social worker 31.2
hospitals, mental health centers 6.1
family members or friends 8.3
courts 6.0
child protection agencies 2.9
other 2.9
[end quote]

The study used ads in newspapers, radio and television, but less than one tenth of the participants were brought in this way. Well over half the participants in Abel and colleagues’ study came from two types of sources: lawyers, and professionals associated with mental health care. A large minority were referred by parole officers.

Abel does state that in almost all cases, the subject was asked what had ‘motivated him to seek help.’ The answers are tabulated as follows (in percentages):

self-motivation 26.4
therapist, physician, social worker 21.7
probation or parole 14.5
lawyers, legal aid 14.5
family members, friends 10.1
courts 5.2
other 7.6 (my lump)
[end quote]

Contrasting the above two lists with one another, you can correctly infer that the majority of those claiming self-motivation for joining the study were nonetheless referred by their lawyer, or by a health care professional, or by a parole officer.

The nature of the main source of bias inherent in Abel and colleagues’ sample population can be specified in one word: alarm. The subjects of Abel’s study are people who may not be incarcerated at the moment, but they have nonetheless caused alarm. They have caused alarm to professionals in law, medicine or social work, or they have become alarming to their families, or they have become alarmed at themselves. The sample population misses out on any paraphiliacs who are keeping cool, being well adjusted, or generally being reticent. It is pitched to collect the most extreme, alarming cases of non-incarcerated paraphiliacs.

Let’s go back to something Abel said in one of the quotes above. “Since paraphiliacs frequently attempt to conceal their arousal from others, it would be extremely difficult to obtain a true random sample of nonincarcerated paraphiliacs.” This is a very true statement – so true, in fact, that it technically negates much of the existing research on the topics in question, most notably any studies purporting to make general statements about pedophilia.

When you are faced with a problem of a deeply frightened or highly prudent population that deliberately frustrates being randomly sampled, you can do one of two things. One approach is to throw up your hands and say, ‘well, since we can’t get a real sample, my biased sample can be considered good enough for practical purposes, especially if it is large.’ That’s not science – but it works as a sort of political stand-in for science. Governments pay professionals a lot of money to deal with sex deviants, and the professionals can’t just come back and say, ‘we couldn’t actually get a valid sample.’

The alternative approach, which is politically unsatisfying but scientifically sound, is to accept your sample as biased and to attempt to define it exactly as it is. If you’re working with offenders incarcerated for sexual acts with children, simply say so and don’t extend your conclusions to ‘pedophiles’ as a whole. You’ve missed, among others, every pedophile who has never committed a sex act with a child, so naturally you have no basis to speak about that group of people. If you are working with a voluntary sample of people who have caused so much concern that someone has wanted an extensive psychiatric interview done about aspects of their deviant behavior, then define your population as ‘paraphiliacs whose behaviors have caused significant concern to themselves or others.’ Don’t fall off the path of science into the abyss of pseudoscience by pretending that your results apply to the whole population of paraphiliacs, all those people who are known to be ‘concealing their arousal from others.’ You have no way of knowing whether or not your biased sample results may coincidentally truly represent the reality of one or more subgroups of paraphiliacs. General knowledge of human behavior should be sufficient to warn you that in any situation that favors concealment, some people will be more concealed than others. Especially in the context of a clinical study with a particular approach.

The acts of statistical abuse in Abel’s paper, however, don’t stop here.

Further reading of the ‘self reported sex crimes’ study shows that its statistical problems are only beginning when it accepts a biased sample as representative. Let’s look at the data for non-incestuous pedophile acts. Abel gives two statistical numbers for people who have committed legally undetected sexual crimes with girls or boys – the average number of sexual assaults per person, and the median. If you’ve taken that basic statistics course, you’ll see that each of these numbers casts light on the significance of the other. If you studied ten pedophiles, and nine had committed no sexual assaults while the tenth had committed 1000, then the average number of sexual assaults per pedophile would be 100. The median, however, is the number you get if you line all the subjects up from the lowest number to the highest number, and take the number that is in the middle of the line-up. In that case, in our ten pedophiles, the median number of sexual assaults per pedophile would be zero. The hyperactive pedophile who has committed a thousand sex acts has radically skewed the average, but hasn’t affected the median. That’s because he’s a statistical outlier, an extreme case.

Again, using his typical sleight of hand, Abel explicitly makes this point and then ignores it. (We follow standard scientific convention as used in cases of scientific fraud and major error by assigning him full responsibility as an author, even though mistakes may have been initiated by a co-author.)

He says,

Most paraphilic acts have means that are much higher than the corresponding medians, indicating that some individuals in each diagnostic category completed very large numbers of paraphilic acts. The median values better approximate the frequency of the usual paraphilic behavior. On the other hand, the means are a better reflection of the impact of various paraphilias on society, since they indicate how often the various paraphilic acts were completed.
[end quote]

The last statement is nonsense, since in reality, it is the raw total numbers of sexual acts committed, not their averages per person, that ‘indicate how often the various paraphiliac acts were completed.’ But, as you’ll see, Abel is fond of the averages and plans to use them extensively in discussion. Now let’s look at the figures themselves.

For 224 men who have had non-incestuous pedophilic acts with girls, the median number of sex acts committed was 1.4, but the average was 23.2. Nearly half, then, of the 224 girl-attracted pedophiles studied had been involved in a single sexual act with one girl, but still were assigned an average number of acts of 23.2. Among non-incestuous pedophiles who had carried out acts with boys (prepubescent only, as per the definition of pedophilia in DSM-III) the median number of such acts was 10.1, but the average was 281.4. Clearly, one or more persons up at the extreme high end of the spectrum had claimed a phenomenal number of sex acts with boys – but no actual numbers of acts per individual person are given in Abel’s paper. The median number of victims/partners listed per girl-oriented offender was 1.3, but the average was 19.8; for acts with boys, the median number of partners was 4.4, but the average was 150.2. And so on. The averages wildly exceeded the medians.

Now let’s see what acknowledgment Abel gives to the fact that the median numbers per offender are so much lower than the averages, meaning that the averages are being strongly skewed by a few extreme cases.

The most impressive finding is the enormously high frequency of paraphilic behaviors reported by the various categories of paraphilia.…. In any event, the frequency of these self-reported crimes bears little resemblance to data reported from incarcerated offenders. For example, Gebhard et al. (1965) reported that, on the average, pedophiles had been found guilty of fewer than 3 paraphilic acts per offender. By contrast, the number of paraphilic acts reported by these nonincarcerated child molesters was from 23.2 to 281.7 acts per offender.
[end quote]

Yes, you saw that correctly. Abel has cited the averages as the true indicator of the activities of the ‘nonincarcerated child molesters.’

If you’re attracted to boys, on average, you’ve committed 281.7 sexual assaults, kindly reduced by the bettermommies website to 280. Highly probably, every single one of those assaults has been committed by someone else, some rampant serial child abuser. But the assaults can still be ascribed to you through statistical trickery. And Gene Abel is the man who has done it.

Is Abel, then, a deliberate fraudster? The evidence from the paper suggests that, in fact, he may be merely so statistically ignorant that he can’t see the simplest problems with his numbers. His Table 2, showing the ‘Number of victims/partners of paraphiliacs,’ lists ‘homosexuals’ as having an average of 0.1 partners, and a median of 0.0.

He never gives any explanation of how sex acts that by definition, in this study, are supposed to involve partners or victims, can be accomplished with an average number of partners of less than one. It’s not as if homosexuals didn’t claim to have completed sex acts. They had an average number of sex acts of 154.2, a median of 1.5, and a number of “completed acts per victim” (Table 3) of 1,850.5! So where did all the not-so-gay gays without partners come from? Did Abel include sexual fantasies or masturbation events in his tally of paraphilic acts and neglect to tell us about it? That would very much change the impact of the paper. We have no way of knowing. His Table 2 is unexplained, and apparently numerically impossible in the context of his stated methods.

Another problem with the statistics is that Abel doesn’t specify at what point in the subject’s life he started counting his paraphilic acts. Did he include sex acts committed with little boys when the subject himself was a little boy? Some young boys are remarkably sexually active; for example, here’s a quote from an email recently sent to me: “For me, my earliest memories involve what could be called ‘gay thoughts’ although some of it was probably more curiosity. However, (I went) through childhood with the belief that doing things with other boys was considered quite bad (despite doing it many times each week).” We have no way of knowing how much early childhood experimentation is included in Abel’s statistics. We do know that the interviews went back to the ‘age of onset of their paraphilic arousal pattern” and that “each subject’s history was examined year by year to determine the changes in frequency of his paraphilic behavior.” It might well be that my email correspondent would be listed as a profligate victimizer of boys, based entirely on sex acts he committed during his own prepubescent boyhood. Again, we have no way of knowing.

The paper is the most astounding piece of junk science I have ever seen.

I suspect the problem lies in Abel’s field of inquiry. Psychiatry has become associated with medicine, but it began as a branch of explanatory philosophy as patients were prompted to tell their doctors and psychoanalysts about their hidden thoughts. To a large extent, it became a godless replacement for religious or spiritual causal explanations of people’s behavioral motivations. As an offshoot of orthodox Judaism and Christianity among those who had become secularized, it maintained a religious fervor against homosexuality well beyond the point that any reasonable person could imagine was justifiable. It maintained the ancient Judaic concept that sexual typicality was valid and desirable, and all else was undesirable deviation or pseudo-love (a direct translation of ‘paraphilia’). And as a field based in philosophy and dialogue, psychiatry didn’t seek to give its members a firm grounding in statistics. I would gladly accuse Abel of fraud if I knew he’d taken a statistics course – but I doubt very much that he ever had.

In Abel’s study of ‘self-reported sex crimes,’ we still see the aching para-religious urge to include homosexuals among the sex criminals, even if they can only be included when they’re ‘ego-dystonic.’ Table 2 may be labelled ‘Number of victims/partners of paraphiliacs,’ but it is introduced in the text as giving “the number of victims by diagnostic category.” Yes, whatever that one-tenth of a partner for the ego-dystonic homosexuals consists of, he or it is considered to be a victim of paraphilia.

The Wikipedia article about DSM-III gives some historical perspective on this kind of thing:

As described by Ronald Bayer, a psychiatrist and gay rights activist, specific protests by gay rights activists against the American Psychiatric Association (APA) began in 1970 when the organization held its convention in San Francisco. The activists disrupted the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, gay rights activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA’s convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, “Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you.”
[end quote]

From the wikipedia article about paraphilia:

Homosexuality was at one time categorized as a form of paraphilia. Sigmund Freud and his proponents considered homosexuality and paraphilias to be forms of psychosexual infantilism. In a 1951 symposium discussing psychiatrist Benjamin Karpman’s paper “The Sexual Psychopath,”psychiatrist Emil Gutheil said, “Looking back upon my own experience with so-called psychopaths, I find one characteristic they all have in common, and that is their infantilism. Take the man who is a homosexual. In his paraphilia he regresses to the time he was bisexual, that is, to his infantile level.”
[end quote]

Abel, at least in the 1980s, followed this party line to a very large extent. He absolutely disbelieved in sexual orientation. In the ‘consent’ paper, he gives a purely Skinnerian (behavior-modification) model of sexual development, based on the idea that sexuality is entirely based on what is left when socially inhibited behaviors have been subtracted from socially and personally reinforced behaviors:

At an early age, boys are exceedingly responsive to physical and emotional stimulation. When a young boy’s diapers are changed he may get an erection. As maturation continues boys develop erections to other stimuli, some of which appear to have no sexual significance (crossing one’s legs, climbing poles, etc.) and some identified by the culture as appropriately erotic. Social learning theory indicates that during the socialization process a boy (or girl) learns which sexual arousal patterns are considered appropriate by his society and which are not. The boy learns not to fantasize about stimuli considered inappropriate by his society (nuns, his sister, etc.) and begins to inhibit his attention and his arousal to these stimuli. This process of inhibiting one’s sexual arousal continues throughout adolescence and early adulthood so that by the time the average male reaches adulthood he no longer is aroused by stimuli that his culture considers inappropriate, but he maintains his arousal to stimuli considered appropriate.

The process of learning to inhibit one’s sexual arousal to specific stimuli is not always perfect. This is especially the case during a child’s early years when his sexual behavior (primarily masturbation) is hidden from others and the stimuli that the child attends to during masturbation is secret. The critical issue in the development of arousal patterns inconsistent with an individual’s culture appears to be the child’s use, during adolescence, of inappropriate stimuli during masturbation and subsequent orgasm (Abel and Blanchard, 1974). When stimuli inappropriate to the culture are fantasized during masturbation and orgasm, the pleasure and enjoyment from masturbatory activity and orgasm become associated with this inappropriate material, the fantasy material becomes erotic and eventually provokes sexual arousal in the child. In this fashion, early inappropriate experiences and activities might be fantasized hundreds of times by the boy and repeatedly associated with the sexual pleasure of masturbation and orgasm until inappropriate sexual stimuli produce erection responses and arousal in the individual. When there are no negative consequences for the use of such fantasies, from parents or others (if they knew), there is no inhibition of that arousal pattern and as a consequence, the child reaches adulthood with arousal to inappropriate stimuli (young children).
[end quote]

This viewpoint has sexual orientatation arse-backward. Instead of the child’s choice of masturbation materials being caused by prior attraction and internally generated fantasy, the attractions and fantasies are stated to be based on an unexplained, arbitrary and wrong choice of masturbation materials.

Apart from this leaving a weird causal lacuna (why choose the inappropriate materials in the first place in preference to appropriate ones?), this idea can scarcely be rationalized with most people’s personal recollections about their own sexual development. Typically we start off by finding certain people highly attractive, and we develop fantasies about them or even crushes on them. We may have deep crushes long before we ever discover masturbation. Most of us, at least, haven’t done anything to reinforce these primal attractions before we become vividly aware of them – they have simply happened to us.

In 2014, any medical professional attempting to apply this raw Skinnerian nonsense to the causality of homosexuality would be considered by his peers to be, at best, a disgraceful and offensive eccentric. However, because the crimes of the psychiatric war on homosexuality are still okay today if they are committed against pedophiles, Abel receives very little professional criticism, and is cited as a source of factual material in hundreds of studies.

In the bible, Cain, the son of Adam, killed his brother Abel and was cursed by the Lord, but the Lord ‘set a mark’ on him so that he would not be killed in vengeance.

In psychiatry, Gene Abel has set a mark upon all MA people, one that curses us and, by its very nature, calls for vengeance on us. He abuses statistics to mark each and every one of us with hundreds of crimes we have never committed.

Let this article be the beginning of a process that reverses his curse on us and has him stricken forever from the records of accepted science. I don’t know whether he is to be condemned as a member of history’s roster of brazen and shameless persecutors of fellow human beings, or pitied as someone whose education in science was so deficient that he blundered helplessly into catastrophic error. Either way, he is discredited.

The better mommies of the world, and the young computer activists too, need to know that this man and his colleagues published inexcusable scientific error, and that their encompassing profession, psychiatry, was so methodologically weak and politically and financially corrupt that it lacked the means and will to recognize and correct the errors.

But the errors will be corrected. As long as science functions as science, they will be weeded out. Decades of laziness and prejudice may intervene before the studies are assigned to their proper wastebin, but such episodes cannot enter the canon of valid research.


Shy Keenan’s P.I.E.-in-the-sky …. (corrected)…


Date: September 3, 2014

Note: This was posted by Bernie Najarian, on Wednseday, September 3rd of 2014, on BoyChat.

It is republished here.

My own response to this, is located here.

– Steve

…Original Source…

…Original Source…



Ethel Quayle’s new Spirit of Child Pornography: as a menace to free speech in areas unrelated to porn…


Date: March 17, 2014

Author: K. Xavier

Notice of Raw Links:

Ethel Quayle’s new Spirit of Child Pornography: as a menace to free speech in areas unrelated to porn.

Whenever you need to respond to something objectionable that’s come out of the universities, you are forced to wonder how to do it most effectively. This becomes an especially pointed question if the matter is something as controversial as pedophilia and freedom of thought. You’re taking on people who are heavily fortified in socially constructed legitimacy – all the right degrees, committees, job titles, connections, jargon, and academic back-scratching history, not to mention socially approved sexualities.

It won’t do much good, then, to respond in full university jargon and pretend to be writing a journal paper. Might as well stick to popular, everyday language as much as possible. Many people can read that sort of response, and even the relevant academics will be able to imagine what it might look like if it was written in their field-specific dialect. Some, of course, if confronted with ordinary English, will think ‘not legitimate,’ and turn their restricted and busy minds elsewhere. But most academics really are fully fledged human beings and don’t screen out reality quite so stringently.

In the writing below, I will use the journalistic style, surname-only, to refer to persons I am talking about after the first mention. No disrespect is intended.

What I am objecting to here is portions of a document called “Child pornography and the sexual exploitation of children online,” subtitled “A contribution of ECPAT International to the World Congress III against Sexual Exploitation of Children and Adolescents, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 25-28 November 2008.” ECPAT International is an organization that states that its acronym stands for “End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes;” the document is online in English ( , French ( and Spanish ( {links not checked in this pastebin paste – Kamil}

I am objecting to this document not out of a desire to defend child pornography, but rather out of a desire to ensure that campaigns against it don’t, as a byproduct, create a climate hostile to freedom of thought, freedom of speech and free assembly for law-abiding people who are sexually attracted to minors. As you read on, I think you will see that this is a realistic concern. There’s much more at stake here than porn.

The main author of this ECPAT document is one of academia’s most active campaigners against child pornography and child sexual exploitation, Ethyl Quayle (photo at Quayle, currently serving as a lecturer in the Clinical Psychology program of the University of Edinburgh, is one of the long term leaders of a European-Union-funded project called COPINE (Combating Paedophile Information Networks in Europe) and a co-developer of the famous COPINE scale ( that classifies “child abuse images” into 10 categories based on erotic content and social objectionability. The wide-ranging nature of the COPINE scale, which starts by classifying items like photos showing “swimming costumes from…family albums” as level 1 exploitative, says a lot about the fundamental approach Quayle has taken. Indeed, the final sentence in the description of level 1 or photos “indicative” of abuse, tells all: “Pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organisation of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness.” Just as, traditionally, ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder,’ for Quayle, abuse lies in the “inappropriate” thoughts of the beholder. If that seems to be a presumptuous statement, keep reading.

Just to give some background to Quayle’s document, there have been two long-standing objections to child pornography. One is the view that children should not be put in a sexual situation that is recorded for later viewing by other people. The other is that viewing such recordings might incite people to take sexual advantage of children. Quayle carefully points out that she and her colleagues have an objection that goes beyond either of these options. I’ll get to its exact nature below.

There is an obvious reason for going beyond the two traditional objections. Each of them has limitations if you plan to take up arms against child pornography in general.

Even people who strongly support the first objection – let’s call it ‘bad to make it, bad to support its manufacture (BTMBTSM)’ – know it has points of weakness. For example, it can be argued against historically along the lines of ‘what’s done is done.’ Suppose there are photographs showing kids having sex in 1901. Everyone is dead; no one can be identified. Where’s the harm? Just as we can have a fun day treading the temples of Teotihuacan in Mexico, knowing full well that they were dedicated with hearts ripped out of sacrificed young men, we can (it may be argued) view these historical artifacts without harming anyone, even if they were arguably unethically or even cruelly made at the time. Also, the first objection doesn’t apply to anything that wasn’t perceptibly sexual when it happened. For example, a collection of photos of naked boys swimming in the river in 1932 can hardly be objected to: the subjects might be delighted to see the old photos, and why shouldn’t everyone else be delighted too? I’ve already written elsewhere about the child and teen erotica materials that were legally produced in the 70’s and 80’s that have been reduced to illegality today (website gone -Kamil). When societies capriciously outlaw previously legal items that may be lying forgotten somewhere in your house or apartment (maybe left there by an old roommate), you know that something strange is going on.

The BTMBTSM objection also raises uncomfortable, controversial questions about whether children being sexual with each other is objectionable in itself, and whether recording these moments of sexual realism can be intrinsically wrong in all cases. Certainly in cases where children are forced or persuaded, to their later deep humiliation, to take part in pornography, wrong has been done. But are child actors harmed by doing a slightly faked sex scene for a coming-of-age movie? Now make the sex real and voluntary, and has a great deal changed? Ethicists and civil liberatarians can make all sorts of contradictory firm statements about such matters. Even the ultimate artistic question – “does art have a right to depict every truth in life?” emerges in cases such as paintings or writings about the artist’s own fantasies and past experiences. This is messy. BTMBTSM also leaves the door wide open for legal cartoon child pornography, personal reminiscences about childhood sex, and fiction about sex involving children.

The second objection, the ‘opening the floodgates’ (OTF) argument, appears at first to be much simpler to uphold. It proposes that viewing child pornography loosens up the viewer’s mind, making him imagine that the scenes he sees in the depictions are possible for him to view in the flesh or even to touch and get involved in. It also proposes that the circulation of such material infects additional people with the same loosening-up of inhibitions and prohibitions. This objection has the minor problem that it is clearly involved with thought control, directly trying to regulate what people have in their minds. In practice, however, western societies have never been afraid to erect some barriers against “thoughtcrime,” as author George Orwell called it in his novel ‘1984.’ Traditional penalties against crimes like adultery and sodomy were often exaggeratedly severe in order to frighten others away from the same orgasmically reinforced behaviours. Blanket prohibitions against publishing on sexual topics – all those bans on D.H. Lawrence’s explicit novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover – also exerted thought control against sexual no-no’s.

The main problem with OTF is that it refers to causality. It requires that you believe that images will mechanically cause people to change their thought patterns and to perform acts that they wouldn’t perform otherwise. Free will, the fundamental assumption of the justice system, must be seen to be compromised by sexual imagery. Or more simply, you have to think that many people will take a monkey-see, monkey-do approach to depictions. This may sound like common sense, since we all take in information that influences what we do, and the entire advertising industry is dedicated to motivating us with images. And yet, there are deep problems involved in assuming images will have predictable effects. We have a relationship with advertising that we don’t have with all other sorts of visuals and stories. We all know, for example, that most people can watch violent dramas on stage or on television and yet not be mechanically caused to go maim or kill people. Horror films don’t function as advertising. Indeed, watching second-hand, controlled violence – for example, in American or Australian football games – is thought to be one of our main ways of shouting aggressive urges out of our system. This is called ‘catharsis,’ when merely watching something works out the energy that might otherwise go into problematical actions. Images may cause the exact opposite of what they show.

The catharsis argument has long been applied to pornography of all kinds. Using porn has been proposed as a way of quenching urges for extramarital sex, problematic fetish behavior (think of the poor fellow a few years ago who was arrested while standing in the underside of a women’s campground outhouse, watching all the women do their thing up above – he must have had very poor internet skills) and sex with underage partners. Social-scientific studies attempting to find out whether pornography causes what it shows or defuses it are a notoriously mixed bag, some claiming an effect and some claiming no effect (link website now gone – Kamil). Such studies are also plagued by scientific problems – biased assumptions and skewed samples. Studies on pedophiles, for example, have mostly been done on people who have been arrested or otherwise caught. The groups studied probably had exaggerated proportions of people with low intelligence, and people whose risk-taking behavior stemmed from serious depression or other existing mental health problems. These highly arrestable subgroups are also the most likely groups to take a monkey-see-monkey-do approach to images: the very-low-intelligence person might see new ideas he truly had never thought of, and then have no idea why they shouldn’t be acted on; the sociopath might reason that if someone else was actually getting something that was only a fantasy for him, he was darn well going to get some live action too; and the depressed person might think, ‘what have I got to lose if I do that too?’ On the other hand, the numbers of people who use erotica to subdue their socially inconvenient sexual urges are likely to be far larger than the numbers in these risk-prone special groups.

Logically, in order to believe that child pornography causes sex with children or further child porn production, you have to also believe the parallel causality stories. You cannot escape the analogy that adult hetero pornography must cause the degradation of women and relationships, and that violent depictions must cause violence. ‘Sensual images propagate the morally loose things they show’ has to be a general conclusion – it can’t be specific to one arbitrary topic or another. In fact, the OTF campaign against child pornography on the internet is the outgrowth of a (so far) spectacularly unsuccessful campaign to eliminate adult heterosexual pornography on the grounds that it causes women to be conceived of and treated as objects. I strongly suspect that everyone who believes in OTF causality for child pornography also believes in ‘objectification’ causality in adult hetero porn. In working against child porn, these believers have simply chosen a field where the counter-arguments that trip them up are socially difficult to present. Their arguments can’t win on the adult battlefield, but the same propositions can win on the child front.

The front runner in the OTF camp in recent times has been the Supreme Court of Canada. In its key judgment R.vs. Sharpe ( ), it bought heavily into the idea that child pornography causes unrealistic deformations to occur in the minds of those who view it. This idea was introduced to it by expert witness Dr. Peter Collins ( ) who was then working for the Ontario Provincial Police. The court, in its judgment, accepted the following (among other, similar propositions that I won’t discuss in detail):

Dr. Collins testified at trial to the first type of harm identified by the Crown, namely that the possession of child pornography contributes to the cognitive distortions of paedophiles. He testified that it is generally accepted amongst the vast majority of forensic psychiatrists that possession of child pornography reinforces some paedophiles’ cognitive distortions. He described these “offence-facilitating beliefs” as the rationalizations and justifications that paedophiles have for their deviant behaviour. Cognitive distortions contribute to the paedophile’s belief that sexual activity with children is acceptable, and that children enjoy sex with adults. Dr. Collins concluded that child pornography, cognitive distortions and the validation of the belief that sexual activity with children is acceptable are inextricably linked.
[end quote]

Firstly, Collins says, the moral fundamental that ‘sex with children is unacceptable’ is literally warped out of shape within the brain by ideas arising from exposure to child pornography. Secondly, porn introduces the unthinkably unrealistic idea that ‘children enjoy sex with adults’ as a new fun-house mirror deep in the pedophile’s mind.

Collin’s first proposition is basic Victorianism: seeing any depiction of forbidden sex unforbids it. Child porn makes sex with children seem do-able. Depicting adultery makes adultery happen. Writing about promiscuity produces orgies. Allowing sale of Lady Chatterley’s Lover weakens the family. Cognitive distortions consist of permissions to accept the unacceptable, and these permissions are caused by viewing a representation of the unacceptable. Freedom of speech thus must be limited so that it doesn’t allow any representation of forbidden sex. Thought must be limited to what is legally allowed in real life – but only in the case of sex. Sex has more corrupting juju than violence or any other topic that can be shown in books, photos and movies. There are no legally problematical cognitive distortions built up by watching a grisly revenge murder on TV, but such distortions are built up by seeing realistic or cartoon imagery showing sexuality in a child.

The second proposition – that children do not enjoy sex with adults – is what philosophers, technically, would call an ‘empirical’ question. It is a real-world item that could be tested by an experiment: you could allow 500 children to decide privately if they wanted to have sex with any of 500 attractive adults, count how many (if any) decided to do so, and then interview them at later time intervals about whether or not they enjoyed it. Human behavior is a part of biology, and answers to biological questions (except where physical or chemical limits are involved) are usually statistical. It would be statistically safe to predict that some proportion of the children would enjoy sex with adults – perhaps some of the 14 year old heterosexual boys who admired the 21 year old supermodels in the adult test group. Think of the classic Summer of 42 (’42), one of the most successful movies in history. Its author, Herman Raucher, did indeed fall in love with and have sex with a 30-something woman when he was a child of 14. Evidently he enjoyed the experience very much; he spent years looking for his Dorothy and wrote a movie and a book about his profound experience of love with her.

Nonetheless, such a ‘how many kids like Raucher are there?’ experiment cannot ethically or legally be run. Its outcome can only be imagined. Collins therefore proposes the bizarre cognitive short-cut of stating that imagining one experimental outcome, non-enjoyment, is cognitively well formed, while imagining the other, enjoyment, is cognitively distorted. Indeed, extending Collin’s pseudo-logic, reading Raucher’s autobiographical story, which graphically shows a child enjoying sex with an adult, provides permanent brain corruption.

And Collins is supposed to be a scientist.

Collins is currently serving, according to National Post writer Matthew Fisher, as unofficial rabbi for the American allied forces in southern Afghanistan ( ). One hopes his Talmudic judgment is sounder than his scientific judgment.

The fact that the Canadian Supreme Court ate up this preposterous set of ideas from Collins shows desperation. Some rationale has to be found to ban child pornography, and this weird set of Victorian presumptions thinly dressed in a scientific burqa will have to do, if nothing better comes to hand. Child pornography causes abuse by distortedly suggesting that Herman Raucher’s reality can be real in some cases and by making thinking so seem acceptable. It’s wonderful stuff if you’re a student of propaganda, but who can take it seriously as legitimate thought?

The U.S. courts have not been kind to the OTF argument, at least not in considering whether manga and similar cartoons showing child-like characters having sex should be included in child pornography prosecutions. Quayle herself notes what they said (p. 17-18):

In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) a majority of the Supreme Court struck down portions of the Child Pornography 18/Child Pornography and Sexual Exploitation of Children Online Prevention Act of 1996, stating that [prosecution of] virtual child pornography created without real or identifiable minors was unconstitutionally overbroad (Quayle, 2008). The US Court stated that, “Virtual child pornography is not ‘intrinsically related’ to the sexual abuse of children.

While the Government asserts that the images can lead to actual instances of child abuse, the causal link is contingent and indirect. The harm does not necessarily follow from the speech, but depends upon some quantified potential for subsequent criminal acts”.
[end quote]

What this means is that the court rejected the direct causality of abuse by images that are products of imagination. It allowed that some people might experience such an effect, viewing images and deciding to imitate them, but stated that this was based partly on whatever else was going on with those people, not just on the fact that they viewed images.

Even where it is accepted, the OTF argument has the limitation that what it refers to must be so clearly erotic that traditional Victorian limitations against talk about sex can be deployed against it. The pornography that is banned must clearly be pornography. A child non-erotically modelling in a basketball uniform cannot be treated as a subject of pornography, even if multitudes of pedophiles collect the images. The floodgates are opened by the nature of the images themselves, not purely by the overactive imaginations of the image viewers.

Quayle’s mission, therefore, is to provide the world with something better than OTF that can really root out child pornography completely.

I am going to quote from Quayle’s writing here and try to explain it afterward. Her writing is normally lucid and easy to understand, but it tends to divide into a mixture of obscurantism and shibboleths – obscure explanations followed by mostly unexplained moral pronouncements – when she gets to the heart of her argument. My inserted explanations are in braces { }.

p. 20 Indeed, opponents of these measures {against porn cartoons and the like}, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, have argued that people’s thoughts are their private thoughts, and that prohibition of pseudo-child pornography is a violation of free speech rights (Taylor and Quayle, 2003). However, Oswell (2006) has presented an important argument against this stating that, “Although the evidential value of the virtual image is different from an actual image (and hence the forms of police investigation and legal prosecution are different), until an image can be said to correspond to an actual case of child sexual abuse, all Internet child pornography can be viewed as real.

In this sense, the primary concern is not one of the effects of the image on others {OTF is dismissed as a primary concern} or one of the relations of power encoded in the image, but one of the virtual evidentiality of the image (ie, on the image’s capacity to refer to an objective reality that is both internal and external to the image). The ethical intensity of the virtual image lies precisely in its capacity to refer to a scene beyond itself ” (Oswell p. 258). Oswell (2006) goes on to state that the crime of possession, making or distribution of child pornography (whether virtual or not) is a crime not only against a particular child, but against all children. “It is a crime against childhood as a universal” (p. 252).

We argue that the crime of possession, and making or distribution of child pornography, whether virtual or not, are (sic) crimes not only against a particular child, but against all children.
[end quote]

Quayle echoes the last sentence above when she says (p. 10):

In this paper the term ‘sexual exploitation’ refers to activities that may include sexual abuse of children but may also refer to activities where no such abuse has taken place but where the very nature of the activities violates the very essence of childhood.
[end quote]

Looking through the first quote step by step, we see a civil libertarian argument answered by a strange sounding counter-argument from London-based sociologist David Oswell ( ). If you go to that link, by the way, and read the quoted snippet where Oswell describes parliamentary democracy happening separately to different parts of the human body (it sort of makes sense when you get there), you’ll see that Oswell is not a ‘plain English’ champion. He’s a practitioner of what I call the ‘sociological playfulness dialect’ that was popularized by famous French sociologist Jacques Derrida. The prominent language philosopher Noam Chomsky called it “pretentious rhetoric” and “obscurantism” but it became a major trend, since it tended to remove academic sociology to a verbal perch far away from common newspaper speech about the same topics. We find Quayle reaching up into this academic bird cage to pull out one of Oswell’s productions. (For the full Oswell article, see )

“Although the evidential value of the virtual image is different from an actual image, until an image can be said to correspond to an actual case of child sexual abuse, all Internet child pornography can be viewed as real.” Or, translated and made slightly case-specific, “though a cartoon can’t be used as evidence of child abuse, during the time we don’t know whether or not the cartoon was modelled on a real case of someone engaging sexually with a child, all such cartoons can still be treated as child abuse.”
[end quote]

The sentence as a whole makes little sense as a logical construction, but each of its three component clauses can be understood. The important part is the last bit. Cartoon sexuality involving children is as real as living sexuality involving children. This roughly relates to an earlier argument about UK anti-child porn legislation in Oswell’s paper:

Both {real photos and unreal images showing child sexual engagement or a child presented as erotic} are deemed records of crimes, although in one case {the unreal} the crime is virtual, rather than actual. If the legal status of the indecent photograph rests on it being a record of a real crime, then the indecent pseudo-photograph equally constitutes the record of a real crime. It is not a question of possibility {that a crime involving a real victim might be involved in the past or future}. This is a crime that has occurred in a virtual space. Just as when a stick is placed half in water it appears to bend at the point between water and air, the pseudo-photograph is real. It has reference and extension {it refers to a real type of situation and it takes up space, or, if Oswell means semantic rather than physical extension, it denotes some range of corresponding realities}. The virtual image of the submerged part of the stick has all the observable features of the stick once removed fully from the water, but when you place your hand in the water the stick is not where it appears. You cannot touch it where you see it. For UK legislation there is no dispute about the original and the counterfeit; both are defined through the criterion of the virtual image, of the simulacra {i.e., things showing similarity to something real}. (pdf p. 6)
[end quote]

You might think that when the cartoon porn viewer commits the “virtual crime…that occurred in a virtual space” he can only do so if there is an imaginary child who is the victim. Indeed, such a child does exist in Oswell’s world, the “virtual child:” “each time an image is used the virtual child is victimised (pdf p. 9)” In writing this, though, Oswell makes it clear that his concepts lean heavily on a previous publication by none other than Ethel Quayle, in combination with her boyfriend or husband Max Taylor and another colleague (Taylor et al., 2001). Ethel is very much at the heart of this whole “virtual child” line of discourse. She comes very close to quoting herself when she quotes Oswell.

In case this notion of a phantom child swirling in the mysteries of new-technology-space seems unconvincing or even, well, childish, an appeal is made to greater abstractions. Oswell says:

{In UK law,}the ‘photograph’ becomes the measure of the real and its observation. In this sense, the implicit prioritisation in UK law of virtual child pornography means that the crime of possession, making or distribution of child pornography (whether virtual or not) is a crime not only against a particular child, but against all children. It is a crime against childhood as a universal.
[end quote]

This hymn to the abstract condition of being a child stands alone in legal history, as far as I know. It doesn’t withstand general comparison well. For example, if zoophile porn were illegal in the UK (I don’t know if it is or not), it would be hard to imagine Oswell stating that possession of cartoon images of sex with dogs in the UK was considered to be a crime against caninity (doggyness) as a universal. His phrasing here has a preachy quality that can only be used with regard to children. It could just be dismissed as overblown rhetoric – but stay tuned. There’s more to it than that.

Oswell also argues that to possess a cartoon showing underage erotica is to sexually assault all children at the same time. Quayle uses this quotation as a pivotal statement in her paper.

We argue that the crime of possession, and making or distribution of child pornography, whether virtual or not, are crimes not only against a particular child, but against all children.
[end quote]

Finally, going as far out on this limb as is possible, Quayle calls upon a particularly grandiose abstraction, the “essence of childhood”, and states that this abstraction can be criminally violated by sexual activities involving no abuse.

In this paper the term ‘sexual exploitation’ refers to activities that may include sexual abuse of children but may also refer to activities where no such abuse has taken place but where the very nature of the activities violates the very essence of childhood.
[end quote]

You might wonder how any of these far-fetched ideas about the rape of essences of childhood, and the mass sexual exploitation of global populations of electronic virtual children, could gain any toehold on academic or legal credibility. I believe this to be a convergence of two factors. One is that the ancient Greek philosophy that gave us concepts like the essence of childhood or childhood as a universal – the Idea of childhood, as students of Plato would put it – is still very much a part of our educational system. The other is that the decline of Judeo-Christianity in many societies has left the door open for the re-emergence of animistic beliefs in people who have drifted into “new age” ideas. In animistic or shamanistic religions, images can be very powerful, carrying spirits within them and allowing living people to be cursed or otherwise harmed via actions carried out in private with the images.

I am going to label Quayle’s approach to child pornography the Spirit Possession (SP) approach. The viewpoint she shares with Oswell – that a child or children can be abused through looking at an image even when there was never a real-world abuse event or when the viewer has no causal or supportive connection to such an event – is pure new age pseudo-shamanism. The virtual child in the image is an animistic spirit, no more and no less. That this concept appeals to people shows how rapidly popular spirituality has drifted back towards paganism since World War II gave Judeo-Christianity a beating (how could God allow such evil?). In the UK in particular, a secular, socialist government is enacting legislation that, at least as explained by Oswell, is based on what in Christian terms would be idolatry – attributing spirits requiring devotion to purely artificial objects of human manufacture. The images hold what the Japanese would call a ‘kami,’ the ancient Romans a ‘genius,’ the ancient Greeks a ‘daimon.’ There is a child in there, a virginal child, and it can be protected or abused. Ancient Romans would indeed make sacrifices to images of Juno Virginalis, the ‘genius’ of the virginal female child. Quayle would doubtless be surprised to know that she, in effect, has dedicated herself to the protection of a modernized version of this demigod. Much like Collins, the guru of Canadian OTF, she sees childhood as completely virginal in nature, and the Summer of 42 and similar child-adult sex stories as unthinkable by nature, completely foreign and unknown to the natural essence of childhood. The essence of childhood is romantically innocent, and actual experiences of un-innocent pleasure (if we can call them that), though they may be valued life-long as Herman Rauscher’s were, do not cast their dross upon it. A pure demi-goddess cannot be influenced by such mortal moments in the dirt of sexual enjoyment.

The abstract ideas cited by Quayle, Taylor and Oswell – childhood as a universal, the essence of childhood – may seem to be quite far from the idea of spirit possession. In fact, though, they are part and parcel of it. The ancient Greek philosophy in our education system gives us the word ‘essence’ as used by Aristotle and followers, who were for the most part modern thinkers. In this sense, the word refers purely to the general information that can be used to describe a class of objects – e.g., a dog has a tail, a snout, sharp teeth, an excellent sense of smell, etc. This is not what Quayle and company are getting at with “the essence of childhood.” We also have the word ‘essence,’ though, as an equivalent of Plato’s concept of Forms or Ideas. Quayle and company appear to use it in this sense. One thing historians of philosophy seem not to have noticed about Plato is that many of his most famous ideas (or Socrates’ ideas, if you take Plato literally in crediting Socrates) are scarcely distinguishable from worldwide shamanistic concepts ( In Plato’s book, Republic, there is a famous section called the Allegory of the Cave ( where he compares day-to-day life to a play of shadows on the walls of a cave. The immortal realities that give rise to the shadows of daily life are the unchanging Ideas, or Forms, which are located in their own sphere of perfect reality, outside the human mind. “Childhood as a universal” and “the essence of childhood” are both Ideas of this type, existing not as changeable mental concepts but as higher realities beyond any and all individual children.

The basic beliefs of shamanism are identical to this, but are not easily seen to be so because they most typically focus on animals. Above and beyond all individual deer is a Deer spirit, an Idea of the Deer, which may become the protector of you or your clan. When you kill a deer, you make an apology to the Deer spirit. ‘Deer as a universal,’ ‘the essence of deer,’ lives in and beyond all individual deer. If you kill a deer badly, or waste parts of it, you abuse the Deer spirit. It is wounded, and it may retaliate. If someone on a vision quest has made a sacred pictograph of a deer on a rock and you deface it, the Deer spirit feels the blow. Let’s look at Oswell again in this context: “It is not a question of possibility. This is a crime that has occurred in a virtual space… there is no dispute about the original and the counterfeit; both are defined through the criterion of the virtual image, of the simulacra.” It’s a perfect fit. If we took Oswell as being correct on the matter, current British child pornography law and shamanic concepts about spirit pictures would be identical in nature.

The SP model of child pornography conforms to normal shamanism by endowing images with an individual spirit (the re-abusable real child or the ‘virtual child’ shown) and a broader Typological Spirit (the child as a universal, the essence of childhood, all children as a category). Thus, abuse can happen where there is no victim, and where there is no causation affecting a possible future victim (as the OTF model would need to imagine). The abuse occurs perfectly as an Idea of Exploitation committed against the Idea of the Child in a modern version of Plato’s cave. Believe it or not, in the UK, that ethereal notion is sufficient to condemn you to many years in prison. You have gravely offended the Child spirit(s).

The BTMBTSM model may incriminate those who make real child porn, plus those who provide the makers value (money, other porn, compliments), plus those who give value to the first rank of users who supported the original porn maker, and so on. Perhaps everyone on the internet who has ever traded something for a child porn photo or video could remotely be considered an accessory to the crime, though in practice many people download such things without providing money, other porn, or thanks. The OTF model could incriminate everyone who looks at any image of real or imaginary child pornography, but it is weak, based on a conjecture about what they might do. The SP model seems to be just about perfect for prosecution, since it condemns every child porn viewer without any need to establish difficult connections to real-world exploitation or to causality of exploitation. How far, in fact, does it go?

In the OTF model, the existence of pornographic images or stories is very important, since these items can be transferred from person to person. This propagates the mind-weakening ideas and helps to make the images themselves odious, even if they do not arise from actual abuse. In the SP model, though, the fact that images and stories can be passed around is threatening, but it doesn’t make the basic crime of offending the Child spirit any worse. Suppose a person were to find a discarded computer in a dumpster and, on opening it, find it to contain child pornography that he then wanted to use in personal viewing. He uses the porn and then destroys the computer. His crime in the SP system would be nearly as great as that of the long-time porn trader who originally put the images on the computer. He has still sexually exploited all the real children involved in the production of the images, as well as all the virtual children in the cartoon images he viewed, plus childhood as a universal, the essence of childhood, and ‘all children.’

If all the images on the computer were cartoons, his crime would be no less grave. What could be more serious than sexually violating the very essence of childhood?

But suppose there were no computer. Suppose only his own mind made up the imaginary pictures of sexuality involving children. The mind, like the computer, is an electronic medium. The fact that it involves the co-firing of neurons to produce images rather than the mobilization of electronic circuits is neither here nor there. The images that it produces, to quote Oswell, have “reference and extension,” even though our current neurological knowledge doesn’t yet allow us to map the exact physical extension of a mental image. Oswell’s analogy about the stick (“The virtual image of the submerged part of the stick has all the observable features of the stick once removed fully from the water, but when you place your hand in the water the stick is not where it appears”) still applies, even though at the current state of our technology, only the owner of the brain can see the submerged portion of the stick. Quayle, quoting Oswell, makes it clear that “the ethical intensity of the virtual image {the perceived ethical need to take strong action in response to the virtual image} lies precisely in its capacity to refer to a scene beyond itself. ” Thought-based imagery refers to “scenes beyond itself” just as much as electronic imagery does. All Quayle and Oswell’s arguments apply as much to thought as to images and writings.

The images in the brain can’t be directly exchanged from person to person, but exchange is not essential to SP incrimination. Virtual sexual exploitation alone is sufficient to constitute a crime. True, at this point in history, the mental images can’t be proven in court to exist, though progress in neuroscience today is so rapid that we may be only a decade or two away from this. The person may, however, communicate some small part of his thoughts to another person who has a similar imagination. He may say to his anonymous online contacts, “the little boy next door is so cute, I wish I could marry him.” That could be enough to trigger an orgy of virtual child exploitation in the minds of whoever reads the text. The readers might only form their own lustful mental ideas of what the little boy next door looks like, but that would be enough to make them sexual exploiters of the virtual child, the essence, the universal, and all children. If they received a blurry photograph of him going by on his bicycle and used that image to edit their fantasies, then they would be sexually exploiting the boy directly, injuring his spirit. None of this could be proven in court, but if one reader said, “yes, I see what you mean. I’d like to marry him too,” then it could be reasonably inferred.

Therefore, it follows far more strongly from the SP model of child pornography control than the OTF model that communication among pedophiles cannot be allowed to any degree. Even knowing that someone else has similar thoughts may cause the pedophile to increase his sexual assault on the essence of childhood. No pedophile thought is safe to be communicated; all of it may cause mental images that have “reference and extension” in relation to unacceptable scenes. Even knowing that it’s another pedophile complaining about the weather today may cause you to wonder what pedophilic thoughts he has had lately. Child-exploitative mental imagery is then almost inevitable, and may soon be followed by writing or cartooning referring to this imagery. The ‘essence of childhood’ must suffer enormously from this constant sexual thought. After all, in the Quayle viewpoint, the crime even when images are involved resides entirely in the pedophile’s child-violating thoughts. Possession of photos or cartoons merely constitutes evidence of these thoughts.

The COPINE project that Quayle is a ringleader of is a European-Union-funded ‘research’ project that produces writings supportive of legislative committee efforts to criminalize all ‘pedophile information fora.’ (see the “Postscript” at – currently a dead link) Not child pornography, not places where real children may be exploited, but instead, information fora, or forums as we would say in North America. The BTMBTSM and OTF models are limited to erotica, and the former requires a real-world victim. The SP model has a license to make direct judgments about your brain and personality, insofar as any clues can be found about these things.

As Oswell says, discussing the work of Taylor, Holland and Quayle,

The distinction between pornography and erotica – used normally in the context of debates about adult pornography to distinguish between harmless and harmful material or, to put it crudely, between material with a sexual use and material with an aesthetic use – is now used to extend the range of concern predicated on the underlying personality of the individual user. But for Taylor et al, as for Lanning, the personality of the paedophile is disclosed, not through direct investigation of the mind itself, but through the manifestation of its motivated actions. It is the collection of images that provides the symptomatic evidence of motivation and hence of the underlying personality. Thus, for example, supposedly innocent pictures of children may be read as ‘erotic’ and interpreted in the context of the collection as a whole.
[end quote]

Oswell says ‘images’ in this particular passage, but other passages make it clear that writings are also considered part of the same problem. Any seemingly innocent material about children, if collected in a way that suggests a pedophile is the collector, indicates virtual sexual exploitation in the mind of the pedophile. This then taints the images or writings with something much like a shamanic taboo violation, and puts them on the COPINE scale, where politicians and jurists may decide to what extent their un-innocence will be criminalized or medicalized. Meanwhile, the problematic “underlying personality” of the pedophile that can turn innocent images into harbingers of crime may be communicating with other such “underlying personalities” on the internet. Clearly the free speech and free thought value of this communication is compromised by the innate tendency to mental crime. Thus, shutting down the free communication of completely law abiding members of a minority sexual orientation is easily justified, since the very sexual thoughts that define the orientation are crimes that are merely waiting to be evidenced.

The world has not seen a combination of animism (spirit belief) and totalitarian mind control like this since François (Papa Doc) Duvalier ruled Haiti (1957-1971) ( ). Only in the context of the current craze about pedophilia could such a despotic, non-Western set of ideas become lodged in secular academia and major governmental bodies. When did the UK ever before embed something that is essentially a piece of voodoo, the virtual child, in its legislation?

The secular perspective on the SP model of child pornography is that it is a gross invasion of new age spiritualism and extreme totalitarian thought-control mechanisms into areas of society that should be ruled by reason, intelligence and moderation. It is a grand folly and will grow to become a monster if it is left unchecked. Quayle is not by nature an academic and should be put out the door of academia to found her spirit cult elsewhere. Her attempts to warp the European Union to her fantastical beliefs should be firmly rejected.

(Since this essay first appeared in a church), what about the religious viewpoint?

People often think of Judaeo-Christianity as being inclined to mystify things and to censor thoughts. Indeed, our religions have not been innocent of these trends, and yet, they have succeeded as well as they have partly because of their built-in skepticism and liberality. An image is just an image in our religions. To imagine otherwise is not just wrong; it’s filthy. Christianity is now flourishing in Africa partly because it is replacing traditional beliefs where images and other ‘simulacra’ could be used in abuse. It offers precious freedom from these sorts of cultural ghosts.

[ quote]
10:5 “Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field are they {the images}, and they cannot speak. They must be carried, because they cannot walk! Do not fear them, for they can do no harm, nor can they do any good.”

Isaiah 44:9 All who make idols are nothing, and the things they treasure are worthless. Those who would speak up for them are blind; they are ignorant, to their own shame.
[end quote]

The new-technology representations, first paper photographs (still made of wood for the most part, though in fiber form) and later electronic photographs and videos, are just as dumb and empty by nature as the carved wooden idols of the Canaanites. The virtual child that Quayle, Oswell and their colleagues invoke in their academic works is an ‘abomination’ in Judeo-Christianity. The typological spirit that they invoke, the Essence or Universal, is an even grosser abomination. This is not because these image-spirit ideas offend God; in this case, the images are not directly worshipped by anyone. It is because they invent a non-existent spirit world that leads people astray and out of contact with reality. This hoodwinking of people with phoney spirits that must be propitiated and never offended or abused allows despotism to establish itself.

Judeo-Christianity, on the other hand, has nurtured parliamentary and republican democracy, and we who adhere to these religions will not easily be persuaded to surrender our complex network of rights and freedoms.

The interest of Judeo-Christianity is in protecting children, actual children, not pictorial ghosts, essences or universal spirits.

Mark 9:36 Taking a child, (Jesus) set him before them, and taking him in His arms, He said to them, 37 “Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me.”
[end quote]

Children are to be treated with utmost respect: each one must be treated as if he or she were as important as Jesus himself, or even as the One who sent Jesus.

As the US courts have already decided, the BTMBTSM model of child pornography control offers sufficient scope for drawing up legislation that protects actual children from being hurt by pornographers or by people who pay, trade with or otherwise support those pornographers.

In historical cases of legally produced erotica that later became redefined as child pornography, there is no reason to infer abuses that may never have happened and pains that may not have been caused. Retro-illegality is not justified in BTMBTSM. Moreover, the Japanese are not oblivious to reality when they consider cartoons to be mere cartoons. Cartoons ARE just cartoons. We don’t dynamite coyotes off mile-high mesas or go ballet dancing with hippopotamuses, and we don’t imitate the sex acts we see in cartoons either. The USA is often looked upon skeptically in many parts of the world, but at least it still defends freedom of thought against prohibitions arising from indiscriminate causal guesswork (OTF model) and pagan spirit phantasms (SP model). A relatively high level of active Christianity in the US may help to maintain its appreciation of free will (and hence the value of freedom) and the fundamentally material nature of products of human manufacture, including electronic images. The first of these appreciations negates OTF, and the second negates SP. One hopes this aspect of the American ethos will re-emerge into the world and deal with these new voodoo thought-control ideas before they can ruin the lives of too many harmless, innocent people. Who may be – believe it or not – pedophiles.


Mick Moran of Interpol and ‘Pro-active Pedophile Policing’…


Date: February 24, 2014

Notice of Raw Links:

Posted by Bernie Najarian on Monday February 24th, 2014

01) BoyChat Post

A hot summer evening in my teenaged years. I’m on the main street of my home town, standing out in the open air, cooling down. The only air conditioning in town is in the supermarket, and it’s blocks away. Other patrons of the Family Restaurant spill out onto the sidewalk. A well dressed woman brings her glass of white wine out with her. She talks to her friends; they form a knot in front of the restaurant.

Two uniformed police officers come down the sidewalk on a routine patrol. They show no sign of noticing the restaurant customers. Suddenly, one officer spikes his arm out and neatly flicks the woman’s wine glass out of her hand. It flies several feet away and smashes on the sidewalk. The officer keeps walking by, doesn’t stop to look. The woman is astonished, looking around with her mouth open, but she says nothing. No one says anything. The police walk on as if nothing had happened. After all, she’d been breaking the law. Liquor outside the permitted area. The police reaction wasn’t perfectly legal, but who was going to complain?

I think the person most impacted by this incident was me. It wasn’t just that I realized that police could step outside the law. I’d seen police brutality on the news. When I saw police violence with my own eyes, though, I was struck by the idea that in all police work, there are two contradictory goals involved. One is to uphold the law – that’s the theoretical, book-learnin’ reality of their situation. The other is to maintain control of a concept of public order. That’s the spontaneous, real-world bit – the part that demands some improvising. It may seem very practical, even necessary, when you’re working the streets – but it sometimes gets police officers into trouble.

Ever since a videotape showing the beating of Los Angeles construction worker Rodney King sparked deadly riots in 1993, after the officers involved were all acquitted of assault with a deadly weapon, police have had increasing difficulty maintaining order and deference by pushing across the legal line. Security cameras and cellphones are everywhere, and they can’t all be seized. Youtube contains hundreds of examples of police misbehavior. In almost all cases, the officers involved have been embarrassed by those visual records, and in some cases, they’ve been dismissed or jailed. Nonetheless, in police work, the temptation to use a little extra force to maintain order must be intense. The book of rules is fusty and full of potential loopholes, and criminals may live on the edge and laugh at the law. Personal policing convenience, as well as duty to the public, may seem at times to call for some application of freelance force.

These days, on the other hand, there is a concerted effort among police officers not to be thugs. They get college degrees. Many read policing journals that are academic in tone. This increasing sophistication, however, has a potential drawback for the public. It offers up some strong-arm opportunities that can’t be captured on Youtube. One of those came up in 2011 when some people who were obviously sexually interested in boys appeared to be pushing the legal envelope with an online company called Azov Films. The company sold videos and photographs – completely non-sexual in terms of content – featuring boys from 8 to 16 doing sports and recreation activities in the buff. Legal naturism, the website called the material. And indeed, the site had been raided by local authorities in Toronto, Canada – its home base – in 2005, and had been found to be legally in the clear. So there it was, brazenly selling naked boys to erotically interested parties and processing credit card numbers. Like the woman with the wine glass, it was enjoying itself a little too freely.

The name Azov Films will be familiar to many readers, but for those who don’t know the story, the company suddenly disappeared in May, 2011. Then, mostly between Sept. 2012 and Sept., 2013, hundreds of its customers were arrested, one by one, mostly in Canada, the U.S., Australia, Norway and Spain. The police operation involved was labeled Project Spade. How could this happen when ‘legal naturism,’ which had passed a raid and also been given the green light by lawyers, was the only product sold? It was simple – the police, in collaboration with prosecutors, used their sophistication to move the boundaries of the law in their respective nations. In Canada, where the Criminal Code allowed a judge to decide purely subjectively if nudist photography of children had a ‘sexual purpose’ that would make it criminal, they pitched the idea that this purpose was operating in the case of Azov Films. That was not unreasonable, and it was reinforced by the knowledge that Markus Roth, a Romania-based producer of a proportion of Azov’s wares, had been convicted in the past for a sex offense involving an underage boy in his native Germany. In the U.S., the law was much more on Azov’s side – several court cases had strongly protected ‘nudity only’ photographic content involving children, and successful prosecution for child pornography required demonstrating that there was ‘lascivious’ content.

Complaints had been coming in about Azov to websites where citizens are asked to report child pornography. Police in the US were not about to let Azov smirk at them behind the skirts of the law. The outraged citizens didn’t care about the ‘nudity only’ defence. So the police unit involved, the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), did a little freelance improvisation on behalf of social order. They simply reclassified the normal actions seen in sports as ‘lascivious.’ Whenever a boy playing a game happened to face the camera frontally, the affidavit said he was ‘displaying the genitals.’ If, in sporting, he bent over, the charges said he was ‘exposing the anus.’ The anus itself was never seen, as was clear from reading affidavits, but the phrasing alone was enough to make any bending seem like a sex act. So 76 Americans who had used their credit cards to buy legal naturism, safely circumscribed by the law, suddenly found the police tearing their homes apart, and the press tearing their reputations to shreds. And none of it, on Youtube, would have looked any different from a normal child pornography bust.

The hapless men, many of them professionals in late middle age who had never broken a significant law, would have been far safer to proxy onto the Dark Web and download hardcore child porn. For their adherence to legality, they received the beating of their lives – sitting in prison, professionally ruined, with their deviant sexualities exposed to all by the local press. They experienced the full force of ‘state-rape,’ as Kristofor Xavier has so poignantly called it – sexual mortification through violent exposure by the state. And the violation of their legal compliance was completely invisible to the press. Indeed, by publicizing the minority of cases where arrestees were found to possess conventional child pornography or to have committed contact or photographic offenses with children they knew, USPIS made sure that all the arrestees appeared to be perverted rogues who were justly being removed from their communities.

To cap off their venture into white-collar Rodney King policing, USPIS did something nearly unimaginable. As I, along with collaborators, have detailed with information that is easily independently verified in mainstream newpaper and Justice Department sources (see the article Pedophobe of the Year – Paul Krawczyk, Toronto Police), USPIS claimed that 330 children were rescued from sexual exploitation by the American arm of Project Spade – but they appear to have completely fabricated at least 200 of those children. Also, most of the remaining 130 ‘rescued’ children were never sexually contacted or otherwise made aware of being subjects of sexual interest. Instead, they were videotaped in full or partial nudity, without their knowledge, by one of two arrestees who had a penchant for hidden cameras. These two, one in Ohio and one in Georgia, were school employees who each made secret recordings of numerous students in school showers or in the washroom. The videos were not distributed, and the current or former children would never have known anything had happened, if not for the arrests. Ironically, their ‘rescue’ consisted of learning from police that they’d unknowingly been filmed – any psychological distress that ensued can surely be chalked up to police intervention. The number of children found in contact sexual situations that were ongoing on at the time of the arrests was no greater than six. The making up of hundreds of nonexistent victims greatly aided USPIS in portraying all their Project Spade arrestees as dangerous men. It was a lie, but it worked in terms of ninja policing, and none of the dirty work involved could be exposed on a video screen.

Now, let’s step back a moment. An accusation that a reputable police force deliberately fabricated public disinformation sounds extreme. How can it be true? Some readers may wonder if I am not being unfair to USPIS – tendentious, biased, even fanatical. Couldn’t there still be some way that the hundreds of proclaimed victims could be reconciled with the handful that are actually documented by the Justice Department? And moreover, don’t I have a vested interest? Aren’t I, like so many assertive members of minority groups, simply grinding an axe for my own perceived benefit?

In fact, the item that makes this article different from its predecessors is that I have a top-level, publicly published personal statement, from a police officer admitting that the principals of Spade are his colleagues, that the law will be treated as incidental when it comes to controlling perceived pedophiles. Pedophiles who are ‘active’ even in the viewing of benign images, the officer says, must be controlled ‘regardless of illegality.’ Read on.

The confession I’m referring to was elicited by a contact, Kamil Beylant (not quite his real name), who maintains a Twitter account – I call him ‘the Turk who makes my Armenian life complete.’ He publicizes my articles, among other items of interest to the minor-attracted activist community. Last week, he reports, he searched in Twitter on ‘Project Spade,’ and to the half-dozen tweeters who had mentioned it in recent weeks, he sent a link to a mirror post of my article on Toronto Police officer Paul Krawczyk (linked above) and his role in the arrests. One of the recipients turned out to be a smart looking young-ish gentleman with the name Mick Moran. A glance at his Twitter header and some browsing revealed that he was INTERPOL’s temporary acting assistant director of cybersecurity and crime, and head of the Human Trafficking & Child Exploitation unit. He responded vigorously to the tweet. The conversation below starts with his original tweet, a joke that cited Project Spade. I have added a small amount of punctuation to clarify the text. An interesting side-conversation has been edited out; we’ll come back to it later.

mickmoran ?@mickmoran Feb 16
#projectspade was on the boylover case. #NAMBLA will tell you all about them, but i prefer this version: (Link to South Park television episode featuring comic version of NAMBLA- BN)

Kamil Beylant ?@Securityconcern Feb 19
@mickmoran For well researched background on the bizarre international politics of Project Spade, see

mickmoran ?@mickmoran Feb 19
Thank you @Securityconcern.”MAPs” purchasing or making pictures of naked children is a form of child exploitation as the child is not aware. (MAPs are ‘minor attracted persons’ – BN)

mickmoran ?@mickmoran Feb 19
@Securityconcern In some jurisdictions it is illegal. but it demonstrates an escalation of activity by “map”‘s that — (Syntax suggests he meant to say ‘not illegal’ – BN)

mickmoran ?@mickmoran Feb 19
@Securityconcern … must be interpreted as an increased risk to children regardless of the illegality.

mickmoran ?@mickmoran Feb 19
@Securityconcern For the record – I am a colleague of all officers named in the slanted report you forwarded me.

mickmoran ?@mickmoran Feb 19
@Securityconcern If a “MAP” is living his life without acting out then they will never become subject of any attention, legal or otherwise–

mickmoran ?@mickmoran Feb 19
@Securityconcern …however, any acting out by a “MAP” has potential to harm a child and must result in action by public safety officials.

mickmoran ?@mickmoran Feb 19
@Securityconcern As for international politics referred to, I think you’ll find it’s a state -v- local issue that is common to both AU and CA.

These tweets came in in a batch. Kamil responded when he came back online.

Kamil Beylant ?@Securityconcern
@mickmoran We have no objection to what was done to Roth under Romanian law, and concede that Canadian law gave fair warning. US law…

Kamil Beylant ?@Securityconcern
@mickmoran … did not, in any reasonably clear way, ban the material; previous decisions had upheld the legality of ‘nudity only.’

Kamil Beylant ?@Securityconcern
@mickmoran I expect people to follow the laws, whatever they are. But I object to them being trapped by trickery as was done in the US

Kamil Beylant ?@Securityconcern Feb 19
@mickmoran If the legal system decided to reinterpret ‘nudity only’ as exploitation material, a clear public statement should have been made
Responses soon followed.

mickmoran ?@mickmoran
@Securityconcern I am not going to get into a discussion with you about this case or any other. MAPs can be MAPs until the(y) act. —

mickmoran ?@mickmoran Feb 19
@Securityconcern When they act they are suspect. Illegal -vs- exploitation. Nude pictures may not be illegal but it is an acting out by a MAP

mickmoran ?@mickmoran Feb 19
@Securityconcern … and an acting-out MAP is a concern to society as a whole.

Kamil Beylant ?@Securityconcern Feb 19
@mickmoran You seem to have just said that even when nude pix are not illegal, you will treat the holder as a threat. That’s vigilantism.

mickmoran ?@mickmoran Feb 19
@Securityconcern I would prefer not to talk to you further until you tell me who you are. You know who I am. Thanks.

Kamil Beylant ?@Securityconcern Feb 19
@mickmoran I see that the Socratic notion of the value of fair discussion of ideas doesn’t pull much weight with you. You want personalities

mickmoran ?@mickmoran Feb 19
@Securityconcern . If you don’t mind, Socrates, I’d prefer to know as we have a discussion in public. If not…

Kamil Beylant ?@Securityconcern Feb 19
@mickmoran I’d like to, but like everyone else, I have to do go to work, go to shops etc. I’m not in a position to be a shunned social pariah

Kamil Beylant ?@Securityconcern Feb 19
@mickmoran The point that many MAPs choose not to offend (or even to to be in any way impolite) is much too subtle for most people today

mickmoran ?@mickmoran Feb 19
@Securityconcern Who are you? you know who I am.

Kamil Beylant ?@Securityconcern Feb 19
@mickmoran The friendly gesture is appreciated, as is your time.

Kamil Beylant ?@Securityconcern Feb 19 (tweeted to all 20 of his followers, lol – BN)

What do you think? Is it within the mandate of law enforcement to act against those they are worried about “regardless of illegality?”

This didn’t sit well. By the time an answer was seen, though, Kamil and I had had a chance to discuss the situation.

mickmoran ?@mickmoran Feb 19
@Securityconcern I am not interested in being a conduit for your propaganda but nor am I interested in persecuting MAPs. I can be found.

Kamil Beylant ?@Securityconcern Feb 19
@mickmoran Despite our anonymity, if clinching evidence is published that Spade U.S. victim numbers were NOT faked, BN will fully retract

Kamil Beylant ?@Securityconcern Feb 19
@mickmoran I am surprised you confuse such well documented material for propaganda. Check out the facts as given. You’ll find no deception

I stand by the penultimate comment. USPIS needs only to publish the number of ‘children rescued’ for each of the 19 arrestees whose offences have not yet been detailed in the press, and state whether the offenses involved sexual contact or nude photography (as per the definition of ‘children rescued’ given by Paul Krawczyk in the Voice of Russia interview linked in my article). If the missing 200+ rescues can be accounted for credibly, I will publish a complete retraction in the journal of record, namely, Boychat. Yes, it may be part of the wild, nasty, spontaneous internet, but it makes no attempt to suppress the truth when someone needs to publish it. Which puts it a cut above other news media.

As for Moran’s statements, I never thought I’d see the like in print. I told Kamil to make screenshots immediately in case they were deleted, but, days later, they remain in place. Am I easily shocked? Moran comes right out and says that any sign of ‘acting’ or ‘acting out’ by a minor-attracted person, whether or not illegal actions are involved, obliges police engagement. “If an “MAP” is living his life without acting out then (he) will never become subject of any attention, legal or otherwise; however, any acting out by an “MAP” has potential to harm a child and must result in action by public safety officials,” he says. What kind of action will be taken if nothing illegal is being done? In conventional policing, a warning might be issued. In the real world today, those suspected of pedophilic interest are not warned by the police – if they were, the Azov customers might have been just taken in for a chat. The alternative policing strategy is to adjust the boundaries of legality so that the MAP can be taken into custody.

The trick in adjusting the boundaries of legality is to take the pedophiles by surprise. Old style policing confronted pedophiles who carried out clearly illegal acts. The perps knew they were taking risks. New style policing confronts them when they are participating in acts that any lawyer would tell them were legal. It then relies on judicial revulsion to rope them into a cell. Few judges will let a pedophile off the hook if the police assert that he’s dangerous.

For example, consider this Feb. 19, 2014 headline from Australia’s national 7 News: ‘Pedophile thought shirtless images legal.’ In this case, an 81-year-old man with a past criminal record involving contact and pornographic offenses diverged from collecting classical music on the internet and did some searches for ‘shirtless boys.’ He downloaded some apparently safe images. ‘Everyone knows,’ you might say, ‘that shirtless images of males can’t be pornographic even where nudity alone is sufficient to establish pornography.’ The ‘private parts’ of the male include the penis, the scrotum and the anus. Not the breasts, the back or the navel. This has been agreed in our societies for thousands of years. But that view, you see, relates to ‘objective pornography,’ which is part of old-style policing and jurisprudence. The new trend is for ‘contextual pornography,’ where police and prosecutors merely need to speculate that images had a pornographic effect on the arrestee in order to secure a conviction. Inferred pornography, or to borrow the applicable Freudian term, projection-pornography – this is the new surprise move. A shrewish squint at the arrestee’s probable mental contents completely replaces the images themselves in determining what is porn and what isn’t. What amounts to gossip has been enshrined as a means of jailing people.

The Rodney King move to watch out for here is the use of the word ‘context.’ Have a look in this Australian case.

(Defense lawyer) Ralph Bleechmore described the offending as “borderline activity”, submitting that a person could be titillated or mildly interested in images, falling well short of the legislation’s definitions.

But (Adelaide prosecutor Ms Carmen) Matteo said (arrestee Philip Corlett) Carey deliberately downloaded the material, looking for “safe images” and using search terms including `shirtless boys’.

“It does not make them any less pornographic.”

The more benign images were given a context through the more provocative ones, she added.

We’ll see in a few minutes where that ‘context’ word came from.

In this case, none of the “more provocative” images was said to be conventionally pornographic or sexualized in any way. The arrestee appears to have collected random webfinds, not photos from collections of erotica. One suspects that the level of provocation in the images lay entirely in where the waistline hung on the shorts or trousers that bordered the bare upper torso.

Project Spade, like this pornographic torso case, was a transgressive surprise. It’s very likely that all the customers in the U.S. were sure they were on the right side of the law. A partial history of ‘nudity only’ case law was published on the Azov Films website, and remains visible there in web archives today.

The depiction of adults and children nude in the visual media has enjoyed constitutional protection in the United States since 1958, when the Supreme Court vacated a Court of Appeals finding that Sunshine & Health magazine could be obscene (Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield, Postmaster General, 355 U.S. 372). The right to depict adults and children in innocent nude poses has been upheld without a pause for more than 40 years. In case after case, the Supreme Court and lower courts have always upheld the constitutionality of “nudity without more,” specifically referring to the nudist depiction as a fully constitutional form of expression.

The transgressive police surprise attack prior to Spade was the 2010 worldwide raid on the legal discussion website The elimination of this website of 70,000 members, followed by an unknown number of police raids, resulted, finally, in the arrests of 184 men for crimes they had committed in private channels not connected with the site at all. Yes, 184 men – that’s 0.0026% of the membership, or around 3 per 1000. You could undoubtedly find more pedophile crimes simply by arresting whole American neighborhoods and doing searches and interrogations. The website itself was pronounced completely legally clean by the Dutch government.

Have you noticed in recent years that successful attacks by Al Qaeda and allies, including the destruction of the World Trade Center, succeed because they always come as a surprise? The whole art of terrorism consists of coming up with deadly surprise moves that confound the conventions of the day. Police today are literally engaging in terrorism against legally compliant minor-attracted people. They may use prisons rather than explosives, but their object is to target people going about their legal daily lives, and to surprise them with an unprecedented legal twist that will destroy their comfortable existence forever. These legally compliant pedophiles are much easier to target than the encrypted, proxied hackers who exchange hardcore child pornography on the Dark Web. Legals are sitting ducks. The usual justification for nailing them is that real children will perhaps be protected, some of the time. Inevitably, statistically, that turns out to be true in a few cases, just as it would be if the entire neighborhoods mentioned above were subjected to the same type of screening.

There is a second operational justification for this transgressive policing that doesn’t involve real children – but before we get to it, we need to look at that side-conversation between Beylant and Moran.

mickmoran ?@mickmoran Feb 19
@Securityconcern This is an academic paper that talks about “context” for non-abusive material. Please read it. (The link is to a pdf of ‘Typology of paedophile picture collections,’ the highly influential paper by Max Taylor, Gemma Holland and Ethel Quayle in The Police Journal, vol. 71, 2001, p. 97 – 107. This paper outlined the COPINE classification system for child images that was soon modified and enshrined in British prosecutorial guidelines).

Kamil Beylant ?@Securityconcern
@mickmoran Thanks for responding. A colleague has published an analysis of this paper that you might find insightful (‘Ethel Quayle’s new Spirit of Child Pornography: as a menace to free speech in areas unrelated to porn’ by Kristofor Xavier – BN)

Kamil Beylant ?@Securityconcern Feb 19
@mickmoran Most people who quote Ethel Quayle, Max Taylor et al. do not realize that their viewpoint is based on beliefs resembling animism…

Kamil Beylant ?@Securityconcern
@mickmoran … and that even a ‘common sense’ reinterpretation of their work is often based on the dubious ‘opening the floodgates’ position

mickmoran ?@mickmoran 24h
@Securityconcern Sorry. I can’t agree with that. They are both respected academics who’s (sic) work articulates what I see every day in mine.

In fact, Taylor et al.’s work ‘articulates’ what Moran ‘sees every day’ in his own because this paper is the bible of modern transgressive policing of the minor-attracted. Moran’s fundamental belief system is based on this paper. Within it, the transgression of the boundaries of the law begins early on. The second operational justification for transgressive policing – the point I promised I’d get back to – relates to concern over abuse involving legal images. Believe it or not. Let’s let Taylor et al. explain it.

…By emphasising a psychological approach to pictures attractive to adults with a sexual interest in children, rather than pictures legally defined as obscene, we can identify a range of discernibly different kinds of picture (Taylor, 1999) only some of which may be illegal. The kinds of picture that can be identified range from pictures of clothed children, through nakedness and explicit erotic posing to pictures of a sexual assault on the child photographed. This can be constructed to describe a continuum of increased deliberate sexual victimisation. Any particular example of a photograph attractive to an adult with a sexual interest in children, therefore, can be located along such a continuum of explicit or deliberate sexual victimisation.

…Whether a picture is accidental or deliberate, each time a picture is accessed for sexual purposes it victimises the individual concerned. In a sense, the function of picture collections for the offender is repeatedly to victimise the child concerned, and the victim status is exaggerated by continuing use. Relevant to this, an important purpose of child picture collections for the user is that it allows instant access to the child (or a child) as victim (Healy, 1997).

Here, again, we enter the strange, strange mental world of Taylor and Quayle, outlined so vividly by Kristofor in his epic monograph on their psychological presuppositions. I am much indebted to him for discussions that have allowed me to research and write the remainder of this essay.

Just before I press on, I need to apologize in advance. I was trained to write vividly and clearly. In a few of the paragraphs that follow, I need to dive into some of the most convoluted academic language I have ever seen. I extend my apologies for any difficulty you may have in following along. Stay with me and we’ll resurface into clear text as soon as possible.

In the paragraph I quoted above from Taylor et al., it’s perfectly reasonable to imagine that there is some kind of continuum of intensity that links traditionally legal, attractive photographs of children and ever more explicitly sexualized material. What is distinctly odd is to describe the entire progression as “a continuum of increased deliberate sexual victimisation.” When someone is sexually attracted to children and looks at a photo of some shirtless boys playing baseball, in what sense is anyone ‘deliberately sexually victimised?’ The image has no connection to the actual children seen, other than the impression of their visual form, and they are not affected in the slightest by any erotic arousal the viewer may feel about them. But let’s not just take that last assertion as common sense. Let’s examine it in detail, taking the Taylor and Quayle perspective into account where appropriate.

First, though, let’s deal with one side issue. Taylor and Quayle – as Kristofor noted – work in a scientific field, applied psychology, but they do not function scientifically. Science is all about linking cause to effect, after classifying the various agents involved. The orthodox way to make sure that causes are correctly sorted out and linked to effects is to isolate single causal factors. This is done by means of comparisons called ‘controls.’ In this case, the cause is viewing images with sexual interest; the proposed effect to be linked is victimization. The Taylor et al. approach in this 2001 paper is a wholistic discourse, like a political essay or a religious tract – there is no consideration of possible ‘control’ situations whatsoever. So let’s add one in ourselves. Let’s, as a control, look at another group of people who mainly look at photographs of children to satisfy their erotic appetites – namely, tween girls who read fan magazine material about minor-aged singers, actors and dancers. Beliebers and their successors. Sputter, sputter, how outrageous, many people would say. But in fact the comparison is apt. Like the pedophiles, the girls mostly can’t have sex, and pictures and fantasy scenarios are all they have to make their heart valves flutter. Whether or not they actually masturbate is completely irrelevant – photographic victimisation as a mental process surely is not clicked on and off with the touch of a piece of flesh. Undoubtedly some do touch, but who can say what fraction? In any case, they have a sexual interest in the material. Anyone denying that is so badly out of touch with reality that he or she can only be classed as morally retarded. So let’s consider the girls’ ‘victimisation’ of the boys shown in the milder end of the image continuum at the same time as we look at the pedophiles’ interest – as is proper in a controlled study, even a theoretical one.

Now, how could victimization of the subjects in the images occur? I’m going to look into three major possibilities.

1. Symbolical victimization. Erotic contemplation of the boys playing baseball or singing onstage may not have any direct effect on the boys, but it disrespects them symbolically. They were not asked to consent to being erotically contemplated in image, and they were legally unable to consent to it anyways. Their inferred wishes and well-being have been taken lightly by anyone becoming aroused over their images without their permission. It may seem a little creepy to just get worked up about them when they can’t do anything about it because they’re only images of themselves. Also, arousal towards their photographs – a situation which feminist author Andrea Dworkin vehemently believed made the viewee symbolically subject to the power of the viewer – may desensitize the aroused one towards boys in more compromised photographic situations, or towards boys encountered in real life. Many vicious cycles could be imagined to spring from this callous arousal by images that can no longer be controlled by the people shown.

As we consider these ideas, though, we can see that they seem to fit more comfortably with our test subjects, pedophiles, than they do with our control subjects, tween girls. Why is that? It isn’t that the tween girls are permitted or encouraged, in real life, to have sex with the sorts of boys they are contemplating, making the implied end of their huggy, kissy fantasies socially legitimate. Parentally and/or legally, they’re not allowed to act that way. Nor is it really that they are being encouraged to imagine erotic intimacies with the photographed boys as a stage in their growth towards mature relationships. That would seem rather promiscuous (‘slutty’) of them, even in fantasy, since they can’t actually marry the boys. In any case, the exact nature of their intentions wouldn’t change any symbolic effect their erotic viewing might have on the subjects of the photos. The boy subjects might still get the shivers, in an uncomfortable way, if they vividly thought of the millions of girls, pretty and plain, thin and heavy, ‘normal’ and ‘challenged,’ becoming erotically aroused by their photos – especially since some of the tween girls’ same-age gay boy schoolmates would undoubtedly be going through the same arousal. (I had a fabulous relationship with an early Michael Jackson photo when I was a tween). The fundamental difference between the attentions of the girls and the attentions of the pedophiles is, as Kristofor points out to me, that the girls are presumed to be benign, responsive and sympathetic in intention towards the boys in the images, or towards similar boys in the neighborhood, while the pedophiles are presumed to be alienated, exploitative, manipulative, and unsympathetic or defectively sympathetic.

The reason the pedophiles are presumed to be unsympathetic, creepy and predatory is not just because of selective sampling by the criminal justice system, in which only those who commit illegal acts are brought to scrutiny. There is also a fundamental piece of human psychology involved. As Kristofor explains it in an appendix to my Paul Krawczyk article,

Krawczyk’s statement that “(possession of erotica) shows a sexual interest in children. How can that not be dangerous?” grows from a related generality: anyone interested in deviant sex lacks empathy, social cohesion and self-control. This was the argument used to ensure that homosexuals were perennially seen, for over a hundred years, as frivolous, out-of-control, sex-crazed people who were too narcissistic to form meaningful loving relationships.

The proposition about deviants lacking social responsiveness is simply superstition. It has no basis whatsoever. It relates to the basic idea in Victorian …empire-building militarism that anyone with social responsiveness would conform to the … ‘norms’ of society. Anyone with a non-conformity that couldn’t be convincingly explained as a unique contribution to social military power could only be anti-social. The person’s anti-social nature appeared to reflect disdain for society’s ideals of moral control, ergo, he must be intrinsically out-of-control.

In Krawczyk’s Victorianism, the idea that a person who had a deviant sexual interest in children could be completely held in check by empathy – a strong respect for children’s true wishes and optimal situations – is completely ruled out as impossible. Have a deviant interest in children, and you can only be out-of-control and lacking in fellow-feeling, hence dangerous.

The same dreads about symbolic predation and disdain being associated with erotic viewing are found in all discussions of pornography. As Kristofor says to me in correspondence,

Researchers have conducted almost uncountable numbers of studies to determine if viewing pornography incites callousness of one kind or another towards real people. They hope to find that viewing porn causes or does not cause a degradation of respect towards women – a consideration that doesn’t seem to have any plausible counterpart in discussions of gay male pornography. Sometimes these studies take a comical turn, as when Simon Louis Lajeunesse of the University of Montreal found that he couldn’t find a single 20-something heterosexual university student who could serve as a negative control in a study of the effects of porn viewing. The student population all used porn, and many had looked at it since the age of 10. Lajeunesse said this in summary:

“All test subjects said they supported gender equality and felt victimized by rhetoric demonizing pornography.

“‘Pornography hasn’t changed their perception of women or their relationship, which they all want as harmonious and fulfilling as possible.’

“’Those who could not live out their fantasy in real life with their partner simply set aside the fantasy. The fantasy is broken in the real world and men don’t want their partner to look like a porn star.’”

In any case, the attempt to identify porn viewing as the cause of any particular type of attitude is fundamentally misguided. That is, it can be ruled out by anyone who believes in the principle of free will that underlies our legal system. The free-willed decision involved in viewing pornography relates to whether or not the viewer empathetically ‘makes faith’ with the subject – wishes him or her well, would treat him or her well in person, hopes that being depicted has done no harm, wouldn’t do any harm to any person to obtain similar pictures, wouldn’t sanction pictures harmfully obtained, and so on. The philosophical problem of the half-full vs. half-empty glass always pertains in a situation where a person may or may not establish subjective complicity or sympathy with another person. Nothing can force or effectively cause a person to make an empathetic or unempathetic decision – apart from being sociopathically mentally disturbed and thus biologically unable to establish empathy. Traditionally, deviants are attributed the half-empty glass: whether, at a given period in history, they are Jews, or gays, or culturally distinct blacks, or pedophiles, they are deemed unable to make faith with others, with the general population. Popular superstition states that their very difference is based in their inability to conform to norms, to sympathize with their community. They are different and anomalous because they are stubborn, self-willed and oblivious, says the belief. But the reality is that, despite any annoyance these so-conceived deviants may feel at being the objects of prejudice from the majority, they remain perfectly able to choose the half-full glass, to make faith, to empathize. And they do. Any pornography or erotica viewing they do has full potential for nuanced appreciation of the human worth of those shown.

Ethel Quayle, I believe, unthinkingly transmits the popular superstition that the people shown in images are in some way cursed by being ‘perved on’ in erotic contemplation. The ancient superstition of the ‘evil eye’ lives on in the shudder we are raised to feel when we think of an imaginary malevolent person becoming erotic about our images – whether in photographs or in the deviant’s imagination. The idea that the deviant is ipso facto malevolent is fundamental to this primitive cultural trope.

On the symbolic plane, then, the victimization of the minors viewed in attractive, objectively non-pornographic images is purely a phantasm derived from old-fashioned prejudice. In reality, it doesn’t matter whether pedophiles or tween girls are doing the viewing of the images in question. Any of these viewers may, as far as is possible with a mere image, truly intend love or amity to the person shown. And that love may include everything we normally recognize as respect, including full respect of the person’s sexual and personal privacy in real life. So we could dismiss Taylor et al.’s “continuum of increased deliberate sexual victimisation” as a primitive misattribution of the half-empty empathetic glass to deviants, if we could be sure that these authors were speaking at this level of symbolism. Some of their other writings, however, suggest that they are not merely speaking about symbolic victimization, but rather about something beyond that. We’ll look into that in point 3, below.

2. Recirculatory victimization. One of the ways in which objectively non-pornographic but attractive photos of children may be felt to allow pedophiles to victimize those children is that the images may be circulated around in pedophile circles, on websites and in internet relay chats. Eventually, the subjects may see signs of this and become aware that they are the objects of pedophilic eros. Taylor et al. do not discuss this idea; it does not form an explicit part of the paper that so deeply influences Moran and his colleagues. Nonetheless, there is a remote chance that it might actually happen. A boy might come across a non-pornographic pedophile image board and see his shirtless image there as an illustrative attractive youth. Does that victimize him to any greater extent than Justin Bieber is victimized by seeing many of his on-stage moves and candid off-stage moments posted in teen-girl fan sites, with comments about how cute he is and how the viewers all want him to “marry me” (which, yes, implies the honeymoon)? Certainly, any boy inculcated with the Victorian ideas mentioned above – that any deviant is a scheming, manipulative creep who means him ill – might feel oppressed by the gaze of pedophiles – but then again, looking at the control situation, he might be a gay boy who would shudder deeply at exciting the erotic attentions of girls. He might be a heterosexual boy with a girlfriend, and might find the eroto-romantic gushings of other girls nauseating and excessive – eventually becoming so upset that he punches out the paparazzi taking the photographs they look at. Objectively, the fact that someone finds your image (when it was not invasively recorded) attractive or erotic is just a happenstance. No one can harm you by finding you attractive, unless the person breaks boundaries in your personal life or with your copyrighted material. Your attribution of creepy motives or a creepy personality to the person who cleaves to your image may be dead wrong, and even inexcusably prejudiced. I find it hard to believe that Taylor et al.’s “continuum of victimization” is based on any unstated notion that children might be distressed to find out, in real life, that someone was turned on by their non-pornographic photo.

3. Direct victimization.

To understand the viewpoint of Taylor and Quayle, and especially of the latter, the reader needs to go beyond the watered-down and practical-looking material that these authors publish in law enforcement journals. In more academic settings, some unusual notions are brought forth in Quayle’s writings.

These writings in general are esoteric and convoluted, and are full of quotes interchanged among the small group of authors who support Quayle’s ideas. Anyone wishing to get a detailed grasp of this esoterica will have to read Kristofor’s paper on it. His analysis is mainly based on a 2008 paper called Child Pornography and Sexual Exploitation of Children Online by Ethel Quayle, Lars Loof, and Tink Palmer.

Here, I can only partially illustrate the eccentric philosophy that Quayle lays out in that paper. For example, she suggests that when child-pornographic cartoons are viewed, a phantom called the ‘virtual child’ is abused. This abuse of the virtual cartoon child, she believes, has the same criminal weight as the sexual assault of a real human child. Moreover, she believes that an abstract entity labelled ‘the essence of childhood’ is also abused in such situations.

Most authorities who oppose cartooned child pornography do so based on the Victorian idea that viewing such stuff would contagiously excite pedophiles to lose their moral constrictions against hands-on sexual assault. Quayle, according to her own text, finds this argument far less important than the abuse of the spirit-child in the image itself. Below, in her writings in Child Pornography and Sexual Exploitation of Children Online, she begins with a quote from her colleague David Oswell. I have filled in needed context to make the text semi-understandable.

“…the primary concern [with child-pornographic cartoons – BN] is not one of the effects of the image on others [i.e., not the possibility of exciting some men to commit real-life offenses – BN] or one of the relations of power encoded in the image [that is, not related to demeaning children in an objectifying way – BN], but one of the virtual evidentiality of the image (ie, of the image’s capacity to refer to an objective reality that is both internal and external to the image). The ethical intensity [moral significance – BN] of the virtual image lies precisely in its capacity to refer to a scene beyond itself” (Oswell p. 258 (pdf). Oswell (2006) goes on to state that the crime of possession, making or distribution of child pornography (whether virtual or not) is a crime not only against a particular child, but against all children. “It is a crime against childhood as a universal” (p. 252).

We argue that the crime of possession, and making or distribution of child pornography, whether virtual or not, are (sic) crimes not only against a particular child, but against all children…

In this paper the term ‘sexual exploitation’ refers to activities that may include sexual abuse of children but may also refer to activities where no such abuse has taken place but where the very nature of the activities violates the very essence of childhood.

Oswell, recapitulating Quayle’s ideas in his own words, says frankly, “each time a (cartoon or other artistic, non-photographic –BN) image is used, the virtual child is victimised.” He produces an extended analogy based on the optical phenomenon of refractive displacement of an image, making an almost unintelligibly dense case for viewing the ‘virtual child’ seen in a cartoon as the exact moral equivalent of a real child who is being sexually assaulted. “It is not a question of possibility (that a hands-on offense might be committed or might have been committed earlier – BN). This (viewing of a pornographic cartoon – BN) is a crime that has occurred in a virtual space…. there is no dispute about the original and the counterfeit; both are defined through the criterion of the virtual image, of the simulacra.”

Clearly, if a virtual child – a representative of all children and of the essence of childhood – can be criminally sexually victimized in the viewing of a cartoon, then a photograph showing a real child fully dressed, involved only in daily activities, can be just as realistically used to sexually victimize the child image it shows. Not the child who was photographed! – the actual image in the photograph itself. Once you grasp this weird shamanistic construct, the subtle mysteries of the text in Taylor et al.’s Police Journal paper are easy to understand.

The kinds of picture that can be identified range from pictures of clothed children, through nakedness and explicit erotic posing to pictures of a sexual assault on the child photographed. This can be constructed to describe a continuum of increased deliberate sexual victimisation. Any particular example of a photograph attractive to an adult with a sexual interest in children, therefore, can be located along such a continuum of explicit or deliberate sexual victimisation.

The mystery of how a child who is photographed clothed or in swimwear can be ‘deliberately sexually victimised’ to any extent when a pedophile later finds the photo sexually attractive is resolved by knowing that he or she cannot. That would be nonsensical – the photo was taken long ago and no sex was ever involved. Later erotic viewing cannot insert sexual contact into the child’s life where it never occurred. Also, recirculation of the image back to the child’s attention, or to the attention of the adult he or she has grown into, is not under consideration. Instead, Taylor et al.’s philosophy holds that the image itself is victimized directly by the pedophile. Erotic contemplation of the image doesn’t just symbolically represent child abuse – it IS child abuse, abuse of a ‘virtual child.’ It is an offense to ‘the essence of childhood’ – which, as Kristofor points out, appears, in the text of Quayle and colleagues, to be an entity analogous to the Deer Spirit or Bear Spirit in traditional native North American religions. These so-called academics actually, literally believe that people who have erotically gazed at a cartoon should be jailed for sexually abusing an ‘essence.’

This is not science. It’s witchcraft. Given the Celtic and British roots of the authors, it’s Druidism. How embarrassing for the police of the world that they have taken up Taylor and Quayle as guides in their search to combat the evils of child sexual exploitation. The only thing that saves them from rapid public mortification is that they, and most people who evaluate their performance, are unable to read and understand the esoteric bafflegab that Quayle uses in her more academically targeted publications. They have no idea she’s a flake.

Now that we know what kind of thought underlies the Taylor et al. bible that Moran and his colleagues are reading from, let’s look at some more of what it says.

Typology of paedophile picture collections. Level 1. “Indicative:” Non-erotic and non-sexualised pictures showing children in their underwear, swimming costumes, etc. from either commercial sources or family albums; pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organisation of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness.

(A later comment on this:)

Most families have extensive and entirely appropriate pictures of their children, and such pictures are not, in these terms, indicative of adult sexual interest in children unless they are in some sense inappropriately held. Furthermore, in the same context, depictions of children in their underwear or naked may well be entirely appropriate. They can, however, be used inappropriately by adults with a sexual interest in children. Within that inappropriate context, essentially innocent pictures can fall within the category of indicative (level 1). Level 1 may include most common pictures of children, either commercially taken or from family albums. The reasons for inclusion of these kinds of photograph within the material related to adult sexual interest in children, as noted earlier, is that the extent to which a photograph may be sexualised and fantasised over lies not so much in its objective content, but in the use to which the picture might be put. In his review of 11 case studies of paedophilic sex offenders, Howitt (1995) draws attention to the significance of this kind of relatively innocent photograph in promoting and sustaining sexual fantasy. It is the context rather than the explicit content of such photographs, therefore, that is significant, and the emphasis on context in understanding child pornography cannot be over-stressed. This is also relevant to considerations of the portrayal of children and child nudity in artistic settings.

These two passages don’t seem to contain much voodoo, and Taylor et al. even cite a paper by Dennis Howitt that voices a conventional Victorian “weakening of the moral threshold” (usually rephrased these days as ‘promoting cognitive distortion’) argument against pedophiles’ viewing of banal images of children. It’s only when you know, from reading the rest of the paper, that the ‘inappropriate’ use of the family-style photos by pedophiles is thought to represent ‘explicit sexual victimisation’ that the creepy undertone begins to come out. This seems to move the ‘inappropriateness’ out of the ‘oh naughty, naughty’ range of reproof, conventional to mere inappropriateness, into a much more urgent need for some sort of restraining action. Sexual victimization is being carried out, after all.

And here we have the context for Mick Moran’s extremely constricted idea of what a pedophile could do to avoid the intervention of ‘public safety officials.’

(Viewing of legal child photographs) demonstrates an escalation of activity by “MAP”‘s that must be interpreted as an increased risk to children regardless of the illegality. If an “MAP” is living his life without acting out then he will never become the subject of any attention, legal or otherwise. However, any acting out by a “MAP” has potential to harm a child and must result in action by public safety officials. When they act, they are suspect. Illegal -vs- exploitation. Nude pictures may not be illegal but it is an acting out by an MAP and an acting-out MAP is a concern to society as a whole.

When I look at this passage, it reminds me of stories I’ve been told by people who grew up with raging, violent alcoholic fathers. They would huddle up in their bedroom, trying to be unnoticed, trying to shrink into the wall, knowing that any act they were perceived to make might bring on the father’s rage and a severe beating. This is the existence Moran wants pedophiles to lead in order to be unmolested by the legal authorities.

They may go to work, they may do their dishes, but even the slightest sign – the slightest context – showing that they are experiencing an erotic attraction will bring on the full force of the law. The mere possession of legal photographs, arranged in a way that suggests eros, is sufficient to press the social panic button. As deviants, they cannot be expected to have empathy. They can’t be expected to be beneficent, well-adjusted, responsible and valuable members of the community. That would be unthinkable. Any erotic move they make is a tingle of predatory interest, the flicking of the snake’s tongue. Fail to suppress it, and the snake will soon glide out. Already, in his den, he is deliberately victimizing children, according to Taylor et al., by viewing their images. In deeper Quayle literature, he is already raping the virtual child and the essence of childhood. “Any acting out by an “MAP” has potential to harm a child and must result in action by public safety officials… regardless of illegality.”

Taylor and Quayle’s academically disguised Druidism, which sees horrible spiritual violation inherent in erotic interest in banal images, has licensed the police worldwide to beat up deviants. The police don’t really care whether the deviants are doing anything illegal or not. That sounds harsh, but, no matter how many times one re-reads Moran’s text, that’s exactly what he says. He, Taylor and Quayle are one. And, far across the water in Canada, his Toronto Police collaborator Det. Paul Krawczyk says the same thing: “It’s terrible. (It shows) a sexual interest in children. How can that not be dangerous?” For a growing consensus of internationally collaborating police officers, ANY erotic ‘acting’ done by an MAP, alone, in his own home, with heretofore legal materials, must be suppressed by police action. This is a level of mental suppression that has only otherwise ever been seen in religious inquisitions. And indeed, it is religious in nature. This demonization of non-offending pedophiles is not secular. It’s an expression of animistic dread – voodoo abhorrence.

Mick Moran is a man to be reckoned with. He is most famous as the officer who led the international team to identify and capture Christopher Paul Neil, the child pornographer whose algorithmically swirled and unswirled face were seen in every newspaper in the world. He is a leader in implementing computer technologies such as PhotoDNA to identify known pornographic images instantly and automatically by means of robust ‘digital signatures.’ Irish crime reporter Michael O’Toole said this about him:

This is one of his favourite quotes: “There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter.” Hemingway wrote that. It sums up perfectly Mick’s job.

The Irish newspaper The Independent proudly elaborated his Irish background:

Det Sgt Mick Moran is a former garda who was closely involved in the investigation into the murder of former Sunday Independent journalist Veronica Guerin, giving pivotal evidence against the Gilligan gang.

Mr Moran grew up in Ashbourne, County Meath, and was based at Ballymun and Crumlin stations, and later at Harcourt Square.

He is married to a French woman and now lives in Lyon, where he is based with the global policing agency, Interpol.

Since joining Interpol, Mr Moran has risen through the ranks to the position of assistant director, heading up the fight against some of the world’s worst paedophiles and child traffickers.

Moran is particularly adept at spotting regionally specific articles in photographs – distinctive dolls, shirt logos, electrical outlet types, and so on – and using them in tracking the locations where the photographs were made.

I have no doubt I’m going out on a limb by writing about him, since my apparent defense of gazing at non-pornographic images appears to encourage pedophiles to ‘act out’ in this manner. That being so, I want to ensure that we have an understanding of where we stand. He, for his part, says “nor am I interested in persecuting MAPs” and I, for my part, am not interested in persecuting him. He can go about his business in actually enforcing the law in peace, as far as I’m concerned. My only issue is that I believe he shows that he and his fellow officers are currently being affected by the superstition that deviants are highly likely to be out-of-control, to be unempathetic or creepily pseudo-empathetic, and to be far more potentially dangerous than potentially beneficent. I believe he and his fellow officers share the intuition that any pedophile looking at a non-pornographic photo with sexual attraction is in some way psychically cursing the child in the image, rather than psychically blessing him or her, the way a pop-star-loving tween girl would be inferred to do with the same image. I know that he doesn’t share or even take seriously the Quayle viewpoint that the image contains a virtual child who can be abused independently of the person who was photographed. Yet, in some way, I suspect he feels, intuitively, that the pedophile’s gaze at the attractive, non-pornographic photograph is like a chill wind, bringing on ill. Whereas actually, as all rationalists know, it is completely causally unlinked to anything other than, perhaps, the pedophile’s relief from the pressure of horniness. Which might be a good thing.

In stating my own position as an acting MA (assuming I am being truthful about this here in pseudonymous internet world), I wish to take issue with one assertion made by Moran, in the tweets above, that ties in with some assertions made by Taylor et al.

Moran says “MAPs purchasing or making pictures of naked children is a form of child exploitation as the child is not aware.”

Taylor et al. also speak to the ethics of MAPs contemplating depictions of naked children.

They say, “It is the context rather than the explicit content of such photographs … that is significant, and the emphasis on context in understanding child pornography cannot be over-stressed. This is also relevant to considerations of the portrayal of children and child nudity in artistic settings.”

Taylor et al. also say, “Most families have extensive and entirely appropriate pictures of their children, and such pictures are not, in these terms, indicative of adult sexual interest in children unless they are in some sense inappropriately held. Furthermore, in the same context, depictions of children in their underwear or naked may well be entirely appropriate.”

Here we can see the same dichotomy coming into play as we saw in the case of the clothed images. Families, when taking naked photographs, have a blessing gaze, and thus their photographs are contextually OK. A pedophile taking exactly the same photographs would have a self-interested, cursing gaze and thus exploit the children, regardless of how protective and respectful he actually felt about them. The same principle, say Taylor et al., also applies in art. This is interesting. We know Michaelangelo Caravaggio was sexually interested in the street boys he painted in famous studies like his ‘Amor Vincit Omnia.’ Some may even have been his lovers. These paintings are thus arguably records of crime scenes, and the Louvre glorifies Caravaggio’s sexual exploitation every day it opens up. Finns will have to rethink their attitude to their beloved Magnus Enckell, whose many paintings of naked boys are described as “openly erotic and sensual” in Wikipedia. Say goodbye to a whole room in the Ateneum art museum in downtown Helsinki. There are dozens more examples like this. In case this connection of Moran and colleagues to questions about art seems far-fetched, consider the case of Spade arrestee Joe Wilson, who was pilloried by the Justice Department and the press for his legal possession of “a large portrait of a young, naked boy” – in fact, as the Justice Department was too cowardly to mention, a painting by the world-famous Otto Lohmüller. The threat to the art world from the Moran axis of policing is very real indeed.

I suppose any defense of Azov Films arrestees inevitably poses the question of whether the defender condones what was done to the subjects of the films. On the surface of it, many of the movies hardly differ in content from hundreds of naturist films that have long been considered innocent, many of them derived from naturist organizations that are firmly socially conservative. There are also picture books featuring normally naked Amazonian native nations that include many children. Moran seems to let these films and books off the hook unless MAPs buy them, or unless they were produced by MAPs: “MAPs purchasing or making pictures of naked children is a form of child exploitation as the child is not aware.” Is not aware of what, by the way? The nature of erotic interest? The spiritually injurious nature of the werewolf eyes of thousands of pedophiles worldwide? Is being photographed naked so vulnerable a matter that questions similar to those encountered about consent to sex come into play? Certainly, no one asks if parental photographs of their naked children may require sex-like levels of consensual understanding. To what extent does this informed consent consideration apply when a pedophile, perhaps a relative of the child, may view the same image later?

The matter of photographed children being unaware of their situation comes up poignantly in the case of Azov Films. Filmmaker Markus Roth admits he deceived the boys involved in his wrestling videos. In a Toronto Star story by Robert Cribb, one of Roth’s boy stars, Michel, says that when he agreed to act in the films, “I didn’t know he was selling them. He told me the movies went to his sister in Germany because she likes to watch them.” Parents, also, were not informed. After Roth’s release from a short sentence in a Romanian prison for making the films (Romania, unlike the US, does not sanction naturist photography), he wrote a pathetically self-excusing letter of apology to his video subjects; this letter was translated into English and published in the Star. This strikes me as a very clear-cut case of inexcusably deceptive behavior, and, yes, I would call it exploitative on that basis. I don’t believe that the unknowing customers purchasing the innocent-looking videos share any culpability in this, but I would judge that Moran’s qualm about exploitation through cultivated unawareness is well applied to the filmmaker in this case.

The other major producer of Azov Films who has been extensively written about in the press – but only the Russian-language press – is Igor Rusanov, from Sebastopol, Ukraine. Obtaining verified, accurate, journalistic information about Rusanov is not easy, and he has been completely ignored, for unexplained reasons, in police propaganda and its tame mainstream journalism emanating from Project Spade. Getting meaningful results from searches on Rusanov are difficult even for those who read Russian: speculations published by vigilantes come up strongly, while key 2011 articles in the main legitimate news source,, seem to have been deleted (However, we have copies of most of them). After much puzzling over the material, Kristofor and I have reached the conclusion that Rusanov’s situation was much different from Roth’s. Under his pseudonym Zverozub, he had publicly visible websites promoting naturism in beautiful Crimea, and was also highly active as a lecturer on the same topic. The boys he filmed were shown on the website, sometimes tastefully nude, for all to see. There is no doubt that the boys and their parents all knew that the boys were stars in naturist videos that were selling well – which explains the frustration of vigilantes as parents and sons circled the wagons and refused to make any complaints after Rusanov was arrested in 2011. The question of whether the boys involved in the Crimean films were sufficiently informed or not by Rusanov really boils down to whether or not children can be sufficiently informed about the possible ramifications of appearing nude in materials made available to the public.

Bringing a ‘control’ study to bear on the question, courtesy of Taylor et al., we can see that the same concern applies to any boy posing for a painting by Otto Lohmüller (who is perhaps capable of an MAP erotic gaze), or the 12-year-old neighbor boy who posed for Charles Ray (generally thought not to have an MAP gaze) when he produced the colossal white metallic sculpture Boy with Frog. This sculpture stood buck naked on Venice’s Punta della Dogana for well over a year. I confess that I once visually victimized the piece for over 20 minutes myself, on a cool Venice night. To what extent should Ray have warned the boy that his blazing white and oversized, but otherwise highly realistic image, would have been eroto-esthetically appreciated by an aging perv and his friends, even as women posed for photographs in front of it and a uniformed guard kept his watchful eye on the ever-so souvenir-worthy penis (a perpetual problem for naked male sculptures in Europe)?

Common sense has to kick in at some point. Are you kidding?

Nakedness is not sex. Depending on which culture we come from, and which subculture our parents belong to within that culture, we may feel greater or lesser urges to keep our natural body form private. The United States and several other countries, in their democratic generosity, have decided to let families decide for themselves whether naturist collectivism is shameful or liberating; we are not legally obliged to regard our private body parts as unrevealable displays of sex. All we need to do is keep them private in public places where a people with a mixture of beliefs need to get along with one another. Nudist families may go to nudist resorts and take their nudist family photographs, and even nudist friends can photograph multi-family picnics and gatherings, at least under the house rules of some naturist associations. America, Australia, Canada, the European countries and the Central and South American countries have no shortage of officially tolerated nude beaches, to which parents and children may go at will. Friends and I always joked that Justin Bieber could have permanently eliminated the association of simple nudity with child pornography laws simply by spending one day at a nude beach at age 17 and allowing the photographers to click at will. He would have been on 80% of the world’s mobile phones within a week, criminalizing the majority of the electronically connected population of the earth. Alas, it never happened, but such thought-experiments are never pointless. To try to equate nudity to sex, and to lumber nudity with sex-like rules of informed consent, is unrealistic, impractical, even laughable – even though dealing with the nudity of any individual person one knows or encounters requires the utmost discretion, politeness, respect of their feelings, and deference to their wishes. Kristofor comments that for him, the idea of making nudity a lower echelon of sex for legal purposes is an expression of the lingering Victorian neurosis that biological information about the genitalia will sap people of moral vigor – an attitude he finds offensive and sociologically disappointing. In terms of procedure, I believe that anyone contemplating making a nude photograph of a child should obtain the clear, unambiguous, free assent of the child and a responsible parent or guardian first, and the same goes for creating a representational nude artwork. The extent and type of planned distribution, if any, should also be fully disclosed – but I don’t believe that the possibility one or more pervs may someday gaze at the art work is a germane consideration. Having said that, I acknowledge that I’ve never made such a photograph myself and wouldn’t remotely consider doing so. I’m not an artist, I’m a writer. Here’s the written equivalent: “sixteen-year-old Justin Bieber, naked, well trimmed.” Damage him with your imaginations as you will.

In the discussions that followed the Project Spade arrests, commenters on Boychat and similar venues noted that they didn’t find the films erotic. That, to me, raises one more issue that needs to be considered in this context. Apart from pure erotic interest in a representation of an attractive boy (or girl), there’s also the esthetic interest that comes from finding a certain sort of person beautiful to the eye. It’s a very common observation that nude art works are usually of little or no interest as masturbation material, even when the people depicted are attractive, and vividly rendered. This was always a mystery to me, especially since sketchy cartoons can be quite stimulating, but Kristofor explains it handily: “Sexuality contains an urge to find consummate completeness by becoming unified with the endless complexity of another human being. Whenever anyone appreciates excellent art, that level of psychological completeness is already so thoroughly attained by viewing the art that there’s nothing left for sexuality to work with. Its goal has already been met.”

Even when the art one sees is not at a level of greatness that supersedes the sex drive, people who look at attractive individuals in paintings, films, photographs and sculptures may appreciate them more for their beauty than for their excitation of the urge to orgasm. I’m very pleased to own a DVD of a movie that stars the beautiful young English actor Freddie Highmore, but I’ve never once given Freddie a truly erotic thought. I wonder how much disapproval Moran and friends would levy against those who ‘act out’ by appreciating ‘eye candy’ that never actually sends any impulses down to the groin, even as it flatters the pleasure centers elsewhere in the pervert brain. I strongly suspect that the mild, unerotic Azov Films were merely ‘eye candy’ to some of those who bought them, even some who bought multiple titles. The amount of ‘deliberate sexual victimization’ involved in appreciating beauty that is latently, but not actively, erotically contemplated, is something that Taylor et al. would find themselves forced to deal with if they were honest and clear-thinking people.

And in that barb lies my last point. Police officers, like those of us who are journalists, are not academics – we are journeymen. It’s all very well to take advice from the university people, but we need to keep our common sense and skepticism intact, and not become deferential just because someone is respected in their field. The health professions, in particular, have hosted perfectly well respected academics who have conducted the most appalling and disgusting experiments imaginable – for example, the Tuskegee syphilis trials, and the secret MKUltra LSD experiments. How well equipped is Moran, or Krawczyk, to detect the vile undertones of the academic theories they’re being exposed to?

When Moran reads that a pedophile looking excitedly at web-found family photos is embedded in “a continuum of increased deliberate sexual victimisation,” how likely is he to perceive that there’s something weird and phoney going on in that statement? I suspect he simply thinks, ‘sounds firmly anti-pedophile, good enough for me. Yes, when they collect mild images, they probably want less mild images, too, so let’s nip the trend in the bud.’ That’s not what the text is saying at all. What would impel Moran to get into the deeper literature where he would see that the same ‘continuum of sexual victimisation’ includes the viewing of cartoons where “each time an image is used the virtual child is victimised” and where it can be said that “‘sexual exploitation’ refers to activities that may include sexual abuse of children but may also refer to activities where no such abuse has taken place but where the very nature of the activities [i.e., looking at erotic cartoons depicting children – BN] violates the very essence of childhood.” If you asked him, “does Ethel Quayle think that contemplating an erotic cartoon-child has exactly the same moral significance as sexually abusing a real child?” he might well be inclined to assure you that this was a silly idea. In reality, it is the core of Quayle’s belief system about pornography. In many ways, Moran would be much better off out on the streets, beating up defiant loudmouths with his fists, than he would be basing his sophisticated strategic objectives on the law-transgressing advice of these serpentine theorists.

And now, Det. Sgt. Moran, having said all that, I’m going to go to bed, to lie there and blissfully think of – nothing whatsoever. Coincidentally, just what you would wish me to do.

I wasn’t doin’ nuthin, officer. I hope this constitutional free speech thing actually works.


Hive Child: a boy for Anonymous and Allison Shea…


Date: May 14, 2013

I’ve been given permission to re-post an article written by Bernie Najarian, and posted at BoyChat.

I placed it onto it’s own blog page, because something about it is causing it to display improperly, on the main blog page. The article is linked below.

…Hive Child: a boy for Anonymous and Allison Shea…