4 de março de 2018

Defending controversial causes online.

I see some people defending controversial causes in the Internet and doing so in a absolutely fruitless way. I don’t know if they are kidding or not. I never defended anything with my nails and teeth, like they claim to be doing, but, if I were to, I would try something like this strategy I’m about to tell you about.

In the book Paedophilia: The Radical Case, O’Carroll tells us how radical homosexuals fought discrimination back in the seventies and eighties. It was something like this: when one of them suffered discrimination, he would speak to others, who would also speak to more people and, when they had enough people interested in counter-attacking, they would crossdress, go to that place where the discrimination happened and camp at the place. So, if you saw fifty drags camping around someone’s house or around a pub, someone in that area was certainly a homophobe. As the protest was peaceful, the police couldn’t do much. On the other hand, if someone tried to attack them aggressively, the drags would call the police on that guy. It was a very effective attempt to force people to accept that homosexuality happens and that the number of homosexuals is huge, that they are sticking together.

That radical drag strategy can be summarized in four points. Some of them are being neglected by my friends with heretical ideas. They are responsive action, coordinated action, secret planning, peaceful action. Online, a protest of that sort would be done to a much less effective extent, but could be done much more frequently.

Responsive action (“do not attack, unless attacked first”).

A responsive action happens after a first action and in response to it. When your point of view is attacked by someone, you should counter-attack, both as means of self-defense and as a way to destroy the opposition. My friends have both scientific evidence and philosophical technique, but that are used offensively. They start the fight. When you start the fight, you may very well end up ignored. But, when you reply to someone’s position, that person can not ignore you without looking like they have no counter-argument. Plus, if the action is coordinated, the opponent may even feel ashamed of the position they hold and silence about it in the future, thus reducing opposition.

Plus, when replying to someone’s message, you are posting something. If it happens in public, then extra kudos for you. Others will see the post exchange and judge which side is the correct one. If you are ignored, that effect doesn’t happen, because people tend to believe more in a person who, in a debate, destroys the opposing point of view. Without an opposing point of view to destroy, your position won’t be magnified.

Coordinated action (“don’t do this alone”).

When several people attack at same time, the blows happen quicker, each person is encouraged to attack with all that they have (due to feeling protected) and it’s hard to point out who is the “head”, the “responsible” for the attack. If several people attack a certain point of view and the proponents of that view don’t have enough arguments to defend themselves, those who are watching the debate and secretely hold a heretical opinion may feel tempted to participate, despite not being “formally” in the ops.

If you are attacking alone, specially if you are the one starting the debate, you are behaving in a suicidal manner: the establishment will consume you. On the other hand, if you are in group and is attacked, depending on what is done, you can appeal to the authorities of the platform where the offense happened. So, both for defense purposes and reporting purposes, it’s important to know the rules that are valid in the site you are using.

Secret planning (“don’t talk about /b/”).

It’s important to plan the action in secret, so that the proponents of the establishment are caught unprepared. If we are talking about Internet, that can be done with a forum approach. Create a board or forum in which the participants can post links, for example, to news that defend the establishment. There, other readers can examine the news, identify weak points, select material to be used against (scientific evidence, rethorics, jokes, news from other sites and so on) and comment, en masse. If four people go, that’s already pretty good, considering the amount of views that garbage news get every day and the amount of evidence available on our side. The same can be done with social media posts, such as Facebook and Twitter. A forum user reports the behavior, others will see the post and evaluate what can be done, then they go and attack. That way, it’s also possible to inflate the number of positive reactions to a post (such as “likes”), which sometimes make people shy to disagree.

Besides the forum approach, Discord servers and Skype groups can also be used, depending on the cause that is defended, as well as the number of partipants. Sometimes even the comment box in a blog works, for the purposes of reporting and organizing.

Peaceful action (“convert, don’t alienate”).

Whenever you write something online, in public, you must also think of those who are reading, not only the person who is the direct receiver of the message. Make your opponent say something stupid and put his position in danger. If he gets mad at you, don’t actively try to make him more enraged, keep going with the plan, don’t let yourself be dragged by emotion, be at your best behavior. If the opponent makes a mistake, acts with emotion or attacks you (rather than you argument), let him do so, without descending to his level. Those who are reading, upon seeing that your behavior is decent, while the opponent is behaving erratically, would be less inclined to associate with a position defended by a lunatic, specially if you speak in clear, easy-to-understand terms. Ask questions, make your opponent feel like he has to prove that he isn’t an idiot, confront him with the contradictions of his position, but always reponsively and never alone.

If you are arguing online, it’s important to shield yourself from personal attacks, so you must stay within the boundaries of the law and must refrain from breaking community guidelines that are valid in that site. That way, if your opponent does something against you, then you have the right and authority to report them. If you get banned for no reason, maybe you will take your opponent with you.

Jumping to reality.

Another advantage of the forum approach is that you are able to track the number of active people in those communities. When the number of individuals is big enough in comparison to a place’s demographics, maybe it’s time to do something in real life, rather than sticking solely with online debates. Maybe that would be a good time to act, in group, and print leaflets or do whatever real life protest you think is suitable, keeping in mind the number of supporters and the conditions surrounding the act. Depending on the cause, online meetings may be the only way for those people to gather around the idea and plan real life protests, that would be similar in structure, even if not in content, to the radical drag thing. We need more people in order to do something like that and a lot of communities are being formed thanks to the Internet. Use it intelligently.


Defendendo causas controversas online.

Filed under: Computadores e Internet, Organizações — Tags:, , — Yure @ 01:09

Eu vejo algumas pessoas defendendo causas controversas na Internet e fazendo isso de forma terminantemente infrutífera. Eu não sei se estão brincando ou não. Eu nunca fiz essa defesa de forma incisiva, mas, se eu tivesse que fazer, eu faria mais ou menos da forma abaixo.

No livro Paedophilia: The Radical Case, O’Carroll diz que os grupos homossexuais radicais lutavam em bandos contra o preconceito. Eles faziam o seguinte: quando um deles sofria discriminação, ele falava com os outros, os quais, por sua vez, falavam com ainda outros e, quando tinham contingente suficiente, se “montavam” (travestiam) e iam ao local onde seu colega havia sofrido discriminação. Lá, eles acampavam. Como era um protesto pacífico, a polícia não podia fazer muita coisa. Por outro lado, se alguém partisse pra violência contra eles, ocorreriam denúncias. Era uma tentativa, muito efetiva, de forçar os preconceituosos a aceitarem que homossexualidade acontece e que o número de homossexuais é grande, que eles estão unidos.

Essa estratégia (chamada radical drag) se resume em quatro pontos que estão sendo negligenciados, em maior ou menor grau, pelos meus colegas com ideias heréticas: ação responsiva, ação coordenada, planejamento secreto, ação pacífica. Na Internet, um protesto desses pode ser feito menos efetivamente, mas com muito mais frequência.

Ação responsiva (“não ataque, apenas contra-ataque”).

Uma ação responsiva é aquela que ocorre após uma outra ação, em resposta a esta. Quando seu ponto de vista é atacado por alguém, você deve atacar de volta, como meio tanto de defesa como de destruição do ponto de vista do outro. Meus colegas têm evidência científica e argumentação filosófica, mas eles as usam de maneira ofensiva. Eles começam a briga. Quando você começa a briga, você pode ser ignorado sem problemas. Mas, quando você responde à declaração de alguém, o outro não pode ignorar você sem parecer que é incapaz de argumentar de volta. Além do mais, se a ação também for coordenada, ele pode se sentir envergonhado do ponto de vista que defende e calar sobre ele, diminuindo, portanto, a oposição.

Em adição, ao responder a mensagem de alguém que critica seu ponto de vista, você está postando algo publicamente. Outros virão e verão a troca de mensagens públicas e julgarão qual lado tem razão. Por outro lado, se você ataca e é ignorado, esse efeito não acontece, porque uma pessoa tende mais a acreditar numa pessoa que, num debate, destrói o ponto de vista do opositor. Se você é ignorado, não há opositor, não há pessoa com a qual comparar sua opinião, logo ela não é magnificada.

Ação coordenada (“se for contra-atacar, não o faça sozinho”).

Quando muitos atacam ao mesmo tempo, os ataques ocorrem mais rapidamente, cada um é encorajado a atacar com mais intensidade (por se sentir protegido) e é mais difícil apontar o “cabeça”, o “responsável”. Os defensores do estabelecido já têm seus exércitos, mas, se sua argumentação for boa, é como atacar um grande exército com uma arma de destruição em massa. Se várias pessoas atacam um ponto de vista e os proponentes desse ponto de vista não têm argumentação suficiente pra defender esse ponto, quem assiste ao debate e se interessa pela posição divergente se sente tentado a participar, mesmo que não esteja “formalmente” no movimento.

Se você ataca sozinho, principalmente se você for o que começa a briga, está se comportando de maneira suicida, porque o estabelecido consumirá você. Por outro lado, se você for em grupo e for atacado, todos denunciam o que atacou você às autoridades do site onde o ataque ocorreu. Tanto para razões de defesa como de represália, é importante que todos estejam a par das regras do site onde a argumentação está ocorrendo.

Planejamento secreto (“não fale do /b/”).

É importante que o planejamento não seja feito em público, para que os proponentes do estabelecido não se preparem para o que poderia vir de ti. Quando se fala de Internet, isso pode ser feito pela abordagem do fórum. Crie um fórum no qual os participantes podem colocar links para reportagens que defendem o estabelecido. Lá, os outros leitores lêem a reportagem, examinam seus pontos fracos, seleccionam o material que usarão (evidência científica, retórica, humor, outras reportagens, entre outros) e vão comentar na reportagem, em massa. Se quatro forem, já é um bom número, para a quantidade de cliques que uma reportagem recebe por dia. O mesmo pode ser feito para postagens em mídias sociais, como o Facebook ou o Twitter. Um usuário do fórum denuncia o comportamento, os outros verificam o que pode ser feito, vão lá e atacam. Dessa forma, também é possível inflar a quantidade de reações positivas (“curtidas” ou likes) a uma postagem, tornando-a popular e mais fácil de ser encontrada.

Além do fórum, servidores no Discord ou grupos de Skype também poderiam ser usados, dependendo da causa defendida e do número de integrantes. Às vezes até um blog no qual interessados e dono possam discutir nos comentários serve.

Ação pacífica (“ganhe proponentes, não os perca”).

Sempre que você escreve algo pra outra pessoa, na Internet, em público, você deve pensar nas outras pessoas que lerão o que você escreveu, não somente no receptor direto da mensagem. Leve o outro a falar besteira e a colocar sua posição em perigo. Se ele se irritar, não o irrite de propósito, mantenha-se magnânimo, não se deixe levar pelas suas emoções, comporte-se. Se o oponente se atrapalhar, agir emotivamente, atacar você (em vez de seu argumento), deixe-o fazer sem descer ao seu nível. Os outros que estiverem lendo, ao verem que você está se comportando bem, enquanto que o proponente do estabelecido está se comportando de maneira errática, tenderão a não se associar à posição defendida por um lunático, especialmente se sua posição tiver fundação sólida e for simples de compreender. Faça perguntas, leve o oponente a uma situação em que ele tenha que provar que não é um idiota, confronte-o com as contradições de sua posição. Mas sempre faça isso responsivamente e sempre faça isso em grupo.

Se você estiver argumentando, é importante também que o seu oponente não possa fazer nada contra sua pessoa, então nada do que você fizer pode ser ilegal, nem quebrar as diretrizes da comunidade onde o impasse está ocorrendo. Dessa forma, se o oponente fizer algo contra você, dependendo do que é, você terá todo o direito e autoridade de denunciar seu comportamento às autoridades do site. Assim, mesmo que você seja banido sem razão, pelo menos levará o estabelecido junto.

Salto para a realidade.

Outra vantagem da abordagem do fórum ou do grupo oculto é a avaliação do número de indivíduos ativos nessas comunidades. Quando o número de indivíduos ativos for grande o suficiente para a demográfica de um determinado lugar, talvez seja hora de fazer protestos no mundo físico, além de manter os protestos no mundo virtual. Talvez seja o momento de começar a fazer pelo menos os cartazes pra grudar por aí, divulgando a ideia e os links relevantes. Dependendo da causa, reuniões online talvez sejam o único meio possível de juntar essas pessoas, as quais poderão sair em bando depois a fim de fazer protestos iguais em estrutura, mesmo que não em conteúdo, ao radical drag. É preciso construir contingente antes e muitas comunidades hoje estão se formando graças a Internet. Use-a inteligentemente.

6 de fevereiro de 2018


Esses dias, eu me detive um bom tempo estudando sobre relacionamentos entre menores e adultos, bem como entre dois menores. Se eu continuar estudando esse tema com tanto afinco, ficarei entediado dele. Então voltarei a ler coisas mais normais por enquanto. Tudo em excesso é prejudicial, especialmente quando se trata de uma pesquisa de tema controverso. Então, não esperem muito mais sobre esse assunto neste mês.

Ainda estou pensando em fazer anotações sobre as leis brasileiras depois que eu tiver lido tudo o que está na minha lista de livros e artigos. Tem coisa demais ali. Outro tema que eu queria tratar são os planos de governo dos diversos partidos políticos do Brasil. Não que isso sirva de muita coisa, porque ideologia de partido parece que é um conceito morto. Mas é interessante assim mesmo, pelo menos para que vejamos se os políticos realmente pararam de fazer escolhas com base em ideologia de partido.

Amanhã, começarei a ler o Críton, um livro do Platão que eu deixei passar. Depois, o artigo do Huib Kort, o DSM-I e o Ensaio Acerca do Entendimento Humano. Nesse meio tempo, farei também traduções de anotações que eu já publiquei em português. Aviso dado. Durma bem.


5 de fevereiro de 2018

To Boris.

I received a comment a while ago, it seems, but it ended up in my spam queue. I don’t usually have to moderate comments. In fact, my configurations were set in order to make all comments available as long as Askimet (WordPress’ spam filter) doesn’t think they are spam. I think that the filter accused it of being spam because of the coarse language employed. Anyway, I decided to play it safe and reply to the comment using a post, rather than approving the comment.

As a matter of contextualization, the comment was posted in my notes about Kilpatrick’s article on child sexual abuse research. The person who posted goes by the name of Boris. I would like to start by saying that I hold no hatred towards outraged readers and the guy does show that the issue is important to him, as it should be. It’s actually good that people still have that feeling that protecting children is important, as it must be. There’s no reason to hate or rage at Boris at all. I’ll reply his comment point-by-point, removing the cursing.

Another person seeming to defend child abuse and using “tolerance” as a mechanism to try and defend it.

By no means. The notes were about an article that offers sincere criticism on child sexual abuse research. The problems cited by the author were: poor definitions, sampling problems and incorrect measures. If we want a better understanding on child sexual abuse, those issues must be addressed. The author went to great lengths to prove her point, reviewing 34 studies on the issue and finding out that only 10 of them can be taken seriously. Isn’t that awful? A researcher who aims to promote child safety must be interested in conducting a correct research. That’s what the article is about. It’s not about tolerance, supposedly to child sexual abuse or pedophilia. In fact, the author reviewed one pro-pedophilia article in her research and was honest in saying that the article also had problems and also couldn’t be taken seriously. That means that she rejected the only study about beneficial effects of adult-child sex.

I have seen a teen done that on YouTube and his life is […] since he showdd his face, because of his defense for child abuse & use of comedy on a very disgusting subject…

I have no idea who that is. Perhaps Amos Yee. But I don’t follow him.

And now you are going to do the same thing as those child rapists on YouTube omnipolitics16 and cart ograph? Who are just a couple of sick & twisted cherry picking faggots who defended child abuse on YouTube?

I know Cart o’Graph because his channel is up. It seems inactive, tho. I hear about Omnipolitics16, but he seems to be gone. A lot of people talk about him and troll him up to this day. But I never saw the figure.

Children can’t consent, it causes harm always since a lot of reasearch proved it, imbalance of power since a child isn’t equal to an adult, it hurts the child at the time as well always, and the pornography is not only disgusting but worse!

The article didn’t touch the problem of informed consent at all. Informed consent is a moral issue and the author is bold in saying that she’s not making philosophy (morals). Because of that, she also completely avoids the power disparity issue and the pornography issue. That’s not the point of her article. The question that she asks is close to the point you are making there: “how reliable is that research?” That’s the issue. She wants to know if that research indeed proves anything. If you wish to have an anecdote, I can be called a “survivor” too, if you want to call it that way, but I wasn’t hurt at the time it happened and don’t feel hurt now. In fact, the acts were entirely non-penetrative and done in a playful context. Also, as I’m Brazilian, the acts couldn’t be prosecuted back then, because our age of consent (14) only became absolute in 2009 with the new rape law. Before 2009, the act would only be prosecuted if the act hurt the child or was forced (rape) or if the parents didn’t approve it (“atentado ao pudor”, something like “corrupting public morals”). When the new rape law went in effect, all sexual acts engaged before age 14 were declared violent by definition. Meaning that statutory rape, here, is punished just as, if not worse than, regular rape, even if the act involves two minors and no adult. That made the judges reluctant to apply sentences. There was also a recent attempt at lowering our age of consent to 12 due to the problem of two minors having sexual contacts (because the law criminalizes “libidinous acts” without explaining the term, so “libidinous” varies from judge to judge, with some convicting a father for kissing their children), but the Protestant lobby stopped the proposal. A study that was conducted in Campinas, Brazil, concludes that (quoting the study now):

Of 575 participants (85% men and 15% transgender), 32% reported childhood sexual experiences with an older partner. Mean age at first experience was 9 years, partners being, on average, 19 years old, and mostly men. […] Only 29% of the participants who had had such childhood sexual experiences considered it abuse; 57% reported liking, 29% being indifferent and only 14% not liking the sexual experience at the time it happened.

Recalled Sexual Experiences in Childhood with Older Partners: A Study of Brazilian Men Who Have Sex with Men and Male-to-Female Transgender Persons

Don’t get me wrong, Boris, I don’t think that child sexual abuse doesn’t happen. But given that, at least in my country, considering only man/boy contacts (plus transgender), sexual contacts in childhood only happen with 32% out of 575 persons, with most of it being recalled as positive, I do think that the hysteria is not proportional to the facts.

Do you not reliese the Statements made by child abuse survivors?

I do. But isn’t “57% report liking” worth being taken into account? If that amount doesn’t suffer with the sexual contact, not even after growing up, there’s no reason to prosecute every time it happens. In my country, the prison system is backed up, overloaded. Mass murders happen often in the jails, mass escapes and rescues also happen very often, it costs us more than the maintenance of schools and public healthcare and we are the leading nation in tax acquisition, most of it ends up in the pockets of corrupt politicians. We have a lot of problems here centered in our Penal Code and corruption issues. The 7th most violent city in the world is in our territory and two kids fooling around with each other may land the parents in jail for up to fifteen years and, if the judge decides to sum the jail time for both fooling around more than once, the parents will easily spend more time in jail than a murderer would. The law is effectively criminalizing too much and the penalties are too high and we are paying the price, both in taxes and public safety.

All the videos, all the everything!

I saw those. But if you are willing to listen to negative experiences, why don’t you look for positive ones and give them also a try? They exist in professional literature, such as qualitative articles, I could give you a list of links.

The proof is everywhere for proving sex with children is inherently wrong!

Then again, the point of the article was to see how much of that proof actually proves anything. It was also not concerned with “right” or “wrong”, but with “harmless” and “harmful”.

Like I said in the beginning, no one should be mad at Boris. He shows sincere worry about children. I’m sure that he didn’t mean any harm by saying those things, which were not offensive in the slightest. In fact, a lot of people should care as much as he does. But I do think that his protection is one-sided. While he cares about the ones who had negative experiences, he seems to feel like decriminalization would harm them all, including the ones who had positive experiences and had to keep them as secret. The recent Finnish Child Victim Survey has some odd data, showing that, while most of the kids indeed enjoyed the experience (a little more than half of them), they didn’t disclose it, often because they didn’t feel that it would do any good or because they felt that the incident was of small importance. If the child values the contact, don’t you think that it would be harmful to break in, make the child go through invasive medical exams to determine if abuse took place, make them answer questions to the police, maybe make them attend to trial, even if the older person (who could also be a minor) isn’t convicted?

I think that people in United States should take a look at how other nations, such as Japan, handle with the situation. A lot of nations likely speak English, even if not as first language, that’s why I like to write in Portuguese and English. But, unfortunately, that acts as an one-way filter: people are expected to know everything about United States, starting with their native language, but I don’t see much of an incentive in Unites States to learn about other nations, how they deal with sexuality, for example, or penal matters. That also makes cultural imperialism much easier. United States, in many senses, could learn a lot from other nations that are better developed, in Europe, for example, with a lot of those places having ages of consent of 14 or 15. Many of those countries are better than United States in many senses, so United States shouldn’t be the referee of all world affairs. Americans should look at how other cultures, with lower ages of consent, manage to be stable, more peaceful and more intelectually advanced with such low ages of consent. Maybe a high age of consent is not a solution for child sexual abuse, but rather a problem. If such law could really stop child sexual abuse, how come the five countries with the highest rates of child sexual abuse have ages of consent ranging from 16 to 18? United States is in the list. Brazil, Japan and Mexico are not. Think about it too.


25 de dezembro de 2017

Psychological damage.

About Psychological Damage

A short reply to Doobious Wolf.

Written by me for the readers of Analecto, in hopes of someone showing this to Doobious Wolf.


Em resposta a Doobious Wolf, tento esclarecer por que temos a sensação de dano intrínsceco à relações sexuais entre adultos e menores. Acontece que relações entre adulto e menor não seguem padrões de resultado, isto é, não terminam todas da mesma forma e que, portanto, é um mito sustentar que todas as crianças que se relacionaram com adultos manifestarão os mesmos sintomas. Em adição, crianças que tiveram essas relações e as descrevem como positivas podem ter uma boa memória convertida em razão de ansiedade pela necessidade de esconder o ocorrido e também pela vergonha que acompanha o ato. No entanto, esse é um fenômeno cultural que não é facilmente observado em sociedades mais liberais como o Brasil ou sociedades indígenas isoladas. Donde decorre que só há dano intrínsceco à relações negativas, mas sintomas negativos podem aparecer em pessoas com experiências positivas porque o meio em que vivem rejeita essas relações (vitimização secundária).


In response to Doobious Wolf, I try to clarify why do we feel that there’s intrinsic harm to sexual relationships between adults and minors. What actually happens is that adult-minor relationships don’t follow outcome patterns, that is, they don’t always have the same effect on the minor and, because of that, it’s a myth that all children who had a relationship with an adult will show the same symptoms. Plus, children who had those relationships and regard them as positive can still have a positive memory turned into a source of anxiety due to the need to hide and due to the shame that comes with the act. However, that’s a cultural phenomenon that isn’t easily observed in Brazil or isolated indigenous societies. From which we draw that there’s intrinsic harm only to negative relationships, but negative symptoms may appear on people with positive experiences because their cultural context rejects those relationships (secondary victimization).

The problem.

In a video in which Doobious Wolf replies to relevant comments that he received, he decides to reply to a comment that inquires him about his opinion on the secondary victimization1 of children who had sexual contacts with adults. In the comment, Warz asks Wolf if psychological damage couldn’t be minimized if society didn’t see sex in general as such a big deal.2 In fact, we have many sexual taboos and Warz asks if the adult-child sex taboo could be the cause of many traumas related to sexual contact between adult and minor.

Doobious Wolf then answers that, even if he agrees that children may have physically harmless sexual contacts with adults, he doesn’t discard the possibility of intrinsic psychological damage.3

Before discussing the issue in depth, the video’s author shows that he is up to discussing the subject in an unbiased manner, rather than immediately rejecting the idea of age of consent abolishment (a point defended by Amos Yee). He even did research in APA’s website, listing a number of symptoms related to child sexual abuse, that is: thumb-sucking, bed-wetting, sleep disturbance, eating disorder, poor school performance, isolation, aggressiveness, alcohol/drug abuse and anxiety. I fully agree with him, that is, that abusive contacts are harmful to the minors. However, knowing that:

  1. A fair number of those contacts do not result in harm, including psychological harm,4 often being recalled as “positive”, and

  2. A number of those contacts is not forced,5

It becomes clear that the word “abuse” or “rape” is being misused, whenever it’s used to describe all sexual contacts engaged before age of consent,6 which is fourteen in Brazil (my home country). What I’m going to try is to offer evidence and arguments against the inherent psychological harm thesis.


When researching long-term effects of sexual contacts involving people below age of consent, it’s important to remember that a symptom isn’t always related to a specific cause. For example: a cough can be a sign of tuberculosis, pneumonia or hay fever.

So, when a child suffers any of the symptoms pointed out by Wolf, the child may be feeling bad for reasons unrelated to the sexual contact, specially if the sexual contact was peaceful and desired, for example, a libidinous, non-penetrative, non-forced, non-reciprocal act.7 Then, a sexual relationship, specially if regarded as positive by the minor, can not be safely assumed as cause of psychological maladjustment in adult life.8 The child may be maladjusted thanks to other childhood problems or even due to problems that only began after the child has become an adult.

When researching effects of sexual abuse, it’s important to look for other causes and to control third variables, such as family environment, psychological stress, bullying, verbal abuse, sexual repression, physical abuse (slipper hits, spanking, belting) and other data that may be relevant.9 A good way to know which variables must be controlled before offering definitive diagnosis is by talking to the minor to see how the minor evaluates the contact, what was the degree of permission given or if the minor started the contact. If the contact has been negative, it’s safer, but not completely safe, to conclude that it’s the cause of maladjustment. To conclude once and for all, it’s needed to ask the minor if the link between maladjustment and contact can be made. In short, the minor should judge the contact, not the therapist.

By not proceeding that way, we risk a wrong diagnosis and, consequently, a wrong treatment, which can cause further problems to the minor.10

Another variable to be considered is the treatment that the minor is receiving for effects. Let’s suppose that a child had a positive sexual contact in childhood, didn’t fight it, welcomed it, to the point of asking for more, but then the child grows up, feels ashamed for his or her behavior, feels that he or she was abused or manipulated. What kind of treatment should that person receive? Susan Clancy suggests that the adult should accept what happened and understand that it’s his or her interpretation of the act that is causing maladjustment and that the adult should leave the incident behind.11 However, Clancy suffered academical and popular persecution, first because there are therapists who work upon the child abuse paradigm, meaning that Clancy’s data could become an economical disturbance, and second because she proposes the acceptance of a socially hideous memory, which wouldn’t be a problem if adult-child sex wasn’t taboo.12

It’s that kind of secondary victimization that Warz is speaking about: the conflict between moral values and personal experience may lead the person to feel immoral for enjoying the “abuse” they suffered, turning a positive experience into source of anxiety. That gives the impression of inherent harm, because that means that negative symptoms can appear both in people with negative experiences and people with positive experiences. But even so, there’s a number of adult-child relationships that are remembered as positive and cause no anxiety even after the minor has grown up.

That leads me to another variable, that is cultural environment. According to Rind Report, 37% of boys and 11% of girls recall their childhood sexual experiences as “positive” (counting the four generic types13 and including child-child contacts),14 but, in a study ran in Campinas, Brazil, that number among boys is 57% (including a single type,15 including only adult-child sex).16 Plus, other cultures who don’t make a big deal about child sexuality, despite being more sexually liberal, aren’t overloaded with traumatized adults,17 with some being pretty peaceful.18 So, we need to evaluate if cultural environment doesn’t play a role in turning positive memories into source of anxiety. That data support Warz’s point, that maybe the taboo (the idea that those contacts are wrong, that all those adults are monsters, that those contacts imply the use of a minor as mere tool for adult satisfaction and other prejudices) plays a role in generating symptoms.

Last, the fact that the number of positive experiences in United States (where are of consent is at least 16) is low, but high in other places (age of consent in Brazil is 14), shows that high ages of consent don‘t keep those contacts from happening,19 but discourages well-meaning adults that could provide a minor of a experience that could even be desired by said minor.20 That’s enough of a rebuttal of the inherent psychological damage to all those contacts, but it’s not a rebuttal of the inherent damage to coerced or negative contacts, which deserve to be called “abuse”.

If we can say that the problem of psychological damage is solved, it’s also needed to pay attention to those symptoms when they spawn on children who were not sexually abused, nor had any sexual contact, even if non-abusive, even with other minors. If we persist in the belief that those symptoms are necessary, at same time that society seems to willingly ignore other possible causes when they start suspecting that abuse took place, we might open the possibility of false accusations of molestation. But truth is that childhood sexual contacts don’t follow outcome patterns21, turning useless any attempt at constructing a fixed list of symptoms to be attributed to every child, specially if the child regards the contact as positive.

The moral panic towards pedophilia is leading us to overprotect our children, causing a rupture between generations: children grow suspicious of adults and adults flee from children. The deprivation of affection between generations harms the minors, who become alienated from adults even in dire situations.22 In the current climate, a false accusation could destroy a person’s life.23 That discourages healthy interaction between adults and minors.


If positive relationships, which result in non-symptomatic adults, who can function just like any other adults, exist, then the inherent psychological damage thesis is false. However, a person with positive memories can have his experience turned into a source of stress thanks to social reaction to the act, causing feelings of shame and also guilt, if the minor has started the contact. But that’s an environment reaction, meaning that the taboo has a role in the development of negative feelings even in people with positive memories.

I propose that people with positive experiences should have their judgment respected, just as much as those who had negative experiences. In fact, if an experience was positive, it’s pointless to discuss damage; we should discuss the extent of the benefit. Stigmatizing a person with positive experiences, to make them feel bad for what happened, is, also, abuse, because the symptoms wouldn’t appear without someone “interpreting” the experience with different criteria. That also explains why more liberal societies have less sexually traumatized adults. A child with positive experiences, in contact with a society that sees those experiences as taboo, start to feel shame and to hide what was done, maybe finding themselves forced to publicly admit that the experience was abusive, despite their own inner judgment saying it was not. That can’t be healthy. A child with a positive experience was supposed to be able to speak out about those experiences without suffering because of it, just as much as those who report their own negative contacts and receive emotional support.

Finally, that shows that age of consent laws are unable to stop those relationships from happening, but discourage minor-attracted people who mean no harm, as well as positive contacts between minors themselves. Age of consent is supposed to measure a minor’s degree of maturity, but how? How come the age of consent varies from country to country? Is it because children mature faster in Japan or Mexico, compared to United States and United Kingdom? If age of consent doesn’t measure maturity, what does it measure? If it’s a legal concept, it doesn’t have to be included in a debate about psychology, unless we are talking about social impact (like I am doing). If there’s no social element, it would be better to discuss “maturity”, rather than age of consent.

Since I don’t have an YouTube account, I can’t personally show this text to Doobious Wolf. So, if you are reading this and has an account, I would be thankful if you could show this to him.


CARBALLO-DIÉGUEZ, A. ; BALAN, I. ; DOLEZAL, C. ; MELLO, M. B. Recalled Sexual Experiences in Childhood with Older Partners: A Study of Brazilian Men Who Have Sex with Men and Male-to-Female Transgender Persons. Available at: <>. Accessed at: 12/25/17.

CLRESEARCHBLOG. Society’s Stigma of the Act May Account for Large Portion of the Harm. Available at: <>. Accessed at: 12/25/17.

D’AGOSTINHO, R. Tribunais Absolvem Acusados De Sexo Com Menor Apesar De Nova Lei. Available at: <>. Accessed at: 12/25/17.

DOOBIOUS WOLF. Comment Response Time! (12/07/17). Available at: <>. Accessed at: 12/25/17.

IACCINO, L. Child Sexual Abuse: Top 5 Countries With The Highest Rates. Available at: <>. Accessed at: 25/12/17.

IPCE. Hysteria is Dangerous: Did Pedophilia Hysteria Cause Child’s Death?, in Ipce Newstletter, n° 30. Available at: <>. Accessed at: 25/12/17.

LEAHY, T. Sex and The Age of Consent: The Ethical Issues, in Social Analysis, n° 39. 1996.

LISBOA, F. S. Resenha do Filme “A Caça”. Available at: <>. Accessed at: 25/12/17.

O’CARROLL, T. Paedophilia: The Radical Case, in Contemporary Social Issues Series, n° 12. Londres: Peter Owen, 1980.

PEDOSEXUAL RESOURCES DIRECTORY. The Sexual Interest of the Pedophile, in Available at: <>. Accessed at: 25/12/17.

PRESCOTT, J. W. Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence. Available at: <>. Accessed at: 25/12/17.

RIND, B. ; BAUSERMAN, R. ; TROMOVITCH, P. A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples, in Psychological Bulletin, volume 124, n° 1, pages 22 to 53. American Psychological Association, 1998.

RIVAS, T. Positive Memories: Cases of positive memories of erotic and platonic relationships and contacts of children with adults, as seen from the perspective of the former minor, 3rd Edition. Ipce, 2016.

ZUGER, A. Abusing Not Only Children, but Also Science. Available at: <>. Accessed at: 12/25/17.

1Secondary victimization: a type of psychological damage that isn’t caused by an act per itself, but by environment reaction to the act (in this case, a child who has a sexual relationship with an adult and enjoys what happened, but ends up suffering with parent reaction, with the feeling of shame that is attributed to the act, with the medical exam for detection of abuse signs or by legal intervention). See Paedophilia: the Radical Case. Chapter 3: The ‘Molester’ and His ‘Victim’.

3Comment Response Time! (12/07/17).

4A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples. Results > self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA.

5Positive Memories: Cases of positive memories of erotic and platonic relationships and contacts of children with adults, as seen from the perspective of the former minor. Boys with women > BW-10 – Vili Fualaau.

6A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples. Summary and conclusion.

8A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples. Previous literature review > qualitative literature reviews.

9A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples. The four assumed properties of CSA revisited > causality.

10Positive Memories: Cases of positive memories of erotic and platonic relationships and contacts of children with adults, as seen from the perspective of the former minor. Boys with men > BM-16 – Chris.

11To be fair, Clancy doesn’t believe that adult-child relationships should be allowed, because, in her view, a child is unable to give informed consent. But others question the very notion of informed consent. See Sex and The Age of Consent: the Ethical Issues.

12‘The Trauma Myth,’ by Susan A. Clancy.

13Boy/man, boy/woman, girl/man, girl/woman.

14A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples. Results > self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA.


16Recalled Sexual Experiences in Childhood with Older Partners: A Study of Brazilian Men Who Have Sex with Men and Male-to-Female Transgender Persons.

17Paedophilia: the Radical Case. Chapter 2: Children’s Sexuality: What do We Mean?

18Body Pleasure and The Origins of Violence.

19Child Sexual Abuse: Top 5 Countries With the Highest Rates.

20In Brazil, a twelve-year-old girl asked for sex to a twenty-nine-year-old man. The mother reported the incident, but regretted. The adult was declared innocent. See Tribunais Absolvem Acusados De Sexo Com Menor Apesar De Nova Lei.

21A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples. Child sexual abuse as construct reconsidered.

22Ipce Newstletter #30. Hysteria is Dangerous: Did Pedophilia Hysteria Cause Child’s Death?

23To have an idea of how, see The Hunt (2012). Resenha do Filme “A Caça”.


Dano psicológico.

Sobre Dano Psicológico

Uma breve resposta a Doobious Wolf.

Escrito por mim para os leitores do Analecto, na esperança de que alguém mostre este texto ao Doobious Wolf.


Em resposta a Doobious Wolf, tento esclarecer por que temos a sensação de dano intrínseco à relações sexuais entre adultos e menores. Acontece que relações entre adulto e menor não seguem padrões de resultado, isto é, não terminam todas da mesma forma e que, portanto, é um mito sustentar que todas as crianças que se relacionaram com adultos sentirão os mesmos efeitos. Em adição, crianças que tiveram essas relações e as descrevem como positivas podem ter uma boa memória convertida em razão de ansiedade pela necessidade de esconder o ocorrido e também pela vergonha que acompanha o ato. No entanto, esse é um fenômeno cultural que não é facilmente observado em sociedades mais liberais como o Brasil ou sociedades indígenas isoladas. Donde decorre que só há dano intrínseco à relações negativas, mas efeitos negativos podem aparecer em pessoas com experiências positivas porque o meio em que vivem rejeita essas relações (vitimização secundária).


In response to Doobious Wolf, I try to clarify why do we feel that there’s intrinsic harm to sexual relationships between adults and minors. What actually happens is that adult-minor relationships don’t follow outcome patterns, that is, they don’t always have the same effect on the minor and, because of that, it’s a myth that all children who had a relationship with an adult will feel the same effects. Plus, children who had those relationships and regard them as positive can still have a positive memory turned into a source of anxiety due to the need to hide and due to the shame that comes with the act. However, that’s a cultural phenomenon that isn’t easily observed in Brazil or isolated indigenous societies. From which we draw that there’s intrinsic harm only to negative relationships, but negative effects may appear on people with positive experiences because their cultural context rejects those relationships (secondary victimization).

O problema.

Num vídeo em que Doobious Wolf, pseudônimo de um usuário do YouTube, dá respostas aos comentários relevantes que recebera, ele resolve responder a um comentário que o inquire sobre sua opinião acerca da tese de vitimização secundária1 de crianças que tiveram relações sexuais com adultos. No comentário, Warz (também pseudônimo) pergunta a Wolf se o dano psicológico não poderia ser minimizado se a sociedade não visse sexo em geral como algo de suprema importância.2 Com efeito, temos muitos tabus sexuais e Warz pergunta se o tabu de relações entre adultos e menores não estaria por trás de muitos traumas ocorridos em decorrência dessas relações.

Doobious Wolf então respondeu que, embora ele concorde que crianças podem ter relações com adultos e não receber dano físico por causa dessas relações, ele não descarta a possibilidade de dano psicológico inerente.3

Antes de tratar essa questão em profundidade, o autor do vídeo demonstra que está disposto a argumentar de forma imparcial sobre o assunto, em vez de condenar a priori a ideia de que leis de idade de consentimento não têm razão de existir (ponto sustentado por Amos Yee). Ele inclusive fez uma pesquisa no sítio da American Psychological Association e listou um número de efeitos decorrentes do abuso sexual infantil, a saber: chupar o dedo, molhar a cama, problemas de sono, desordem alimentar, queda no rendimento escolar, isolamento, agressividade, abuso de álcool, abuso de drogas e ansiedade. Não tiro sua razão quanto a isso, isto é, de que experiências sexuais abusivas são prejudiciais ao menor. No entanto, sabendo que:

  1. Um número grande dessas relações não resulta em dano, inclusive psicológico,4 podendo inclusive serem lembradas como “positivas” e

  2. Um número dessas relações não é forçada,5

Fica patente a utilização errada do termo “abuso” ou “estupro” para descrever todas as relações sexuais engajadas antes da idade de consentimento,6 que é catorze no Brasil. O que tentarei fazer com este curto texto é mostrar evidências e argumentos contra a tese de dano psicológico inerente.


Ao pesquisar dano a longo prazo em casos de relações sexuais envolvendo pessoas abaixo da idade de consentimento (doravante “menores”), é preciso levar em consideração que um sintoma não está sempre necessariamente ligado a uma causa específica. Por exemplo: uma tosse pode ser sintoma de tuberculose, coqueluche, pneumonia entre outras doenças.

Então, quando uma criança sofre qualquer dos efeitos apontados por Wolf, ela pode os sofrer por outras razões, especialmente se a relação sexual tiver sido pacífica e desejada, por exemplo, um ato libidinoso não-penetrativo, não-violento e não-recíproco.7 Logo, uma relação sexual, especialmente se a relação é tida por positiva pelo menor, não pode ser seguramente apontada como causa de desajuste psicológico na vida adulta.8 Ela pode estar desajustada por outros problemas de infância ou mesmo que só começaram depois de adulto.

Ao pesquisar efeitos de abuso sexual, é preciso procurar por comorbidades e controlar variáveis terceiras, como ambiente familiar, estresse psicológico, pressão escolar, repressão sexual, abuso verbal, abuso físico (chineladas, palmadas, golpes de cinturão) e outros dados que possam ser relevantes.9 Um bom jeito de saber quais variáveis precisam ser controladas antes de oferecer um diagnóstico definitivo seria falando com o menor para saber como ele julga a relação que teve, qual o grau de permissão concedido ou se o menor iniciou o ato. Se a experiência tiver sido negativa, é mais seguro, mas não completamente seguro, concluir que ela é a razão do desajuste. Para concluir definitivamente, seria preciso saber do menor se ele pode fazer a ligação entre o ato e o desajuste. Em suma, o menor deve julgar a relação, não o terapeuta.

Ao não fazer isso, nos arriscamos a um diagnóstico errado e, consequentemente, a um tratamento errado, o que pode causar mais problemas ao menor.10

Uma outra variável a ser considerada seria o tratamento que o menor recebeu por causa de sequelas. Suponhamos que uma criança teve uma relação sexual positiva na infância, não lutou contra ela, a teve por bem-vinda, chegando a pedir por mais, mas depois ela cresce, olha para trás e sente vergonha do seu comportamento, sente que foi abusada e manipulada. Que tipo de tratamento essa pessoa deveria receber? Susan Clancy sugere que o adulto deveria aceitar o que aconteceu e entender que é sua interpretação do ato que está causando o desajuste e que o adulto deve deixar o incidente no passado.11 No entanto, Clancy sofreu perseguição acadêmica e popular, primeiro porque há doutores que praticam terapia sobre o paradigma de abuso de menor, de forma que os dados de Clancy se mostrariam uma perturbação econômica, e segundo porque ela propõe a aceitação de uma memória tida como socialmente hedionda, o que não seria problema se a sociedade não visse esse tipo de relação como tabu.12

É desse tipo de vitimização secundária que Warz está falando: o conflito entre valores morais e experiências pessoais levam a pessoa a se sentir imoral por ter gostado do “abuso” sofrido, transformando uma experiência positiva em causa de ansiedade. Isso dá a impressão de dano psicológico inerente, porque isso significa que sintomas negativos podem aparecer em pessoas com experiências negativas e também em pessoas com experiências positivas. Mas mesmo assim, há um número de relacionamentos entre adultos e menores que são lembrados como positivos e não causam ansiedade ao menor depois que ele cresce.

Isso me leva à outra variável que é o ambiente cultural. Segundo o Relatório Rind, 42% dos meninos e 16% das meninas lembra das experiências sexuais infantis como positivas (contando os quatro tipos genéricos13 e contando relações entre menor e menor),14 mas, num estudo realizado em Campinas, Brasil, o número entre meninos é de 57% (contando apenas um tipo,15 contando somente relações entre adulto e menor).16 Em adição, outras culturas que lidam melhor com a sexualidade infantil, mesmo sendo mais liberais sexualmente, não estão lotadas de adultos traumatizados,17 com alguns sendo bastante pacíficos.18 Então, é preciso verificar se o ambiente cultural também não tem participação na geração de efeitos negativos sobre pessoas que têm experiências positivas. Esses dados também corroboram com o ponto de Warz, de que talvez o tabu (a ideia de que essas relações são erradas, todos esses adultos são monstros, todas essas relações implicam o uso do menor como meio de satisfação e outros preconceitos) tenha um papel na formação de sintomas.

Por último, o fato de o número de experiências positivas nos Estados Unidos (onde a idade de consentimento é, no mínimo, dezesseis) ser baixo, mas alto em outros lugares (a idade de consentimento no Brasil é catorze), mostra que uma alta idade de consentimento não impede essas relações de ocorrerem,19 mas desencoraja adultos responsáveis que poderiam prover um menor de uma experiência que poderia até ser desejada por ele.20 Isso refuta a tese de dano psicológico inerente a todas as relações, mas não refuta a tese de dano inerente à relações forçadas ou negativas, as quais merecem serem chamadas de “abuso”.

Se por um lado o problema do dano psicológico inerente foi resolvido, é preciso tomar precaução quanto a esses efeitos, quando aparecem em crianças que não foram abusadas sexualmente ou que não tiveram nenhum contato sexual, mesmo não-abusivo, mesmo com outras crianças. Se nutrirmos a crença de que esses sintomas são necessários, ao passo que a sociedade parece ignorar voluntariamente outras explicações para os sintomas quando a suspeita de abuso aparece, podemos dar margem à acusações falsas de molestamento. Mas a verdade é que relações na infância não terminam sempre do mesmo jeito,21 tornando inútil a tentativa de fazer uma lista fixa de efeitos a ser aplicada a todas as crianças, especialmente se a experiência foi positiva.

O pânico moral em relação à pedofilia está nos levando a superproteger nossos filhos, causando uma ruptura entre gerações: crianças desconfiam de adultos e adultos fogem de crianças. A privação de afeto entre gerações prejudica os menores, que ficam sem ajuda dos adultos mesmo em casos críticos.22 Na atual conjuntura, uma acusação falsa poderia destruir a vida de uma pessoa.23 Isso desencoraja a interação saudável entre adulto e menor.


Se existem relações positivas, que resultam em adultos normais, que funcionam tão bem como adultos que não tiveram essas relações, a tese de dano psicológico inerente é falsa. No entanto, uma pessoa com memórias positivas pode ter sua experiência transformada em razão de ansiedade por causa da reação social ao ato, causando sentimentos de vergonha e também de culpa, se o menor tiver iniciado o ato. Mas isso é uma reação do ambiente, portanto o tabu tem um papel no desenvolvimento de efeitos negativos em pessoas com experiências positivas.

Proponho que pessoas com experiências positivas devam ter seu julgamento respeitado, tanto quanto as que tiveram experiências negativas. Com efeito, se a experiência foi positiva, falar de dano não faz sentido; se deve falar de benefício. Estigmatizar uma pessoa com experiências positivas, a fim de fazê-la se sentir mal pelo ocorrido é, também, abuso, porque os efeitos não apareceriam se ninguém tivesse “interpretado” a experiência segundo critérios alheios à pessoa. Isso também explica porque sociedades mais liberais têm menos adultos traumatizados por abuso sexual infantil. A criança com experiências positivas, em contato com uma sociedade que trata essas relações como tabu, passa a sentir vergonha do ocorreu e a esconder o que fez, talvez se vendo forçada a admitir publicamente que o ato foi abusivo, mesmo que seu julgamento contradiga essa posição. Isso não pode ser saudável. A criança com experiências positivas deveria ser capaz de falar sobre elas sem sofrer por isso, tal como aqueles que denunciam casos negativos que lhes aconteceram e recebem apoio emocional.

Por último, isso mostra que leis de idade de consentimento não impedem essas relações de ocorrerem, mas desencoraja pessoas atraídas por menores que são bem-intencionadas, bem como relacionamentos positivos entre dois menores. A idade de consentimento propõe-se a medir a maturidade do menor, mas como? Por que a idade de consentimento varia segundo a cultura local? Porventura crianças amadurecem mais rápido no Japão ou no México, em comparação com Estados Unidos e Reino Unido? Se a idade de consentimento não mede maturidade, então o que ela mede? Se ela é uma categoria legal, não precisa ser incluída num debate psicológico, a menos que estejamos falando também impacto social (como é o caso deste texto). Abstraído o elemento social, seria melhor falar em “maturidade”, não em idade de consentimento.

Como eu não tenho conta no YouTube, não posso mostrar este texto a Doobious Wolf. Então, se você estiver lendo e tiver conta, eu ficaria grato se você mostrasse este texto a ele. No entanto, lembrando que Doobious Wolf é um pseudônimo, então você não deveria lhe mostrar este texto sem antes julgar se é seguro.


CARBALLO-DIÉGUEZ, A. ; BALAN, I. ; DOLEZAL, C. ; MELLO, M. B. Recalled Sexual Experiences in Childhood with Older Partners: A Study of Brazilian Men Who Have Sex with Men and Male-to-Female Transgender Persons. Disponível em: <>. Acessado em: 12/25/17.

CLRESEARCHBLOG. Society’s Stigma of the Act May Account for Large Portion of the Harm. Disponível em: <>. Acessado em: 12/25/17.

D’AGOSTINHO, R. Tribunais Absolvem Acusados De Sexo Com Menor Apesar De Nova Lei. Disponível em: <>. Acessado em: 12/25/17.

DOOBIOUS WOLF. Comment Response Time! (12/07/17). Disponível em: <>. Acessado em: 12/25/17.

IACCINO, L. Child Sexual Abuse: Top 5 Countries With The Highest Rates. Disponível em: <>. Acessado em: 25/12/17.

IPCE. Hysteria is Dangerous: Did Pedophilia Hysteria Cause Child’s Death?, in Ipce Newstletter, n° 30. Disponível em: <>. Acessado em: 25/12/17.

LEAHY, T. Sex and The Age of Consent: The Ethical Issues, in Social Analysis, n° 39. 1996.

LISBOA, F. S. Resenha do Filme “A Caça”. Disponível em: <>. Acessado em: 25/12/17.

O’CARROLL, T. Paedophilia: The Radical Case, in Contemporary Social Issues Series, n° 12. Londres: Peter Owen, 1980.

PEDOSEXUAL RESOURCES DIRECTORY. The Sexual Interest of the Pedophile, in Disponível em: <>. Acessado em: 25/12/17.

PRESCOTT, J. W. Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence. Disponível em: <>. Acessado em: 25/12/17.

RIND, B. ; BAUSERMAN, R. ; TROMOVITCH, P. A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples, in Psychological Bulletin, volume 124, n° 1, páginas 22 a 53. American Psychological Association, 1998.

RIVAS, T. Positive Memories: Cases of positive memories of erotic and platonic relationships and contacts of children with adults, as seen from the perspective of the former minor, 3ª Edição. Ipce, 2016.

ZUGER, A. Abusing Not Only Children, but Also Science. Disponível em: <>. Acessado em: 25/12/17.

1Vitimização secundária: um tipo de dano psicológico que não é causado por um ato em si, mas pela reação de outros ao ato (no caso, uma criança que se relaciona com um adulto e gosta do que ocorreu, mas acaba sofrendo com a reação dos pais, com o sentimento de vergonha que lhe é imputado, com o exame médico para detectar sinais de abuso ou pela intervenção legal). Ver Paedophilia: the Radical Case. Chapter 3: The ‘Molester’ and His ‘Victim’ ; páginas 42 a 44.

2Para ver o que outros pesquisadores pensam sobre esta matéria, ver a compilação Society’s stigma of the act may account for a large portion of the harm.

3Comment Response Time! (12/07/17).

4A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples. Results ; Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA ; páginas 36 a 37.

5Positive Memories: Cases of positive memories of erotic and platonic relationships and contacts of children with adults, as seen from the perspective of the former minor. Boys with women ; BW-10 – Vili Fualaau ;  páginas 118 a 122.

6A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples. Summary and conclusion ;  página 46.

8A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples. Previous literature review ; Qualitative literature reviews ; página 23.

9A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples. The four assumed properties of CSA revisited ; Causality ; página 44.

10Positive Memories: Cases of positive memories of erotic and platonic relationships and contacts of children with adults, as seen from the perspective of the former minor. Boys with men ; BM-16 – Chris ;  páginas 26 a 32.

11Para ser justo, Clancy não acredita que relações entre adultos e menores, mesmo que sejam positivas, devam ser permitidas, porque, a seu ver, uma criança não é capaz de emitir consentimento informado. Mas há quem conteste a noção de consentimento informado. Ver Sex and The Age of Consent: the Ethical Issues.

12Abusing Not Only Children, but Also Science.

13Menino/homem, menino/mulher, menina/homem, menina/mulher.

14A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples. Results ; Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA ; página 36.


16Recalled Sexual Experiences in Childhood with Older Partners: A Study of Brazilian Men Who Have Sex with Men and Male-to-Female Transgender Persons.

17Paedophilia: the Radical Case. Chapter 2: Children’s Sexuality: What do We Mean? ; página 22.

18Body Pleasure and The Origins of Violence.

19Child Sexual Abuse: Top 5 Countries With the Highest Rates.

20No Brasil, uma menina de doze anos pediu sexo a um adulto de vinte e nove. A mãe denunciou, mas se arrependeu e o adulto foi absolvido. Ver Tribunais Absolvem Acusados De Sexo Com Menor Apesar De Nova Lei.

21A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples. Child sexual abuse as construct reconsidered ; página 46.

22Ipce Newstletter #30. Hysteria is Dangerous: Did Pedophilia Hysteria Cause Child’s Death?

23Para ter uma ideia de como, veja o filme A Caça, de 2012. Resenha do Filme “A Caça”.


25 de outubro de 2017

Sobre as anotações (“about the annotations”).

English version after the Portuguese version.

Quando eu comecei a fazer anotações sobre o Relatório Rind, eu pensei que seria uma boa ideia fazer anotações concomitantes em português e em inglês. Fiz isso porque, como o texto original estava em inglês, haveria menos impacto se eu não fizesse anotações em inglês. Isso foi confirmado quando o próprio Rivas comentou minhas anotações sobre Positive Memories e eu talvez não teria recebido um comentário tão construtivo se eu tivesse feito minhas anotações somente em português. Eu domino ambos os idiomas com alguma decência, então por que não?

Mas a forma como estive fazendo isso, colocando a anotação em inglês abaixo de cada anotação em português, prejudica o fluxo do texto. Então eu estive pensando em fazer duas entradas separadas para cada livro anotado: uma em português e uma em inglês. Ambas as entradas seriam colocadas no Índice, que seria reformado. A ideia me pareceu boa, mas eu senti vontade de traduzir pro inglês as anotações que eu já tenho e que estão somente em português. Afinal, inglês é o idioma mais popular do mundo, não tem um território que não tenha uma academia de inglês. Quando eu comecei a fazer anotações sobre livros de filosofia, a minha intenção era popularizar a filosofia entre leitores brasileiros, mas ignorância existe em todos os lugares, não só no Brasil. Se eu domino outro idioma, porque confinar o que escreveo ao meu idioma nativo apenas?

Então, eu resolvi que vou traduzir pro inglês as anotações que eu já tenho, o que não implica apagar as anotações em português. Quando eu ler um livro em português, eu publicarei as anotações em português primeiro, só depois traduzirei. Se eu estiver lendo um livro em inglês, as anotações sairão primeiro em inglês. Esse sistema será adotado quando eu acabar de ler Além do Bem e do Mal e o Radical Case do Tom O’Carroll.

English version starts here.

When I began to write annotations on the Rind Report, I thought that it would be a good idea to write annotation in both Portuguese and English at same time. I did it because, as the original text was in English, there would be less impact if I didn’t make annotations in English. That was confirmed when Rivas himself commented on my annotations about Positive Memories and it would be unlikely to receive a comment by him if I did those annotations in Portuguese only. I have a decent grasp of both languages, so why not?

But the way I was doing it, attaching an English annotation right under each annotation in Portuguese, harms the reading flow. So I was thinking about making two separate posts for each book I read: one for annotations in Portuguese and another for annotations in English. Both entries would be put in the Index, which would need to be rebuilt. The idea seemed good, but I started wanting to translate to English the annotations that I have, but that are only available in Portuguese. In fact, English is the most popular language in the world; there’s not a single territory without a stablished English course. When I began to make annotations about philosophy books, my intention was to popularize philosophy among Brazilian readers, but ignorance exists everywhere, not just in Brazil. If I can write in another language, why confine my writing to my native language only?

So, I decided to translate to English the annotations that I already have, which doesn’t imply deleting the Portuguese ones. Upon reading a book written in Portuguese, the annotations would be published in Portuguese at first, with the English translation coming only later on. If I read a book in English, the annotations will be published in English at first. That system will be adopted when I finish Além do Bem e do Mal and Tom O’Carroll’s Radical Case.


10 de outubro de 2017

Controle (“control”).

English version after the Portuguese version.

Então, hoje eu li este conto abaixo.

Era uma vez um brother

Meu comentário.

Não vou dizer que o amor só pode se dar entre iguais porque ninguém é igual ao outro: um fisiculturista pode ficar com uma modelo e ainda assim tudo dar certo. Mas essa moça da sua história provavelmente leu o Diário de um Sedutor, do Søren Kierkegaard. A técnica é parecida, os jogos mentais e tudo o mais. Até as esperas estratégicas. O ciúme e o desejo de controle são características incompatíveis com o amor. Quem ama não quer machucar. Daonde que uma mulher dessa ama alguém? Não ama. É mais fácil dizer que odeia. Um número de pessoas procura razões pra odiar, porque odiar os faz se sentir bem, e veem no romance um campo fértil para o ódio, pois o ciúme é corriqueiro no romance.
Masturbação é natural e desejável. Mas é também um impulso por vezes forte e difícil de resistir. É também uma atividade muito prazerosa. Assim, impedir uma pessoa de se masturbar quando a vontade surge é uma vitória e tanto pra uma pessoa controladora. Ela quer ser a única fonte de prazer do cara, uma fonte que pode fechar ao capricho, porque negar assegura a ela que ela tem controle. Ela o controlará pelo cansaço, pela raiva e por outros artifícios e depois se aproveitará de sua boa vontade pra exercer chantagem emocional.
Eu gosto muito de dizer isso: não mude por amor. Se por você tem que mudar por amor, está dando uma prova patente de que a pessoa não gosta de você do jeito que você é, mas do jeito que essa pessoa quer. O que ela quer com isso, te fazendo mudar por ela? Isso já não basta pra fazer você ver que ela já se sente mais importante? Isso não é uma tendência perigosa?
As mulheres hoje estão empoderadas. Mas não deveriam usar esse poder para inverter o pólo de opressão entre homens e mulheres. Igualdade de direitos não deveria ser uma brecha para vingança e vê-la dessa forma já mostra que você é tão ruim como os que antes lhe oprimiram. Por causa de mulheres como essa do texto, há movimentos como o Men Going Their Own Way e o Marriage Strike, homens que recusam compromisso, porque o compromisso, ao ver deles, dá ocasião a casos como o descrito acima, não obstante qual é o polo de opressão, se masculino ou feminino. A mulher ganhou mais proteções, isso é bom, mas a aplicação é desproporcional: se ela partisse pra violência e eu a denunciasse, o delegado riria da minha cara. Mas alguns aceitam a denúncia da moça com provas insuficientes. Não é a lei que está errada, ao menos nesse caso, mas sua aplicação. Isso torna fácil a uma mulher abusiva usar a lei como dispositivo de controle.
Eu me abstenho totalmente de relacionamentos com qualquer pessoa. Prefiro ter muitos amigos do que um parceiro romântico. Isso não é uma decisão que muitos podem fazer e eu só a tomei porque eu quis assim e pude me comprometer a isso. Mas o ideal é não tomar decisões com base na paixão. Toda a emoção deve ser moderada pelo bom senso e esse cara é um babaca.

English version starts here.

So, I read the following tale today.

Era uma vez um brother

My comment.

I won’t say that love can only exist between equals, because no one is just like the other: a bodybuilder can date a model and everything still go alright. But that girl from the tale probably read Diário de um Sedutor, by Søren Kierkegaard. The technique is alike, the mind games and all that. Even the strategic suspense. Jealousy and desire for control are traits that are incompatible with love. When you love, you don’t want to hurt. Since when a woman like that can love? She does not love. It’s easier to say that she hates him. A number of people look for reasons to hate, because hating makes them feel good, and they see a fertile field for hate in romance, because jealousy is common in romance.
Masturbation is natural and desired. But it’s also an impulse that is sometimes hard to resist. It’s also a very pleasurable activity. So, to keep someone from masturbating when the urge arises is a victory for a manipulative person. She wants to be his only source of pleasure, a source that can close at whim, because denying assures her that she is in power. She will also control him by making him tired, making him angry and several other tricks and then will exploit his good will to exercise emotional blackmail.
I love to say this: never change for love. If you have to change for love, you are giving a clear proof that the person doesn’t want you the way you are, but way they want you to be. What does she want by making you change for her? Isn’t that enough to make you see that she already feels more important than you? Isn’t that a dangerous character trait?
Women are empowered nowadays. But they shouldn’t use that power to invert the oppression pole. Equal rights shouldn’t be seen as an excuse for revenge and doing so only shows that you are as evil as those who once oppressed you. Because of women like that one in the tale, movements like Men Going Their Own Way and Marriage Strike exist, men who refuse commitment, because commitment, in their view, makes occasion for that kind of exploitation, no matter which side, if male of female, exercises said exploitation. Women got more protection, that’s good, but the application is not proportional: if she decided to be violent and I reported her, the judge would laugh at my face. But some accept violence reports from women without enough proof. Isn’t that the law is wrong, at least in that case, but it’s application is. That makes it easy for an abusive woman to use the law as control device.
I completely abstain from relationships with any person. I prefer to have lots of friends, rather than a lover. That’s not a decision that many can make and I only made it because I wanted to and felt that I could commit to it. But the ideal should be to not take decisions based on passion. Every emotion should be moderated by common sense and that dude in the tale is a dummy.


28 de setembro de 2017

Presente de aniversário.

An English version of the following text can be found after the Portuguese version.

Hoje eu faço, oficialmente, vinte e cinco anos. Recebi um e-mail da Câmara dos Deputados. No Brasil, há duas formas de um indivíduo sugerir uma lei: pelo site do Senado e pelo site da Câmara. Então, depois que eu escrevi meu texto Estupro de Vulnerável, que expõe todos os problemas do artigo 217-A do Código Penal, eu resolvi levar as coisas ao modo Justin Bailey e enviei minha ideia à Câmara. Lá, ela seria enviada a alguém que tivesse saco pra ler. Isso foi em julho. Hoje, alguém com saco recebeu minha mensagem e ela será lida. Basicamente, eu proponho o retorno aos tempos anteriores a 2009, quando uma relação com um menor de idade só seria criminosa se o menor fosse forçado, prejudicado ou se os pais não concordassem com a relação. Assim, uma relação inofensiva e aprovada por todas as partes (pais, menor e interessado) não precisaria ser punida. Ela nem seria considerada “pedofilia”, apesar de ser, clinicamente, se um dos participantes fosse adulto. Vale lembrar que nem todas as relações entre adulto e menor resultam em prejuízo, com algumas sendo benéficas. Essas que são “benéficas” o povo não vê como pedofilia, porque têm para si que pedofilia é sinônimo de estupro de menor, o que não é verdade.

Em julho também, resolvi continuar com meu plano e fiz a mesma coisa no site do Senado. Deixa eu explicar: o site do Senado permite que façamos leis e as enviemos pra consulta pública. Se a nossa ideia tiver vinte mil apoios, ela será enviada à Comissão de Direitos Humanos e, se ela receber um bom parecer, será debatida na Câmara e no Senado. Depois disso, tive ainda a audácia de contactar todos os partidos políticos atualmente existentes no Brasil e sugerir pra eles as mudanças que meu texto propõe. Só um me retornou: o Partido Novo (acho esse nome péssimo, por falar nisso, é como nomear um diretório de “Nova Pasta”).

Caso você esteja se perguntando como eu pretendo reduzir os casos de gravidez na adolescência dessa forma, saiba que eu trato desse problema no meu texto, bem como outros, inclusive sexualidade infantil, aulas de educação sexual e outros, comparando o Brasil com países mais permissivos e que têm taxas menores de gravidez adolescente, como o Japão, onde a idade de consentimento é treze anos e só quatro em cada mil mulheres engravida antes dos dezenove, sugerindo que o problema da gravidez adolescente não é legal, mas educacional. Encaremos os fatos: menores terão relações entre si ou com mais velhos queiramos ou não, então é bom que estejam pelo menos informados e que os pais tenham o direito de permitir ou proibir, como tinham antes.

Fico feliz por meu texto ter sido encaminhado pra… alguém que esqueci o nome. “Alguma Coisa Forte”, talvez “Rodrigo Forte”, sei lá. O fato é que a lei anterior era superior, em termos de proporção penal e liberdade. Então, foi um bom presente de aniversário. Temos que procurar caminhos possíveis para luta.

English version below.

Today, I officially turn 25. I received an e-mail from the Lower House today. In Brazil, there are two ways for someone to suggest a law: Senate site and Lower House site. So, after I wrote Statutory Rape (a heads-up: I edited the text and added more stuff after Apertado translated it, meaning that the English version is technically incomplete), a text that exposes all problems of the article 217-A in the Penal Code, I decided to take things to Justin Bailey mode and sent my idea to the Lower House. There, it would be sent to someone who had patience to read. That was in July. Today, someone with patience received my message and it will be read. Basically, I propose a return to how things were before 2009, back when a relationship with a minor would only be criminal if the minor was forced, harmed or if the parents didn’t agree with it. That way, a harmless relationship that is approved by all parties (parents, minor and interested) wouldn’t need to be punished. It wouldn’t even be considered “pedophilia”, despite being clinically so, if the interested party is an adult. That’s because laymen think that positive relationships with minors aren’t pedophilia, because, for most people, pedophilia is just child rape, which isn’t true.

Also in July, I decided to do the same thing in Senate site. Let me explain: the Senate site allows us to write law ideas and turn them into petitions. If a petition reaches twenty thousand supports, it will be sent to the Human Rights Commission. There, if it receives a good review, it will be sent for debate in Congress. After that, I had the audacity to contact all political parties currently in existence in Brazil in order to suggest the changes proposed by my text. Only one got back at me: the New Party (I think that name is awful, by the way, it’s like naming a directory as “New Folder”).

If you are wondering how would it reduce the cases of teenage pregnancy, I address those problems in my text, as well as other problems such as child sexuality, sexual education lessons and others, comparing Brazil to more permissive countries that have lower teen pregnancy rates, such as Japan, where age of consent is 13 and only 4 in 1000 women become pregnant before age 19, suggesting that teenage pregnancy isn’t a legal, but educational problem. Let’s face the facts: minors will build relationships with each other wether we want it or not, so it would be nice for them to be at least informed on it and that the parents have the right to allow or forbid like they had before.

I’m thankful for my text being sent to… someone whose name I forgot. “Something Forte”, maybe “Rodrigo Forte”, not sure. Fact is that the previous law was superior in terms of penalty proportion and freedom. I guess it was a nice birthday gift. We gotta exploit available channels and fight.


14 de setembro de 2017

“MAP Starting Guide”.


Pessoa atraída por menores” é qualquer um com interesse romântico ou sexual por pessoas abaixo da idade de consentimento. A categoria é larga o bastante para incluir os próprios menores, se estes desenvolverem sentimentos e práticas que podem ser consideradas sexuais no trato geral entre si. Porém, esta categoria é muito nova e a maioria das pessoas não vê a diferença entre atração por menores e pedofilia, a qual é, por si própria, carregada com grandes quantidades de estigma. Por causa disso, a autoestima das pessoas atraídas por menores é severamente prejudicada, elas se escondem e desenvolvem ódio de si próprias. Mas é importante que a pessoa atraída por menores entenda que ela não é uma ameaça a menores, que sua atração é normal em outros lugares do mundo e que, pondo as coisas desta forma, atração por menores não é uma doença em si, mas é tornada tal pela sociedade. Isso deve ajudar pessoas atraídas por menores a aceitar a si mesmas de todo o coração, a ver a idade de consentimento como um fenômeno passivo de mudança, a melhorar o autoconhecimento e apontar para ajuda, se esta for necessária.

Palavras-chave: MAP. Atração por menores. Pedofilia. Autoaceitação. B4U-ACT.


Minor-attracted person” is anyone with a romantic or sexual interest in people below age of consent. The category is broad enough to include even minors themselves, if they develop feelings and practices that can be considered sexual in their general tract between each other. However, this category is fairly new and most people don’t see the difference between attraction to minors and pedophilia, which is, itself, charged with great amounts of stigma. Because of that, the self-esteem of minor-attracted people is severely damaged, they hide and develop self-hatred. But it’s important for the minor-attracted person to understand that they are not a threat to minors, that their attraction is fine in other places of the world and that, putting things that way, attraction to minors isn’t a disease per se, but is made such by society. That should help minor-attracted people to accept themselves wholeheartly, to see age of consent as a cultural phenomenon passive of changing, improve better understanding of themselves and point to help, if such is needed.

Keywords: MAP. Attraction to minors. Pedophilia. Self-acceptance. B4U-ACT.


One day, in May 2017, I had a talk with a friend about pedophilia and I thought about looking it up. I saw extremely disturbing things, that made me anxious for days. However, when I feel anxiety, the feeling doesn’t stop until I become fully informed on the subject, so I can find a way to settle these feelings and give my opinion on them. For days, the online research brought me further pain. I noticed that not everyone who had sexual feelings towards children dealt well with them and I quickly figured that media played a role in propagating that fear in society, rather than true information, to the point of pedophiles themselves, who never had a problem with their feelings and were law-abiding, becoming doubtful about how much control they had over the feeling. “It’s an extremely unhealthy worldview”, I thought, “because it makes you feel like you are never in full control of yourself.”

But finally, I found some things that could diminish my anxiety and make me recover the sanity that I lost that month. Media isn’t a good place to search for those things and that I needed something more factual, such as science or philosophy. I learned that pedophiles are just one kind of “minor-attracted person” and that there are others who have those feelings to different age onsets. I learned that there are minors themselves who are unsatisfied with their situation, the existence of positive accounts around the world and repressed statistical evidence. That, coupled with the horrible experiences I had in May, made me notice that attraction to minors isn’t a disease per se, but is made such by society, no matter if the minor-attracted person is a pedophile or not.

The purpose of this document is to put all needed information for self-acceptance in a single place, so that a person who notices that they have feelings towards others who are below age of consent don’t have to go through all the pains that I had. The first section tries to define what is a minor-attracted person and to differentiate it from pedophilia (the concepts aren’t mutually excluding). The second section deals with the attraction if acted out, it’s status of illegality and the actual damage that acting on it could cause, without exaggeration. The third section is about what to do once you know what you are.


“Minor”, in this context, is someone below age of consent. If you are attracted to people under age of consent, you qualify. The causes for such attraction are unknown. For a while, people thought that having sexual contacts in childhood caused pedophilia,2 for example, but nowadays, we know that this assumption is wrong. There’s no necessary link between having a sexual encounter with an adult during childhood and becoming attracted to minors.3 Science is more inclined to treat attraction to minors in general and pedophilia in particular like a sexual orientation: it’s deeply-rooted, unlikely to change, and you were probably born hardwired to develop that way.4 Fighting it is useless.5

On the other hand, considering that minors themselves may become attracted to peers who also are below age of consent, examining their relationships together do make us wonder if being attracted to minors is always bad. Is there really always harm?6 Aren’t some people whispering that age of consent is keeping minors themselves from building constructive relationships?7 Every minor-attracted adult was once a minor-attracted minor, of course. The nature of the feeling, however, is the same.


If you are crushing on someone and said someone is below age of consent, you qualify, no matter which side of the dividing line you are on: under or above the age of consent. If you are a minor, then your attraction is more socially acceptable, but it may still be illegal, depending on where you are. If you are an adult, you probably have to hide it from society. You may deny or justify yourself, but it’s there and you can’t really pretend it doesn’t exist.

Even if romance is a big part of those feelings, sexuality plays a decisive role in making it disapproved by society.

If you are a minor yourself and are caught having those affairs, people might break in and say you don’t know what you are doing, that you are unaware of the consequences and things of that nature. You might also be registered on a private sex offender list, only to have that list publicized when you reach the age of majority.8 If you are an adult, you may be seen as a manipulative monster if you act on that desire and, even if you don’t, people may assume you are a “ticking time bomb”. But a lot of minor-attracted adults don’t really act on the impulse nor break any law.9

2.2.1 Minors.

Minors often become attracted to other minors, which is only natural. But age of consent laws may pose a problem to that kind of relationship. Because of their daring nature, some minors may act on the impulse and have sexual relationships before age of consent and that actually happens pretty often, despite being illegal.10

While these relationships are more socially accepted, it doesn’t make them risk-free. Depending on your political or religious upbringing, you, as a minor, may face some trouble coming from your parents. If your parents happen to be radical, the incident may escalate to unfair consequences. While there’s no law that forbids love, crossing the line between what is sexual and what is not may land you and your lover in trouble, specially if such line isn’t sharply drawn. Because of that, it’s highly advised against, because the consequences of the act, if the act is found out, may be very harmful.11

2.2.2 Adults.

If you are an adult who is attracted to minors, there’s a fair chance of you being a pedophile. Before you get scared, we must see if you aren’t something else first. “Pedophile” is someone who has a sexual preference for prepubescent children. If the focus of your attraction is another age onset, you have another chronophilia.12 It’s important to stress that a chronophilia is a sexual preference or exclusivity: if you felt attracted to children at some point of your life, but your preference is adult women, you are not a pedophile. That means that being attracted to a child doesn’t automatically make you a pedophile, if it’s an one-time thing or if your desire for adults is stronger.

If you are attracted to babies or toddlers, you are a “nepiophile”. If you are attracted to prepubescent children, you are a “pedophile”. If you are attracted to children or adolescents who are going through puberty, you are a “hebephile”. If you are attracted to people who completed puberty, but still aren’t adults, you are an “ephebophile”. If you are attracted to adults, you are a “teleiophile”. There are other chronophilias related to middle-aged people and elders.13 I included teleiophilia in this document, because age of consent in some countries is 21, rendering some relationships with 18-year-old adults illegal.14

No chronophilia automatically makes you sick. For example: for a long time, pedophilia was listed in both DSM and ICD,15 but neither manual made reference to the other chronophilias. Recently, there was an attempt to include hebephilia in the DSM, but the proposal was ultimately rejected.16 A major reason for such was that hebephilia can still lead to reproductive sex. There are places in the world where those chronophilias aren’t considered abnormal and, nonetheless, you don’t hear much about child sexual abuse from those places.17 Strangely, the places with the highest amount of child sexual abuse cases are five of the countries with highest ages of consent, where those behaviors are considered sick.18 As long as you don’t mind your feelings and don’t break any laws, you don’t need to worry about that.19

2.2.3 Am I a pedophile?

If you now are sure that you are a pedophile, you are probably scared and confused. However, think about your life so far. Was it distressing? Did you hurt anyone? How could it be different in the future? Wasn’t it the way it has always been? You are probably worrying too much. I don’t really blame you for that. Media hammers ideas away about you, fueling prejudice in the guise of information. People believe they are fully informed on pedophilia, despite never talking to a pedophile. In fact, they are discouraged from doing so, as they believe that pedophiles are all dangerous. The problem is that “budding pedophiles” receive that information as well and internalize it and, when they realize they are pedophiles themselves, they make a completely wrong idea of what pedophilia is about, despite feeling it in their very skin. You are taken to believe you are something that you are not.

To help you to overcome that problem, you must consider two bits of information. The first one is that pedophilia isn’t all about adult-child sex. In fact, the idea of penetrating a child probably makes you a little queasy. It’s a common feeling among pedophiles. They crush on children. When you crush on someone, you do not want to hurt them. Still, sexual contacts, even when harmless, are illegal and all acts have consequences, meaning you are advised against practicing adult-child sex even if you mean no harm. For many pedophiles, loving the child is the main thrill, with the sexual aspect being completely secondary, but the association of pedophilia with words such as “strong”, “pressing” or “urgent” make it sound like it’s a huge deal to stay abstinent.20 That means that your relationship with children won’t necessarily develop a sexual aspect, but you are taken to believe it will, which isn’t true and takes me to my second point: most child sex abusers are not pedophiles.21

When you love someone, you mean no harm. So, if you hear media saying that a “pedophile raped a child”, rest assured that they are either misinformed, lying or reporting a minority of them. You shouldn’t let media tell you what you are, nor what you should be attracted to. With media repeating that pedophiles are child rapists, and using those words interchangeably, those sentences could very well be internalized: the meaningful “pedophilia” is reduced to being synonymous with “child fetish”. Media encourages you to see pedophilia only in sexual terms and to see the sexual aspect through a disproportional negative bias, associating it with coercion, pain and trauma. Love is downplayed, despite existing. There’s a conflict between you and the monster you are portrayed as.22 Don’t let anyone tell you how you should feel.

You may feel the sexual aspect of pedophilia, but remember that you don’t have to act on it, that you are urged to remain law-abiding and that it doesn’t invalidate the love that you feel. If you love, you won’t hurt. You are no monster.


We discussed attraction to minors in it’s personal aspect so far, what it means for minors themselves and for adults. But now we should evaluate if the attraction in it’s act is okay or not. Relationships with people below age of consent, even if you are a minor yourself, are illegal and may result in persecution. But are they harmful or immoral by definition?

I ask this question because self-acceptance is much harder when you don’t consider that. It’s like saying “it’s fine to be attracted to something that is not fine.” It’s hard to be fully okay with yourself without considering that element. We have to face the consequences and the facts concerning relationships involving people below age of consent.

In a democratic setting, we all know that laws change. Because of that, considering other aspects of relationships with minors, besides it’s illegality, may help us to evaluate if age of consent needs to exist and, if it does, if it needs to be higher, lower or stay the way it is. Every minor-attracted person should consider this problem with responsibility, specially if they are adults, as minors often can not vote. So, if you come to the conclusion that those laws harm minors, you are supposed to be their voice. As an adult, you are in charge of doing what is in the minor’s best interest and you won’t know what is in their best interest without listening to them. See what they think about those laws. If you come to the conclusion that removing those laws could harm minors, you are also supposed to be vocal about it. In any case, minors themselves should also participate in the debate, as it’s a law about them and discussing it is an exercise of political consciousness.


Before we can continue on this discussion, it’s important to remember that being attracted to minors doesn’t mean you will invariably offend the law. Heterosexual people, for example, don’t pounce on every adult of the opposite gender. Plus, teleiophiles sometimes take a celibate life due to religious reasons. If someone can stay abstinent for fear of a punishment in afterlife, I can’t see why someone can’t stay abstinent for fear of a punishment in this life.

Your sexual attraction is like any other. It has romantic elements and can be platonic.23 It’s not down to sexual pleasure or advances. With that in mind, it’s much easier to face attraction to minors with indifference, while not keeping you from participating in a honest debate on the attraction itself or it’s action, nor keeping you from indulging in fantasy.


Age of consent didn’t always exist, wasn’t always this high or this low, could be much higher or lower and there’s no agreement on at what age one is capable of consenting to sexual intimacy. It can be as low as twelve and as high as twenty-one, with some places having none at all, but using other conditions, such as puberty or marriage.24 Historically, the lowest record is seven. And there are proposals to rise it to twenty-five.

Age of consent is a law. It’s not a natural thing, but a society custom. It can change in the future, for lower or higher. It could cease to exist. So, because of the artificial nature of age of consent, it doesn’t automatically make you sick, nor makes your attraction sick. It also doesn’t render the relationships you desire automatically harmful either, but doesn’t make legal relationships beneficial. Not every relationship engaged at age 21 is healthy, beneficial or non-exploitative. If law changes, because legislators can notice they were wrong, the law can’t really make anything sick or healthy by it’s whim. So, understand that a legal restriction doesn’t make you a bad person, but breaking the law can still ruin you.


It doesn’t matter at which side you are in the contact issue,25 you still have to consider two things about relationships below age of consent in order to properly understand the problem in hand and assure your own position in the subject: harm and benefit. So, in order to evaluate if attraction to minors is okay or not, we still must consider the facts concerning the consequences of the attraction if acted out.

In 1998, a trio of researchers released A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples, a study that concluded that most sexual contacts engaged before age of consent in United States do not end in harm in the general population, with 37% of the boys and 11% of the girls reporting that the experiences were positive. That refers to all sexual contacts, that is, involving two minors or an adult and a minor. While 30% of the cases do end in harm, it’s rare for such harm to be intense or long-lasting.26 That means that traumatic sexual contacts involving minors are a statistical minority. While that wasn’t the first time that a study concluded something like that, this study, by comparing the issue with homosexuality and masturbation, seemed to hint that relationships below age of consent could become destigmatized sooner or later.27 That caused a public outrage that culminated with the study being the first and, so far, the only to be formally condemned by American Congress.28 Because of the controversy surrounding the so-called “Rind Report”, it’s very famous and is usually the first study to quote whenever someone questions age of consent.

However, despite data showing that trauma from sexual contacts below age of consent, no matter if with another minor or an adult, do not usually end in harm, is that enough to override the voices of abuse victims who are traumatized by the damage caused to them? Would lowering or abolishing age of consent really be a wise idea, despite statistical evidence showing that it could be? Even if not, is it really needed to raise it? It’s for you to judge.

As the study concludes that some experiences were positive, you may wonder how come no one hears about those. There’s a number of answers for that, but I’ll point to most obvious: news only reports what is of public interest. Hearing of positive experiences on news wouldn’t improve anyone’s life (except the lives of minor-attracted people, who would be seen under a less biased light). Sure, they are illegal, but news won’t show every arrest, only the very serious ones. Because we need to know who is really dangerous, so we can defend ourselves, media logically limits itself to reporting only the really negative accounts. There’s no reason for positive accounts, despite ending in arrests, to be reported on media. So, if you are looking for positive experiences, your best bet would be professional literature, not news. Some minor-attracted people collect positive accounts found in such literature (and other sources), making compilations in on-line pages.29

With that, I stress that you aren’t attracted to something inherently harmful or exploitative. You are attracted to something illegal. Period. Now, if the law should change or not (if so, how), it’s up to you to choose. But one shouldn’t consider this issue without considering that data first, that is, the real extent of harm and the existence of both positive and negative outcomes.


Now that you are aware that your attraction won’t necessarily pose a problem to your daily life, that you can live with it, stay law-abiding and that the act, albeit illegal, isn’t as bad as you are taken to believe it is, I hope you are feeling much calmer about who you are and what you feel. You may wake up tomorrow and forget your problem. But maybe you feel some sexual frustration, maybe you have suicidal thoughts from time to time, maybe you react very poorly to news and how general population speak about you. Is that your attraction’s fault or is it just how society sees minor-attracted people?

Considering the information exposed in the previous sections, that you can function like any normal person, be healthy and productive, how can it be your attraction’s fault? If you feel ill, it’s because of how society sees you. Society makes you ill by stigmatizing you, even if they don’t know they are doing it. So, if you are having trouble with that, you may need professional help, someone to listen.

B4U-ACT30 is an organization that tries to make a bridge between minor-attracted people and mental health professionals. Most minor-attracted people face similar struggles and B4U-ACT tries to provide them with information on how and where to find help. However, the organization doesn’t simply point to any place where you could find a counselor or psychiatrist; they only point to therapists who agree with the organization’s values. B4U-ACT doesn’t believe that attraction to minors is an illness, so, if a therapist agrees to work with them, they must keep in mind that their mission isn’t to “cure” you from your attraction, but to help you be happier despite having it.31 B4U-ACT is also contact-neutral,32 so, if you happen to be pro-contact, they won’t try to change your mind either. If you have any problems related to your attraction, consider looking for help with them first, before trying anyone else. The site is still small, but works well for it’s purpose and has gained notoriety.33


Hopefully, there’s nothing else bothering you now. You can leave the contact issue entirely and prefer not to partake in the discussion, that would also be fine. You can pick either the pro-contact or anti-contact side, if you wish to. But being attracted to minors doesn’t necessarily imply participating in any of those things, though you are more than welcome to discuss age of consent with other minor-attracted people or with normal, everyday people.

What is more important now, is not to hate yourself. Learn more and look deeper into your attraction to better understand it. Maybe it explains other aspects of yourself. Just as long as you accept it, not as an illness, specially if you are a minor, but as part of you, it’s likely that you will shrug it off and continue living normally, like any other person. There’s no need to be startled, scared or anything like that.

If you wish to be public about your attraction, you can if you are a minor yourself. But an adult coming out as attracted to minors is almost unthinkable, unless it’s on-line. There was a number of initiatives favorable to minor-attracted people, which failed due to lack of participants.34 Maybe some of those could be something you would enjoy supporting. So, if any of those initiatives resurface, it would fail again unless it found supporters. In a democratic setting, an idea grows with it’s number of supporters and, thanks to the Internet, one can support an idea almost anonymously and easily find like-minded people. So, if you feel that it would be fine to “come out” in the Internet, specially if you are able to separate an on-line identity from your real life identity, it would be easier to find others like you and spread the word, arguing and changing people’s mind to get supporters. If that keeps happening, maybe minor-attracted people become a sizable minority worth seeking votes from. Even if that doesn’t call age of consent to question, it would, hopefully, open possibilities for stigma reduction.

Think about it: how many minor-attracted people exist in United States? The lowest guess is 600,000 adults and 60,000 minors.35 If you sum in a same movement anyone who feels that age of consent poses a problem to the relationships they want to establish, how big would such movement be? Even if the contact issue doesn’t find a definite resolution, stigma reduction is something that they all want. If more minor-attracted people come out, even if just on-line, even if just in dedicated accounts, and organize themselves, maybe attraction to minors would gain a political identity. It’s not enough, but is a start.


A number of minor-attracted people are open about their attraction on-line, due to the protections that one gets from anonymity and easiness to get a point across in a web that is almost completely dominated by freedom of speech. Due to the amount of hate in social media, however, minor-attracted people often prefer to discuss their attraction with commentators, if they open a blog.

The number of minor-attracted people willing to discuss the attraction in social media is still small. An even smaller number discusses it on video sharing sites. And there’s sites specially built for those with such attractions, most notably bulletin boards and support groups. Sites focused on youth rights may discuss the attractions that minors feel between themselves as well.


It’s unlikely that a possible “movement” formed by minor-attracted people would come up with a political agenda anytime soon, because they are divided in a very important question, which is the contact issue. Unless there’s a consensus on age of consent laws, it’s nearly impossible for minor-attracted people to operate any big societal changes. But, because of the stigma surrounding all of us, it’s important for minor-attracted people to stay close to each other, no matter their position on age of consent, no matter their age or their chronophilia. We are all humans and minor-attracted people all share that defining trait, which is the attraction to a kind of relationship that is illegal.

If we admit that those relationships aren’t necessarily harmful or exploitative (yet illegal and maybe for good), admit that we can function as normal people despite being abstinent and admit that we are much more than previously thought, it’s clear that the illness isn’t in us, but in how society sees us. We would all live better lives if the stigma was reduced. Because of that, the only “agenda” among minor-attracted people, in the current climate, should be stigma reduction, which won’t be achieved without collective effort between minors and adults, between all chronophilias, between pro and anti-contacts. Remember the speculation on how many they are. If they stuck together, they could achieve at least that goal, but they won’t achieve anything by turning a big minority into smaller minorities.

They shouldn’t hate each other or cause more stigma. Society already makes a lot of it, so they shouldn’t make more stigma themselves. That would be self-destructive and would not make any lives any easier, specially because attraction to minors simply happens and won’t ever cease to exist, unless age of consent ceases to exist first, as what defines the attraction is age of consent. Think of the minors too, specially those who could grow as minor-attracted adults. They would live without a lot of struggles that minor-attracted people have to put up with just by simply diminishing or eradicating the stigma. They need to be seen as rational human beings.36 And it would be irrational to hate each other.


Others like you must be struggling now. They likely feel alone and confused. It’s important for them to know that there’s a lot of others like them and that they don’t need to feel bad about what they are, what they like or anything like that. But for such a thing to happen, they need to know what’s out there for them. The stigma continues because of misinformation. You are taken to believe that you are one in a handful of monsters or that your sexual urges in adolescence or childhood are abnormal and that you are supposed to be innocent. None of that is true.

I don’t oppose copying and pasting this text elsewhere, unless you have a better way to reach isolated minor-attracted people and help them in the path of self-acceptance and stigma opposition, even if they aren’t willing to come out or discuss age of consent. While doing that job, you are encouraged to take a stance in the issue and voice your opinion. Stigma won’t be reduced, let alone eradicated, if minor-attracted people stay silent.


“Attraction to minors” is a romantic or sexual attachment to someone below age of consent. Both minors and adults can have such attraction. The causes are not clarified. The concepts of attraction to minors and pedophilia overlap, but aren’t the same. A minor-attracted person can be a nepiophile, pedophile, hebephile, ephebophile, teleiophile or a minor themselves.

The nature of the attraction is pretty harmless, specially considering the true extent of harm and the existence of both positive and negative outcomes of relationships like those. Plus, age of consent is a law and laws change. Minor-attracted people can reflect on the law, but shouldn’t do so irresponsibly, no matter if they want abolishment, reduction, continuation or rising of current age of consent in their territory. A responsible discussion on that subject requires evaluating harm and benefit of those contacts. But acting on it is illegal and even positive relationships are passive of persecution. Because of that, it’s highly advised against acting on the attraction, no matter if you are a minor or an adult, unless laws change first.

Minor-attracted people need each other to survive because of the stigmatization. They should accept themselves, look for others, work towards union and enlighten others on the subject. I fully endorse copying and pasting this text elsewhere and the more people do it, the easier it would be for minor-attracted people to find and read it. That way, when young minor-attracted people notice they have those thoughts and feelings, they would find the needed information for self-acceptance without having to go through that amount of misinformation and painful searching that could do more harm than good.

Considering that being attracted to minors won’t necessarily mean that the person will offend the law, that the desired relationships will not always end in harm if made legal and that there’s evidence of positive outcomes, it’s clear that the attraction isn’t sick in itself, but is made such by society’s reaction to it. It’s society that makes you ill, even if you stay law-abiding.


B4U-ACT. FAQ for MAPs. Available at: <>. Access date: 09/05/17.

B4U-ACT. Learn. Available at: <>. Access date: 09/06/17.

B4U-ACT. Main Page. Available at: <>. Access date: 09/05/17.

BROWN, E. N. Beyond Gay and Straight: New Paper Says Sexual Orientation Is Much More Complicated. Available at: <>. Access date: 08/29/17.

CLRESEARCHBLOG. Does Sexual Abuse Cause Pedophilia? Available at: <>. Access date: 08/25/17.

CLRESEARCHBLOG. Pedophilia as a Sexual Orientation. Available at: <>. Access date: 08/25/17.

CLRESEARCHBLOG. Very Few Children Are Harmed by Sexual Encounters With Adults oPeers. Available at: <>. Access date: 08/25/17.

IACCINO, L. Child Sexual Abuse: Top 5 Countries With the Highest Rates. Available at: <>. Access date: 08/29/17.

KATRIEN. Minor-Attracted Figures iHistory. Available at: <>. Access date: 08/27/17.

KDOGTIME20. 3 Reasons Why The Age of Consent Should Be Lowered. Available at: <>. Access date: 08/25/17.

MHAMIC. Everything You Wanted to Know About the Rind Controversy. Available at: <>. Access date: 09/04/17.

MUHADDITH. Islam Answers Early Marriage. Available at: <>. Access date: 08/29/17.

NEWGON. Accounts and Testimonies. Available at: <>. Access date: 09/04/17.

NEWGON. Debate Guide: Problems With Age of Consent. Available at: <>. Access date: 08/27/17.

PEDOSEXUAL RESOURCES DIRECTORY. The Sexual Interest of the Pedophile, in Archive.Org. Available at: <>. Access date: 08/30/17.

RIND, B ; BAUSERMAN, R ; TROMOVITCH, P. A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples. Available at: <>. Access date: 09/04/17.

RIVAS, T. Positive Memories: Cases of Positive Memories of Erotic and Platonic Relationships and Contacts of Children With Adults as Seen From the Perspective of the Former Minor. Available at: <>. Access date: 08/31/17.

SINGY, P. Danger and Difference: The Stakes of Hebephilia. Available at: <>. Access date: 08/29/17.

SOL RESEARCH. Criminalizing Child’s Play. Available at: <>. Access date: 08/27/17.

SOL RESEARCH. Look Who’s On Registry Now! Available at: <>. Access date: 08/27/17.

TOURJEE, D. Most Child Sex Abusers Are Not Pedophiles. Available at: <>. Access date: 08/30/17.

WIKIPEDIA. Age of Consent. Available at: <>. Access date: 09/02/17.

WIKIPEDIA. Ages of Consent in Asia. Available at: <>. Access date: 08/29/17.

1I wanted to get a review of this from Hikari, who is authoring this text with me. But after a recent report on BBC and some very worrying statements by James Cantor, I felt it was imperative to post this immediately.

2“Attraction to minors” and “pedophilia” are related concepts, but not symnonimous. A minor-attracted person may or may not be a pedophile.

5Here, I’m talking about attraction to minors as a feeling, which is just what it is. I’m not talking about forms of expression.

12“Chronophilia”: attraction to a certain age range.

15“DSM”: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. “ICD”: International Classification of Diseases. In ICD, pedophilia is listed at F65.4, “disorders of sexual preference (65): pedophilia (4)”.

19Though that’s open for debate, because there’s no agreement on what “acting on it” means.

22From personal experience, I find this internalization specially iatrogenic when it’s done to the extent of well-meaning pedophiles starting to see an appeal in “real” child sex abuse. Before, they would be only sexually interested in mutually willing relationships that could or not be sexual, engaged in fantasy, but then they start to wonder how coercion would feel. That happened to a friend and, even if he is non-offending, I still find it disturbing that the public image of the pedophile, once planted in pedophiles themselves, can turn a sincere, well-meaning child lover into a real kid rapist. That means that the propagation of stigma by media could very well be increasing child sex abuse rates, in my honest opinion.

25“Contact issue”: the debate around age of consent. If you are favorable to lowering or abolishing age of consent, you are “pro-contact”. If you are favorable to keeping age of consent the way it is or rising it, you are “anti-contact”.

27See the study’s “Discussion” section and it’s “Conclusion”.

32“Contact-neutral”: the attitude of someone who prefers not to pick a side in the contact issue. That can mean that they are unsure, they are trying to be impartial or they don’t participate in the debate at all.

33For one, they helped to remove pedophilia from DSM in favor of pedophillic disorder, meaning that you are only disturbed if you act on it illegally or if you are distressed by the feelings. If you are thankful for that change, it’s thanks to them too. The program of the symposium, which happened in 2011, is still online.

34The French petition against age of consent and the PNVD, for example.

36In the case of pedophilia, that implies depathologizing it, that is, make society recognize that pedophilia isn’t an illness, which in partially done.

Older Posts »

Blog no

%d blogueiros gostam disto: