Please note that most of the seeming "lengthiness" of this post is cutting and pasting of your own points that I am responding to. I will endeavor to be succinct here.

For new folks, or those who may have forgotten, Virtuous Pedophiles runs another discussion board for those of us attracted to girls (and boys).

[Snip!]

There is one notable rule: "All the discussion in the group takes as its premise that sexual activity between adults and children is wrong. The idea that it is only the legal system and misguided attitudes of society that keep adult-child sex from being a good thing is not welcome here."

You have a right to advertise VP here, and to discuss it. Note that I and other mods have never suggested otherwise, nor tried to censor your view despite often challenging it.

Many of the frequent posters in GirlChat disagree with that position and that rule. However, in our experience, pedophile forums that allow discussion on this point tend to be dominated by a few posters with that viewpoint and it sets the tone for all discussion. We encourage VP members who want to discuss the issue to do so -- just not on that board.

As opposed to the anti-choice/antilegalization view being dominated on VP entirely? Or on mainstream media sites that are dependent on sponsors? Keep in mind that even though your view is not exactly popular on fora where pro-choicers are allowed to congregate and discuss their side of the fence openly (without being "flagged" or censored because Nabisco threatens to withdraw their sponsorship) you are nevertheless allowed to express your view here. The fact that you do not like being challenged anywhere does not mean you are being "censored" or marginalized. And arguing that the pro-choicers "dominate" the discourse in general is beyond ridiculous. Sorry, Ethan, but there are going to be a few places where we are going to be allowed to argue our point, and where anti-choicers are not going to be able to censor our view. If that is "dominating" the discourse to you, then you will just have to "live and let live" with that.

Our discussion forum started up over six years ago. In that time, over three thousand people have made user accounts. Over three hundred have logged in within the past month.

Most of whom likely do not even post there, and many of whom feel they have no place else to go because VP is promoted much more heavily by mainstream media. I wonder why?

Many pedophiles who write to us express relief that they have finally found a place where they can be at home without the pro-contact aura all around them.

Translation: We do not want to hear their side. So, we're relieved there is someplace we can hear only the side we want to hear that is devoted entirely to MAPs alone (even though we can, of course, go to a few thousand other mainstream outlets where we will be guaranteed to hear only the side we want to hear). Sorry, Ethan, but again... we're not going away.

Some say they wouldn't be caught dead in a forum like this where that view is accepted.

Is your point that GC and, say, Tom's blog should not be around because a lot of anti-choicers do not want to hear our point of view anywhere? That's very...well, mainstream liberal of you, Ethan! Yes, I owed you that compliment.

Some who don't join say they are delighted to know we are here to fall back on if they had trouble in their lives.

As opposed to us never offering support, never offering perspective on living as a MAP in today's society, and never offering commentary about philosophy and the law related to this topic -- much of which is outside the contact issue. Especially when it tends to be a few vocal anti-choicers like yourself who are the nigh-obsessive single-minded focus on the contact issue--and one side of it, at that?

Todd Nickerson used to be a member here at GirlChat, and through reading my posts here found out about Virtuous Pedophiles, which he now considers his online home. He says quite a bit about it in his first Salon article, https://web.archive.org/web/20150922001837/http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster.

Because like many anti-choicers, Todd succumbed to the guilt and wanted acceptance and validation from the mainstream more than anything else. And he had the tendency to lash out at the people who respected him and tried to offer him support. So, ultimately he burned many bridges and attracted retaliatory hostility because nobody likes to be insulted and attacked on a frequent basis. But you are very selective in your admonishment of insulting and abrasive behavior, Ethan, so even the worst-behaving anti-choicers receive a "Get Off On Negative Conduct Free" card in your metaphorical Monopoly game.

And how about the multitude of MAPs and researchers alike who do want to hear all sides of the issue and analyze each of them objectively? Who are not comfortable on a fora that only condemns MAP desires as inherently bad if acted out in a consensual manner? That condemns the competence and freedom of the youths they love and respect as full human beings? You won't find those things at VP, that's for certain. And you sure as hell won't find that type of objective nuance or at least neutrality on sponsor-heavy papers like Salon. Hence, we have an important and virtually unique place in the schema. The fact that its existence is irksome to the anti-choicers is far from a good reason to have it marginalized and condemned along with our natural feelings. But wait, you insist that anti-choicers are the ones who are marginalized, right? This is why we cannot take you and certain other anti-choicers seriously even when we make a strong effort to try and afford you all due civility.

I am a co-founder (with Nick Devin) of Virtuous Pedophiles. The website (virped.org) gives our basic positions on the issues. I also have a blog which is more a series of essays than a time-sensitive blog. It includes a series of posts giving my view on the issue of legalizing adult-child sex, http://celibatepedos.blogspot.com/2017/03/index-considering-pro-legalization-pro.html.

And you're welcome to link it here. I say that both as a long-time regular poster and as a mod. How often are we offered the same courtesy by your side of the fence, Ethan? Serious question here.

Some GCers who read it are surprised at how many points we agree on and how far I am from classic anti-pedophile views.

If we truly agree on many things, then try to discuss some of those points of agreement here on more than very rare occasions, Ethan, instead of just engaging in heated discourse on the consent issue. Note how that served as the bulk of this post of yours. If you can do that on your blog, then you can do that here as well. And by that, I mean points of agreement that are not just in opposition to the status quo in the most superficial and politically "safe" fashion imaginable. For instance, many Non-MAP researchers are starting to question the continued illegality of virtual CP that involves no actual child/young teen participants, so you frankly have to do a bit better than that, Ethan.

I honestly give props to VP for any good that it does. But it shouldn't be the only game in town for MAPs, and it's not going to be, because there are many MAPs and researchers whose needs it cannot serve well. And that includes the many MAPs who are on the fence on the more volatile issues, and want to see both sides of the issue; as well as researchers who want to study and consider all the data rather than coming up with an a priori conclusion before the data is even collected. They can hear both sides here and on Tom's blog, etc., but they will not get that on VP's forum, or on almost any mainstream media outlet.




        Dissident

GirlChat Moderator