Absurd arguments aimed at virpeds and their allies (part 2)

We continue our examination of some of the absurd arguments leveled at non-offending pedophiles:

(1) So, you don’t abuse kids—you should still keep your mouth shut and deal with this privately. You’re just trying to get attention.

There are people who think non-offending pedophiles should just shut up and not make waves. Of course there are. Because, at heart, some people are insecure and simplistic and hate having to step outside their comfort zones and look at an issue from a different perspective than they’re used to. It’s especially true of this issue, where people resent anyone who makes them see that there is moral complexity here. It’s far easier for them to despise and dehumanize pedophiles as a group when all the evidence that’s easily available to them through the media shows that pedophiles are unanimously amoral or selfish people. But virpeds shatter that illusion, and our visible presence in the media forces them to look at the issue anew. Or, they can discredit us by calling us whiny, selfish attention whores, which allows them to go back to believing we’re all bad . . . in one way or another.

What these people don’t seem to understand (or perhaps they do and just don’t care) is that, like anyone dealing with an extreme hardship, being able to talk about our issues publicly can help us deal with the stress and anxiety of our situation, which means we are less likely to be tempted to offend. So it is in society’s interest for us to speak publicly, and for people to listen to us. And anyway, whether those people see it or not, we are a persecuted minority. I have been fired from a good job for no other reason than that my pedophilic attractions were public knowledge (well, and members of Perverted Justice and their clones called my company’s corporate office and harassed them), not for any crimes or for being a bad employee, since I have no criminal record at all and I was, according to the store manager, one of the best employees they had.

But even if publicly discussing our issues didn’t result in any benefits for society, we would still have a right to talk about them and to publicly air our grievances. Calling us selfish for doing so is no different from trying to silence or suppress any other persecuted minority. It is similar to calling blacks who demand respect and tolerance “uppity niggers” or calling gays who openly express their sexuality and personality “flaming queers.” Just like being black or gay, pedophilia is not something we choose, and unlike with gays (at least in civilized nations), we are unable to express our sexuality at all. Some of us are fine with that, but asking us to deal with the horrendous loneliness, guilt and hardship privately, or to sit back and accept the persecution so as not to make other people uncomfortable, is not acceptable. And, as I’ve pointed out before, it is in society’s interest for them to know who we are, so in the long run, making it safe for us to come out is something we should all be working towards.

(2) You want recognition for not sexually abusing children.

Related to the first point is this one, which goes something like this: oh, you want to be commended for not molesting kids, which is, like, basic morality. This is, of course, ultimately a straw man argument, since our reasons for speaking out publicly are far more complex than this, and this isn’t even a consideration for most of us. I have gone over my reasons before in interviews, and I will address them again here in a bit, but first, let’s take this argument at face value. There’s an excellent quote by Anatole France that applies here:

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

What does this quote mean? In order to fully understand what Monsieur France was getting at, we need to understand the context in which he lived. France was born in Victorian-era France, where the class system was still very much in effect and the divide between rich and poor in France was much more pronounced than it is today. There were many homeless people, and starvation was common. Moreover, the law was often harshly enforced against the poor, since they had little or no recourse to legal defense and no public standing with the authorities. Thus, if they were caught sleeping under bridges—sometimes the only shelter available to them—begging for money or food, or especially stealing, even if they are stealing food to survive (as Jean Valjean does at the beginning of Les Miserables, when he steals food for his younger siblings), they would be severely punished. Theoretically, these laws applied equally to the rich, but clearly the rich would not need to do any of those things. Thus, the laws primarily targeted the poor. While France may seem to be praising the “majestic equality” of the law, on closer examination we can see he is ironically pointing out a huge inequality built into the law.

So, how does this apply to pedophiles? Well, for teleiophiles who have little or no attraction to children, or are even repulsed by the idea, it may seem that not getting sexually involved with kids is the most obvious and easy thing in the world. But these folks fail to understand several things about pedophiles and about children themselves. Pedophiles, particularly those who have no attraction at all to adults, are going to face a great deal more temptation than someone who is only attracted to adults, no? Moreover, they are often lonely, isolated and stressed, factors which are known to increase the possibility of pedophiles offending. And then there’s the fact that (as evidenced by the treatment of virpeds themselves by far too many) we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t, and also the fact that due to mandatory reporting laws many pedophiles who face temptation are afraid to seek help. This perspective also presupposes that kids are never willing participants or sexual aggressors, which is simply false. Add all of these factors together and temptation can become a real issue for some MAPs. Those with self-control issues and very young pedophiles are especially at risk.

Yet, despite all of that, recognition for resisting temptation simply is not a motivation for most virpeds, or it is only a minor motivation among many. And most virpeds don’t even seek media exposure anyway. Only a few of us have done so. For myself, I have several motivations for doing what I do, and being congratulated for not offending, while it is nice to hear, is not one of them. First, I wrote my Salon articles for the simple reason that I needed money, because, thanks to the massive stigma I am pretty much unemployable and I have to make money somehow. I have some writing skills and a story to tell, so it was a no-brainer. Secondly, I needed to tell my side of things because I could no longer accept being a passive victim of society’s persecution and misinformation. If I have to live in such a society, then I am going to fight back against the bull pucky, the harassment and mistreatment. YOU, society, have forced me into this corner. It’s foolish for you to think I’m not going to start fighting back. I may go down, but I will go down swinging. Thirdly, I needed to speak out and self-identify for the same reason many gays do: because I was tired of living a lie. Finally and most importantly, I did it to help others, especially young pedophiles who need guidance and reassurance that they are not doomed to offend despite what society tells them.

(3) You’re not helping your case by being arrogant.

I’ve written two articles for Salon and done several interviews for talk radio programs, and I was never unpleasant or insulting to anyone in any of those. I was certainly critical of those who criticized me first (and no doubt everyone who has labelled me as arrogant would be too if they were in my place), especially in the second Salon piece. But arrogant? No, standing up for oneself and one’s friends does not make you arrogant. Of course, for a good number of the critics it wouldn’t matter what I said or did—they would find some reason to attack me. And that’s what this amounts to. Sorry, but I have no plans to be a pushover. If you attack me with infantile insults and ridiculous accusations, I’ll probably just ignore you. But I may occasionally fight back. That’s not arrogance; that’s self-preservation.

Given the fact that it clearly wouldn’t matter to the haters if I behaved as they think I should, they are still going to hate me, then why should I accommodate them? I have compromised far more than these people ever will, and that’s plenty. I am not going to sweet-talk them and roll over for them just because they don’t understand where I’m coming from. My position is clear and well thought out. And I am not even opposing society on the issue of sexual abuse. The least I can expect from others is respectful treatment. If you aren’t willing to extend that much to me, then I see no reason to be respectful back. You can call that pride or arrogance if you like, but deep down you know it is neither of those things. I have a lot of patience and generosity of spirit, but they aren’t unlimited. In that sense I am no different from anyone else.

4 thoughts on “Absurd arguments aimed at virpeds and their allies (part 2)

  1. All very good points. But, it was Jean Valjean in “Les Miserables”; Humbert Humbert is from “Lolita.” Sorry – it would be driving me crazy all day if I didn’t say something 😀


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s