It emerged last month that Virtuous Pedophiles director 'Charlie', one of two VirPed leaders, was arrested for alleged 'rape' of a child under 14 and possession of child pornography. Shockingly, this came just two months after his predecessor - who has now been reinstated - stood down over his sexual harassment of a young adult at a B4U-Act conference. In this article, I'll talk about VirPed's ideology set against a reformist backdrop, before discussing the implications of VirPed's directors so blatantly not practicing what they preach.

Ideology

Back in the late 2000s, I was one of the very first people to promote the concept of a non-offending pedophile, using my long-defunct ATC group blog to spread what was at the time a radical and deeply controversial idea. Pedophiles who aren't molesting children? Really?

I believed in what I said, and I still do, especially the part about most pedophiles being non-contact. There are lot of pedophiles, a subset of MAPs, who are able to refrain from criminalized sexual contact for their entire lives. Not long after ATC went offline, Virtuous Pedophiles took the non-offending idea mainstream, which seemed like a good idea at the time. Along with organizations such as B4U-Act, which aimed to destigmatize MAPs and their access to mental health services, significant progress was made in teaching the public that not all pedophiles have sex with children.

But over time, while B4U-Act continued to behave professionally and with an uncommon commitment to neutrality on virtually every contentious issue, VirPed doubled and tripled down on their insistence that all criminalized actions involving minors are wrong. VirPed now argue that AMSC is always inherently harmful, despite the age of consent varying considerably around the world. If their wording is not simply clumsy ("committed to never engaging in sexual activity with a minor"), the very American eighteen seemingly applies globally. The organization parrots 'anti' terms such as CSA and CSEM, uncritically and without any room for questions. They only permit arguments that support their extreme ideologies, refusing to engage with those who may argue that sometimes harm comes from social reactions to AMSC rather than the relationships themselves. Indeed, when one of my fellow Pro-Reform activists tried to sign up at VirPed, he was denied. He has a conviction for giving two teenage boys consensual hand jobs, and when asked if he felt bad about what had happened, he explained there were some things he felt bad about, but also believed the reaction to his behavior was overblown. His considered answer, which actually took care in considering the possible causes of harm, was not good enough. It didn't blindly bow down to the mantra.

Those from outside of our community, especially Americans and the Americanized, would probably agree with VirPed's take. They'd state that any sexual relationship between a person over 18, and a person under 18, is inherently damaging and simply wrong. However, the situation is really much murkier. Most studies done on adult-minor relationships make no attempt to separate between mutual contact and forced contact, and their results also suffer from being corrupted by the effects of secondary harm. It is not surprising that results may therefore show a greater propensity for harm among younger participants in AMSC. Despite this, when Bruce Rind analyzed later feelings toward prior sexual contact, contrasting adult-adult, minor-minor, and adult-minor - without making a distinction between wanted and unwanted for any of the groups - he found that pretty much all kinds of sexual contact had the potential to lead to hurt feelings further down the road. Other than sexual contact between a man and a pre-pubescent girl, especially father-daughter incest, no mixing of partner demographics stood out as especially likely to lead to harm. And even then, it is impossible to untangle true versus secondary harm, the latter being more likely the further the relationship dives into taboo. The VirPed claim of all AMSC being inherently harmful is based on 'evidence' that is a far cry from 'flawless', while the issue of secondary harm suggests a need for reform rather than a parroting of "under 18 is always inherently harmful" narratives.

Obviously, VirPed do have the right to run their own board however they wish, and if their members truly want to participate on a board with such strict regulations, that's their prerogative. Echo chambers are certainly quite popular in the era of Reddit and Facebook. Yet I also think that VirPed is an extremely problematic resource, more or less a cult that pulls in vulnerable MAPs and pushes them toward accepting a very extreme set of beliefs. And crucially, as I argued in my introduction to the Pro-Reform framework, MAPs who really don't want to advocate reform on attitudes toward AMSC do really need to advocate reform on attitudes toward AMSC. Why? Because virtually every 'acceptable' argument against non-offending and anti-contact MAPs is predicated on the notion that AMSC is always inherently harmful.

When countries criminalize completely fictional content like lolicon or shotacon, they (wrongly) argue that viewing such images could lead to MAPs having sexual contact with a minor, which by implication must be avoided at all costs. The UK recently introduced a ridiculous bill to ban modifications to AI tools that would simplify making erotic AI images of minors, arguing that such a law was necessary on the grounds that the spread of AI images made adult-minor relationships appear normal. "AMSC is bad" is one of the bottom pieces of the Jenga puzzle holding up MAP hatred - the excuse really - the others being simple prejudice and sexual puritanism. All of these pieces need a full-on assault, and arguing that any one of them is justified is harmful to the pro-MAP movement as a whole. By holding up one of the pieces as gospel, VirPed is actively supporting oppression of the entire MAP community.

Trouble in paradise

The fact that VirPed push such a problematic and self-defeating ideology is one thing. But if you're going to hold yourself up as a bastion of virtue, as a model member of the community, you sure as hell need to practice what you preach.

Sammy's 'drunken' escapade

The first example of trouble in paradise reared its ugly head in May, when co-director Sammy sexually harassed a B4U-Act conference attendee. In his own words:

Virped and the values its always held have been deep in my soul for well over a decade now. It feels like it’s in my blood. I fervently believe in everything it stands for. My actions after a party at the B4U-act conference had me betray everything we stand for, and I don’t really know where to go from here. A young adult was there, I was there, and I violated physical and personal boundaries. I ignored consent. I hurt this person and I can never undo that. I made misogynistic statements about female bodied people. This isn’t something I ever expected from myself, and there will be years of soul searching and therapy to process. I’m not writing this to wallow in pity though. This isn’t about me or my feelings. This is about what my actions wrought on another human being.

Not only was this a case of statutory harassment or assault, but seemingly a case of forcing oneself on another person aggressively. In a meandering apology-cum-excuse, Sammy stated that he'd "be remiss to neglect to mention [his] drinking", while promising that he'd "like to make it very clear that it is in no way an excuse for [his] behavior". In that case, let's hope he never drinks again then? Being drunk is never a justification, even in part, for sexual aggression.

Charlie's alleged underage transgressions

On July 16th, following rumors that swirled around private forums and group chats, Virped finally announced that Sammy's replacement _ Charlie_had been arrested for alleged child sex offenses. By this point, the story had already been in the national news for a few days while VirPed figured out how to present it to their congregation. I will not link to the news story because to do so would be bordering on doxxing, but it explains that Charlie pleaded guilty to possessing criminalized images of children, and pleaded not guilty to the offense of 'rape' of a child under 14.

Charlie's friends insist he was a good man, would never 'harm' a child, and so on. They claim that he had a situation going on in real life which led to a false accusation. I'm not going to argue that this is impossible; MAPs often find themselves caring 'too much' for children and having their good intentions misinterpreted. It's also worth mentioning that statutory "rape" is not rape at all. It is intercourse whether giving or receiving, which can be as innocuous as a hot young adult performing oral on a happy teenage boy. No distinction whatsoever is made between full willingness and wanton violence. Not that VirPed make any such distinction themselves.

Charlie may well have been engaged in a sexual relationship that was loving yet criminalized, wrongly condemned as 'rape' when it was anything but. I see a scenario wherein he had outgrown the confines of VirPed's unwaveringly strict rebuke, yet still cared deeply about the friendships he'd formed there. Should a VirPed member wish to dissent, with the knowledge that he would be shunned upon the slightest voicing of discontent, what is he supposed to do? Speak up and be ostracized from the fellowship? As a VirPed member, and especially as a leader, it would certainly be very difficult to admit that one had become pro-contact in philosophy, never mind had sex with a person under the age of 14. You would lose all of your friends in what is already an extremely lonely world for MAPs.

Implications

Being a pro-reform activist with an ultimately pro-contact philosophy, some may say it is it wrong of me to criticize VirPed for their legal transgressions. After all, Charlie probably didn't do anything that I'm philosophically opposed to. And I have very openly worked on MAP projects with Fragment, a reformist activist convicted of sexual activity with young teenage boys. However, as was pointed out by others, pro-contact/reformist activists like Fragment are still acting according to their conscience if they have consensual but criminalized sexual relationships. VirPed directors, on the other hand, are preaching one set of values and apparently practicing the polar opposite. They do things that they themselves claim are deeply harmful, rendering their actions expressions of pure selfish satisfaction. In simple terms, "I think it's fundamentally wrong, but I'll do it anyway and then pray for forgiveness."

Staff at VirPed are all too happy to accept members who have committed any 'crime' imaginable but now believe it was wrong. Admittedly, forgiving ex-offenders is a core tenet of rehabilitative justice, and one that I firmly believe in. But when current members are actively engaging in behavior they are staunchly against, ready to pull out the "sorry I've sinned and I will change" card once caught, even the most hardcore of rehabilitationists will be asking questions. When current directors are engaging in behavior deemed harmful while aggressively preaching the opposite at the exact same time, the organization is nothing but a charade. VirPed's leaders are blatantly lying to their members, betraying them, treating them as if they are stupid. Unfortunately, the brainwashing has been so thorough that members continue to stand by their leaders even when accused of actions they are taught to find utterly deplorable. The reinstatement of Sammy, who resigned due to sexual misbehavior just two months before Charlie's incident, shows just how rapidly one can magically become 'pure' again despite having acted entirely against the organization's beliefs. At this point, it's a matter of blind faith and denial.

VirPed is, ultimately, a cult. It contains all of the essential elements. It has detached itself from the rest of the MAP community, which it views as corrupt. It demands total adherence to extreme beliefs from its members, while its leaders do whatever the hell they want in private. Even when engaging in acts deemed abusive, the leaders are venerated, forgiven immediately for their sins. And given that cults target people who are vulnerable, cast out from society and seeking a safe harbor, it is not surprising that VirPed succeeded; MAPs are an ideal target. VirPed has successfully exploited the longing to be loved and accepted more effectively than any other MAP organization, but it has hindered community attempts at rights-based progress in the process.

The organization has unfortunately persuaded its members that they must be philosophically anti-contact to be loved, plus you can even 'get away with' a bit of molestation on the side as long as you say your Hail Marys. It's an easy delusion to fall for, especially when the alternative is to accept that you are utterly despised for no good reason, and that your fundamental rights have been ripped away from you based on prejudice and hatred masquerading as 'child protection'. VirPed has certainly given its followers a very enticing escape from reality. But as its directors have shown via their own behavior, it's nothing more than an illusion.

Unfortunately, pro-contact and pro-reform are harder ideologies to sell, because they require accepting the sheer awfulness of what it means to be a MAP in the modern world. How can we persuade the MAP community to accept the harsh reality instead of VirPed's cozy little lies?