Love or Morality: Chapter Eight

Book Contents

“The Tao of Love”

Chapter One
“Toward a Functional Understanding of Love”

Chapter Two
“On the True Nature of Human Sexuality”

Chapter Three
“The Demonization of Adult-Child Erotic Love

Chapter Four
“The Commercial Exploitation of Abuse”

Chapter Five
“The Patriarchal Love Bias”

Chapter Six
“The Truncated Account of Adult-Child Erotic Attraction”

Chapter Seven
“Does Pedophile Love Equate Abuse?”

Chapter Eight
“Is Pedophilia a Sexual Perversion?

Chapter Nine
“The Legal Split in Child Protection”

Chapter Ten
“The Violence of Morality”

Chapter Eleven
“The Roots of Violence”

Chapter Twelve
“The 12 Angular Points of Social Justice and Peace”

Download PDF from Scribd

Download the Book (607 Pages)
Download PDF from Scribd

Page Contents

What are Sexual Paraphilias?
Is Childlove ‘Sicko’ Behavior?
Childlove vs. Perversion


In this chapter, I am going to ask if pedophilia, as it is often argued, is per se a perversion? I have reported already earlier on in this study that according to psychiatry, all sexual paraphilias are no more considered by psychiatry as a sexual perversion.

However, in the popular media, and in political debates, the theme is recurring to equate pedophilia with perversion. It’s almost daily talk in our television reports and talk shows, and yet it’s factually incorrect.

The assessment of the DSM is interesting in that the only difference between the paraphilias and ‘normal’ sexual behavior is the ‘intensity’ of the fantasies. It is asserted by researchers that non-clinical studies of individuals with unusual sexual interests demonstrate that these individuals are indistinguishable from those with ‘normophilic’ sexual interests. That means in clear text, that the DSM argues in a circular manner and is ultimately simply an ordeal of normative values that are thrown over the head of the patient, and sold as ‘diagnosis.’ Well, sorry, this is what in all gulags was and is done to intellectual and political dissidents, and thus, we are not dealing here with an instrument to be applied in a democracy, but with a toolset of fascist control.

There is an interesting side-remark to be made about the psychiatric assessment of paraphilias effected by Dr. Charles Moser that I am going to review further down, on the question if the paraphilias are mental disorders, or if their inclusion in the DSM was based on normative rather than factual considerations?

Now, regarding pedophilia, while the authors argue for removal of all paraphilias, they assert at the end of their paper, pedophilia was a ‘special case,’ in that pedophiles occupied ‘a particularly odious position’ in our society. Hence the authors argue that the removal of pedophilia from the DSM did ‘not bring any advantage to pedophile offenders, in the contrary.’

The authors state that the removal of pedophilia from the DSM would ‘focus attention on the criminal aspect of those acts, and not allow the perpetrators to claim mental illness as a defense or use it to mitigate responsibility for their crimes.’

— Dr. Charles Moser & Peggy J. Kleinplatz, DSM-IV-TR & The Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal, Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 17 (3/4), 91–109 (2005), 11, ‘The Special Case of Pedophilia.’

Well, this comes as a surprise for it’s not logically understandable why pedophilia should make a categorical exception among the paraphilias, to get a ‘special treatment?’ What the authors do here is actually taking with one hand what they have given with the other; in other words, it is a circular argument. The social situation of pedophiles is not the cause but the consequence of the arbitrary laws on the matter and the normative nonsense that is codified by the DSM — as the authors themselves criticized it. So this is a tautological and illogical conclusion — uroboric nonsense!

Their argument is bluntly and clearly normative; how can these people come up with believing they were empirically oriented psychiatrists whose diagnoses would need to be based on facts, not unverifiable diagnostic dogma? With that turn at the end of the paper, the authors show that they are as dogmatic as the early sexologists were, and that their whole rhetoric is but a paper claim without being carried by an intention to really bring about a reform in our sexological landscape.

This being said, it may be understood by the reader that I prefer to develop my own logic in this and other books, rather than paraphrase the nonsense that ‘accredited authorities’ abound of in their ‘scientific treatises.’ If the logic of ‘scientific authorities’ in sex research goes as far as it was demonstrated by this paper, then I better develop my own etiology that at least is based upon direct perception, intuitive insight, and experience, not the paper knowledge of so-called scientists.

In one word, should these authors be reminded that the topic they were talking about is not DSM or any other capital letter nonsense, but love! And of that, sorry, they obviously understand strictly nothing. Quid est demonstrandum. (Who would have expected they did?)

What are Sexual Paraphilias?

In addition to my glossary item about sexual paraphilias, I am adding here more specialized information. While for most people today in modern societies and in the urban environment, heterosexuality may go beyond intercourse male-female within a valid marriage, and may encompass promiscuous sex, premarital sex and even group sex, and while homosexuality equally is recognized socially since about twenty years, this is not so far the case for the so-called sexual paraphilias, as for example pedophilia, gerontophilia, nepiophilia or zoophilia.

— Please note that this statement may not be true for certain countries where religion is still more or less compulsive or even coercive, and it may not be true even for very liberal countries, when you go to a rural, provincial environment, and a population that is older than average. All these factors need to be considered. When I express myself generally here, it always means in a modern secular society and an urban setting, and in addition, a certain education level of those who are dealing with the information.

Let us look a moment at this rather unusual term, first from a dictionary point of view, then from a psychiatric perspective. The Dictionary application for Apple Mac OS X defines a paraphilia rather normatively as ‘a condition characterized by abnormal sexual desires, typically involving extreme or dangerous activities.’ Merriam Webster’s dictionary seems to see it in more modern terms, defining paraphilia as ‘a pattern of recurring sexually arousing mental imagery or behavior that involves unusual and especially socially unacceptable sexual practices (as sadism or pedophilia).’ Healthline ( contains very useful information that I will quote:


Paraphilias are sexual feelings or behaviors that may involve sexual partners that are not human, not consenting, or that involve suffering by one or both partners.


According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (known as the DSM) fourth edition text revised (DSM-IV-TR), the manual used by mental health professionals to diagnose mental disorders, it is not uncommon for an individual to have more than one paraphilia. The DSM-IV-TR lists the following paraphilias: exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, pedophilia, sexual masochism, sexual sadism, transvestic fetishism, and voyeurism. The DSM-IV-TR also includes a category for paraphilia not otherwise specified, which is the category for the less common paraphilias, including necrophilia, zoophilia, and others.


Pedophilia involves sexual activity with a child, generally under age 13. The DSM-IV-TR describes a criterion that the individual with pedophilia be over 16 years of age and be at least five years older than the child. Individuals with this disorder may be attracted to either males or females or both, although incidents of pedophilic activity are almost twice as likely to be repeated by those individuals attracted to males. Individuals with this disorder develop procedures and strategies for gaining access to and trust of children.

Now, the question is if pedophilia really is a ‘disorder’ in the sense of the DSM. I will discuss this question in the next sub-chapter. Here, I would like to make it clear to the reader what a paraphilia actually is.

Please be aware that there are two levels of discussion, the level of our popular media and of the populace at large, and the level of sexology, the level of actual sex research, as well as the psychology of sexual behavior. While you may argue that this is always the case, with whatever subject we are talking about, the distortion, if not aberration of truth that has taken place in the discussion of sexual behavior in our culture has long roots. It has to do with our anti-sexual ecclesiastical dogmatism that reigned for at least one thousand years in Europe and that has left deep scars in our collective unconscious. In a way all matters sex are subjected to shame and guilt, and there are few people who can even discuss them in a democratic, and somewhat rational manner. And if this is true generally for sex, it is so much the more true for adult-child sexual interaction, and pedophile attraction. This is why even randomly objective observation can’t be found, other than in dusty libraries, but surely not online, on the Internet. All that had a resemblance of truth was removed by police and security forces since about fifteen years now, and during that time, not surprisingly so, the turn to fascist opinions on the matter became all too marked.

This is why, as a general information, it has to be seen and understood that the argument ‘If this was true, I would since long have seen it on television or on the Web’ is a cognitive misevaluation. It’s a pitfall of perception. This domain is taboo in our society and that means not just the behavior itself is penalized and demonized but talking about it as well; hence, free speech in these matters has been severely restricted, to a point that a monolithic politically correct image on the question was distilled and that is what is served from all the servers around the world, as the ‘truth’ about pedophilia.

I can only say, as I said it as a child already, when I looked through the veil, that this is the way stupidity is duplicated and eternalized, but not the way the human being is going to evolve in consciousness. Sexuality is the number one complexity issue we have about the human, and if this complexity is denied, we are going to get where we got in 1933, the straight haven of fascism. That’s why I argue that our position regarding pedophilia, or the paraphilias, is paramount for either safeguarding democracy, or leading us into the abyss of further holocausts and crystal nights. This is how matters are, and this explosiveness of the topic is certainly not to be put on the back of pedophiles themselves, but on the back on a society that is simply too stupid to get eventually, after 5000 years of patriarchal madness, to a point where it begins to understand life systemically, and intelligently.

In addition, in matters of pedophilia, the academic level is not much more enlightened than the popular level, as there are myths that are sold for truth — just as the fact that in the DSM, the homosexual pedophile is taken as more dangerous than the heterosexual pedophile. I know that there is no conclusive research that could back such a claim, and yet it was put in the definition, simply because the psychiatric establishment wanted it to be there, in the first place.

In the abstract to the article The DSM & Paraphilias, submitted in 2003 to the American Psychiatric Association (APA) by Dr. Charles Moser, Ph.D. M.D., a practicing physician, psychotherapist and professor of sexology at the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco, it is stated:

— The DSM-IV-TR (2000) sets its own standards for inclusion of diagnoses and for changes in its text. The Paraphilia section is analyzed from the perspective of how well the DSM meets those standards. The concept of Paraphilias as psychopathology was analyzed and assessed critically to determine if it meets the definition of a mental disorder presented in the DSM; it does not. The Paraphilia diagnostic category was critiqued for logic, consistency, clarity, and whether it constitutes a distinct mental disorder. The DSM presents ‘facts’ to substantiate various points made in the text. The veracity of these ‘facts’ was scrutinized. Little evidence was found in their support. Problems with the tradition of equating particular sexual interests with psychopathology were highlighted. It was concluded that the Paraphilia section is so severely flawed that its removal from the DSM is advocated.

— Dr. Charles Moser & Peggy J. Kleinplatz, DSM-IV-TR & The Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal, Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 17 (3/4), 91–109 (2005).

It is enlightening to have a look at the evolvement of the DSM regarding the paraphilias, and also to look at the history of sexuality. In our culture, there is really no intelligent approach to be found for understanding the diversity of human erotic attraction, and as a result there was and is very little tolerance for sexual minorities. This was and is, contrary to what Moser writes in his paper, not universally so. Not ‘historically and cross-culturally’ as he asserts, was there accusation, death, and imprisonment for any interest in specific sexual practices, but well in our root cultures that are coming from Judeo-Christian patriarchy.

The pattern of emosexual life denial is typical of patriarchy and was the most ruthlessly practiced in the few cultures that today are the high-tech countries, and the richest countries, around the world. Guess why they are rich and high-tech? Through their extreme sexual intolerance, they have driven people virtually ‘out of their bodies’ and ‘into their brains,’ namely through hypertrophy of the left brain and the neglect of, and disregard for, the qualities of the right brain. That is why we are leading split existences today, and one of the reasons of the paraphilia complex is exactly a lacking integration of mind and body because of the cultural dressage early in childhood. That is also why we have cancer and immune deficiency syndrome, and a range of other ‘lifestyle diseases’ that would better be called ‘anti-lifestyle diseases.’

It’s a form of neurosis that is culturally sanctified, justified and legalized in all possible ways. This schizoid split, as I call it, is programmed into our very genes, as members of this cultural tradition — while I deny that this is universally so.

Western researchers have always had this bias to declare as universal what really is limited to our own cultural perversity. This was already the case with Freud, and with Moser it’s not lesser the case. And while this paper surely has its merit, it is flawed in this point, and would have had to be much more radical, if this important cultural perspective had been seen, and validated. In old India, China, Japan, Persia, Turkey, Egypt, and most tribal cultures, sexual preferences could vary much more than in any of our violent patriarchies, and this has been assessed by a number of researchers, among them Riane Eisler.

— See Riane Eisler, Sacred Pleasure (1996).

It is true that all but procreative sex was traditionally considered in our culture as sexual perversion, and later on, as mental disorders. The authors admit that ‘[i]t is exceedingly difficult to eliminate historical and cultural factors from the assessment of unusual sexual interests.’ They go as far as affirming that ‘equating of unusual sexual interests with psychiatric diagnoses has been used to justify the oppression of sexual minorities and to serve political agendas.’

There was an important change in the DSM-III (1980) where for the first time, it was intended ‘to be neutral with respect to theories of etiology;’ at the same time the nomenclature of the paraphilias changed from ‘sexual deviation’ to ‘paraphilia,’ a descriptor that the authors call ‘supposedly atheoretical and non-pejorative.’

Is Childlove ‘Sicko’ Behavior?

In the populace, especially among the uneducated, but also with a certain number of people who received higher education, there is a long-standing belief that pedophilia, or generally, the erotic attraction for children was ‘sicko’ behavior, a form of mental derangement or psychic insanity.

Apart from the fact that the same was believed in the past regarding homosexuality, there is per se nothing that indicates why a person should be ‘mentally deranged’ only because their sexual energy manifests in a slightly different way than that of the majority. All in this field is simply so messed up by prejudice and life denial, and the terrible scars done to real knowledge by the ecclesiastical dogmatism that is a fact of our collective past that one must not wonder to see people entangled and torn up with such pitifully ignorant views. And as today a propaganda of the same sort, only under a different header, and with a different target intention is the order of the day, we are not really a step ahead in our evolution to an intelligent race that understands that human sexual behavior is not animal-like, not based upon instinct, but entirely upon learning, that is, sociocultural conditioning. As Riane Eisler writes in Sacred Pleasure (1996), p. 22:

— In short, sex does not, as a once-popular song had it, ‘just come naturally.’ Rather, as illustrated by the jarring differences in the prehistoric and contemporary sexual symbols and images we have been comparing, sex is to a very large degree socially constructed.

When the DSM changed from ‘sexual deviation’ to ‘paraphilia,’ that means something. It means that from a mental health perspective, childlove is no more considered as ‘sicko’ behavior. And here we are not even talking about Dr. Moser’s proposition. Just with the turn to DSM III (1980), we already see that the normative stigma upon pedophilia and the other paraphilias was alleviated, and a more functional regard began to make its way through psychiatry. This functional regard is where we are today, and it’s the regard I apply in all of my books.

Now, let’s see how things were developing. Already back in 2000, the APA, based upon the latest edition of the DSM, asserted that a literature review was required to update the DSM, and that any further development of the DSM should henceforth be ‘supported by an extensive empirical foundation.’

— Dr. Charles Moser & Peggy J. Kleinplatz, DSM-IV-TR & The Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal, Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 17 (3/4), 91–109 (2005), 3.

Now, what the authors write is that their own extensive literature review ‘found no literature to support most of the assertions made in the paraphilia section of the DSM and several studies were found to contradict the text.’

The authors conclude that objective data to support the classification of the paraphilias as mental disorders is lacking.

As I pointed out already earlier in this chapter, the comparison with homosexuality is interesting; the authors state that about 30 years ago, it was expected that the other paraphilias were going to be removed from the DSM together with homosexuality, but this was not the case.

The interesting question is, why was homosexuality removed, then? The authors write that objective data were lacking for supporting its inclusion; research confirmed that homosexuals did not fit in specific psychiatric categories. The authors suppose that the removal of homosexuality from the DSM had political reasons, and that the situation, right now, for the other paraphilias was practically the same as before with homosexuality. Only a political decision, the authors say, could lead to the removal of the paraphilias, or some of them, from the DSM.

This is of course explosive information when you hear that said from the pulpit of psychiatrists judging their own diagnostic manual.

If it’s political reasons only that were at the basis of the removal of homosexuality, and if it’s political reasons that the paraphilias were not removed, then sorry, I am right when I say in this book and other books of mine that the fact that pedophilia is considered mental derangement, rape and chaotic behavior has political reasons, and is not for that matter corroborated by any facts or any research.

The following part of the article discusses if the paraphilias are mental disorders, or not, and the authors plead they are not. What is interesting here is that my own historical view of the development of sexual paraphilias is shared by other researchers. The authors, quoting Bullough & Bullough, Sin, Sickness and Sanity (1977), confirm my view that what today is called paraphilia, was called sin by the Church, and what was called crime now is called pathology or, in popular language, ‘sicko’ behavior.

The authors retrace how ‘sexual sin’ became ‘sexual pathology;’ they mention Krafft-Ebing’s Psychopathia Sexualis (1886/1965) as being a classical case. I have since long been disturbed by the incredible arrogance and arbitrary judgmentality of those early sexologists, including Stekel and Moll, German, all of them, who were not far, in their general worldview, from the Nazi ideal of ‘racial and genetic purity,’ and whose views must scandalize any serious sex researcher in our days.

But it was these people that were quoted as the early ‘authorities’ in matters of sexual behavior, also in legal textbooks; their treatises on sexual pathology stand for the ‘normative’ approach to sexology that preceded the present ‘functional’ and ‘empirical’ approach in sex research that was mainly founded by people like Bullough, Rubin, Moser, Green, and others.

I have recently shown there is equally a normative approach in psychoanalysis that parallels and duplicates this blindfolding tradition later on with the psychoanalytic establishment.

Hence, no rational law making is to be found at the basis of the demonization and criminalization of pedophilia; it is what it was, arbitrary church laws turned into modern penal law without any thought given to it by the modern lawmaker. It’s a shame for any of our large democracies to have such laws in place, and in addition, what is even worse, they are unconstitutional altogether.

Childlove vs. Perversion

The persistent denial of mainstream international culture to socially code pedoemotions within a framework of acceptable erotic behavior is a fatal lack of responsibility with disastrous consequences all over the globe.

— The majority’s response to their own natural pedoemotions is but repression and oblivion, the classical attitude of cannot-be-what-must-not-be that we know so well from Goethe’s Faust drama. They are afraid of erotic intelligence, and they tend to fight an even basic form of emosexual consciousness. The consequences are communication disabilities between adults and children and a generally uncreative attitude in the educational work with children.

The essential truth gained from years of research into the functional processes of life is that all parts of the psyche must be given a voice so that a constructive inner dialogue can be set up.

Part of this research is to show the role of loving children as an important manifestation of human love as it develops naturally as compensation for the lacking child-child sexual contact in our society and the general emotional repression of the child in the patriarchal and feel-hostile culture.

It is to be shown that the repression of those compensatory love functions disturbs this natural love orgonomy and creates violence and abuse. Thus, child abuse is not brought about through pedophilia but in contrary through the repression of natural pedoemotions.

In order to work out a draft for such a positively coded behavior pattern, we need to have a closer and deeper look at what childlove really is, and why in fact adults turn toward children for emotionally intelligent reasons.

What is it, after all, that is so erotically attractive in children? Or is it something that can only be perceived by people sensitive for it because of their own hangup or erotic specialness?

While it is obvious that without the love for children, the human race would since long have disappeared from the globe, it is still a matter of confusion what the place of erotic attraction is within the greater framework of loving children. I do not need to cite psychologists for stating that love and erotic attraction is not necessarily the same, while they go together on most occasions.

A closer look at language patterns seems to suggest that there is an erotic element even in the natural desire or wish that a couple has for procreating a child.

The French language is particularly transparent here. The expression for a couple to desire a child is ‘désirer un enfant’ while the exact same expression, used in another context, would mean to sexually desire a child, because, for example, ‘désirer une femme’ means in French the wish to have intercourse with a woman.

The whole psychiatric construct of the Oedipus Complex is based upon the assumption that the child sexually desires the parent of the opposite sex while being caught in a pattern of homosexual identification with the parent of the same sex. Without the underlying assumption that parents and their children desire each other sexually in some way, the psychoanalytic theory would never have come to exist; psychoanalysts tend to argue in addition that the Oedipus Complex was a universal phenomenon, to be observed in all cultural settings, while this assumptions has been clearly invalidated by anthropological and ethnological research.

In my interview of Françoise Dolto in Paris back in 1986, the famous child psychoanalyst affirmed the importance of what she called ‘parler désir’ (talking desire) as an educational activity so as to create a verbal coding for child-adult sexual relations in the child’s psyche. It has to be seen however that Dr. Dolto did not advocate the acting out of pedophile desires in the form of real-life sex within an educational relationship and even more so vehemently rejected as wrong and abusive such acting out in a therapeutic relationship with a child. However, regarding all other non-educational and non-therapeutic relationships between children and adults outside their family, she believed that society should code this form of sexual behavior that was in her view a normal part of human relations since times immemorial.

It is indeed irresponsible to leave the public discussion over to interest groups, pressured politicians, fearful religious leaders and a hypocrite and misinformed mob that feeds upon the stingy and the perverse in order to keep alive with a basically negative worldview, a worldview that is deeply schizophrenic. It is quite obvious to observe, in such a situation, how non-sexual emotions such as repressed anger, frustration, depression and schizophrenic splits occur, and why the desire tends to be lived out perversely through abduction, sexual assault and murder.

These negative results are not an outflow of erotic love, but are created by non-sexual phenomena when the natural discharge of the sexual impulse is impaired by social stigma and denial.

Society so far does not contribute to understanding childlove and thus contributes to the rise of more or less perverse forms of it. By the same token, a misinformed and irrationally minded public acts here as a group victim of irresponsible propaganda, instilled or tolerated by corrupt politicians and political or religious leaders who believe in an archaic eye-for-eye, a witchhunt paradigm or in what I call ‘the impossible human.’

The persistent denial of mainstream international culture to socially code pedoemotions in a framework of acceptable erotic behavior represents a fatal lack of responsibility with disastrous consequences all over the globe.

Where democracy shows that it is but a hidden form of terror or the oligarchic tyranny of a group of elite neo-fascists, it has lost its right to be qualified as a democratic form of government, and it has to be taken into reform by responsible citizens.

While I do not think that violent forms of political conduct can bring any good, for what they bring is still more violence, I request a deeper understanding, a stronger commitment to truth and a better communication between all parties involved in the public discussion. I honestly believe we should open up to a debate that is public not only on paper, but public in the old Roman sense of the word, as a matter of the res publica, of public concern. And it is with empathy and concern, not frivolity and certainly not aggression and violence that such a public discussion has to happen if it is at all to bring anything positive.

The present discussion reminds me of how Freud characterized, at the beginning of the 20th century, the situation he faced when he first began to apply psychoanalysis in the treatment of neuroses. For what Freud pointed out at the beginning of the 20th century is still valid at the beginning of the 21st; what dominates the situation is a double standard, falseness, cowardice and a collective shut-your-mouth-attitude over issues that are considered social dynamite.

Actually, the issues have barely changed. At Freud’s time, it was neurosis that plagued our culture, today it is paranoia, and schizophrenia.

Even though many people may have a vague idea of what pedophilia really means emotionally for both the lover and the love child, the implications of loving a child erotically must be looked at with more accuracy.

To begin with, let us evaluate child-child erotic contacts. Peer relations, strangely enough, are often overseen in the recent heated debate on child-adult sex. The first to desire small children as sexual partners are adolescents! This is no secret for psychologists, educators and all who are close to adolescents and know about their bubbling sexuality. Yet, in recent years a really shocking amount of criminal sentences have been pronounced against adolescents who had sex with younger child mates. Only then, it seems, the mass public noticed the age-old fact of life that adolescents are sexual, and perhaps more sexual than the rest of us.

However, seen from the perspective of how children are living together and considering the practices in tribal cultures, love relations between adolescents and smaller children are completely natural and healthy. Of course, I do not include here adolescents who have exorbitant power needs because something went wrong in their upbringing. Because in these particular cases I agree with the judges that the smaller child may easily be victimized.

Originally however and in a sane environment, adolescents’ desire for smaller children is rather tender and romantic while it certainly includes sexual arousal; the sane adolescent will not overpower a younger child just because he’s stronger but he will try to impress the child with his greater knowledge, force or social influence. It’s a love game, then, and not a rape game. And it will take considerable time until an ado will begin to act out his sexual desire with the child. He namely fears reject more than all in life. He therefore prefers to wait longer and have a longer-lasting friendship with the little boy or girl than to proceed ruthlessly and experience a setback.

Adolescents are very sensitive, even those who come over as brute or coarse. That’s often a façade or shield they are using to hide their deeper feelings, for fear of being ridiculed.

What actually happens in sane adolescent-child relations is that the adolescent is protective regarding the smaller child, sometimes as protective or even more protective than a parent. This protectiveness includes tenderness and natural care. Most adolescents, female or male, adore to babysit and they are deeply hurt when parents are mistrusting and reject their advances to babysit a small child. They may even grow a hidden form of hatred toward all adults if this happens to them repeatedly, especially when their fears to be rejected are not rationalized and communicated. As a result of the present pedophilia hysteria and child protection paranoia, I picked up from the literature and the Internet that male adolescents are no more given public trust as eligible babysitters, a phenomenon that can have disastrous consequences for their psychic and emotional wellbeing later in life.

Love relations between adolescents and children are very lively, full of energy, full of joy, full of sexual tension, too. In Africa, Southern Europe, the American Hispanic culture or in Cuba and, of course, in Middle and South America, they are widely common, being a part of the daily folklore. Also in the Arabic culture they have a well established place within a greater set of social rules that put the older brother on a particular position, a position close to the father. From that position is derived the power of the first-born or second-born son over smaller siblings within the extended family structure, and accordingly, the range of possible abuse of that privileged position.

It’s only a step to the next age group, also very strongly represented in childlove relations, the age-group twenty to about thirty-five. It is interesting to observe that the nature of these relations is quite different from adolescent-child relations. There is less physical play, fewer outdoor activities, more fondling, more closeness, more tenderness, more social activities, too. A childlover of more than thirty years of age for the most part lives a rather lonely life, different from a group-oriented adolescent.

The experience of his loved ones will be influenced by this loneliness even if most childlovers can change their lifestyle quite flexibly once they get in touch. But what I have observed is that true childlovers tend to reject youngsters and also young girls who do not want to comply, at least for a minimum of time, to contemplative moments of shared tenderness.

Tenderness is perhaps the key word in childlove as it is the key word in love, but certainly not in what today is practiced as heterosexuality and marriage. The obvious lack of tenderness in fashionable love affairs and in many marriages strongly indicates that these relations are not love, but forms of socially approved rape, a way of maintaining archaic forms of mating that may ideally suit monkeys but not humans.

Human love is spontaneous and tender, but public discussion tends to focus on where things have got out of hand and where relations turned south or have turned abusive. As if real love could not exist in adult-child erotic relations! And yet every loving act defies the perverted standards of life haters and persecutors. Every bit of courage of a father to sleep with his naked children for giving them warmth, trust, loving care and body energy defies the system. Every kiss and warm embrace bestowed upon the boys or girls in a class by a male educator defies and challenges the system. Every time an early child care worker takes a bath with a baby, defying the perverse rules in day care centers all over the Anglo-Saxon world, destroys a bit of a system that creates robots, perverted humans and schizophrenics, not sane adults.