Salon Writer: “I WOULD engage in sex play with a child … I will never deny that.”

Can we really believe Salon writer Todd Nickerson when he asserts he would never act on his urges? Especially when he himself has claimed otherwise?

The most recent cause of the progressive social justice crowd is the destigmatization of pedophilia. Milo Yiannopoulos’s recent article succinctly elucidates this disturbing trend, which culminated in recent weeks with giving a platform to a self-confessed pedophile who wishes society was more understanding of his sexual orientation. Lawyer Mike Cernovich has further traced this trend of promoting pedophilia to a number of publications and media platforms.

His logic is that we should embrace pedophiles as long as they vow never to act on their urges. He claims he is “attracted to children, but unwilling to act on it.” Later he explains:

For better or worse — mostly worse — we have this sexuality, and unlike with most sexualities, there is no ethical way we can fully actualize our sexual longings. Our desires and feelings, if we are to remain upright, are doomed from the outset.

Nickerson’s statements here are clear: no pedophiles should ever act on their desires. We can all agree on that. The problem is that this doesn’t at all line up with the message he’s preached elsewhere.

As we examine Nickerson’s past, the real question is whether his Salon piece was truthful: Does he really think it is wrong to act on his urges toward children? And if society becomes more accepting of pedophilia, how will he respond?

Please note that each quotation is hot-linked to the forum page where it occurs. If you question the veracity or context of these quotations, please feel free to read for yourself. These quotations have also been archived in case Nickerson or others try to suppress them or scrub them from these forums.

1. “Pedophiles Don’t Harm Children; Society Does”

Over the years, Nickerson has written quite a bit about pedophilia online under the username Markaba 2.0. He has never hidden behind internet anonymity, having identified himself by his full name on the forum. His post history paints a clear picture of his overall philosophy regarding pedophilia. The fundamental premise of Nickerson’s thought is that children are in many cases not harmed by having sex with pedophiles. He writes:

My goal is to protect children from harm, not from sex. Society believes these two things are pretty much one-in-the-same in the case of children; there is ample evidence that this is untrue, and that, in fact, society itself generates much of the harm.

This is the typical progressive argument: people aren’t scarred by immoral actions; they’re just scarred by societal attitudes. Children who are molested by pedophiles don’t live a life of pain because of the abuse. It’s just that society tells them the abuse is wrong, so they feel bad about it. As he later writes:

…consensual sex play likely wouldn’t be traumatic or mess kids up so much if society didn’t make a big deal out of it.

This is the first step in the process of destigmatizing pedophilia: erasing the victim out of existence. Upon the premise that children are not harmed by molesters, Nickerson pushes his agenda even further and claims that children need to be taught about sex by pedophiles.

2. “Children Want & Need Pedophiles”

Nickerson hypothesizes that evolution has introduced pedophilia as a sexual orientation so that pedophiles might teach children about sex. In this sense, he explains, children actually need pedophiles:

I believe that children need us as much as we need them, that there is an evolutionary aspect to our orientation that has yet to be determined (though I have several theories.)

Victim-blaming has always been rampant in the pedophile community, so it’s no surprise that Nickerson’s next claim is that children have a sort of radar for pedophiles and desire to be around them:

For the ped, I supply that this IS our evolutionary purpose, or one of them: to provide children with a “bridge” between the child world and the adult world, to allow them to practice relationships and sex safely and on their level and terms. Children do seem to know intuitively when one of us is around, and all that pint-up curiosity about sex and adult bodies and romance manifests when we’re around, sometimes rather quickly and persistently (as was the case with J.)

If you thought this couldn’t get any more disturbing, Nickerson moves on to explain how “J”, a five-year-old girl he babysat, came onto him:

Which is why I have stressed time and again that I believe it is imperitave to allow the CHILD to take the lead. In my situation with J, she “came onto” me (in her naive but rather aggressive way) rather obviously and for a prolongued amount of time — I mean over days. She obviously had given her desire alot of thought, and it was both to be touched by me and to touch me in return.

In fact, I noticed a tendency in Nickerson’s overall post history: he again and again references children “coming onto” him, while all the while emphasizing that he’s never made a move on a single child. One’s credulity can only be stretched so far. Forgive me if I can’t accept Nickerson’s view of the world as a place where children desperately pursue sex with pedophiles while the pedophiles themselves are chastely and virtuously rebuffing these advances.

3. “Children Benefit from Pedophiles”

Nickerson goes on to assert that children not only need and want pedophiles, but that they also benefit from them. He explains his idea that the evolutionary purpose of pedophiles to teach children about sex with the analogy of a swimming lesson:

…in fact, I’d argue that it’s actually benificial for the child. I will reiterate my swimming metaphor here (though I’ve already mentioned it twice.) Society preventing children from engaging in sex play and romance play is akin to preventing them from learning to swim, but not only that — refusing to tell them anything ABOUT swimming (or swimming pools or lakes . . .) and then, when the child turns 18 or so, taking them to the ocean and tossing them in, shouting, “Well, you’re on your own!” That’s what society does to children in the name of protecting them.

You might be wondering why it shouldn’t be left to children’s parents to teach them about sex. After all, no responsible parent would wait until a child was eighteen to broach the subject. Well, Nickerson has thoughts on this as well.

This is why, when people say things like, “How can pedos be a good judge of my child’s readiness for sex?” I find such statements or questions to be ironic at best. I can turn it around and ask, “How can parents, who have a vested interest in controlling their children, be a good judge of whether children are ready?”

The relation of parent, child, and pedophile has at this point been completely reversed. It’s not the pedophile who mistreats the child, but the parent. It is the pedophiles, not the parents, who have the child’s best interests at heart, and who are better qualified to make decisions about when the child is ready for sex:

Yes, I DO believe we pedos have more empathy for children than the average parent does, and as such, I DO believe we are better judges, on average, of what children can and cannot handle.

His ideology is complete. While parents are the nefarious, controlling agents of society, pedophiles are compassionate individuals who know best how early children are ready for sex. Given that Nickerson believes five-year-olds aggressively come onto him, that must be early indeed.

4. “If Society Changes, We Will Act”

In his Salon piece, Nickerson states unequivocally that it is wrong for a pedophile to act on his urges. But the detailed worldview outlined in his internet forum history says otherwise. Really, the only villains in Nickerson’s story are society and parents. Without these harmful influences, children could finally act on their urges to engage in relationships with pedophiles.

So what if society does change? What if we do become more sympathetic to pedophilia? Nickerson is clear:

Once again, I’ve always maintained that, if we lived in a different, more sex-positive society and it were legal to do so, I WOULD engage in sex play with a child that I loved if she wanted it and initiated it. I will never deny that.

That’s just what he does end up denying in his piece for Salon.

So we are left to ask what Nickerson and Salon’s true goal is in seeking to raise sympathy for the plight of pedophiles. Can we believe him when he claims his entire worldview has actually turned 180 degrees from what he repeatedly espoused in detail on internet forums? Or, is it just that his current rhetoric is far more effective at accomplishing the goal of making society more accepting and sex-positive — a means to an end? Even if his beliefs have changed over the years, can we truly believe that if society became accepting of pedophilia, his views wouldn’t change once again? And even if Nickerson would remain “virtuous,” would others in the pedophile community do the same?

While Nickerson’s views on whether he may act on his urges are subject to change, one aspect of his thought does remain constant: he is very, very interested in your child.

Follow me on Twitter @harperreginald1