On “Virtuous Pedophiles”, Transparency, & Credibility

or, how was your week ?

For several reasons, this is a piece I am not enjoying having to write. For one, what I need to address has already caused potential misunderstandings and needless distress to several people who have more than an academic understanding of childhood sexual abuse and the damage it can cause. Secondly, this will, by necessity, be a one sided clarification of the events involved. Why? Because the author in question, Justin Forest, has decided to respond to the issue by closing his Medium account, deleting his Twitter account, and changing his email address.

Some backstory and context is required here.

A few months ago, a new writer on Medium, Justin Forest, submitted a memoir piece to CG. The piece had themes of parental friction, and vaguely hinted at a history of child abuse, though no specifics were revealed. I found the piece compelling, and chose to publish it. This was followed by a second piece with a lighter tone examining the rigid gender binary our culture is often quick to prescribe. A third piece followed, with a detailed pitch suggesting it was an examination of several timely and concerning problems with the way child sexual abuse is investigated and the problems with the uniformity of approach to cases. I accepted the piece for consideration, telling the author that I would take a close read of his work and if all went well it would likely be published in early January.

I read the piece thoroughly, and while there were a few points that I was in agreement with, overall the work was hugely problematic on several levels. The most obvious being that the theme of the work was substantially different than the pitch. In a nutshell, Justin was making an argument for a new understanding of pedophiles who don’t offend, strongly supporting not only the acceptance of pedophilia as an orientation, but calling for an end to the condemnation of individuals who identify as such. While he maintained a strong distinction between non offending pedophiles, “minor attracted persons”, or MAP, as he called them, and those who act on their desires.

The article was problematic on other fronts as well. It was sloppily researched, had no academic citations whatsoever, glaringly misrepresented context in case studies, and was otherwise disingenuous in the arguments presented. I had several discussions with my co-editor who also shared my concerns.

And hindsight is 20 / 20, isn’t it?

Believing this to be a relevant issue to consider in an editorial format, I proposed to Justin that we first do an on the record interview that would be published prior to his piece, so that his opinions could be clarified, and my concerns and challenges would be clear and he would have ample opportunity to respond. He agreed, and we left it with me planning to do more research into his claims and the issue in general.

That is where the problems began.

I did exhaustive research into both his claims, and the issues that are often in question surrounding the topic. It became clear quickly that he had no professionals who would go on the record with any statement, pro or con, as most had been misquoted or taken greatly out of context already. The one “expert” he was able to provide was a former child abuse sexual survivor who now practices as a primal scream therapist, has a proclivity to date serial killers, and is quick to point out that included a short affair with the Hillside Strangler. As well, she believes that evil exists as a constellation of “bad vibes” and demonic possession, and is also of the opinion that homosexuality is a toxic neurosis.

Next.

I imagine you’ll understand why I did not place any great weight on her opinion of pedophilia.

It was also around this time that I noticed with some concern the tone and content of several of Justin’s responses to works appearing on the Medium platform. At best, they were baiting, argumentative, and off topic. In my opinion, they were vitriolic with obvious misogynist and racist leanings. He also does not, and would not, offer any identity beyond his pen name. Writing under a pen name or online handle is fine if you are writing personal essays that are not framed in an authoritative context. Not only was he quoting supposed research, he was also framing his opinion as one of an expert in the field. Yet he was completely unwilling to tell me his name, or the university he supposedly teaches at. For a man claiming five university degrees including one in “taboo studies”, as well as a PhD, who is espousing sociological and sexuality theory, that is a serious concern. I am also not unfamiliar to academia, and possess an undergrad and two masters. Which, interesting to note, have taken up the better part of my adult life. Four degrees and a PhD by someone who claims a ten year professorship at an unverified university, but can’t even cite or attribute work, is flag raising, and frankly, not at all believable.

During this time Justin also made a number of posts on Medium that stated Crossing Genres had agreed to publish his article on “Virtuous Pedophiles” (self identified adults who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children but are “committed to non offending”). TRIGGER WARNING. While the website insists that it only supports non offending individuals, the embrace of the identity and frank discussion of sexual attraction to pre-teens and toddlers is very disturbing.

And, like clockwork, CG received a number of submissions by just such individuals. I also received an email from Justin stating that his January schedule was very busy due to his teaching an intensive course, and if I had any questions to contact him, but to otherwise publish his piece.

So much for his agreeing to an interview. Clearly I am simply a vehicle to his piece seeing publication.

Well that’s interesting, since last time I checked, my editorial priorities and decisions around what to publish and what to reject are decided solely by myself and my co-editor. Not a submitting author, and certainly not one who I only know by a made up pen name. It was swiftly decided that there would be no interview, and certainly not an article.

Of course timing being what it is, Tim Barrus was also getting followed by a number of the ”Virtuous” crowd, prompting him to publish a strongly worded piece, clearly stating his views on the subject. I, as well as the editorial handle for CG both published and strongly supported his positions.

Tim’s piece.

Within hours of the publication of Tim’s piece, I received a furious email from Justin accusing Heather and I of stabbing him in the back, and several other allegations that were paranoid and unfounded. He indicated his response to our apparent betrayal would be to close his account. I responded to those allegations and informed him his status as a writer for CG had been terminated. I also suggested that as an academic, his responding to completely warranted factual challenges by closing shop and running away was more than telling. And by this point, not at all surprising.

So, as I said in the sub-title, how was your week?

To be perfectly clear, I am responding in this public forum through this post to state in no uncertain terms, CG NEVER agreed to publish his work, despite his claims, and any apparent endorsement of his beliefs by myself, my co-editor, or anyone at CG around the issue of childhood sexual abuse is in no way accurate.

And not at all appreciated.

So, for the record.

• Speaking solely for myself, and as the Editorial Director of CG I believe that issues inherent to child sexual abuse can sometimes take on a hysterical tone that is not particularly helpful if the ultimate best interests of the child are the guiding factor, since well intentioned priorities can often be misplaced or misguided in an attempt to protect children.
• I strongly agree that a revamp of the current legal response to sexual offenses of all categories is in need of an across the board overhaul to make it contextually applicable, victim-centric, and operate from an assertion that the protection of the victim and / or child is and always will be the central focus.
• I think there is a material difference between a pedophile who never offends, and a pedophile who is a child molester, or is an individual at risk of offending. But that difference is moot, as I don’t think a self proclaimed identity as a pedophile nor the support of a pedophile community does anything but provide a breeding ground for offenders and potential offenders to make contacts.
• That is to say, if your “kink” happens to be underage teens, and it’s strictly a masturbatory fantasy that is never carried out, then no one needs to know it, do they? If it’s more than that, it’s a problem! Conflating an individuals internal turn on that stays just that, with pedophiles who actively abuse children is willfully obtuse, and obvious in disingenuous intent.

I welcome a response from Justin, however that is unlikely since he has chosen to erase any and all evidence of his fake identity, his writings, his social media platforms, his email, and his problematic beliefs.

As I said to Justin; that, is more than telling.