Every human being is different, and all Natural Humanists are supportive of all people, including people of all nationalities, races, religions, genders and of every nature and sexuality. They also celebrate the fact that, in countries like the UK, people increasingly feel safe enough to declare that, unlike the majority of people in the world, they, themselves, are not heterosexual.
This is highlighted by the fact that, in the UK, the number of over 16s identifying as bisexual doubled between 2018 and 2023 [i], and by the fact that about 10% of 16 to 24 year olds identify as LGB, compared to only 1% of those aged 65 and over[ii], who will have lived much of their lives in a world often aggressively opposed to people of their sexuality, and in which practicing their sexuality was often illegal.
Natural Humanists avoid any form of prejudice or hatred, and believe that no sexuality is a perversion, in fact, quite the opposite, they believe every sexuality is a beautiful natural variation of human sexuality, and of humanity, and that natural variation is far more beautiful than uniformity.
They believe that a person’s sexuality determines which particular group of human beings they’re both romantically and sexually attracted to, and that this is completely outside their control, whether it’s due to ‘nature’ (their genetic inheritance), ‘nurture’ (their upbringing and life experiences) or a combination of the two.
Whichever group of people somebody is attracted to, they invariably love, admire, adore, respect, care about, value and celebrate them much more than most other people do, and Natural Humanists believe that every sexuality and every human being should be celebrated equally.
They believe that a person’s sexuality is usually lifelong, and that many people are aware of their sexuality right from the start of puberty, when they fully become ‘sexual beings’, or even earlier. They acknowledge, however, that sometimes, a person’s sexuality can be transient and can change during their lifetime, although it may be their understanding of, or their acknowledgement of their sexuality that changes, rather than their sexuality itself.
For example, most pubescent boys, girls and children of other genders, have a strong, or intense, romantic and sexual attraction to other pubescent children, and are therefore hebesexual, whether or not this is their ‘exclusive’ (only) sexuality. As they grow older, these children may lose their attraction to girls or boys, or this attraction may reduce significantly, but for others, their attraction to people of that age-group may continue throughout their whole life, and may even become stronger, and for some, this will be their exclusive sexuality for the whole of their life, whereas others may go on to have an attraction to both pubescent girls or boys, and to post pubescent children and/or adults.
Children are widely taught by their parents and the media, and even by teachers at school, to be intolerant of, and even aggressive towards, any adult who shows them any attention at all, however innocent and well-meaning, and also towards anybody known to, or believed to, have a romantic or sexual attraction to children, even though, just like with every other sexuality, their sexuality is totally natural and beyond their control.
A common misunderstanding of paedosexuality (romantic and sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children), hebesexuality (romantic and sexual attraction to pubescent children) and ephebosexuality (romantic and sexual attraction to post-pubescent children), all of which may be an exclusive attraction to children of just one (or more) gender, is that people with these sexualities are, by their very nature, immoral, sleazy, abusive, controlling, secretive and selfish. However, Natural Humanists believe that if a person’s sexuality is widely respected and celebrated by society, throughout their childhood and adult life, and if they can be enabled to meet their strong, natural human needs for love and affection, and to satisfy their strong instinctive drive to have sex, safely and legally, then they’re no more likely to be immoral or abusive than any other member of society.
They believe that the problem occurs when, throughout a person’s life, their sexuality, which is at the core of who they are, is made illegal, and is widely seen as sinful, wicked or an unnatural perversion. This leads to them feeling that they have no option but to hide their sexuality, and that they should feel bad about who they are; that they should hate and be ashamed of their natural selves and of who they love and are naturally strongly attracted to.
This can lead to them feeling they have no legal or socially acceptable way to satisfy their strong, natural sexual drives and their strong need for romantic love and physical affection, which every human being experiences.
It can lead to them feeling they’ve little option but to be secretive, and to have risky, potentially damaging relationships, with people to whom they’re strongly attracted, and it can also lead to them withdrawing from the society that’s rejected them, for the sexuality that’s at the very heart of who they are, but which society despises them for.
This can result in society itself making people with these sexualities into the ‘outcasts’ and ‘deviants’ that they already believe all people with these sexualities to be.
In other words, it’s society itself that creates this ‘monster’, and it’s only by recognising this fact, and by ensuring that people of all sexualities are accepted fully in society,that people with these sexualities can be enabled to live safe, healthy, non-abusive, happy and fulfilling lives. This includes ensuring that they are respected and celebrated for all that they are, and for who they love, and are given all of the support, advice and guidance they need to manage their sexuality, in safe, healthy and legal ways, which meet their strong, natural needs for love, affection sexual pleasure and acceptance. This is also the only way that children themselves can be enabled to be safe, and to be free from potentially harmful relationships or abuse, and to have healthy, respectful opinions of, and healthy relationships with, all adults, including those with these sexualities.
Natural Humanists, in recognising all of these things, consider it to be their strong moral duty to support, include and celebrate people of every sexuality, and to ensure that society, and the State, actively investigate and implement every possible strategy, to make certain that all people, of all sexualities, can have all of their romantic and sexual needs and drives satisfied safely, throughout their lives; that they’re celebrated and can take pride in themselves for doing so, and that they’re legally protected, worldwide, from any prejudice or abuse, and from any immoral control or punishment, for being who they are; for being exactly the way that nature made them.
Natural Humanists love all of nature’s infinite variety and celebrate everything that makes each and every human being different, but they recognise that society and the State love to do the opposite, preferring to dictate what is ‘normal’ and to isolate, dehumanise and degrade those not considered to fit into this definition of ‘normality’.
An example of this is society’s need to describe people as having ‘paraphilias’, which are ‘atypical’ sexual interests. A massive 62% of all adult men are considered to have at least one of these paraphilias[iii],[iv] which includes things like paedophilia and hebephilia[v], which all involve an attraction to children or adolescents, although, undoubtedly, the stigma caused by labelling somebody as having such a paraphilia, hugely reduces the number of people who are happy to admit to such natural attractions, like the tiny proportion of the UK population who publicly declared themselves to be gay in the early 20th century, compared to the millions who now happily and proudly do so.
Historically, and still up to the present day, the State has treated paraphilias as mental disorders, just as they did ‘homophilia’ (a sexual interest in people of the same gender) until recent years, and, consequently, it’s tried to ‘cure’ people of these ‘disorders’, including by sending gay men and women to ‘re-education’ camps, to be ‘cured’ of their ‘illness’.
Natural Humanists recognise that, in many cases, such ‘paraphilias’ are not mental disorders at all, but are in fact true sexualities, which are part of the normal spectrum of humanity. They believe that what is actually ‘unhealthy’, is the dismissive and aggressive attitudes of society to people with less common sexualities, and the inability of both society and the State to enable all human beings to openly and safely ‘be’ the sexuality that they are, and to form healthy and mutually beneficial relationships, and to safely satisfy all of their emotional and sexual needs and drives.
They acknowledge that the main reason that some sexualities are considered to be ‘paraphilias’, and mental disorders, is that they ‘offend public morality’, or negatively affect that person’s own life or happiness, or affect public safety[vi], but they also acknowledge that all of these things are the fault of the State and society and are not the fault of the person concerned.
Natural Humanists believe that nobody has the right to not have their ‘morality offended’ by who another person is, or by how they choose to live their life, in fact they believe that tolerance and empathy are two of the most important attributes in all human beings, and that all human beings should be respected, valued and loved for exactly who they are, rather than being ‘moulded’ to ‘fit in’ with other people.
They acknowledge that paraphilias only ‘negatively affect a person’s own life or happiness’, if they’re criticised or demonised for who they are, are forced to isolate themselves as a result, and consequently experience depression or anxiety. Inevitably, this will lead to deep unhappiness if somebody can never ‘be’ who they truly are, or can never form meaningful relationships with people that they love, or give and receive sexual pleasure, or share life-enhancing physical affection and deep human connections.
They recognise that sexualities classed as ‘paraphilias’, only ‘affect public safety’ if the State hasn’t performed its moral duty properly, by carefully researching and implementing every possible way of safely enabling all human beings to express their sexuality as freely and fully as possible, rather than just taking the easy way out, which every government in the world is guilty of, by merely criminalising those who, totally predictably, choose to share relationships and sex with people they’re attracted to, often in secret, because of the totally realistic fear of lifelong abuse, and probably imprisonment, if they’re ever found out.
Ephebophilia, a sexual interest in post-pubescent children, despite being classed as a paraphilia, is not considered to be a mental disorder[vii], as it’s believed to be relatively ‘normal’ for men to be attracted to those who’ve finished puberty, even though many such children, particularly girls, are still 13-14 years old, so are still under the legal age of consent. Indeed, adults who do go on to have sex with children, are more likely to have sex with a 14-year-old, than with a child of any other age[viii], at which point many girls will have already finished puberty and will be fully sexually mature.
Some experts believe that hebephilia, which is an attraction to people who’ve begun to show physical signs of puberty, but haven’t yet finished puberty, should also not be considered to be either a mental disorder or a paraphilia [ix],[x],[xi],[xii],[xiii] and should be fully recognised as a sexual attraction, or as a sexuality, rather than merely as a ‘preference’ [xiv].
According to psychiatrist Allen Frances[xv],[xvi], attraction to pubescent children (hebesexuality) is within the ‘normal’ range of human behaviour, so shouldn’t be considered to be a ‘sexual deviance’ at all, even if society has chosen, at this point in our history, to make relationships and sex between adults and pubescent children illegal. According to Karen Franklin, men have, throughout history, tended “to prefer youthful partners who are at the peak of both beauty and reproductive fertility”, so hebephilia is both widespread in men, and is potentially beneficial to human evolution[xvii].
Some other experts believe that sex between adults and adolescent children, which applies to both hebesexuals and ephebosexuals, shouldn’t necessarily be illegal or classed as ‘deviant’ behaviour, if a particular child’s individual level of physical and mental development is considered to be sufficient[xviii], particularly as it’s more common for adults to be attracted to pubescent children than to pre-pubescent children[xix],[xx],[xxi],[xxii] and, in some cultures, sex between adults and adolescent children is considered acceptable[xxiii], not least because children are sexual beings during puberty, have strong romantic feelings and sexual desires and fantasies, are capable of intense sexual pleasure and orgasms, are fully capable of enjoying sex and intimate and loving relationships, on both an emotional and a sexual level, and may have enthusiastically agreed to take part in, or have even asked for, or initiated any sex or relationships.
It could be argued that hebesexuality is, in fact, an important evolutionary ‘adaptation’ [xxiv],[xxv], at least in men attracted to girls, in that evolution is about increasing the number of members of a particular species on the planet, and the ability of that species to survive and thrive in whatever environment they live, and is nothing to do with what is legal or socially acceptable.
If sex between men and girls was both legal and socially acceptable, and if contraception didn’t exist, as it hasn’t for most of human history, undoubtedly, the ability of men to be sexually attracted to girls, from the very moment they first became capable of conceiving offspring, which is as young as 12 or even 10 in many girls, would increase the length of each females’ reproductive life, allowing them to have more children than if they waited until they were adults to start reproducing, and, as hebesexual men tend to have strong and deep romantic feelings for girls, not just a sexual attraction to them, they would be likely to stay around to help support such a young mother and baby as well.
Hebesexuality and ephebosexuality also have the potential to allow both girls and boys to successfully meet their own strong natural needs, and drives, for love and sex, and gives them an opportunity to experience intense sexual pleasure, often with a mature, and often sexually experienced adult, while developing important social, sexual and relationship skills, with a person who, hopefully, unlike many child partners they might have chosen, has the emotional strength and maturity to nurture and support them, and to make them feel loved, valued and respected, and to ensure that all of their strong emotional and sexual needs are satisfied.
Natural Humanists recognise that human beings didn’t evolve to have just one sexual partner for life, and so, if contraception didn’t exist, any pubescent girl who did become pregnant with a hebesexual man or boy, would be likely to also get pregnant as a post pubescent girl, and as an adult, to the same adult hebesexual partner, who had formed a long-term loving bond with them, or to any other man or fertile boy, and so the opportunity to have sex right from the beginning of puberty, until menopause, would maximise the potential number of pregnancies during a female human’s lifetime.
Natural Humanists recognise that, consequently, both exclusive and non-exclusive hebesexuality and ephebosexuality, in men, could be considered to be a beneficial (or ‘adaptive’) part of human evolution, potentially increasing the human population and maximising the number of opportunities for positive evolutionary change, which is possible every time we reproduce, due to new genetic variations in each new human offspring.
However, hugely more importantly, in today’s massively over-populated world, which evolution neither knows nor cares about, Natural Humanists recognise that both hebesexuality and ephebosexuality, potentially increase the proportion of a child’s life that includes pleasurable and emotionally rewarding sexual and romantic relationships, if society permits and can safely enable these, from the start of puberty, whether these are with hebesexuals of their own age, or with experienced adults, who are potentially more capable of giving them pleasure and managing beneficial and equal relationships.
Society’s current social norms, rules and laws, prevent fully sexually mature children, including many girls from 12 or 13 years old, or even younger, from benefitting from admiration, romantic love, physical affection, sensual pleasure and orgasmic sex for many years of their adolescence, and also limit opportunities for pre-pubescent, and early-pubescent children, to experience love and admiration, and the fun and pleasure of shared nudity and sensual experiences, whether these experiences are with other children, or with adults.
During the time of the Roman Empire, when children often worked in manual jobs from 5 or 6 years old and there was not today’s distinction between children and adults, particularly after the start of puberty, it was not at all unusual for girls to marry, to have sex and to become pregnant at 12 or 13 years old.[xxvi]
In William Shakespeare’s celebrated and world-famous romantic play ‘Romeo and Juliet’, the two main characters were a young man called Romeo, and a 13-year-old girl called Juliet[xxvii]. Today a 13 year old girl would be most likely to be pubescent, and so Romeo would be classed as a hebesexual (or a hebephile) and Juliet’s own mother was, herself, in a relationship at 12 or 13 years old, and became pregnant with Juliet at 13 years old, which would, again, have been to an exclusive or non-exclusive hebesexual male.
In the UK, until 1929, it was fully legal for a man to marry a 12 year old girl[xxviii], who, in those days, would have almost certainly been pubescent or pre-pubescent, and so relationships, and sex, between adult paedosexuals or hebesexuals and children were perfectly legal, as was any romantic ‘courting’ of that girl before she was 12 years old, which would now be classed as illegal ‘grooming’.
Even in the 1950s, children in the UK could legally get married, and have sex, at 16 years old, but, at that time, it was not uncommon for girls to start puberty at 15 years old and to finish it at 19 years old, which suggests that, at that time, hebesexual sex, romantic relationships and marriage were fully legal and, for many people, were perfectly acceptable, if a couple loved each other.
Natural Humanists acknowledge that beliefs regarding sexual and romantic contact between children and adults are contradictory. For example, parents are allowed to consent to their children being fully naked in front of adult childminders and foster carers, for example at bathtime, and in front of adults they don’t know, in communal changing rooms and showers, and at naturist beaches and clubs, and they can consent to their children kissing and hugging friends and adult relatives on the lips, because these things are not considered to be harmful, or to require their child to be capable of meaningful consent, but they can’t consent to that same child sharing nudity with, or kissing or hugging a hebesexual adult who they like or love, and who is romantically attracted to them.
Parents can agree to underage children having romantic relationships with a succession of children of their own age, including to them kissing, hugging and having supervised sleepovers together, but they can’t consent to these same things happening if they’re with a hebesexual adult.
The law, in countries like the UK, does not criminalise any standard sexual act, including full sexual intercourse, or full anal sex, if this is between two underage children, if it’s believed that both children have agreed to it, and that it’s not abusive. This is despite the fact that, officially, this sex is illegal, and that, in law, all children of this age are considered to be incapable of consenting to any such sexual activity, or even to gentle sexual touching or sexual kissing, which, if it occurred with a hebesexual adult, would always, automatically, be considered to be abusive, even if it was within a respectful and loving romantic relationship, and so would always be punished, very severely, by the law.
Natural Humanists recognise that this goes directly against convention, in that adults are usually trusted and considered capable of living every part of their life without supervision or guidance, but children are not, and yet, when it comes to a child freely choosing between a relationship and sex with a child, or a relationship and sex with an adult, it’s the relationship with the adult, who, in all other areas of life is usually respected, trusted and considered to be more responsible and reliable, that raises concerns, and is subject to scrutiny, and it’s the adult partner’s, not the child partner’s motives that are doubted.
In countries like the UK, if a 15 year old boy and girl went into a bedroom at 11.30pm on the eve of the boy’s 16th birthday and had sex within the first 30 minutes, then the law wouldn’t get involved, whereas if they waited for 30 minutes, he’d be legally declared a sex offender, and could be sent to jail.
Natural Humanists recognise that, if it’s a perceived unhealthy ‘power’ imbalance in relationships, that differentiates identically loving and mutually pleasurable romantic and sexual relationships between adults and children, from those that occur between two children, then there may well be a way of successfully overcoming this, by an unbiased and responsible adult chaperone overseeing all decisions made in the relationship, and supervising all contact between the couple, including all affectionate and sexual contact, and ensuring that the child concerned is fully educated about sex and relationships in advance, and it’s always the child, not the adult, who chooses how often they meet, and who requests affection or sex each time, and who always decides, in advance, exactly which intimate acts they do and do not wish to take part in during each meeting.
A system of thorough assessment, background checks and ‘reviewing and rating’ of such potential adult partners could also minimise or eliminate risk of harm, as could implementing new, hugely increased punishments for adults who choose to abuse such freedoms and choose to have relationships or sex with a child without such supervision and assessment.
Natural Humanists believe that all of this should be carefully balanced against the fact that children of this age may still have insufficient brain development, social skills, confidence, control of their natural desires and impulses, and a reduced ability to foresee consequences, so any romantic relationships and sex between adults and children should only ever occur if it can be fully and professionally chaperoned and can be safely and legally enabled.
Natural Humanists believe that any child or adult who considers themselves to have a romantic and sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children (paedosexuals), to pubescent children (hebesexuals) or to post-pubescent children, who may be above or below the age of consent (ephebosexuals), should be encouraged to confidentially register with a charity set up to celebrate, support, advise and educate them, and to help them to safely and legally meet their human needs, and satisfy their natural instinctive drives, whether they themselves are an adult or a child.
They believe that this charity should encourage the use of sexual and romantic chaperones, whenever they wish to have a romantic relationship, or to share mutual nudity, physical intimacy, affection or sex with a child under the age of consent, or if they’re in a position of ‘power’ over a child who is over 16, for example, if they’re a teacher.
However, they believe that they should only take part in this sex and these relationships, even with a chaperone’s careful assessment, approval and assistance, if this is legal and has been proved by experts to be unlikely to cause distress or harm, otherwise they should be advised not to have such sex or relationships at all, because of the harm and distress that both it, and the State’s punishment of it, would cause.
In which case, they should be encouraged and enabled by this charity to satisfy their needs and drives, as much as possible, in other safe and legal ways, possibly using any legal technology to have ‘virtual’ relationships, and possibly ‘virtual’ sex, with artificial intelligence ‘virtual’ girls or boys, or using legal photos or videos of women or men, when they themselves were girls or boys, which have been donated to the charity, to allow adults with these sexualities to fantasise safely about relationships or sex with these people. Again, the law might need to change in most countries to allow such safe ‘virtual’ relationships to be fully successful, for example, to allow the use of interactive ‘sex dolls’, ‘deep fake’ pornography and virtual-reality video, all of which are based on pictures of women or men when they themselves were girls or boys, which they’ve fully consented, as adults, to being used in this way.
Most people who have prejudiced views towards people exclusively attracted to children, can’t imagine what it’s like for somebody to have to live their entire life in a world where society and the law prevents them from ever, their whole life, being able to tell somebody that they genuinely love them, romantically, or are sexually attracted to them; to never be able to make such a connection with anybody, not even once in their lifetime.
To overcome this problem, to significantly reduce the global epidemic of child abuse, and to allow those who are genuinely strongly romantically or emotionally attracted to children, to safely share their strong feelings of love or attraction with as many children as they wish, particularly if they’re polyamorous, a charity could run a service which allows children, who are from families which are not prejudiced against people attracted to children, to upload non-sexual, clothed photos, and possibly text profiles, of themselves.
This would allow people who are romantically and sexually attracted to children, whether they themselves are children or adults, to view profiles of a large number of anonymous girls or boys, possibly not from that person’s county or country, for added safety, to whom they could either send a monitored and, if necessary, censored one-off positive comment, about their personality, physical beauty, etc., or their feelings for them, or could have an online, carefully chaperoned, fully anonymous friendship or relationship, without their name or geographical location ever being revealed, and with their images never being available on that person’s own phone, laptop or tablet, only on monitored devices owned by the charity, so that these photos or communications could never be copied, shared, used to create ‘deep fake’ pornography, or ‘reverse image searched’ (for example on Google®) to allow alternative, unsafe and unsupervised ways of contacting that child to be found. The service could, after a child turned 16, allow one-off, or regular, fully chaperoned face-to-face meetings between any child and adult who’d got to know each other through such a service, which could be allowed until they reached 18, to make doubly sure that any continued contact was fully consensual.
Such a charity could ensure that contact details of any such child are only ever shared when that child becomes an adult, and that, even then, this only ever occurs when a chaperone has assessed that that former child happily agrees to this, and an assessment has been made of the mental health, beliefs, behaviour, and any past offending or anti-social behaviour, of the person requesting such direct contact.
This charity could ensure that all such children are always informed if somebody contacting them is polyamorous, and if they’re also in contact with other children, not just them, and could assess the suitability of everybody wanting to join the scheme, to ensure they’re not a threat to children, and could withdraw the right to use the service in the event of any breach of the charity’s rules, or any law-breaking.
Natural Humanists recognise that such a service wouldn’t be legal in many countries, so would only be appropriate if the law was changed to allow it. However, they believe that it’s perfectly possible to set up such a service, and that doing so could significantly satisfy the strong natural needs of paedosexual, hebesexual and ephebosexual adults to develop loving, respectful relationships with children that they’re strongly attracted to, without putting them at any risk of sexual abuse, or an unhealthy coercively controlling power relationship, and that this could, in some cases then lead to these adults having full romantic and sexual relationships with girls or boys they’ve got to know through such a service, when they themselves have become adults, fully capable of safely and legally consenting to every aspect of these relationships.
They also recognise that such a service would potentially allow every single girl or boy who ever used it, to feel loved, truly valued for who they are, and to feel beautiful and sexually attractive, throughout their entire childhood, and to never feel alone, unwanted or unloved, which is something that many children experience every day in the ‘real world’. It would also allow them to safely develop very important social and relationship skills, self-awareness and self-esteem, while being constantly supported and encouraged by a skilled and trustworthy chaperone.
Natural Humanists recognise that seven common reasons why most people in society have a strong, but ignorant prejudice against, and hatred of, those human beings who, through absolutely no fault of their own, are naturally paedosexual, hebesexual or ephebosexual are as follows:
Firstly, they almost always consider people of all these three, quite separate exclusive or non-exclusive sexualities to belong to one group. They consider them all to be ‘paedophiles’ or ‘paedos’, which is almost always used as a term of abuse, rather than in its literal, positive and more accurate sense, as a ‘lover of children’.
Secondly, they assume that the only reason why people of these three sexualities have romantic relationships or sex with children, is that they’re socially or sexually inadequate, and are incapable of attracting ‘real’ women or men; that they themselves, “aren’t man enough or woman enough” to be able to do so; that they’re weak and lack sexual and romantic skills, and so choose vulnerable people instead, and ‘force’ them to have relationships or sex. This is just as ridiculous as believing that gay men only have sex and relationships with other men, because they’re ‘not man enough’ to be able to attract women.
Thirdly, they believe that it’s not possible for somebody to be strongly romantically and sexually attracted to girls or boys, but not to be capable of being attracted to women or men as well, despite the fact that, in most cases, they themselves will claim to have a strong attraction to women or men, but to not be sexually and romantically attracted to girls or boys.
In other words, such people do not believe that somebody can have an upper and lower ‘age limit’ to their attraction, even though this clearly goes against logic and reason. If you ask any group of heterosexual men aged between 18 and 30, if they themselves are romantically and sexually attracted to 5-year-old girls, or to 98-year-old women, they will almost certainly strongly reply that they have no romantic or sexual attraction at all to either of these age groups of females.
The same is true of exclusive paedo-, hebe- and ephebo-sexuals, in that they too are not attracted to females, or males, who they consider to be ‘too young’ or ‘too old’, so the only difference between them and ‘normal people’, is that the upper and lower age limits for their romantic and sexual attractions are different. Furthermore, some people may be, for example, both hebesexual and ephebosexual, or both ephebosexual and attracted to younger women, but this, again, simply means that the upper and lower ‘age limits’ for their attraction are different.
Fourthly, people fail to recognise or ‘conveniently forget’ their own past, and that of other children with whom they grew up and went to school, and they conveniently forget the current and recent experiences of children in their own extended family. Most children are strongly attracted to other children, both sexually and romantically, and again this strong, or intense, attraction usually has upper and lower ‘age-limits’, which sometimes change, as they themselves get older, for example, most boys and girls in primary school are attracted to, say, 10 or 11 year olds, who may be pubescent or pre-pubescent, meaning that they themselves, at the time, are paedosexuals or hebesexuals, but, later in their childhood, a 12 year old at secondary school may have strong attraction to pubescent and post pubescent children, meaning that they are, at that time, hebesexual or ephebosexual.
Nobody sees children with this strong natural attraction to other children as being ‘deliberately abusive paedos’, they see them as normal, healthy, non-abusive human beings, who are just reacting to their strong natural attraction and instincts, and simply want to share love, emotional intimacy, affection, nudity and sexual pleasure with these children, in exactly the same way that adults do, if they’re romantically and sexually attracted to these exact same girls or boys.
For a very significant proportion of the adults who are strongly critical of, and prejudiced against, any adults with an attraction to children, their own first experiences of love, or unrequited love, or of kissing, or of arousing nudity, and often of some form of sexual touching, sexual intimacy, or even ‘full sex’, will have been with an underage child, and their first experiences of masturbating will almost certainly have involved romantic or erotic thoughts or fantasies about an underage child, who may have been their own age, or younger, or older, and so they were themselves, at that time, the very paedosexuals, hebesexuals, or ephebosexuals that they now, as adults, choose to despise, demonise, humiliate and abuse.
Fifthly, most parents, most schools, the State, and the media, usually brainwash all children, from an early age, to believe that all adults, or certainly all men that they don’t know, are potential child-abusers and should always be distrusted and avoided, as was very successfully achieved by the UK Government’s ‘stranger danger’ T.V. advertising campaign in the 1970s and 1980s.
All branches of the media, constantly groom every citizen to see adults attracted to children as ‘dirty abusive paedos’. People queue up on chat and discussion programmes to spread hateful and ignorant opinions about these ‘paedos’, and any member of the public who ever says anything positive or supportive of these ‘social outcasts’ and ‘deviants’ is immediately verbally abused themselves, in the same way that people used to be abused and humiliated if they talked positively about black people, in the times of slavery, or about gay people, during most of the last century, particularly at the start of the AIDS epidemic. Today’s society requires every citizen to hate all adults who are ‘lovers of children’, and anybody who does not hate them, is seen as having a serious personality flaw, or harmful ‘deviance’ themselves.
Sixthly, people see adults who are attracted to children as being devious, secretive, outcasts and as “weird”, but they fail to recognise that, even for the minority of these adults for whom some of these things might be true, this is a problem caused not in any way by their sexuality, but solely by a lifetime of being seen themselves, or constantly witnessing other people of their sexuality being seen, as “outsiders”, or as “dirty”, perverted, abusive or inhuman.
This is similar to the way that the majority of the population, in centuries gone by, treated the completely normal human beings who they chose to describe as ‘witches’. Witches tended to be women who were loners, through choice, or because they were rejected by society, because they looked, dressed or behaved differently from the norm, who had a different world-view to ‘normal’ people and may have had an interest in ‘non-standard’ things like herbal remedies.
Society committed acts of true evil against people considered to be ‘witches’ in the past, including verbal abuse, burning down their homes, and torturing or murdering them, and anybody not treating them in this same abusive way, was themselves considered to be a threat to society.
Many witches were publicly physically and verbally abused, and subjected to wickedly painful and degrading murders and, as a result of this prejudice against them specifically, or against people like them, these ‘witches’ isolated themselves, became withdrawn, anti-social and secretive, and their behaviour may, as a result, have become even more ‘unusual’ and, to avoid abuse against them, secretive as well.
This has many similarities to the way that people isolate, humiliate, degrade and abuse adults who are romantically and sexually attracted to children, just as nature intended them to be, as all sexualities are natural variations of human sexuality and of humanity.
Finally, people are prejudiced against people with these three sexualities, because they consider them to be deliberate child-abusers, rather than the normal human beings that they are, who are no more and no less abusive than anybody of any other sexuality.
People don’t judge all heterosexual men, because a tiny proportion of them sexually assault or rape women, but they do not hesitate to consider all adults who are naturally attracted to children as ‘dangerous, abusive, child-abusing paedos’.
Many paedosexuals, hebesexuals and ephebosexuals, value, respect, love, admire, adore, care deeply about, and celebrate children, of the age and gender they’re attracted to, significantly more than other adults do, and they would never dream of deliberately causing harm to any child, just like most heterosexual men wouldn’t dream of ever harming or abusing a woman.
Contrary to common belief, paedo-, hebe- and ephebo-sexuals do not stop loving somebody that they loved as a child, just because they’re no longer of the age-group that they’re attracted to, any more than, say, most heterosexual men stop loving their life partner when both of them become elderly (and cease to be physically attractive to a large proportion of the population). Their love for their partner is just as likely to continue, and to strengthen, throughout their life, as it is with any other person of any other sexuality.
What is different, is that when they meet somebody for the first time, if that person is not, at that point, of the age-group to which they’re romantically and sexually attracted, then it’s unlikely that they will ever experience strong sexual or romantic attraction to them, in the same way that a ‘normal’ man would be unlikely to ever experience a sexual attraction to a former supermodel, if he didn’t first meet her until she was 90 years old. In fact, an exclusive paedo- or hebe- sexual is perhaps no more likely to become sexually attracted to a woman of any age, than a homosexual man is.
They might experience strong platonic love or admiration for an adult partner, or a close, meaningful friendship, but it’s unlikely to progress beyond that, unless that partner’s body, face or personality are somehow reminiscent of a pubescent child, or they’re somehow able to retrospectively develop these intense loving and sexual feelings for that adult, as they were when they were a child, possibly by frequently viewing photos or videos of them as a child, and listening to them discussing their life, their personality, their interests, their behaviour and their experiences as a child, particularly if their partner is completely open to that person ‘bonding’ with them as they were as a child, so that they can gradually develop strong feelings for them at that age, as a prelude to them gradually developing feelings for them as the adult that they are today.
Regardless of mainstream attitudes to it, Artificial Intelligence most definitely has the possibility to significantly facilitate this developing of loving and sexual feelings and bonds, between people solely attracted to children and their adult partners, in that Artificial Intelligence and virtual reality can potentially ‘bring to life’ their adult partner as they were as a child (with the full, informed and meaningful consent of that child as an adult), allowing a totally life-like ‘avatar’ of that adult (as a child) to communicate with them (and to communicate with that child’s own adult self as well).
No romantic or sexual feelings for a child (who is now an adult) that develops in such a way, can reasonably be described as ‘immoral’ or abusive, if it’s fully consented to by the object of that person’s affections themselves, as a mature adult. Natural Humanists therefore believe that any laws preventing such uses of technology, in these circumstances, are immoral, and should be reformed, as such laws do not in any way protect vulnerable children, they just protect the ignorant prejudices of the ill-informed and morally-defective majority, and prevent mature adults from having the freedom to make choices about their own lives and relationships.
Unquestionably, if heterosexuality and homosexuality were suddenly made illegal, worldwide, most people in the world would break the law and would be considered, for the rest of their lives to be sex-offenders. Indeed, it could be guaranteed that such changes to the law would definitely result in a significant proportion of people with these sexualities breaking the law, because, just like criminalising people with a romantic and sexual attraction to children, the State must always put in place ways in which people with every sexuality can meet their emotional and romantic needs and satisfy their instinctive drives safely and legally. Simply banning anything is just moronic and will always fail, so criminalising a sexuality never solves anything, and it causes a whole range of severe problems of its own.
Natural Humanists believe that, although sex and relationships can be hugely positive, beneficial and pleasurable for young people, they can also sometimes be harmful if non-consensual, or if not carefully monitored and supervised, as human beings’ strong genetic-drive to have sex can sometimes result in young people, or their partner, doing things that they hadn’t planned to do, and which they might later regret, and which could be harmful to that young person.
Crucially, however, this can equally be the case whether a child is having sex or a relationship with an adult, or with another child, although if the sex is between two children, both of whom have an impaired ability to control their drives, and consider consequences fully, and both of whom have limited knowledge and skill, it’s perhaps more likely that this sex will be harmful between two children, than it would be between an adult and a child, meaning that carefully and professionally chaperoned sex and relationships, between carefully assessed and monitored adults and children, may be less likely to cause harm than unchaperoned sex and relationships between two children, which are very common, and are not criminalised in some countries, including the UK. This also means that such chaperones may be beneficial for all relationships between 2 or more children as well, not just for relationships between children and adults.
Natural Humanists believe that laws, like those in the UK, which do criminalise sex and relationships between adults and children, but do not criminalise sex and relationships between two children, need to be totally reformed, based on logic, reason and thorough scientific research and unbiased professional appraisal, and that the legalisation and professional registration of chaperones is essential. They believe that such laws should never be based on ignorance and prejudice, should never try to ‘control’ children’s modesty, chastity and virginity, should never deny children natural freedom, should never prevent children from taking control of their own romantic and sexual lives, should never prevent them from developing important social and life skills safely, and should never prevent any child from loving exactly who they want to love.
It could be argued that the current legal system, and societal attitudes, are the cause of the high level of sexual assaults and abuse of children in many countries, but, with careful reconsideration, they could easily be the cure.
Natural Humanists believe that all adults, all vulnerable people and all children, whether they’re under or over 16, have a natural and moral right to have sex and relationships with anybody of their choice, but they also believe that, whenever this involves an ‘underage’ child or a vulnerable person, then, if it’s possible to carefully plan and professionally monitor this sex and these relationships, to ensure they’re not abusive and don’t cause harm, then nobody should ever be allowed to have such sex and relationships with underage children or vulnerable adults, unless all such careful planning and professional monitoring always takes place. They therefore believe that the law should strongly ‘punish’ any sex and relationships with children and vulnerable adults which are kept secret, and are deliberately not supervised by such a legal chaperone, perhaps with punishments that are significantly stronger than those currently given to people having sex and relationships with children or vulnerable adults, to reflect the fact that a deliberate decision has been made not to use a service which exists to enable safe, mutually pleasurable sex and relationships, while protecting children and vulnerable people from harm.
Click hear to read the next Chapter!
References
[i] Office for National Statistics. “Sexual orientation, UK: 2023” (Statistical Bulletin). 29 January 2025. Office for National Statistics website. 6 June 2025. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualidentityuk/2023#how-sexual-orientation-differed-by-age and: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualidentityuk/2023
[ii] Office for National Statistics. “Sexual orientation, UK: 2023” (Statistical Bulletin). 29 January 2025. Office for National Statistics website. 6 June 2025. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualidentityuk/2023#how-sexual-orientation-differed-by-age and: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualidentityuk/2023
[iii] Moser C, Kleinplatz PJ. “Conceptualization, History, and Future of the Paraphilias”. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 16 (1) (7 May 2020): 379–399. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095548. ISSN 1548-5943. PMID 32023092. Cited on: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095548. Cited on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia#cite_note-:2-8
[iv] Castellini G, Rellini AH, Appignanesi C, Pinucci I, Fattorini M, Grano E, Fisher AD, Cassioli E, Lelli L, Maggi M, Ricca V. “Deviance or Normalcy? The Relationship Among Paraphilic Thoughts and Behaviors, Hypersexuality, and Psychopathology in a Sample of University Students”. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 15 (9) (1 September 2018): 1322–1335. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.07.015. ISSN 1743-6109. PMID 30224020. https://academic.oup.com/jsm/article/15/9/1322/6980467. Cited on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia#cite_note-:0-13
[v] Wikipedia contributors. “Paraphilia.” 2 Jun. 2025. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2 Jun. 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia
[vi] Wikipedia contributors. “Paraphilia.” 2 Jun. 2025. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2 Jun. 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia
[vii] Wikipedia contributors. “Paraphilia.” 2 Jun. 2025. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2 Jun. 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia
[viii] Blanchard, R.; Lykins, A. D.; Wherrett, D.; Kuban, M. E.; Cantor, J. M.; Blak, T.; Dickey, R.; Klassen, P. E. “Pedophilia, Hebephilia, and the DSM-V”. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 38 (3) (2009): 335–350. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9399-9. PMID 18686026. S2CID 14957904. Cited on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia#cite_note-Blanchard-3
[ix] Stephens S, Seto MC. Phenix A, Hoberman H (eds.). Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management. Springer, 2015, pp. 29–41. ISBN 978-1493924165. https://books.google.com/books?id=NhEpCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA28. Cited on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia#cite_note-Phenix-1
[x] Stephens S, Seto MC. Phenix A, Hoberman H (eds.). Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management. Springer, 2015, p. 30. ISBN 978-1493924165. Cited on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia#cite_note-Phenix-10
[xi] Blanchard, R.; Kuban, M. E.; Blak, T.; Klassen, P. E.; Dickey, R.; Cantor, J. M. “Sexual Attraction to Others: A Comparison of Two Models of Alloerotic Responding in Men”. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 41 (1) (2010): 13–29. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9675-3. PMC 3310141. PMID 20848175. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3310141. Cited on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia#cite_note-48
[xii] Moser, C. “When is an Unusual Sexual Interest a Mental Disorder? (letter to the editor)”. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 38 (3) (2009): 323–325. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9436-8. PMID 18946730. S2CID 43363957. Cited on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia#cite_note-moser-4
[xiii] Wikipedia contributors. “Paraphilia.” 2 Jun. 2025. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2 Jun. 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia
[xiv] Blanchard, R.; Kuban, M. E.; Blak, T.; Klassen, P. E.; Dickey, R.; Cantor, J. M. “Sexual Attraction to Others: A Comparison of Two Models of Alloerotic Responding in Men”. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 41 (1) (2010): 13–29. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9675-3. PMC 3310141. PMID 20848175. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3310141. Cited on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia#cite_note-48
[xv] Frances, A.; First, M. B. “Hebephilia is not a mental disorder in DSM-IV-TR and should not become one in DSM-5”. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 39 (1) (2011): 78–85. PMID 21389170. Cited on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia
[xvi] Frances, Allen “DSM 5 Needs to Reject Hebephilia Now”. Psychology Today. 15 June 2011. https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201106/dsm-5-needs-reject-hebephilia-now. Cited on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia.
[xvii] Franklin, K. “Hebephilia: Quintessence of diagnostic pretextuality” (PDF). Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 28 (6) (2010): 751–768. doi:10.1002/bsl.934. PMID 21110392. https://ajustfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Franklin-HebephiliaPretextuality-BSL2010.pdf. Cited on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia#cite_note-Franklin-16
[xviii] Gavin H. Criminological and Forensic Psychology. SAGE Publications, 2013, p. 155. ISBN 978-1118510377. Archived from the original on March 30 2019. https://books.google.com/books?id=daqHAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA155. Cited on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia#cite_note-Gavin-12
[xix] Gebhard, PH; Gagnon JH; Pomeroy WB; Christenson CV. Sex offenders: An analysis of types. New York: Harper & Row, 196). Cited on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia#cite_note-29
[xx] Studer, L. H.; Aylwin, A. S.; Clelland, S. R.; Reddon, J. R.; Frenzel, R. R. “Primary erotic preference in a group of child molesters”. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 25 (2) (2002): 173–180. doi:10.1016/s0160-2527(01)00111-x. PMID 12071103. Cited on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia#cite_note-30
[xxi] Bernard, F. “An enquiry among a group of pedophiles”. The Journal of Sex Research. 11 (3) (1975): 242–255. doi:10.1080/00224497509550899. JSTOR 3811479. Cited on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia#cite_note-31
[xxii] Wilson, G. D.; Cox, D. N. “Personality of paedophile club members”. Personality and Individual Differences. 4 (3) (1983): 323–329. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(83)90154-X. Cited on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia#cite_note-32
[xxiii] Franklin, K. “Hebephilia: Quintessence of diagnostic pretextuality” (PDF). Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 28 (6) (2010): 751–768. doi:10.1002/bsl.934. PMID 21110392. https://ajustfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Franklin-HebephiliaPretextuality-BSL2010.pdf. Cited on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia#cite_note-Franklin-16
[xxiv] Stephens S, Seto MC. Phenix A, Hoberman H (eds.). Sexual Offending: Predisposing Antecedents, Assessments and Management. Springer, 2015, pp. 29–41. ISBN 978-1493924165. https://books.google.com/books?id=NhEpCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA28. Cited on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia#cite_note-Phenix-1 (an opinion of Karen Franklin).
[xxv] Franklin, K. “Hebephilia: Quintessence of diagnostic pretextuality” (PDF). Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 28 (6) (2010): 751–768. doi:10.1002/bsl.934. PMID 21110392. https://ajustfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Franklin-HebephiliaPretextuality-BSL2010.pdf. Cited on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia#cite_note-Franklin-16.
[xxvi] Mary Beard (BBC). “Meet the Romans with Mary Beard”. Episode 3/3. 2012. bbc.co.uk.
[xxvii] Wikipedia contributors. “Romeo and Juliet.” 31 May 2025. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2 Jun. 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romeo_and_Juliet
[xxviii] Marriage Records. “The History of Marriage in the UK”. Marriage Records (the Official Marriage Records website). 6 June 2025. https://www.marriagerecords.me.uk/history-of-marriage/