Heretic TOC is my personal blog. I have been at odds with “the dominant narrative” of sexual morality over the last several decades, especially as regards children’s sexual self-determination and paedophilia. My aim here is to present a discourse of resistance. That probably sounds grim, but humour and cheerfulness are my weapons of choice, along with reason and research. Odd to call cheerfulness a “weapon”, I suppose, but I do feel it’s a good tool, at least, for combating the depression into which so many are prone to sink in these difficult times. Nor do I really intend to use humour as a weapon to hurt people, in the sense that satire can be savage. I prefer a gentler tone, in line with the kind of society I’d like to see.

I wish I could say it’s optimism keeps me going, but the demented ferocity of “abuse” witch hunting is patently becoming ever more dangerous and destructive. Raging infernos burn themselves out eventually, but I doubt I shall live to see the day. Anyone who wants to know about me need only Google. Here I will just add that I am the author of Paedophilia: The Radical Case, the full text of which is accessible at IPCE , and (as Carl Toms)  Michael Jackson’s Dangerous Liaisons. – Tom O’Carroll


Comments on the posts are very welcome provided they comply with the laws of the United Kingdom, where this blog is hosted, and any country from which they are sent. Comments may be edited, cut, or rejected. Please aim for the 4 Cs: Concise (maximum 200 words, preferably less), Courteous, Coherent and Content-rich i.e. opinion is fine, but better if supported with interesting information or links. No visual links though, please.


Guest blogs of up to 1000 words, but ideally 700-800, are invited. Email me initially (tomocarr66@yahoo.co.uk) with just a brief description of the intended topic. If you have already written a piece I will consider it, but items “tailor-made” after some prior discussion with me are more likely to be accepted.

153 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Yure
    Feb 18, 2019 @ 17:00:50

    Tom, I don’t have means to contact you directly, in private. So I’m commenting here.
    The United Nations are moving to ban cartoon/fictional child pornography. More details below.


    • tomocarroll
      Feb 18, 2019 @ 17:10:30

      Thanks for this info sent to the About page, Yure. This kinds of thing is better posted in the Comments space on the latest blog though.

      Anyone who needs to contact me on a personal or private matter can do so by email to me at this address: tomocarr66@yahoo.co.uk


      • Yure
        Feb 18, 2019 @ 17:23:51

        Should I repost there?


        • tomocarroll
          Feb 18, 2019 @ 17:27:43

          If you’ve got a moment, yes. More readers will see it there. The About section is mainly for newcomers.


          • Yure
            Feb 18, 2019 @ 17:30:09

            I do have time. Thanks for the headsup. I showed here because the latest blog post wasn’t about this, so I thought it would be weird to mention something off-topic.


  2. Roxana
    Jan 30, 2019 @ 10:32:50

    For those who belive that beeing pedophile is normal, well is not normal at all no metter as hard you try to prove it is.


    • tomocarroll
      Jan 30, 2019 @ 11:21:21

      You are muddling a couple of concepts here Roxana. Most people are not preferential paedophiles. So paedophilia is unusual. Heretic TOC does not deny this. So, yes, statistically speaking paedophilia is not the norm. The same could be said of homosexuality.

      With homosexuality, do we say it is bad because it is not the mainstream? If something is to be condemned, there has to be a reason over and above whether it is common or unusual.

      Maybe you are saying paedophilia is pathological? The linked article makes some suggestions along these lines. But even if this were true it does not in itself have moral implications e.g. when you catch a cold or get cancer, you are suffering from a sickness but it doesn’t indicate that you are a bad person or do bad things.

      Some psychological “disorders” actually have a positive side. It is now known that many top scientists, engineers and other very creative intellectuals are on the autistic spectrum.


  3. Ain
    Nov 07, 2018 @ 00:45:15

    Hi, I just started reading Pedophilia: The Radical Case and I haven’t finished it yet but so far I’ve found it really fascinating. I don’t know what my opinion is at this point- if I think pedophilia is good in some cases or all cases or bad without exception (and maybe that’s a good thing, for the sake of reading without bias.)

    I don’t have it all figured out yet, but the one thing I know I disagree with is the fact that pedophiles are judged as immoral, disgusting beings without being given any platform to defend themselves. Whenever somebody’s revealed as a pedophile, their life is destroyed, so of course most people are just going to keep their nose clean. In my opinion, if we’re going to advance anywhere as a society we have to engage both sides in the argument, whether or not the issue at hand is immoral or not. Maybe pedophiles are detestable in all cases, but even if that’s so, they’re still human. So they have the same rights as anybody else.

    Are there any other books, movies, essays, etc that support pedophilia? I feel like there’s so much discussion being wasted with the knee-jerk reaction of most people, but it’s so difficult to find any material from the other side.

    Thank you,


    • tomocarroll
      Nov 07, 2018 @ 10:03:29

      Love your open-mindedness, Ain! We sure could do with more of that across a range of topics.

      Did you find my book online at Ipce’s excellent library? There is a wealth of interesting material to be found at http://www.ipce.info but it may be hard to know how to prioritise.

      For a recent selection of the best work you could do worse than consult some of the references mentioned in the conclusion to a paper of mine published recently in the academic journal Sexuality & Culture. I would say that to start with it is more useful to understand what is known about child sexuality rather than paedophilia, and I give references on that. In recent years, though, there has been far too little formal study in this area: it’s seen as too hot to handle!

      Indeed, as I say in my conclusion, “…the very concept of “child sexuality” is increasingly presented as an oxymoron (Angelides 2004).”

      I then continue:

      “In these circumstances, a reasonable starting point would be to begin giving fair consideration to the limited amount of evidence we do have on child sexuality, including the fact that it does not support the conventional wisdom of childhood innocence (Bancroft 2003; Leahy 1991, 1992; Martinson 1973, 1994) and does indicate that mutually desired child–adult sexual relations are not intrinsically harmful and may be beneficial (Burns 2015; Kilpatrick 1992; Leahy 1991, 1992, 1996; Okami 1991; Rind 2003; Rivas 2013; Sandfort 1987, 1992).”

      These references are listed in full at the end of the paper which you can get as a free full text PDF download from the publisher’s link, here:

      In addition there are important formal discussions of relevant ethics/philosophy. The best introduction to the references would be to read my article, which is itself largely philosophical.


  4. Rey Gonzales
    Oct 08, 2018 @ 16:38:18

    Its people who are sexual sadists and that have a violent nature, that like to inflict mental and physical pain, that cause the real problems. Not only in children but in adults as well. The word pedophile is being used as a general term and should be called something else when it doesn’t include sadism. I know therapists will argue that all forms of sexual encounters between children and adults is harmful and causes mental pain, but that’s an assumption and a lie. It all depends on how it is done. If it is against the will of a person ofcourse it’s damaging and wrong. Sexual sadists are the people most likely to do actual harm because they don’t care if its consensual or not.

    According to Australian research statistics that reveal 1 in 6 girls by the age of 18 report they have been involved in sexual activity with an adult, why is it that a vast majority never come forward when the law makes it so easy for them to come forward. Why aren’t we seeing thousands of men before the courts every week? Why? Because the truth is that most of the harm is done by the sexual sadists and the vast majority of so called pedophiles are not sexual sadists and have not created any harm to their so called victims. Do we ever hear about women who describe their sexual encounters with an adult in childhood as being a good or pleasant experience? No. because society doesn’t want to hear the truth and we have been brainwashed to believe that any such activity is harmful and wrong so even those that didn’t really have a bad experience will still have to believe that they did.

    Relationships be it sexual or otherwise between adults and children have been going on since the beginning of time and for a certain percentage of people, its a normal part of life. Its nothing more than a different sexual preference. Who has the right to say what is right or wrong anyway unless it harms someone? There is research that shows that it does not cause harm if it is consensual but such research is quickly attacked.

    In America and Europe people could marry at the age of 10 -12, some 130 years ago. It wasn’t a big deal then. Allah, for example, had a wife who was 9 yrs old. So are Islamists all pedophiles? Many cultures don’t have a problem with it so why has it become such a big deal in Western culture in this day and age? We live in a society where bank robbers and murders get celebrity status whilst pedophiles are seen as devils. Lets distinguish between pedophiles because there are two classes. The word pedophile should only be used when it involves people who are sexual sadists. Most pedophiles are not sexual sadists.


    • tomocarroll
      Oct 08, 2018 @ 17:29:14

      Thank you, Rey Gonzales. Basically, I agree with all this, although there is a slight slip that I guess was unintentional. You wrote:

      >Allah, for example, had a wife who was 9 yrs old

      I think you meant to say the prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam.


  5. Tina
    Sep 13, 2018 @ 05:37:37

    Your ideology is your own insanity.
    It’s your own insanity that makes you think prepubescent children enjoy sexual behavior from a grown man or woman.
    You yourself has said, if a child is exposed to socially acceptable sexual behavior, ex. Seeing their parents having sex, they’re more acceptable to accepting sexual advances.
    In all the research you have given..we have not heard the side of your victims..or as you say…your lovers…and their stories.
    Just because someone doesn’t show pain, does not mean they aren’t in pain. To me, you lack empathy. In empathy is love.
    Your claim that your sexual preference is the same as being gay is absurd. Which brings me back to the same thought.
    Your ideology is only one sided. You’re victims do not even have the vocabulary to speak about the violating acts that you call love. Let alone be a willing and knowing participant of YOUR act.
    I doubt this will make your blog, as I am sure you do not have any intellectual answers that you can’t back up with a B.S. reference.
    Insane people don’t know they’re insane.


    • tomocarroll
      Sep 13, 2018 @ 08:23:07

      >I am sure you do not have any intellectual answers that you can’t back up with a B.S. reference.

      Doesn’t pre-dismissing any references as B.S. before you even know what they are, and what evidence they might contain, sound a bit like prejudice? It is literally prejudging. Aren’t thoughtful, educated, rational people supposed to be against that? Or are you just a straightforward bigot?


  6. gordonk
    Jul 02, 2018 @ 17:22:05

    I just ran across this bit of research that fits in with our battle. I suspect that we still have some room to get to the 25% mark, but perhaps not as far as I sometimes fear.



    • tomocarroll
      Jul 02, 2018 @ 18:14:18

      Yes, I have already read this interesting article. I doubt we’d get 2.5% at the moment, though, never mind 25%.


  7. thoughtsofadeviantdissident
    Jun 02, 2018 @ 20:18:41

    Can The New GDPR Be Used Against This Lot?

    Whilst I’m not on their database, I wonder if we can use the new EU legislation to shut this website down?


    Shower of bastards!


    • tomocarroll
      Jun 02, 2018 @ 20:39:18

      >Can The New GDPR Be Used Against This Lot?

      Interesting thought. Might be worth a bit of research.


      • thoughtsofadeviantdissident
        Jun 08, 2018 @ 14:31:34

        Reading the bumf, it looks like only those directly affected by it can complain.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: