Thoughts on the Childlove Symbolism

In various specialized forums, many people like to identify themselves with the so-called Childlove symbols. These three are particularly well known:
boy lover triangle girl lover heart child lover butterfly

Various media outlets repeatedly ridiculed themselves by “discovering” these “secret symbols of pedophiles” and interpreting them in adventurous ways. Or they recognized them in company logos, such as Langnese.

These symbols are somewhat connected to three terms that are supposed to describe the exact orientation of a pedophile in a catchy and concise way:

  • boy lover (BL) = oriented toward boys
  • girl lover (GL) = oriented toward girls
  • child lover (CL) = oriented toward children of both sexes

As mentioned, these terms are temptingly short and practical, in contrast to the technical terms puellaphil or puerphil, or other constructions such as homo- or heteropedophile. The word “lover” in English has the same meaning as the German “Liebhaber” and also comes with the same ambiguity: it can refer to both platonic love and sexual contact such as an affair. In an interpersonal context, however, it is commonly only used to specifically describe sexual contact. Compare “to have a lover” to “to have an admirer.”

According to research from our community, it can be assumed that this ambiguity is precisely what they are aiming for: to offer an abuser a way to talk about their actions while still allowing them to talk their way out of a confrontation by framing their “love” as merely platonic enthusiasm. Ergo, a euphemism.

So, while the terms can be used purely to describe the orientation, they also allow perpetrators to disguise their actions as “loving.” And this euphemism for sexual assault and the deliberate blurring of boundaries also seem to be the very origin of the terms.

Then there are the childlove symbols, which, to our knowledge, originate from the same groups and from a time when sexual contact with children was openly promoted. In German-speaking countries, these symbols are mainly used to decorate and identify websites that still represent or tolerate this attitude today. And perpetrators as well as ideologues who portray the criminalization of sexual assault on children as just as unfair as the prohibition of homosexual contact. It is therefore not just a matter of origin or past history; these symbols are still used in this way today. Virtuous Pedophiles and all German anti-contact self-help projects have all clearly decided not to make use of this symbolism.

In the light of these points, should you personally use them or avoid them? This is a matter of debate. Here are a few factors to consider when making your decision:

  • Regardless of how you will use them, in the past their use has certainly made it easier for perpetrators to downplay their actions. It has allowed them to label them as “loving” and, not least, to justify them as such to their own conscience.
  • Furthermore, I believe it reinforces the distorted perceptions of potential and actual abusers that loving, tender touches could never be inappropriate. However, the major insight of the 1990s and 2000s was that, at the lower end of what causes sexual harm, it is less about the specific act and more about sexual motivation and context that defines, where a loving interaction ends and sexual abuse starts. For the child, it is not so much about the act of say sitting on someone's lap, as it is about why the other person is wanting it, what context they perceive. The term “lover” deliberately obscures this.
  • Many people are unaware of or indifferent to these historical and linguistic backgrounds. Or they do not consider them a sufficient reason to abandone a catchy term.
  • The linguistic background of their ambiguity is lost in some other languages. It is obvious to native speakers of German and English, but in other regions it may be lost in translation or simply unknown. Should that ambiguity be kept alive artificially by insisting on avoidance?
  • In English-speaking countries, age of consent laws have blurred the distinction between what is morally and what is legally unacceptable. Teleiophiles who are into 16-17 year olds are counted among boy and girl lovers and are also prosecuted. This probably softens the context a bit.

Personally, I have come to the conclusion that I find the voice of history and background more important and meaningful than the convenience of simple words or historical forgiveness. For me, these terms and symbols have been “dirty” and trivializing of abuse right from the start. And that’s why I personally find them inappropriate. I therefore agree with the stance taken by larger platforms such as SuH, P-Punkte, and WSAM to avoid these terms and symbols on my blog, to disencourage their use, and to remind people of their negative connotations instead.