mouse trapped: i was channel 4's masked pedophile

## mouse trapped: i was channel 4's masked pedophile

#### 8 April 2025
from new p words

### anonymous

| In 2023, I appeared anonymously with a Channel 4 panel talking about my sexual attraction to children. It's clear we don't yet know how to have this conversation. When they asked me which of the artistically creepy masks made for Channel 4's Ask the Mask web series I wanted to wear in the studio, I realised I didn't have many good choices. After ruling out the predator animals, I still had to accept that whether I opted for sheep, deer, pig or badger, I was agreeing to enter a public conversation identified as a non-human. It's a shame because as well as being a paedophile, I'm rather a nice person. If I offend someone, I regret it each night in bed for a week. If you say something kind about me, I'll say thank you then bounce about seven feet in the air with each step as I walk away. You're grateful for people's good opinion when you're like this. But in this case, I realised I wasn't going to be interviewed like a nice person with good intentions. I was media catfood. There's a limited number of "nice" interviews that paedophiles ever get offered, and then there's the rest. This one came via membership of virped.org, where even among the brave people who decide to openly talk about their paedophilia, almost none of us is willing to go within a hundred miles of a camera. I got asked because I'm one of "the good ones". I've never offended; never tried to. I went for the mouse mask because mice don't mean any harm, but they know if they come out where they can be seen, a lot of people will want them dead, and won't be interested in their mousey opinion on the matter. Despite the inoffensive choice, I still knew I'd look creepy as Mouse, dressed in a black synthetic hoodie, like a half-arsed performance artist. But what can you do? It's showbiz. It was that or use my own face. best laid plans The filming took place in a disused warehouse/factory space just outside the cool part of Hoxton, which made me feel selfconscious in itself, being from the regions. I hung around nervously in a park as the producer texted me to say the previous item's filming was overrunning and could I hold off coming along. I am a paedophile, I thought, eating a cheese (squeak!) and onion quiche in a park in London. None of the people passing know what I am about to do. I wonder if the anonymity will go wrong, causing me to kill myself tomorrow. Or perhaps instead I'll walk around a London museum, calmly admiring the vases. In the pre-interview, done as an audio call, things had been much more relaxed. The producers went through likely topics with me and were calm, kind and patient. They listened carefully to my long and often nuanced answers about the known numbers of paedophiles (uncertain) and how difficult it is for us to find confidential support. It was like Desert Island Discs but with less Lady Gaga. Being talked to respectfully definitely left me feeling like a human. I'd watched other episodes of the series, so I know that sometimes there were challenging series of questions (they'd given an 18 year old anti-abortionist a bit of a hard time) but mostly the questioning was open-ended and designed to bring out a person's story. paws before the start Walking gingerly, not easily able to see my way in the moody lighting, I was helped to my seat. The first thing I noticed was that the one panellist already sat down was highly uneasy opposite me, staring off into a corner, avoiding eye contact, defensive and uncomfortable. It wasn't put on for effect as no camera was rolling yet. I sensed any greeting from me would make things worse, so looked down at my lap, mirroring the unease. Nobody introduced us. This wasn't a completely unfamiliar feeling. I did used to get a lot of shit and attitude at school for being out as gay, but it had been a long time since I'd felt so instantly judged, maybe even rejected before I'd said a word. I thought that I'd be OK with any question, and I think I dealt reasonably with most of the ones I got. There had been an agreement for the questions to stay off certain parts of my life circumstances to protect other individuals who might potentially be identified if I gave an unlucky detail. I figured we'd start with the standard opener, which for most "paedophile interviews" is, "when did you know you had this attraction?" but the first question was straight out of social media discourse: did I think this was a sexuality or a disorder? I knew this would come up, so I had an honest answer: I don't really mind as it makes no practical difference. But already I felt the pressure of the either/or question, where choosing option C was not really in the script. Online commentary about us says that "we" proclaim it a sexuality, which is seen as a problem. This is because people generally think a sexuality is an OK thing to have, but clearly paedophilia isn't an OK thing to have. So being a paedophile who thinks it's a sexuality implies an unhealthy enthusiasm. Gusto, even. Alternatively, you can regard it as a disorder, which more palatably implies it's ruined your life (but it might not have, especially if you never committed a crime). The question seems to imply, pick a position, so we know how to regard you. I don't think the question was offered with this framework intended, but that's how it always plays. I know because I read what people said on Twitter about us for years until I couldn't bear to any more. These kind of TikTok framings are soundbite pedantry. They superficially show subject knowledge and seem to make sense of the topic, but actually aren't really about it. My life doesn't involve caring whether my condition is called this or that by strangers. But questions like this are good for video content, because they invite polarised answers, create instant character sketches and create conflict. And that's TV. The editors didn't spin my answer, so that went as well as it could. Other questions, cut from the finished version, had a similar "this or that" style. They asked me at one point if I believed sentences for CSAM possession should be longer than those for (I think) drug dealing. Again, I chose an answer not on the card, answering truthfully that I don't think prison sentences achieve much in relation to any crime. I also tried to point out that I was in the room as a non-offender, so why would I have an informed view on sentencing policy? The only courtroom I've been in was at the London Dungeon. (I didn't say that last bit. Paedophiles aren't allowed jokes—even dad jokes—in media). That answer got cut, and probably would have made me look worse if it had been left in, like a politician refusing to condemn some act of terrorism. And anyway, I couldn't rely on the warm fuzzy feelings viewers have for politicians compared to the ones they have for my kind. when the cat's away One answer I gave they left in but I regret. When trying to explain the issue of when paedophiles are around other people's kids (as we often are because we grow up in households, not mouseholes), I suggested to Lew, the panellist, that he might feel similarly about his wife being around certain kinds of men. No. Different situations. I should have just said that what was important is how people behave with his kids and that he extends trust to many people that they will behave correctly—without knowing whether or not they're paedophiles because paedophilia isn't a behaviour and doesn't predict it. Maybe that wouldn't have worked either. The trouble is that coming from a paedophile, explaining that paedophiles are everywhere among us always sounds vaguely like threat, even if you smile. More if you smile. It isn't, though. We (paedophiles) are all different. We don't all act the same around kids, just like people don't all act the same around policemen. I definitely find it hard to act natural around them, even though I've done nothing wrong. I bet the drug dealers pull it off better. People make a lot of assumptions about our motivations when we mix with society, including the places where kids are. As soon as I told them I had volunteered with kids, no other question seemed more important than whether I had sexually fantasised about any of them. Once that bit of information is on the table, nobody stops to get curious about whether I did a good job or whether I was kind or made the kids laugh. Or how I reacted when one threw up in a plastic bag as I was speaking. (Let's just say I could have dealt with it well if one of the panellists had done the same). From what I can tell, people like me often interact fine, and normally, with kids, without any ulterior motive. As a result we aren't picked out as paedophiles or seen as a threat. But obviously, we can't point this out. I never got a chance to point it out even in this situation where it was being openly discussed. I'm not sure how we will ever get out of this don't ask, don't tell situation. Mice won't come out when they know a trap is set. laboratory animal The questions went on for about ninety minutes, with an interval. The tone stayed in the same prickly zone, the panellists mostly unable to get past the shock value of simple honest answers about a normally invisible part of their world. Less mouse, more dead cat. This all took me back to being a teenager. Once I was out as gay at school, curious kids, some boys, some girls, would approach me in the playground or corridor to get me to say aloud that yes, I was gay. Then they'd segue quickly to anal sex (I'd never had it and didn't really want it). Or something about AIDS. Or something about who touched me and made me that way. "It's not natural"; "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!". You know the drill. The questions and my answers weren't the point. They were testing themselves against a threat. It was like going on a (vaguely disgusting) rollercoaster, or giggling through a horror movie—a chance to explore the unspeakable. But my life was my life, not entertainment. Once they'd digested that I was being matter of fact about The Gay, they put on disgusted expressions and said, "I can't accept that." It was important to let me know I was by myself on this one. They'd heard all they needed to hear to classify me as verminous. "You people spread diseases," one especially unpopular short spotty guy told me. three, blind Despite the sophistication of one thoughtful panellist and the intelligent production team, Ask the Mask drifted the same way, with panellists eager to react with audible hasty judgements, and to quickly close down complication with instant prescriptions for what should be done. One panellist first said that it was wrong for paedophiles to associate at all because we would encourage each other to offend, then not long after moved on to telling me it was my job to intervene and stop other paedophiles from offending. I was told that it was wrong for me ever to associate with kids—OK, fair enough—but when I started to explore whether I could expect acceptance and freedom from discrimination if I got a job working away from kids, I was told, "nobody's going to want to work with you." I should have asked if they thought I should get unemployment benefit, in that case, so I could live without a job, but I could guess the answer, so why ask? If a mouse gets cheeky, out come the brooms. One panellist said that paedophiles had a duty to identify themselves and come forward for treatment (she implied conversion). I had to mention that there weren't many great incentives. The session was hard work, like a whole match taking penalties, but I survived it, like I always had at school. Some intelligent points got made by one panellist, but heavily framed with distrust. In the break, one of the people on the production side told me they felt I was getting an unfair ride. I told them what I had only just worked out myself, while sat in that chair: I could afford to give honest reactions and answers because I was in a mask. My questioners were identifiable and in the glare of YouTube where reputation is all. Even if they felt a moment's sympathy for my predicament; even if they found one of my arguments persuasive, to indicate it on camera would be dangerous for them. The incentives were wrong for them too. The only way to deal with me was summary rejection. It was the same with the teenagers in the playground. Don't catch what he's got. mouseover It didn't make me feel better when the taxi firm who organised my pickup, and who'd had the car waiting for ages while filming overran, couldn't understand why I and the panellists couldn't all leave together rather than in separate cars. For a moment, with nobody from the production available to explain, it looked like I was going to be made to wait for my inquisitors to finish the wrap-up then join me. Mouse in a trap, about to be eaten alive by influencers. I got as shirty as I could with the dispatcher without actually explaining I was a paedophile at risk of harm. Do I recommend this to anyone else? No. The right way to approach this tricky topic is with open-ended questions and no assumptions. You can't hear a person's story if you put them on trial. Am I being naive here about media? Yes. In the weeks after the show, there was good aftercare. I had access to a counsellor and went through my regrets. I felt I'd been too open in sharing some details of my life. The team listened and edited out chunks of the recording that might have helped with audience sympathy but maybe indicated too much about who some of the people in my real life are. They replaced my uncensored voice with an actor's. mouse clicks The production team advised me not to read or respond to the YouTube comments. I didn't respond to any. I read them all and still sometimes go back to see the most recent. Occasionally there was a reasonable view among the standard woodchipper comments but I never got my hopes up. Among the comments were people whose prejudices were strong enough for them to flatly and confidently contradict my straight-up and completely truthful statement that I had never abused a child or viewed illegal images of children. The panellist Ny, in the sum-up, dismissed my situation as hopeless, but stopped short of saying how she thought a hopeless case could live as a member of society. I guess that's not one of the questions she was curious about. Or possibly she had some forthright advice on the matter she was holding back for some reason. I was told, a few days later, that one of the people in that room (there were about ten of us in total) had said to someone else that by the end they wanted to shake me by the hand. I think that some people can see it this way—not that they find anything admirable about an attraction to children, but just that they can see that nobody chooses it, and can respect the choice to then act morally. I don't think I will ever get my real-life hand shaken over this, but it's true a mouse can't be blamed for being a mouse. Wait. I am not a mouse, I am a man. Our society has a big conversation to have about how to react to the reality that human paedophiles live in normal families, walk down normal streets, eat normal cheese and onion quiches and grow up playing in the same parks. We even cry. I know I have. After filming, I removed my mouse mask, switched clothes and was guided out to my taxi. Once the driver had understood he needed to take me away alone, for my safety, he did. Kind man. When the car was moving, I sat back in the seat, resumed my everyday mask, and asked him what sort of night he'd had. About the author: Anonymous is the world's most prolific author and the most modest. This is where Anonymous publishes all their secret pedophile content. |

tags for this item

tags for this item

experiences66
media portrayals27
public perception40
social media37

other relevant items

other relevant items

they came from all over the world: allyn walker |  | coming out to a world that hates pedophiles |  | caught between two stigmas
global prevention project I said: I want to study individuals who are attracted to minors who have never committed a sexual offence. And my professor looked at me and said: Yuck! |  | gary gibson Earlier this year I did an interview for an article in The Sun, not realizing the impact it would have on our lives. |  | markus I was sexually abused as a child. I am also sexually attracted to children. I wanted support for abuse survivors but was turned down. So where do people like me go?

they came from all over the world: allyn walker global prevention project I said: I want to study individuals who are attracted to minors who have never committed a sexual offence. And my professor looked at me and said: Yuck!
coming out to a world that hates pedophiles gary gibson Earlier this year I did an interview for an article in The Sun, not realizing the impact it would have on our lives.
caught between two stigmas markus I was sexually abused as a child. I am also sexually attracted to children. I wanted support for abuse survivors but was turned down. So where do people like me go?