Andrew Tate’s Trojan horse: Would the right let in a ‘minor-attracted person’ too?



Judging by their embrace of Andrew Tate, it seems as though some conservative influencers in 2025 are ready to trade in their familiar “Christ is King” mantra for a new one: “Pimping ain’t easy.”

Benny Johnson is a popular conservative commentator with over 3 million followers on X and close to 3 million subscribers on YouTube. He caused a major controversy in right-wing circles after announcing he would have the man known as “Top G” on his show to discuss the sentencing phase of President Trump’s hush-money case. Johnson advertised his guest with an image of both men in black aviator shades with images of a crying liberal woman in their lenses.

American conservatism will die a well-deserved death if it becomes defined by its foes rather than its values.

The imagery was telling. Andrew Tate has described his webcam operation featuring over 75 women as “pimping” and bragged about getting “betas” from all over the world to send money to the women “working” for him. His appearance on Johnson’s show wasn’t going to be a hard-hitting interview about Tate’s own legal troubles, an update on his human trafficking case in Romania, or his past statements about controlling women.

Tate’s contribution to the show was essentially a series of comparisons he made between himself and President Trump, as well as complaints about conservatives “policing” right-wing bad boys. At one point, Alina Habba, one of Trump’s legal counselors, joined the show and gushed over Tate. She compared his legal travails to Trump’s and told Tate she sympathizes with him, admires him, and has his back.

I try to avoid therapeutic language, but Tate’s defenders conducted a master class in gaslighting. Instead of addressing the concerns conservatives have about Tate’s content and views, they made the issue about censorship and free speech. Johnson even tried to shield himself with the Bible, posting, “He who is without sin cast the first stone …”

I have no problem with media personalities speaking to guests with controversial views. I’m an ’80s baby who remembers when talk show hosts would invite provocateurs to explain their ideas and defend their positions in front of a hostile crowd. But there is a big difference between Phil Donahue interviewing a former Klansman to understand his views and fawning over him like an Exalted Cyclops groupie.

The pushback against Tate and his defenders isn’t about “cancel culture” or policing speech. It’s driven by the fact Tate promotes a lifestyle and worldview that are completely antithetical to what conservatives claim they value.

I highly doubt any conservative influencer would post an image promoting a drag queen who performs in front of kids or a pediatric surgeon who performs “gender-affirming” hysterectomies and then screech about free speech and censorship when fans criticize their decision. Likewise, no one would accept such a lapse in judgement with out-of-context scriptures.

Conservatives have a right to determine which ideas need to be debated publicly and which personalities should be promoted widely. Failure to use discernment when considering allies and co-belligerents always backfires.

I saw this firsthand in 2020 when Black Lives Matter turned a self-evidently true phrase into a movement that gave its leaders political power, cultural influence, and a multimillion-dollar real estate portfolio. Of all the victims of BLM’s obvious scam, the churches and pastors who hitched their wagon to anti-family Marxist lesbians were by far the most pitiful. My issue with them was not their naïveté. It was the fact that they thought they needed people with such anti-biblical views to deliver a message about the value of human life that could be pulled straight from the Bible.

Likewise, American conservatism will die a well-deserved death if it becomes defined by its foes rather than its values.

You can’t take a bold public stance against pornography one minute and celebrate OnlyFans “entrepreneurs” the next simply because they have “based” takes on politics. You can’t claim to care about rebuilding the family one day, then fawn all over people whose ideas will only create more broken homes. You can’t call out transgender ideology when it’s pushed by “impossible women” in public health roles but prop up men identifying as women on the right because they appear to be more convincing counterfeits or support the incoming president.

The litmus test for the right can’t be how much a person is hated by the left. You don’t have to be an expert on Andrew Tate’s legal issues to understand why conservatives shouldn’t want to see his ideas and views legitimized. If having the right enemies is all it takes to become a conservative media darling, a shrewd “minor-attracted person” could simply hide his pedophilia behind a manufactured persona characterized by standing up to the globalists trying to destroy Western civilization.

No serious political movement should be that easy to hoodwink, and no self-respecting person would want to be.

Professor who said adult sexual attraction to minors is OK provided it's not acted upon announces resignation



The saga involving a college professor who made headlines earlier this month after declaring that adult sexual attraction to minors is OK as long as it's not acted upon has taken another turn.

Dr. Allyn Walker — an assistant professor of sociology and criminal justice at Old Dominion University — is resigning amid "multiple threats ... made against me and the campus community generally,” the Associated Press reported Wednesday.

The untenured professor was placed on administrative leave in mid-November in the wake of the controversy over "minor-attracted people." Walker had stated in an interview that "there is no morality or immorality attached to attraction to anyone because no one can control who they're attracted to at all."

Walker will remain on leave before officially stepping down at the conclusion of the academic year in May, the AP reported.

What's the background?

Walker — whose bio in "Experiences of Trans Scholars in Criminology and Criminal Justice" indicates the professor is "queer" and "nonbinary trans" — also penned a recent book titled, "A Long, Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity." The book's abstract says, "Challenging widespread assumptions that persons who are preferentially attracted to minors — often referred to as 'pedophiles' — are necessarily also predators and sex offenders, this book takes readers into the lives of non-offending minor-attracted persons (MAPs). There is little research into non-offending MAPs, a group whose experiences offer valuable insights into the prevention of child abuse. Navigating guilt, shame, and fear, this universally maligned group demonstrates remarkable resilience and commitment to living without offending and to supporting and educating others."

In the Prostasia interview, Walker said that "it's not who we're attracted to that's either OK or not OK. It's our behaviors and responding to that attraction that are either OK or not OK." The prof also went to great lengths to differentiate between pedophiles and minor-attracted people in what seemed to be an attempt to normalize adult attractions to people under the age of 18 as long as those attractions aren't carried out:

And I want to be extremely clear that child sexual abuse is never ever okay. But having an attraction to minors as long as it isn't acted on doesn't mean the person who has those attractions is doing something wrong. I think we have a tendency to want to categorize people with these attractions as evil or morally corrupt. But when we're talking about non-offending MAPS, these are people who have an attraction that they didn't ask for. And one that frequently they would give anything to change. But they find that they're unable to change those attractions. And most importantly, the people in my study did not act on them.

Also:

... there's a big difference between MAPs and child sexual abusers. "Pedophilia" is a clinical term that indicates a sexual attraction to people who have not gone through puberty. MAP refers to someone who has preferential attractions to minors, and that can include children who have gone through puberty or not. And child sexual abusers are people who have committed a sexual offense against a child. Many of these people are indeed MAPs. But first of all, there are many people who commit sexual offenses against a minor who are not attracted to children in general. We know that abusers commonly commit sexual offenses for reasons related to power control and access, not because of attraction. So many child sexual abusers are not MAPs.

Here's the full Prostasia interview with Walker:

Prostasia Conversations: Allyn Walkeryoutu.be

What happened next?

After word began to spread about the professor's research, Walker told the AP it was "mischaracterized by some in the media and online, partly on the basis of my trans identity."

Walker — who uses the pronoun “they" — soon after received threats that law enforcement told Old Dominion administrators to take seriously, university officials added to the outlet.

More from the AP:

An online petition calling for Walker’s removal received nearly 15,000 signatures. It referenced Walker’s use of the term, “minor attracted persons,” and said “(w)e want to be clear that this is pedophilia and should not be considered a sexual preference.”

Fox News host Tucker Carlson also talked about Walker’s work with the headline “The Left’s Depraved New Low.”

A letter sent out last week by university President Brian Hemphill noted the controversy had triggered terrible memories and caused fresh pain to people who suffered abuse.

“Ideally, we would be able to debate even the most challenging issues without disruption or threats of violence, but that is not the world we live in today,” Hemphill wrote.

Walker was briefly provided with an armed escort while on campus in Norfolk before being put on administrative leave, university officials said. Hemphill had said his “foremost responsibility is for the safety of everyone associated with the campus.”

As for Walker's resignation, Hemphill told the outlet "we have concluded that this outcome is the best way to move forward."

Anything else?

Elizabeth Letourneau, director of the Moore Center for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse at Johns Hopkins University, told the AP that Walker “is not the first person to turn their attention to that type of work.”

“Several others in the field have been working with people with sexual attraction to children who are committed to not offending,” Letourneau added to the outlet. “And it’s the way of the future.”

Professor who said adult sexual attraction to minors is OK as long as it's not acted upon is placed on leave by Old Dominion University



Old Dominion University placed on administrative leave a professor who said in a recent interview that adult sexual attraction to minors is OK as long as it's not acted upon.

What are the details?

The Norfolk, Virginia, college made the announcement Tuesday evening, saying the move involving Dr. Allyn Walker — an assistant professor of sociology and criminal justice — was "effective immediately."

"Reactions to Dr. Walker's research and book have led to concerns for their safety and that of the campus," the ODU statement read. "Furthermore, the controversy over Dr. Walker's research has disrupted the campus and community environment and is interfering with the institution's mission of teaching and learning."

ODU President Brian O. Hemphill added, "I want to state in the strongest terms possible that child sexual abuse is morally wrong and has no place in our society. This is a challenging time for our University, but I am confident that we will come together and move forward as a Monarch family."

What's the background?

Walker used the term "minor-attracted people" to describe such adults in a recent interview with Prostasia, saying "there is no morality or immorality attached to attraction to anyone because no one can control who they're attracted to at all. In other words, it's not who we're attracted to that's either OK or not OK. It's our behaviors and responding to that attraction that are either OK or not OK."

Walker — whose bio in "Experiences of Trans Scholars in Criminology and Criminal Justice" indicates the professor is "queer" and "nonbinary trans" — also penned a recent book titled, "A Long, Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity." The book's abstract says, "Challenging widespread assumptions that persons who are preferentially attracted to minors — often referred to as 'pedophiles' — are necessarily also predators and sex offenders, this book takes readers into the lives of non-offending minor-attracted persons (MAPs). There is little research into non-offending MAPs, a group whose experiences offer valuable insights into the prevention of child abuse. Navigating guilt, shame, and fear, this universally maligned group demonstrates remarkable resilience and commitment to living without offending and to supporting and educating others."

In the Prostasia interview, Walker went to great lengths to differentiate between pedophiles and minor-attracted people in what seemed to be an attempt to normalize adult attractions to people under the age of 18 as long as those attractions aren't carried out:

And I want to be extremely clear that child sexual abuse is never ever okay. But having an attraction to minors as long as it isn't acted on doesn't mean the person who has those attractions is doing something wrong. I think we have a tendency to want to categorize people with these attractions as evil or morally corrupt. But when we're talking about non-offending MAPS, these are people who have an attraction that they didn't ask for. And one that frequently they would give anything to change. But they find that they're unable to change those attractions. And most importantly, the people in my study did not act on them.

Also:

... there's a big difference between MAPs and child sexual abusers. "Pedophilia" is a clinical term that indicates a sexual attraction to people who have not gone through puberty. MAP refers to someone who has preferential attractions to minors, and that can include children who have gone through puberty or not. And child sexual abusers are people who have committed a sexual offense against a child. Many of these people are indeed MAPs. But first of all, there are many people who commit sexual offenses against a minor who are not attracted to children in general. We know that abusers commonly commit sexual offenses for reasons related to power control and access, not because of attraction. So many child sexual abusers are not MAPs.

Here's the full interview:

Prostasia Conversations: Allyn Walkeryoutu.be

'This needs to be crushed right now, without apology'

There's been a good deal of strong pushback against Walker's words. One dose of it came from Rod Dreher, whose American Conservative article on the subject is titled "Normalizing Pedophiles." He said Walker's presentation appeared like a "crusade ... to normalize pederastic desire — exactly as many of us figured would happen."

More from Dreher's piece:

Allyn Walker is playing with fire. Surely there must be some way to get these suffering people the help they need without moving towards considering pedophilia just one more "sexual orientation." Because if it ever should become that, we are halfway to legalizing it, following the same path that standard homosexuality took. If sexual desire is the equivalent of identity, and if to sexually desire minors is at the core of one's identity, then how can we stigmatize or otherwise suppress pedophiles if we recognize that other kinds of sexual minorities have civil rights?

Anybody who has lived through the last twenty years knows that sexual identity and the law is a slippery slope. This needs to be crushed right now, without apology.

'Queer, nonbinary trans' professor claims it's OK for adults to be sexually attracted to minors as long they don't act on their attractions



An assistant professor at Old Dominion University claims that "minor-attracted people" — those who are sexually attracted to people under the age of 18 — shouldn't be stigmatized for their attractions and that such feelings are OK as long as they're not acted upon.

What are the details?

Allyn Walker — whose bio in "Experiences of Trans Scholars in Criminology and Criminal Justice" indicates the sociology and criminal justice prof is "queer" and "nonbinary trans" — recently was interviewed about the "minor-attracted people" topic and said "there is no morality or immorality attached to attraction to anyone because no one can control who they're attracted to at all. In other words, it's not who we're attracted to that's either OK or not OK. It's our behaviors and responding to that attraction that are either OK or not OK."

Walker also recently penned a book titled, "A Long, Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity." The book's abstract says, "Challenging widespread assumptions that persons who are preferentially attracted to minors — often referred to as 'pedophiles' — are necessarily also predators and sex offenders, this book takes readers into the lives of non-offending minor-attracted persons (MAPs). There is little research into non-offending MAPs, a group whose experiences offer valuable insights into the prevention of child abuse. Navigating guilt, shame, and fear, this universally maligned group demonstrates remarkable resilience and commitment to living without offending and to supporting and educating others."

In Walker's interview with Prostasia, the prof went to great lengths to differentiate between pedophiles and minor-attracted people in what seemed to be an attempt to normalize adult attractions to people under the age of 18 as long as those attractions aren't carried out.

Here are some snippets from the interview:

A lot of people when they hear the term pedophile, they automatically assume that it means a sex offender. And that isn't true. And it leads to a lot of misconceptions about attractions toward minors. [...]
And I want to be extremely clear that child sexual abuse is never ever okay. But having an attraction to minors as long as it isn't acted on doesn't mean the person who has those attractions is doing something wrong. I think we have a tendency to want to categorize people with these attractions as evil or morally corrupt. But when we're talking about non-offending MAPS, these are people who have an attraction that they didn't ask for. And one that frequently they would give anything to change. But they find that they're unable to change those attractions. And most importantly, the people in my study did not act on them. [...]
... there's a big difference between MAPs and child sexual abusers. "Pedophilia" is a clinical term that indicates a sexual attraction to people who have not gone through puberty. MAP refers to someone who has preferential attractions to minors, and that can include children who have gone through puberty or not. And child sexual abusers are people who have committed a sexual offense against a child. Many of these people are indeed MAPs. But first of all, there are many people who commit sexual offenses against a minor who are not attracted to children in general. We know that abusers commonly commit sexual offenses for reasons related to power control and access, not because of attraction. So many child sexual abusers are not MAPs.

And then just as importantly, many MAPs never commit a sexual offense against a minor. And that difference is important because when we don't understand that distinction, we make incorrect assumptions about the likelihood of offending amongst MAPs. This leads to people believing that just because someone is attracted to minors, they're likely to commit an offense. And we start to criminalize a population just because of their attractions. Not only is this a problem in terms of criminalization, but it also serves to heighten stigma against MAPs in general, which is a huge problem.

The interviewer also asked Walker why it's a problem to stigmatize those who are attracted to minors as a way of protecting minors. Here's how Walker replied:

I think we believe societally that stigma against MAPs serves to protect children because somehow we don't fully understand the differences between MAPs and sex offenders. Again, we have this confusion between the attraction and a criminal behavior. Which I stress so much is just a huge problem. Stigma against MAPs is a problem, in part because it makes MAPs think that they're monsters. That's really problematic in terms of MAP well being. It's really hard to cope when you think you're a terrible person, because you have attractions that you can't change. But it's also hugely problematic because when MAPs get the impression that they're destined to commit an offense against a child, they might not realize that it's a choice that they have, and that there's help out there if they feel some kind of temptation to commit an offense.

Here's the full interview:

Prostasia Conversations: Allyn Walkeryoutu.be

'This needs to be crushed right now, without apology'

There's been a good deal of strong pushback to Walker's words about minor-attracted people. One dose of it came from Rod Dreher, whose American Conservative article on the subject is titled "Normalizing Pedophiles." He said Walker's presentation appeared like a "crusade ... to normalize pederastic desire — exactly as many of us figured would happen."

More from Dreher's piece:

Allyn Walker is playing with fire. Surely there must be some way to get these suffering people the help they need without moving towards considering pedophilia just one more "sexual orientation." Because if it ever should become that, we are halfway to legalizing it, following the same path that standard homosexuality took. If sexual desire is the equivalent of identity, and if to sexually desire minors is at the core of one's identity, then how can we stigmatize or otherwise suppress pedophiles if we recognize that other kinds of sexual minorities have civil rights?

Anybody who has lived through the last twenty years knows that sexual identity and the law is a slippery slope. This needs to be crushed right now, without apology.