Norwegian Working Group for Paedophilia

Norwegian Working Group for Paedophilia (Norwegian: Norsk arbeidsgruppe for pedofili, NAFP) was a Norwegian association founded to promote acceptance of paedophilia.

Pre-history

Male homosexuality

The 1902 Penal Code prohibited sexual acts between men. In practice, it was used mainly when one participant was below 21 and therefore functioned partly as a heightened age of consent. The principal harm was interference with heterosexual development.

In early 20th-century Norway, medical opinion was divided between central European theories of homosexuality as an innate disposition (Magnus Hirschfeld) and theories emphasizing sexual development (Sigmunt Freud). These positions were combined in the seduction theory, according to which sexual activity with older men could cause adolescents to become homosexual.

The Great Vice Case of 1937-38

In 1937, police in Bergen investigated a working-class man suspected of receiving numerous visits from young boys. The investigation uncovered loosely organised sexual relations between boys and older men.

A total of 34 men were convicted: 20 for sexual relations with males aged 16–20 and 14 for indecent acts involving minors as young as ten. The trials attracted considerable media attention and became known as “the great vice case”.

Although boys were described as consenting, the case brought contemporary medical and legal concerns about homosexuality as “a danger that some of boys may have their sexual drives disturbed and their capacity for building a home spoiled” into the public sphere.

Beyond the risk of homosexuality, the principal harm identified by the court and press was an increased likelihood of criminality in adulthood.

After WW2

DNF-48, as an offshoot of the Danish Association of 1948 (Danish: Forbundet af 1948), in its early years challenged the seduction theory and flirted with ideas of free sexuality for all ages. After the highly publicised trial of the Danish association’s founder, Scandinavian gay organisations abandoned radicalism in favour of respectability politics. In the 1950s, the American psychoanalyst Irving Bieber’s work reinforced environmental explanations of homosexuality, including the seduction theory. So in 1957 Øyvind Eckhoff, a key member of the Norwegian gay rights movement, advised men attracted to teenage boys to seek treatment, warning that sexual contact could result in “your partner’s whole life being changed in an undesirable direction.”

After 1968

Lutheran state church opposition helped thwart a 1953 proposal to decriminalise homosexual relations while retaining a higher age of consent, leading DNF-48 to campaign for complete repeal during the late 1960s. The organisation promoted the Dutch Speijer report, which found no empirical basis for the claim that homosexual experiences permanently altered the orientation of 16–18-year-olds. In 1970, Karen-Christine Friele, leader of DNF-48, wrote in a pamphlet distributed to all members of parliament: “When the association today has a lower age limit of twenty years for membership, this is because we know that a homophile pattern is fixed by that age, and it is thus beyond doubt that the association does not ‘influence’ anyone to engage in deviant behaviour.” DNF-48’s lobbying contributed to repeal of the prohibition in 1972.

Man-girl heterosexuality

In Norway, the view that child's sexual activity caused little harm had support in contemporary research. In 1932, physician Augusta Rasmussen received the University of Oslo’s research prize for a study of girls who had experienced “sexual attacks”. The original study is lost, but its findings were repeatedly cited. Rasmussen’s conclusions appear to have interpreted later heterosexual marriage and childbearing as absence of childhood harm.

Her work was cited by the well-known psychiatrist Johan Scharffenberg (1934), leading Norwegian legal scholars (1951–52), and Alfred Kinsey (1953). In 1960, a government committee similarly described lasting harm as exaggerated: “This is particularly true of cases where the child suffered no violence or brutality”. In 1976, Dagbladet stated that incest was scientifically considered innocuous. Claims of harmless man–girl sex thus largely reflected, rather than departed from, contemporary expert opinion.

Early developments

In the media

In January 1973, a conservative magazine A-magasinet published an article featuring a young psychologist Thore Langfeldt on the positivity of sexual encounters between preteens, teenagers and adults. In July 1974, a left-liberal Dagbladet published an op-ed complaining that “even actions [with children] such as touching the sex organs, fellatio and cunnilingus are interpreted as indecency, and long prison sentences are given”. Despite being among the most widely read newspapers in the country, neither publication attracted any media response.

Private initiative

In October 1974, a future NAFP member wrote to the Attorney General to enquire about his views on reforming morality legislation as 16 became the gender-neutral age of consent only two years earlier.

Attorney General considered section on sexual intercourse suitable for minor reform or simple restriction to actions with persons under 15, reflecting changing attitudes towards sexuality. He similarly favoured at least partial decriminalisation of incest, potentially retaining punishment for the most serious cases involving violence.

On pornography, he acknowledged that the law had become difficult to enforce, but favoured retaining it for the most extreme pornography, citing its perceived association with sexual offences and violence. He noted that a 1973 amendment, introduced on his initiative, had already limited prosecution to cases where the public interest required it, although its effect was not yet clear.

Finally, he favoured lowering the age threshold from 16 to 14 or 15 for sexual indecency involving minors.

First years

1975

The date of the group’s formation remains unknown. An associate of the University of Oslo met Edward Brongersma and was inspired by the Dutch model of activism, which sought, among other things, to shape university environments. In Norway, this was to be adapted to the main campus of the University of Oslo. Thanks to him, Thore Langfeldt became immersed in the topic of paedophilia. A third participant, who became increasingly involved, author of the letter to the Attorney General, later became NAFP's first leader.

Summer: initial moves

The group’s first information sheet (1975) stated that it had “good connections with the sociological and psychological research community”. To avoid internal distinctions, it was decided not to use terms such as “pederast” or “ephebophile”, but to adopt “paedophile”. NAFP had no formal membership structure, although some individuals occasionally paid dues.

In July 1975, Dagbladet reported on the working group in a daring article entitled “Sex with Children”. Citing research by Frits Bernard, it claimed that paedophilic sex had positive effects on both parties. It also criticised a state-broadcaster radio programme for portraying adults attracted to children negatively, calling it “propaganda of fear”.

The article prompted a debate. One anonymous self-identified paedophile claimed that little girls with whom he had had sexual encounters were safer with him than in their mothers’ arms. The producer of the criticised programme felt compelled to refute the allegations, without addressing that the attack came from an advocate of sex between adults and children. Others described such relations as rape and criticised Dagbladet for publishing the man’s letter, arguing that the newspaper should not “contribute to a moral legalisation of abnormalities, be it paedophilia, homophilia, necrophilia etc”. A reply criticised the conflation of homosexuality with paedophilia and necrophilia.

Dagbladet ended the one-and-a-half-month debate by publishing the author of the first article, who challenged the equation of paedophilia with rape.

Bulletin

NAFP-Bulletin was the journal published by the group from 1975 to 1981.

NAFP stated there its objective as follows:

The Paedophilia Working Group seeks to shed light on the emotional and sexual bonds between young people and adults. Women and men who are involved in the emotional lives of children and young people are welcome in the group, which is a forum for all debates about children and sexuality.

The Bulletin was printed in black-and-white offset in A5 format, with issues ranging from 12 to 20 pages. Its layout appears to have been produced by hand. The 1975 and 1976 issues were stencil- rather than offset-printed.

Each issue could include editorial letters, book reviews, announcements of meetings and events, travel accounts, personal narratives and short notices. Addresses of international groups were also published. The Bulletin contains some photographs of children, predominantly boys, several naked. Short English-language summaries appear in some issues, reflecting its international distribution.

Autumn: meeting with the Ministry of Justice

A meeting with the Ministry of Justice was held on 24 November 1975, following a letter from the group’s leader proposing a reduction of the age of consent to 14 years of age. It brought together senior officials from the justice and health sectors, including the Attorney General. NAFP’s position was represented by Thore Langfeldt and another sexologist.

Much of the discussion concerned Langfeldt’s research on pederastic relationships between prepubescent boys and adult men. His private audio archive included testimonies from boys involved in such relationships, including cases also known to the judiciary. He stated that “both of those who are involved [in the pederastic relationships] must be considered heterosexuals” and that the cases “did not seem to involve any element of sexual exploitation on the part of the adult”.

Concerns were raised that boys might be influenced towards homosexuality, and that such relationships could lead to a “vegetative lifestyle”. One official remarked that “most parents would react sharply if, for example, sports managers, teachers etc. had sexual relations with some of the young people they worked with”.

The Attorney General proposed lowering the age of consent to 14, as in Sweden and Denmark, though primarily in relation to heterosexual relations, and argued that narrowly defined offences would be difficult to enforce. The minutes noted that the sexologists’ assertions “were built on a somewhat thin scholarly basis”.

1976-1977

NAFP, as declared in its first information sheet, maintained a cautious public profile – contrary to its vocal ally Thore Langfeldt – while awaiting proposed reforms to Norway’s criminal and morality legislation. The expected Criminal Report was first postponed from autumn 1976 and then deferred until after the 1977 general election. Bulletin no. 2 (1976) acknowledged that questions such as the age of sexual consent were a “delicate political problem”. Bulletin no. 4 noted that parliamentary debate on criminal law was limited, particularly when morality legislation was under revision.

For several years after 1975, NAFP members didn't appear in the mainstream media under their full names. The organisation nevertheless continued publishing its Bulletin, publicly distributing approximately 50–60 copies to parliamentarians, libraries, institutions of higher education, and others it sought to influence.

NAFP also maintained international contacts. In 1976, Thore Langfeldt and another activist attended the second annual meeting of the International Academy of Sex Research in Hamburg. In 1977, Langfeldt and Bernard attended the British Psychological Society conference “Love and Attraction” at University College Swansea, which attracted tabloid attention because of its participants, including Tom O’Carroll, who was ejected by security staff, and Edward Brongersma, who subsequently withdrew. Bernard appears to have attracted no attention. Langfeldt presented a paper arguing that sexual relations between adults and children should be legalised to “pay respect to the children’s feelings and emotions”.

The Swedish Paedophilia Working Group (Pedofila Arbetsgruppen, PAG) was founded shortly after NAFP. In 1977 and 1978, PAG and NAFP organised several joint Swedish–Norwegian meetings in both countries.

In 1977, NAFP reported in a Dutch journal:

Here in Norway we are optimistic in our reform work. I think NAFP has done a lot of progress. The present situation for pedophilian feeling people is far from hopeless.

Child pornography debate

In the summer of 1977, the Norwegian female-led pornographic magazine Lek published an issue containing nude photographs of children and fictional narratives depicting sexual relations between adult men and girls aged twelve to thirteen. The controversy was taken up by Arbeiderbladet, a leading national newspaper and a mouthpiece for the labour movement.

The newspaper's coverage included an interview with Langfeldt, who characterised child pornography as an expression of “sexual liberation” and asserted that sexual relations between adults and children were not harmful. Langfeldt then went further, publishing his own article, “Child Sexuality,” directly in Lek's following issue. He opened by praising the magazine's handling of children's sexuality as “serious”. He further wrote:

Boys also make each other horny, and this is completely normal. We also find this in girls. Boys also play intercourse with each other. They lie on top of each other and insert their members between the other person’s thighs. Some also engage in anal intercourse. In later years it has become more common for boys to suck each other. The age difference between the boys is sometimes big, without this being in any way abnormal. It is normal for adults to be turned on by sex and sexual initiatives or sex games by children. Many adults get frightened when they sense that sexual games among children or initiated by children also turn them [the adults] on, and some adults then react in anger to suppress their own sexuality, which they fear.

This piece ran alongside further nude photographs of pre-adolescents, including close-ups of their genitals.

Arbeiderbladet journalist Brita Ingeberg and Labour politician Tone Bratteli Jamholt – known for her interest in child protection – responded, condemning the magazine for publishing what they termed child pornography and took issue with Langfeldt's defence of adult–child sexual contact. However, their substantive case against such acts was thin: they characterised the behaviour as “unnatural” and warned it might cause “psychic pain” that would “make it difficut for them to experience a natural sex life later.”

Three accompanying interviews similarly offered little on the harms of adult–child sexual contact, with only the special education teacher briefly noting that “[t]hose children who have experienced sexual abuse from adults — and quite a few of them have — are not doing well.” Coverage overall focused more on the impropriety of publishing naked images of children than on refuting Langfeldt's position.

Langfeldt responded in Dagbladet with an article titled "Puritanical Relapses," writing:

We can therefore see that political extremism, suppression of various forms of sexual expression, censorship of erotic scenes in films, magazines and books, and strong opposition to sexual openness are interconnected.

Langfeldt closed the debate by writing an article for Norway's largest tabloid (circulation 156,000), where he was identified as a child psychologist, school psychologist, and sexologist. He wrote that his work "breathes life into puritanical currents" and drew attention to children's sexuality, arguing it was important not to leave children feeling they had committed a criminal act because of erotic feelings. He stated that "some young boys and girls have strong sexual desires towards adults" and that "intimate physical contact is often a sexual release for this phenomenon."

A year later, Langfeldt wrote what was probably his last text favourable towards paedophilia.

Change of strategy

1978: paedophile weekend meeting

In 1978, Frits Bernard embarked on a world tour promoting paedophile liberation. NAFP marked his visit to Norway by organising a "paedophile weekend meeting," featuring talks with Bernard, Langfeldt, Friele, and NAFP members. One member reported having met with “the political leadership of the Department of Justice,” said to be sympathetic to NAFP's concerns and to favour basing child-protection law on assault alone. Bernard expressed surprise that the meeting was not promoted as vigorously as equivalent events in the Netherlands. Karen-Christine Friele, Secretary General of DNF-48, attended as a private individual; her book From Oppression to Rebellion (Norwegian: Fra undertrykkelse til opprør) had drawn NAFP's interest, prompting the invitation. She addressed the gathering, drawing parallels between paedophile liberation and gay liberation and urging attendees not to accommodate religiously conservative anxieties about sexuality outside marriage. Her address, concluding "Paedophiles should show pride in their feelings! Don't let yourselves be cowed!", was met with strong applause and reportedly made the strongest impression of the meeting. Langfeldt also spoke, describing paedophiles he had encountered who had likely been too apprehensive to approach an organisation such as NAFP. The weekend concluded with discussion of founding an international paedophile organisation, to be called Amnesty for Love and Affection, uniting existing national and local working groups as chapters.

1979: Amnesty for Love and Affection

In late June 1979, NAFP organised an international paedophilia conference in Oslo, titled Amnesty for Love and Affection, in cooperation with DNF-48, Norwegian Association for Criminal Reform, and Working Groups for Gay Liberation. Sources indicate attendance figures ranging from 35 to 80, likely reflecting the fact that the conference spanned several days. Attendees came from Great Britain, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Sweden, and Norway, and included a representative from the Indianerkommune, a Norwegian police officer who had lost his job over mutual masturbation with a fifteen-year-old boy, and a member of the Norwegian parliament. As proceedings were probably conducted in English throughout, no language barriers arose.

The keynote speaker, Thore Langfeldt, gave a historical account of attitudes towards paedophilia and criticised the seduction theory. Frits Bernard presented research arguing that sexual relations with adults benefited children. Karen-Christine Friele also spoke, calling for a lowered age of consent and urging attendees to debate whether NAFP should pursue a “total liberation of child sexuality” or a more moderate strategy of gradually lowering the age of consent. Tom O'Carroll spoke about his recent experience as leader of the Paedophile Information Exchange. Edward Brongersma was invited but did not attend.

Invitations

Invitations were extended to Amnesty International, major newspapers and tabloids, the University of Oslo's Institute of Criminology and Criminal Law, and the Director of Health; funding was sought from the Ministry of Justice but not granted. The Swedish magazine Revolt was unable to attend but requested any materials produced. The Swedish Federation for Sexual Education and a representative of the Norwegian Bar Association accepted their invitations.

Responses from feminist quarters were notably mixed: a journalist from the feminist magazine Sirene (circulation of 25000 copies) initially accepted before withdrawing, proposing instead to interview an NAFP representative at a later date, while the Labour Party's women's secretariat declined to attend owing to other commitments, but wished NAFP well and requested a copy of any conference report.

Media reactions

During the conference, the organisers held a press conference. The state broadcaster's daily news programme reported on the event and interviewed Wenche Lowzow, a Conservative MP who earlier that year had become the first Norwegian parliamentarian to come out as homosexual; she expressed agreement that the age of consent should be lowered. A press agency produced a short article based on the press conference, which was subsequently printed in at least eight newspapers, including the widely read conservative papers Aftenposten and Morgenbladet. The reporting was considered to be factual.

Aftermath

Amnesty for Child Sexuality was founded by a working group the day after the Oslo conference, likely intended to be headquartered in Oslo, with Bernard among its board appointees. It withered away for unknown reasons without becoming a functioning international organisation.

The dream of an international body persisted. In 1980, PIE circulated a letter proposing a “Paedophile International,” but language barriers and other difficulties led to a second failed attempt. IPCE (International Paedophile and Child Emancipation) was eventually founded in 1987 as an international forum for paedophiles.

Decline and dissolution

After 1980, political interest waned. Stories of PIE and NAMBLA prosecutions damaged morale heavily and discouraged participation. The editor withdrew from the Bulletin in 1981, reverting it to a stencilled edition. Bulletin had given way to the cheaper, more informal Minibulletin.

Identified problems included an unclear organisational structure, over-reliance on a few members, limited membership (just over twenty paying subscribers, fewer than fifty overall), financial strain, high publication costs, and weak continuity – leaving NAFP, in effect, “a local social club in Oslo.”

This mirrored a later pattern among other European groups spared the prosecutions faced by PIE or CRIES: German AG-Pädo chapters became social clubs in the late 1990s, Poland's Spectre after 2003, and remaining Dutch NVSH groups after 2006.^{[citation needed]}

Merging with DNF-48

There was a desire within NAFP to “find other ways to work”. Relations with other sexual minority groups were generally good at the time. Ties between NAFP and DNF-48 developed over several years, aided by Friele's attendance at NAFP's 1978 weekend meeting, sympathetic coverage in DNF-48's magazine Fritt Fram, and DNF-48's role in organising the 1979 Amnesty for Love and Affection conference. Earlier collaboration was eased by DNF-48's radical Marxist youth wing, before its expulsion for attempting to merge DNF-48 with wider left-wing politics. In late 1979, DNF-48 sought talks with NAFP to develop shared thinking on paedophilia, partly to address misunderstandings encountered when lecturing at youth clubs.

Through 1981–82, NAFP discussed formal union with DNF-48. Members attracted to girls voiced concern at being marginalised, and were reassured that membership was open regardless of orientation, though organising for their own interests remained their responsibility. Negotiations also raised questions over DNF-48's stance towards those attracted to young children. Individuals, rather than NAFP as a body, would join directly, forming a paedophile group within the Association, while NAFP itself remained dormant rather than dissolved; DNF-48's leadership, noting the shifting political climate, framed this as an act of solidarity.

Priorities centred on boy–man relationships, reflecting NAFP's membership, with goals including lowering the age of consent, improved counselling, legal protection for sexual minorities, and a planned Fritt Fram issue on paedophilia. In April 1982, a group from NAFP formally joined DNF-48 on terms set out in a membership leaflet for the new Paedophile Group DNF-48.

Tabloid coverage and media reactions

In November 1982, journalist Knut Boge published an exposé in Aktuell Rapport, "Toddlers – free game for horny adults?", after contacting the Pedophile Group DNF-48 for background material. The piece prompted a sharp exchange with the group; a later issue carried an apology for having wrongly linked psychologist Thore Langfeldt to it. The affair thrust NAFP into the media spotlight as never before. Another tabloid interviewed the group later that month, with Langfeldt again distancing himself, while other papers ran more sensational coverage linking abuse to broader theories of causation. Aftenposten later criticised the tabloids' stance as hypocritical. The controversy also strained relations within DNF-48, prompting an exchange of letters between its Oslo and national boards over the winter of 1982–83.

The end

New DNF-48 leadership subsequently declared NAFP's inclusion incompatible with the Association. A passionate farewell text read:

So let's hope that [this pig journalist] can sleep better when the paedophiles don't raise their voices, as if there will be fewer of us then. May the magazine's editor drop dead in the arms of a twelve-year-old girl on one of their prostitution trips to Bangkok, or wherever they are now traveling on "reportage" trips.

(...)

The conclusion is therefore: Most of our members like boys in puberty. These can call themselves homosexuals, and should do so. They can then gain entry into DNF and continue to work for a real understanding that the age limits are unreasonable.

This is also more realistic than what PG has stood for. There are significantly more people who would accept voluntary sex with a 14-year-old than with a 6-year-old.

For the toddler paedophiles, and for the heterosexual paedophiles, what has happened means a clear deterioration. They now have to sit in their respective boxes and keep their mouths shut, until one day they explode and rape toddlers or kill themselves,.. [o]r they can write to NAFP. with the hope that someone will respond.

Ideology

The group initially set out to advocate for both sexes – including children and youth of both sexes – but later narrowed its focus to what might now be described as a boylove worldview. Its political leanings, while adjacent to radical Marxism, remain unclear. Developments in Sweden shifted the group's stance on feminism, if it had one to begin with, toward non-public – but still negotiable and overturnable – hostility. In retrospect, the liberal-left editor of pedofili.info laments the group's failure to be more attuned to contemporary social movements. In private correspondence with Newgon, he confided that he had always found the group "too elitist".

See also

• Thore Langfeldt
• Frits Bernard
• Thomas O'Carroll

Sources

• Gjerde, B. (2025). No Seduction, No Harm: Public Acceptance of Pedophilia in Norway in the 1970s. Journal of the History of Sexuality 34(3), 505-538. https://doi.org/10.1353/sex.00037.

External links

• |Norwegian| Pedofili.info page on NAFP