Practical Ethics, a blog appearing under the auspices of Oxford University, recently carried a piece titled Pedophilia, Preemptive Imprisonment, and the Ethics of Predisposition, inspired by the trio of articles (Guardian, New Yorker, LA Times) discussed here last month in Three reasons to be cheerful. This blog item, by Kyle Edwards, is interesting, but my main focus today arises out of the comment thread that followed, especially as regards contributions made by Kyle’s pseudonymous namesake Ethan Edwards.
Ethan Edwards is a virtuous paedophile. Or at least, that is what he and another guy, Nick Devin, call themselves, based on their resolve never to “abuse”. They even have an organization, Virtuous Pedophiles, founded last summer. The goals “are to reduce the stigma attached to pedophilia by letting people know that a substantial number of pedophiles do not molest children, and to provide peer support and information about available resources to help pedophiles lead happy, productive lives. Our highest priority is to help pedophiles never abuse children.”
Heretic TOC and fellow heretics here are of course also determined never to “abuse” children, but unlike Virtuous Pedophiles we take the view that sexual contact between an adult and a child who is a willing participant is not intrinsically abusive and may be a very positive experience. We must refrain from such contacts because they are currently illegal, not because we think – as Virtuous Pedophiles clearly do – that they are always immoral and wrong.
Fine, we know there are plenty of minor-attracted people who accept society’s low opinion of paedophilia. Doubtless there are many who beat themselves up about their feelings even if they “do nothing wrong”. Responses of that sort should prompt our sympathetic interest. That is one reason why I have personally given what modest assistance I can to a couple of guys in the UK who are developing a British equivalent of B4U-ACT, an American organization which engages with mental health professionals in order to work towards better, less stigmatizing counselling and treatment for minor-attracted people, especially those who are struggling to cope with their feelings. These professionals, it has to be said, include those who have an anti-abuse agenda, but we should not forget that some paedophiles, in their frustration, do give way to coercive tactics, and they do need help to stop that.
I have also enjoyed good relations with B4U-ACT in the US, one of whose members until last year was Nick Devin, who has also been known to me for well over two years as a fellow participant on the Sexnet forum. My contact with Nick was cordial to start with, but I have found it increasingly difficult to sustain this sense of goodwill over time, as it has become gradually more apparent that his views and mine are not so much a bit of a mismatch as diametrically opposed. The problem, from my point of view, is not so much that Nick is a self-flagellating subscriber to puritan sexual ethics. No, it’s more that he has turned out to be rather smugly self-congratulatory, and all too ready to flagellate not himself but those of us who view the relevant ethics differently. His buddy Ethan turns out to be another halo-burnisher. Nor am I alone in this assessment: as one friend put it to me, Virtuous Pedophiles would be better named Sanctimonious Pedophiles.
Their most revealing and charmless aspect, though, is the finger-pointing. Not only do they claim the moral high ground, they have no qualms over bad-mouthing fellow minor-attracted people, including those whose only crime has been to take a reasoned, principled view of the issues that differs from their own. In a website FAQ they say, “We believe that sexual activity between adults and children is wrong. Because some pedophiles have a selfish interest in having child-adult sexual relationships accepted, we think that their arguments should be greeted skeptically.” In the Practical Ethics exchanges, Ethan even used our determination to stick to our guns against us. Whereas some would discern moral courage in taking a stand against the crowd, Ethan says: “I suspect a correlation between how sensitive a man is to the feelings and needs of children and how sensitive he is to criticism and hatred from society around him. A man who doesn’t care about everyone hating him might also not understand the complexities of children and how harm still lurks even if the child doesn’t object.”
My full reply to this baseless and offensive accusation is still there on the thread, for anyone interested to see: you may actually be surprised by my attempt (futile, I now fear), to be conciliatory. At this point I’ll just confine myself to one salient observation: virtue is traditionally seen as the opposite of vice, and Virtuous Pedophiles appear to be defining themselves as directly oppositional to “vicious” paedophiles who do not share their views. That would be all you heretics out there, as well as me. Vicious! Purveyors of vice! These Virtuous Pedophiles are not merely sanctimonious and holier than thou; their language also reveals them to be virulently, vehemently, viscerally judgmental. They speak of being hated on all sides themselves, while apparently unable to see that they are giving out their own message of hatred against us, a hatred which seems every bit as passionate and forceful as the worst we hear from the most committed anti-“abuse” fanatics. Indeed, with their insistent crusade of Virtue against Vice they resemble the zealots of the old Social Purity movement.
Nick and Ethan both appear to be so heavily invested in their determination to be “virtuous” that they cannot bear to contemplate alternative conceptions of what a good life and a good world might look like. Hence their strong emotional need, if they are to see themselves as virtuous, to cast us radicals as vicious. It looks as though they are caught up in what Freudians would recognise as a classic projection of evil onto the demonised Other.
So much for their attitude, which is deeply unprepossessing, but not necessarily of great importance unless their dour doctrine can gain some traction. Will it? And to what effect? I aim to return to those questions in due course.
‘“I suspect a correlation between how sensitive a man is to the feelings and needs of children and how sensitive he is to criticism and hatred from society around him. A man who doesn’t care about everyone hating him might also not understand the complexities of children and how harm still lurks even if the child doesn’t object.”’
Actually, qualities of narcissism and bullheadedness do correlate with willingness to engage in activism. However, that’s fully general to all activism and has no input into whether the activist is right. Intelligence and conscientiousness also correlate here, would that make up for this?
Hello to all, it’s genuinely a good for me to pay a quick visit this website,
it contains valuable Information.
You could certainly see your expertise within the work you write.
The world hopes for more passionate writers such as you who aren’t afraid to say how they believe. Always follow your heart.
[TOC responds: Many thanks!]
Just can’t top Gil The Great.
Quote: ” …much of the obsession with sex and sexuality in those societies arised directly from the fact that they are all so bloody, stiflingly, pathologically, repressed. Among very many people I know they are a laughing stock, yet sadly as often feared for their sudden eruptive violence at being mocked for it. ”
Our modest endorsement, “Those seige mentality saddos aint’ living – but just dying. Day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute…tic-toc, tic-toc.
And our advice which we’ve already taken is, leave the phoney-Anglophone, on a jet plane…or just plain leave !
“Of course some parents are abusive”. Yes, a tiny proportion are. And how many governments murder their own citizens, openly or secretly? Are you genuinely blind or dishonest enough to pretend that the percentage of innocent governments is not far lower than the percentage of innocent parents? If there is any point in this debate, it is reasonable to demand a straight answer here. If you give an honest one, exactly how then do you justify preferring the government’s judgement of an individual child’s welfare over its parents’?
“It’s not a case that interests me very much because of its rarity.” Of course it’s rare when the parent could go to prison or have their child kidnapped by the state for acting in best conscience for him, even in the unusual case that (s)he had not already been brainwashed against doing so by our aberrant society. If you are not interested in the ethics of how people should behave ideally, as opposed to how they behave under coercion, what is the point of moral debate and how do you excuse your use of the term “virtuous”?
Coercion? Terror!
The closest study to date, still not replicated, is Bruno Bettelheim’s ‘The Informed Heart: A study of the psychological consequences of living under extreme fear and terror’.
Read it, there are plenty of copies still floating around.
Another very relevant paper is that by Daphne Bugental and Jeffrey Lewis, ‘The Paradoxical Misuse of Power by Those Who See Themselves as Powerless.’ (Journal 0f Social Issues 55, 1, 1999)
When one has been studying and counselling disturbed men for 30 years and more, eventually it becomes apparent that we are not dealing with rapists and sex-fiends, but terrified little boys.
That’s precisely how I got into all this . . . my entire approach to these matters.
“the parents almost always love their own child a trillion times more than the state does, and are incomparably better able to judge what is best for him under his particular circumstances. This is as nature ordained.”
Of course some parents are abusive. Some fathers sexually abuse their kids very much against their wishes. Society takes an interest in such cases. Some parents pimp their kids out too.
“But why the equivocation which undermines your logic: “it is less wrong than without”? If some parents should sense an undercurrent of erotic interest between their 10-year-old son and a man they have got to know …”
It’s not a case that interests me very much because of its rarity. It would be almost unheard of in today’s society, and rare in all times and places. The chances that the parent feels obligated to this other man and misperceive the son’s interest seem higher than the legitimate case.
I also haven’t thought out my opinions on every single case. I might more accurately have said, “it’s less wrong, or maybe not wrong in a more accepting world if conditions are just right — I haven’t worked out my full opinion on that.”
I still think you’re being a bit hyperbolic, Ethan. Have you read Paul Okami’s and Bruce Rind’s 2002 rebuttals to Gunter Schmidt’s paper in the Archives of Sexual Behavior? If you haven’t , I highly recommend you read them in combination with
the 2012 piece referenced by sugarboy.
Anyway, you seem like a nice guy, and I hope those in the LGBT community are treating you well.To quote Kevin Ohi: Shared structures of identification and desire point to the intertwining of homophobic and anti-pedophilic ideologies–
and the consequent necessity for an antihomophobic project to resist the demonization of pedophilia in current ideologies of sexual innocence.
As someone who doesn’t feel compelled to mount children, let me throw my two
civil libertarian cents in.
Ethan, comparing what often times amounts to mutually enjoyed body-petting to genital mutilation and slavery is a hyperbolic, don’t you think?
As far as egalitarian ideals go: Considering in the United States 500-plus children drown annually– compared to zero who die from hand jobs– is it a violation of a child’s nautical self-determination if an adult goes swimming with them in the ocean? Is the child truly cognizant of the risk associated with water and capable of giving informed consent? Will the child be traumatized if they have a near-drowning experience? Is the adult using the child for swimming?
The reason nobody asks these questions is because we don’t give a magical excess of significance to swimming in Western culture; however, the same can be said for sex.
“comparing what often times amounts to mutually enjoyed body-petting to genital mutilation and slavery is a hyperbolic, don’t you think?”
No, it makes my point stronger. Kids can even feel great about having their genitals cut, so of course they can feel great about things not that bad, and so their approval is not good evidence that it’s OK in today’s world.
“As far as egalitarian ideals go: Considering in the United States 500-plus children drown annually– compared to zero who die from hand jobs– is it a violation of a child’s nautical self-determination if an adult goes swimming with them in the ocean? Is the child truly cognizant of the risk associated with water and capable of giving informed consent? Will the child be traumatized if they have a near-drowning experience? Is the adult using the child for swimming?”
Parents are largely responsible for evaluating risks to their children. If you take a kid swimming without the parent’s (at least implicit) permission, you are doing wrong. If you give a hand job WITH permission of the parents (and no quid pro quo), I would judge it is less wrong than without. You are also comparing an immediate and obvious downside (death) to risks that are psychological and slow to develop. Avoiding near-drowning experiences is important. And we ask: Did the boy really want the hand job from the man (instead of doing it alone later)? Was it important to him? Or just to the man? For prepubescents I think it’s pretty clear.
For gay young teens, it might be quite different. That’s where I’d say prosecutorial discretion should come in — but if man and boy differ in their account of what happened and why, the man loses, and rightly so.
‘Ethan’, again, you have no opinion. You have no view.
Nothing posted by whoever hides behind this or any online avatar, refusing to identify themself, to allow their ‘facts’ they presume to cite to be checked by any independent and competent person, is admissible before any deliberative body anywhere on the planet.
How is it possible to make that any more clear? Don’t take it personally. I criticise large numbers of others, here and elsewhere, on the same good grounds. It is doing a very great deal of very real harm to very real people, right around the planet.
Believe me when I say, the rest of humanity is watching, and making up their own minds on how to respond to this very bad Anglo-American habit of making things up, whatever they feel like, then propagating the outcome endlessly through the media and cyberspace to create crisis after crisis that does not in fact exist, when there are real issues needing to be addressed.
OK, no worries. The US was warned years before 9/11 that something like that was going to happen, and the reasons for it.
But they kept shooting the messengers.
Whatever . . .
If you really do want to keep children safe, as RQD writes, check the real causes of death and injury in childhood. In the contemporary West (the stats do not shift much between the UK, US, Australia and New Zealand), the significant causes are traffic accidents, drowning, and a fair way third violent assault. 2/3 of those children are boys.
Domestic abuse of children accounts for less than 0.037% of all notifications of harm to children, of which ‘sexual abuse’ AKA ‘paedophilia’ accounts for only about 14-16% of that abuse profile, and of which only around 17% of which are at all substantiated with a result of less than 0.09:10,000, that rate declined rapidly in each annual report.
The worst case scenario in which a child is kidnapped, raped, murdered, all that stuff, as shocking as it is when it does happen, occurs at a rate of about 1:45-50,000,000 per annum – about 1 every two years in Australia, 2 every three years in the UK, and about 6 a year in the US. Compare that with school shootings.
Believe me when I say, the very rare instance of a kid getting fondled, by a mate or some bloke he decides he likes, is the least thing we have to worry about.
Gil, if Ethan had no opinions or views, you wouldn’t be getting upset by them. I can understand your anger, but this comment is verging on abusive. Let off steam by all means. I prefer moderate, well considered language here. The occasional “What a load of bollocks” or similar may get through, and that’s fine, but do try to see your opponent as a fellow human who is entitled to a point of view.
Ethan’s problem, in my judgement, is that he has only opinions, and apparently very little knowledge.
In short, you rely solely in the peculiarly Western if-then syllogism, adding or substracting loose unassigned words to your logic arbitrarily and without checking their veracity.
And what if a ‘prepubescent’ gets fondled, by a bloke or anyone else, and he decides he likes it, even only occasionally, and he doesn’t complain, nobody else knows or complains, mate, it didn’t happen.
When a boy has a bit of a toss, on the toilet, in the shower, in bed, no matter how many peep-holes his Mum drills in the wall; or even pulls back his foreskin for a look, or to show someone, out of curiosity, it didn’t happen.
Which is precisely the level of absurdity being pursued here.
At last, something I can agree with you about, Ethan: the role of the parent. I find it horrifying that, apart from a brief period when it was a consideration in Dutch law, this seems to have been almost entirely ignored in debate over the age of consent in the last generation. Whatever useful propaganda may be available about parents who abuse their position, the fact remains that the parents almost always love their own child a trillion times more than the state does, and are incomparably better able to judge what is best for him under his particular circumstances. This is as nature ordained. As regards children in the years leading up to pubescence, I think their consent should be necessary.
But why the equivocation which undermines your logic: “it is less wrong than without”? If some parents should sense an undercurrent of erotic interest between their 10-year-old son and a man they have got to know, if they believe their son is already sexually very curious and longing to engage in erotic horseplay, if they know the man to be a sensitive, responsible person who would never manipulate or impose himself or let their son down, if they therefore decide it would make the boy happy, and so they say “go and play if you like, we understand”, who the hell do you think you are to say that you or your government knows better? Only God could legitimately say that, if he existed, and for anyone else to is monstrous arrogance.
Edmund
Tom, let me point out a phenomenon rarely it seems considered in Western Anglophone discourse which is the cross-cultural semiotic.
What is being referred to here is not a thing. It is not even a representation of a thing. The best can be said is a representation of a representation of an abstraction of a thing, so very far removed from the thing itself that the thing ceases to exist.
That is what I mean by no opinion being expressed, because it is not about anything. It is not possible, from the VirPed discourse, to grasp the least thing they appear to be trying to say. My initial rejoinder, couteously, even began with pointing out that I was writing from this far away, trying to understand what is being said, from this far away.
And second, I am not English. I get along with French and Italians and Yugoslavs and Ukraineans who wave their hands about and yell in your face, arguing directly about something immediate and direct, whereas the English stand back, retreating at the least affective display and speaking entirely in the abstract.
So, please accept that there is no anger being expressed, merely profuse and heart-felt rejoinder. If I take it personally, as you yourself replied to Roderik, “You are right, I shouldn’t”, I reply it’s my right to reply in my own way without a Dutchman or an Englishman telling me otherwise.
I cannot for the life of me see how you’d even begin to get on with most of the people among whom I have lived and worked all my life. I know, the culture shock here can be horrific, with so very many ostensibly fine academics retreating in dismay. The place is known for it.
So again, who are the English, Americans and Europeans to dictate our sexuality, and our parental responsibilities, or anything at all when socially and culturally we have long had it sorted out? It’s a very very tricky question, and needs to be taken into account once we presume to speak globally.
In fact, as I have written elsewhere at length, much of the obsession with sex and sexuality in those societies arised directly from the fact that they are all so bloody, stiflingly, pathologically, repressed.
Among very many people I know they are a laughing stock, yet sadly as often feared for their sudden eruptive violence at being mocked for it.
That’s the real issue needing to be addressed here. That’s the current state of the world, on this topic and about every other you care to raise.
Very rapidly this web page will be famous among all
blogging and site-building viewers, due to it’s good posts
The problem with your argument, Ethan, lies very much in your uncritical acceptance of the recently invented bogey-man, the *GASP* ‘paedophile’.
Your entire argument revolves around that one word.
Take the word out, and your belief system collapses. Take the cork out, and the balloon deflates.
Your second problem lies in your reliance on what you read other people as saying they do, or worse saying what they believe or how they feel about something.
As they say, however, the map is not the territory.
Ceci n’est pase un pédophile.
And again, why go to so much trouble setting up a website about it, because, as you admit, you have sat around with your friends thinking your way through other people’s arguments, that you’ve read on the Internet somewhere?
Why bother?
As I have found cause to utter too frequently of late, when you argue with a fool it soon becomes difficult for onlookers to tell the difference between you.
Posts on BoyChat? Indexed on Google? I mean, get real.
The conteporary West has become hyperliterate, hyperactive, hyperalienated, caffeine/cocaine/Ritalin addicted. I wrote a short trilogy on this once, entitled ‘PodWard’. Read it, you can buy on Amazon.
If you want to have real fun in life, round up a dozen or so kids and take them skinny dipping already, or for soccer and showers after the game, followed by pizza and a movie.
Or better, read them Alice in Wonderland or Peter Pan or The Magic Pudding while they snuggle up on doonas.
I’m glad to see members of Virtuous Pedophiles responding here.
One harsh point about staking a plot, creating an identity and taking a stance [especially unconventional ones], is that you will not avoid being misinterpreted…and people [from every group] will come out of the woodwork, to malign your character and hurt you if they can.
…It’s difficult, because there are so many pitfalls…and sometimes, we trip over our own feet.
That said, I think it is most important to keep an open table where everyone can freely talk…Eventually, we can work our way through misunderstandings…and part of the reason why I appreciate VP members commenting here, is because I’ve had some of the reactions addressed here, myself…
I support their right to speak their minds and to openly exist as a group…I just have not concerned myself with engaging them.
To my mind, it is better to see an increased range of “pedophile” voices breaking through the free speech taboo placed on our heads, than to see less of us speaking…Even if I disagree with them strongly, I still see it as good that more and more “pedophiles” are engaging society, standing up for themselves and fighting the way things presently stand.
If nothing else…we are all creating a world, that is becoming accustomed to hearing/reading the real voices of real “pedophiles”…That alone is vital.
Lastly, I also know the feeling of being dismissed as “a problem” myself, for my own activities and projects…I think the most important principle here, is that we cannot be crowding each other out.
I am content enough to just openly exercise my true voice, even if nobody ever agreed with anything I said…It is when people try to take this single most basic of root freedoms away, that the ability to coexist breaks down…and I cannot live in a world created by that.
– Steve Diamond
Steve, my abiding and rightful concern, as commonplace in the social sciences as it is in ethics, is the right of people to speak for themselves, to defend themselves, and to answer their accusers.
NOBODY, EVER, has any right to arbitrarily assign other people, often people they do not even know, to some loose category of person then presume to speak for them, especially on such private and contentious matters such as this.
The breach of fundamental human rights being pursued here, but less due process in law, is an outrage.
I and many many others are rightfully angry about it, furious. We have had our lives, reputations and livelihoods destroyed, our homes raided by massive SWAT teams, subjected to hours and hours of what can only be described as the worst Fascist/Stalinist interrogations, imprisoned, and our names spread across the press and media, for no bettter reason than that somebody, somewhere, around the other side of the planet, started some hysteria about paedophiles.
I mean, after years of successfully raising boys, bathing them, changing their nappies, wiping their bottoms, I was convicted on a charge of touching the front of a boy’s trousers?
No! This is entirely unacceptable.
We live in a democracy under common law. If anyone at all has anything to say about another person, to suggest something about them, to accuse them of something, the onus is on them to come out and speak to that person face to face, provide proof, and on that basis bring charges if any against them through DUE PROCESS in law.
Failure to do that is an indictable offence, in ALL common law jurisdictions.
My mission these days is to close these people down before they do any more harm, to anybody at all, anywhere on the planet.
Except they don’t even have the guts to come out and identify themselves, lurking behind fake names and acronyms and avatars for fear somebody will front them over their bullshit and the damage they do by it.
“we should not forget that some paedophiles, in their frustration, do give way to coercive tactics, and they do need help to stop that.”
Thank you for recognizing this fact.
“Because some pedophiles have a selfish interest in having child-adult sexual relationships accepted, we think that their arguments should be greeted skeptically.”
Above is my quoting your quote of myself… The phrase is “greeted skeptically”, not “dismissed as necessarily wrong because they’re bad people”.
“I suspect a correlation between how sensitive a man is to the feelings and needs of children and how sensitive he is to criticism and hatred from society around him. A man who doesn’t care about everyone hating him might also not understand the complexities of children and how harm still lurks even if the child doesn’t object.”
It was a suspicion, not an accusation. I was wondering about it, so I threw it out for consideration. I wasn’t accusing any person. I still suspect that there is such a correlation, but it doesn’t mean any particular person is like that. Tom, I have no doubt that you have suffered a great deal from the consequences of your pedophilia being public; (I read that reply over in the other thread, but didn’t reply as I figured it was an obscure and dying thread). And of course your ideas deserve a fair hearing on their merits regardless of any such correlations.
“Ethan even used our determination to stick to our guns against us. Whereas some would discern moral courage in taking a stand against the crowd…”
I have never doubted your courage or persistence, Tom, but that seems unrelated to the suggested correlation.
“Virtuous Pedophiles appear to be defining themselves as directly oppositional to “vicious” paedophiles who do not share their views.”
As I said in my previous reply, I think most of you qualify as virtuous pedophiles too, since we used the word to mean just ‘as good as anyone else’. If asked to find a “vicious” pedophiles, I might choose those who force sex upon a series of children, enforcing their silence through threats. I can get very angry reading reports of such cases. But as we we use the word, any pedophiles who engages in sexual activity with a child is non-virtuous.
“They speak of being hated on all sides themselves, while apparently unable to see that they are giving out their own message of hatred against us, a hatred which seems every bit as passionate and forceful as the worst we hear from the most committed anti-“abuse” fanatics. ”
Huh? Whut? I hope I’ve explained that above. I did say in the philosophy thread that we are hated by pro-contact pedophiles. I have certainly read such posts in boy chat (as indexed by Google, not that I read it in general). I think the most colorful phrase was “Non-uppity ni—-rs”. But as often in controversies, each side reacts to the most extreme formulations from the other side, which is no help. I’m not really sure what phrasing I’ve used that strikes you as hateful. Saying conclusions should be treated skeptically because of apparent self-interest doesn’t sound like hatred to me.
I’ll give my replies in pieces here. I’ll save quote-by-quote replies for a second post.
Let me start with the name ‘Virtuous Pedophiles’.
Naming something is hard. You want to convey a lot in a few short words. My first choice for our group was “Celibate Pedophiles”, but Nick preferred “Virtuous Pedophiles” and I thought it was pretty good. I think most people get it. One misunderstanding is that we believe that sexual activity with children is good for them, and that engaging in it makes us virtuous. A more common one is, “Hey, you want medals for not raping kids? Heh! Give me a medal for not murdering people!”
We tried to head that off by adding this sentence to our home page: “Virtuous doesn’t mean we think we’re better than the average person, just that we’re not worse.”
The name is directed at the large segment of the public who believe that we all will abuse children if we haven’t already. Those two words are meant to contradict that misconception. There is no halo-burnishing going on here.
The name was not directed at what I’ll call “pro-contact pedophiles” and which I take to include many of you who comment here. I understand that many such people think sexual contact is wrong today because of laws and attitudes. The key elements in my mind are the belief it could be good and the idea that society ought to change its laws and attitudes accordingly.
In my opinion, those of you who do not engage in sexual activity with children qualify as virtuous pedophiles, even if your compliance is just because of the law. That doesn’t mean you belong in our organization, as the organization has as a core believe that adult-child sex is wrong and not just because of laws and attitudes. But you could call yourselves ‘virtuous pedophiles’ and I would agree.
I think about the pedophiles who come to our group depressed and full of self-loathing. I think about sexual abuse victims. And I think about the general public. I actually don’t spend much time thinking about pro-contact pedophiles.
I have no reason to hate any of you. We have a disagreement about whether adult-child sexual activity is necessarily morally wrong. I assume you are sincere. Sometimes I’m puzzled as to why you believe as you do. There seems to be this very strong correlation between those who think adult-child sex is a good thing for children and those who find the prospect of participating appealing. An awful lot of people care deeply for the welfare of children, and they hardly ever conclude that a sexual relationship with a man will enhance the child’s quality of life.
There are other misconceptions about us. One is that we hate ourselves. Some of our members have those feelings, and we try to encourage them not to. Some of us are proud to be what we are. We find our attractions a source of positive identity. We are not ashamed of having fantasies and enjoying them.
As Max indicated, we don’t require a man who is sexually attracted to boys to believe that what he would like to do is evil or inherently harmful. There are grown men who look back with fondness on their boyhood sexual experiences with older men, and I believe them. I understand that what boy lovers would like is to have such relationships with such an outcome. And it is possible. I like to think that this should be enough to validate the desire and support a positive self-concept.
But we also know of men who recall their boyhood relationships very negatively, and I don’t just wave this away as excesses of a victim industry. And here’s the key thing: I also don’t believe it is possible to know in advance how the relationship will turn out, so that’s why I think engaging in the adult-child sex is always wrong.
There are other areas where I assume we agree.
I believe that iatrogenic harm does occur, and society’s hysterical attitudes often makes things much worse.
I believe that many penalties for sexual offenses are too harsh, and should be calibrated to be in line with penalties for crimes that cause (or risk) similar harm. I find sexual offender registries to be especially distasteful.
Are you on a sex offender register, ‘Ethan’? Would you know?
I am, here in Western Australia, along with 2,500 others of whom 0.02% are considered dangerous, of a population slightly over 2.3 million. The UK by contrast has 3,000 names in their register, of a population over 62 million, of whom 25% are considered dangerous. Go figure.
We even have a publicly accessible register, on a dedicated website. There was a media flurry when it was announced, journos at the door with cameras up my nose, wanting to know if I was worried about it.
Why would I? Only the 0.02% dangerous offenders are likely to see their name up. Police have to show good cause for putting a person’s name up, with two weeks notice and time to lodge a defence.
Point your browser here: https://www.communityprotection.wa.gov.au/
But you won’t get in. You have to actually live in the suburb, and can only check to see if anyone of concern to police in this matter is living there.
So you’ll have to take my word for it. I live here. I can log in and check. Take my word for it, there is nobody in this suburb listed.
Now, I dare suggest that people who don’t know what they are talking about leave things to those who do, who are affected by it, and who have as the saying goes, the right to do their own time.
It’s none of your business. Go away. Find something better to do with your life, or better again, get a life.
OK?
Don’t ever forget the proven vast 92% NON-SEX Victims of Serious Child Abuses. All but CRIMINALLY ignored by don’t-give-a-damn about victims, Sex-Obsessed Inhuman Anglo Sex-Fascists.
While billions of proactive, non-victim, laughing Adultophiles all-sexting/camphone/DIY C.P ‘Generation Sex’ beyond all control just trash crap so called ‘Sex Laws’.
Hi. Is this a forum where I can reply?
It certainly is, Ethan. I suggest you hold off, though, until you see my second blog on the subject, which I hope to post in the next day or two. Please note also, the post sent by your member Max, which I will be bearing in mind.
Hello.
I am a member of Virtuous Pedophiles, but I have come here of my own accord. I have only joined recently, preferring to do most of my “activism” (if you call it that) on my own.
Tom, you say: “but unlike Virtuous Pedophiles we take the view that sexual contact between an adult and a child who is a willing participant is not intrinsically abusive and may be a very positive experience.”
Perhaps you misunderstood, but that statement is inaccurate. Virtuous Pedophiles does not take the stance that sexual contact between an adult and a child is intrinsically abusive. While it is possible that some members might believe that, our actual stance (including mine, Ethan’s, and Nick’s) is that sexual contact CAN be harmful, and that we do not feel that it is realistically possible to guarantee that this harm does not happen. I, personally, am sure that there are many exceptions to this, but that would rely on the exact situation, and thus can’t really be used to base policy. In general, there are far too many unknowns that could influence the result, including (but not limited to) society’s views on the subject. There are many places on the internet to have this debate; we don’t want it at VirPed because, in my opinion, it complicates the message and distracts from our goals.
The way I see it, aside from being a place where more “conservative” pedophiles are welcome, VirPed is a necessary tool to advance the tolerance of our kind; that’s why I joined. People at large don’t trust pedophiles who think that sexual relations with a child can be okay, because ultimately that leaves it up to the discretion of the individual, who appears to have a conflict of interest. Pedophiles are largely viewed as predatory, mentally ill, or both; No one is going to leave the safety of a child in the hands of someone as “dangerous” as that.
I understand your position. I even sympathize with it. However, I really don’t think it’s realistic to push as an agenda in this age. Think about the change that would have to happen for you to be satisfied — that’s a lot to ask for at once. I am much more interested in seeing real, tangible social change. Society doesn’t even accept us as humans yet. We need to change that before anything else can be done.
We at VirPed are a pretty humble and amiable group. We don’t think we are “better” than anyone; we simply aim to prove that we are not the monsters society says we are. The stance we take makes that clear.
I’m not here to debate you or tell you how to think. I think it is unfortunate that you think we come off as holier than thou, and I’d like to attempt to correct that, with your honest input. I may be relatively new to VirPed, but my time on tumblr has earned me respect within the group. If you have any reasonable requests, I would be willing to present them to Ethan directly and/or the group at large.
You can contact me directly, any time via email.
the.srp3@gmail.com
I am always open to questions and reasonable discussion.
Thank you, Max, for your very constructive and welcome input. Ethan Edwards has also indicated a wish to comment. I will be adding a further blog on this subject within the next couple of days.
Hi, Max, I hope you don’t mind my comment from this far away, but ALL sexual contact is potentially damaging. ALL sex is also potentially illuminating and profoundly satisfying.
That’s why it is important to teach children about bodies and sex and relationships, and invoke rules of interpersonal behaviour. It’s the most NORMAL thing, the most quintessentially human thing. ALL societies and cultures make explicit provision for it.
My first question, then, is why make such a cult thing of possible harmful contact between children and adults? Why is it such a big deal all the time, sufficient to set up whole websites on such a matter?
My second question not only to you but others here, is why discuss intimacy between children and adults at all?
Is it because the English and Americans feel they have to prove something about their sex lives and sexuality, defend themselves in some way? Because ‘society’ thinks they are ‘monsters’? Because ‘society’ does not accept them as ‘human’?
You have sovereignty, you are a citizen of a democracy, aren’t you?
Yet you reinvent yourselves as paedophiles on the basis of some stray yearnings you may or may not have (how the heck would we know), then react to your own thoughts by arguing, yes, but I’m virtuous about it, or not as the case may be, and run around telling everyone about it.
Who cares? It’s your own vivid imaginations at play. Why say anything at all?
Why not simply accept yourself as human, and get a grip finally. Get on with your life, and leave others to get on with theirs.
Hi Gil!
As you (rightly enough) say: “All sexual contact is potentially damaging”. But more than that, if something is “potentially” damaging, it is also “potentially” harmless. Flying in a airplane is not just “potentially damaging”, but downright “potentially lethal”.
Thanx again good Gil.
When we meet in the great space-time continuum, the first drink’s on me (natchral fruit-juice, alcohol or just pops).
And then we, and some natchral little uns, can all proceed to piss all over the pisstakers.
LOL-ita.
[T.O’C. adds: Guys, that’s enough of the mutual admiration society back-slapping waffle bollocks. Boy Chat is the place for that. One reason I continue to moderate posts is that Heretic TOC aims for purposeful content, in the comments as well as the blogs. I’d rather not have visitors here (or myself) finding they have to wade through piles of blather before getting to the good stuff.]
…rainbowstar refers to ancient idealist Plato, like socialists refer to modern idealist Marx.
The first rule of any campaign or war is that down on the street or battlefield great plans and grand strategies made by remote generals or CEOs fail the reality-test; and then tactics win or lose the deal.
As for uncoerced non-victim true pedophilia-adultophilia, ancient or modern, the intact nuclear and extended family, IS where they most happily reside, and always will do.
Hmmm….down on the street or battlefield.
After yet another night of Luftwaffe heavy bombing devasatation on east London, C In C Churchill in Downing Street donned his ‘onesy’-romper suit, tin hat, jockstrap, big cigar and V-sign and climbed into his oppo-driven khaki Humber Hawk.
10 minutes later among honest dockside Cockneys surveying the smouldering, shattered remains of their homes and familes, he boldly, jutting-jaw announced, “We can take,it. We can take it!”
A take-no-shit from no kinda man, fishwife came right up in his podgy face:
” WE’RE the one’s whose bloody taking it mister. So piss-off back to the safety of yer bunker !!
And without another word, he did.
virped etc are a half-way point. Society *is* (sexual) repression, so expect the virped position to be beloved for sure. It’s been known since the days of Plato that the destruction of the family is required to rebuild a pedo-friendly (un)state; this verped stuff is just a baby step: for example, gay and pedo are totally different: gay can imitate families by marriage and adoption, but pedo-lib is a “knock-out blow to society”: it’s gonna take time. For now, let’s get behind groups like virped and B4Uact for getting the pedo message out, meanwhile recalling that while sexual repression will always sell with the capitalopatriarchy, at the end of the day: sexoageism sux and we desire a restored pretribe totally without the brutal repressionary institutions of family and state. =)
In accord once more with learned Gil.
What post-Reformation mock-Puritan, arrogant-Anglo Fascists, devious psycho-lonialists do best is, “Divide And Rule”. (If we let ’em.)
Now dividing good peds, even fighting among themselves.
‘Ethan Edwards’ was John Wayne’s character, arrogant Anglo-invader in John Ford’s 1956 classic western, ‘The Searchers’,
Ford wanted a truer telling. But Hollywood demanded the usual cliches and stereotypes, distorting a factual tale of an Apache-abducted young white girl, found after 7-years, but by then an Apache-married happy young mother. Further abused by being forcibly removed back to arrogant Anglo-white settlers. with whom she and her child could not identify, with both dying young and distressed. Yet perversely posed in the film as, ‘saved’.
Typically Anglo-arrogant and in deep denial, Ethan Edwards’ 5-times quoted line in the film was successfully adopted by a naturally upbeat young Buddy Holly, 19, and his drummer Jerry Allison, 17: ” That’ll Be The day.”
Dear learned astute perceptive *witty*, Emminently Erudite WillisTina, you take first prize. First try!
Ten (10) points out of seven (7) for having seen straight through the fraud. I was waiting for someone over there to wake up.
Yes, indeed so, watch John Ford’s ‘The Searchers’! Watch The Duke in action.
The peurile stunts those stupid people pull, then sit back watching the global self-flagelating Slo Lerners bite! Just to give them an excuse to react.
Hahaha, we’re definitely on a winner. I chuckle with GLEE!
Tom, you see, all it takes is a talent for attracting the right people, and there you have it.
VirPed Position? Something like hiding their weenie and making out to be tough, because it’s embarrassing, can’t shower with the rest of us.
Mate, all my life I’ve showered with 3-4-5-6 to 60 year-olds, and stood around the bowl pissing, or at the trough, or off cliffs when out bush. These days it’s called ‘homosociality’ – little boys proving they can stand with the men.
Six year-olds from Sydney to Perth to Djakarta and Beijing will join the line, glance sideways, and say, without the least embarrassment, Jeez, you’ve got a BIG DICK.
It’s called life energy, chi.
Did you ever see The Duke line up for a pee with a 6 year-old?
That’s what takes balls, nothing else.
That’s why they wave their guns about, because they’re dickless.
Freud had it wrong, guns are not phallic, they’re antithesis.
Give me a good stout kid in the house, looking for a sword fight.
Now there’s a bit of fun, and reality, all in one.
Way past time to reframe the question.
The Penis Is Not a Weapon
Not a sword,
Nor a club
With which to beat home your ideas,
A Rocket by which to overcome
uninvited
Your neighbors hedges,
A scepter by which you might impose your will
on the birds
the children
the essence of anything,
Not a foil needing to prove itself
with or without a muted point
against an enemy,
Not a dagger.
What then?
A bee
Flitting among the flowers
pollinating the fields with desire
A butterfly
Negotiating the winds
with harmlessness
impregnating
the zucchinis with happiness.
A spring breeze
welcome in every gardungle
prophesying
the sun bursting forth
at the end of a great storm.
Fabulous! I’m not sure if you are rebuking me, or “them”, or whether you are simply suggesting we all need to “impregnate…with happiness”, which is fine. Mind you, butterflies and bees are not necessarily so innocent. Remember a certain boxing champion, who used to “float like a butterfly and sting like a bee” with devastating effect? That was metaphorical, of course, but the bee’s sting is real enough.
Um, yes, a tad too serious. What I had indicated is that among healthy laughing boys a dick can be real fun.
I guess the argument follows that on teaching children to handle firearms as young as possible, not to turn them into psychotic mass-killers (or rapists) only because it is never too soon to teach them to be careful.
Poor old willy gets blamed for everything, these days.
Way past time we all went back to simply enjoying life, have fun, relax and laugh. The only thing more powerfully subversive than human nudity is laughter. That’s where ALL the best jokes originate.
That’s why the straights are so hell-bent on destroying happiness, forcing dull conformity, misery. It is that which induces violence, and rapine and hell on earth.
When those kids are fooling around like that their giggling laughter fills the house. The sweetest music in the universe, music of the spheres.
For the record, I just chose the name because it had a nice ring to it. I did a Google search on it to make sure I wasn’t picking a name that would be famous or infamous to others, and the other uses I found on a quick scan seemed to be rare enough that I decided not to worry.
You did a Google search? What, another one, and picked The Duke?
Why not just use your own name?
I mean, why bother with all this pretense at being somebody else, a deluded sex-obsessed war-damaged Lone Ranger type, without mask? Ethan Edwards is THE ORIGINAL wild-eyed PTSD!
Gad, we have no paedophile here, virtuous or otherwise, but a Googlephile plugged in Nerd, who doesn’t even know Hollywood.
Get up from your console, dude, unplug, go have fun with real live boys for a change, it will change your life.
They’ll sort out your ‘virtuous feelings’ for them pretty dammed quick.
Guaranteed.
“I am what I am” said the donkey. Though donkeys are usual LAST to resort to violence, we are usually tolerant — though heretical — in eschewing the absolutist belief that children are morons, with no feelings, knowledge, or even curiosity. I believe that I am right in saying that, mostly, we LOVE, rather than hate.
M T-W.
Yes, I agree, Michael. Nearly all my working and professional life I have been working with ‘basket cases’. It’s in the nature of the postcolonial frontier.
Over the years as one starts to realise more fully what people suffer, who still come up smiling and generous and hospitable, the only conclusion to draw is that human beings are inherently gregarious. We are a flocking species.
Loving one another is the default human condition.
These guys, sad, really . . .
I fear their dour doctrine will indeed gain considerable traction. You read the final conclusion of your main non-paedophile opponent in the debate, Nickolas Schaffer: “in the interests of the safety of the most vulnerable members of the community, there may be little other choice” to the indefinite sentencing option for any paedophile who does not adopt the “virtuous” stance. Apart from chemical castration, is brainwashing into the virtuous mentality not already the only “cure” that society can still imagine for paedophiles? What other options are there for a society that won’t accept them and no longer believes their urges can be changed?
I may be even more repelled than you by Ethan and Nick’s way of thinking because I am guilty of a heresy I suspect you are largely innocent of: I don’t believe in the currently orthodox dogma of fixed sexual orientation. I think it becomes self-fulfilling for those who believe in it, but that sexuality is really far more fluid for those who do not, determined by the individual’s emotions and cultural beliefs. Only thus can I understand the huge variations in sexual practice there have been between different societies. Consequently, for me a sexual urge is the sum of positive emotions I as an individual have both about the object of my desire and about the sexual act itself. If I believed the act would be wrong, I would not want it. I would feel no more urge to sleep with my best friend’s beautiful wife (though attracted to beautiful women) than I long to eat my presumably-delicious pet duck.
As a result, I accuse Ethan and his ilk of something you do not: gross hypocrisy. If they think the practice of paedophilia is intrinsically wrong, I believe they could and should dismiss the urge for it from their minds instead of flaunting their obsession with it. I suspect Ethan of taking masochistic pleasure in wearing the hair shirt of public hatred of him for his urges and enjoying the self-flagellation of denouncing the realization of longings he knows deep down could be for the good. I don’t doubt he also of course relishes his holier-than-thou image of himself.
I suppose my first response is: why should it be assumed that all minor-attracted people have the same code of sexual ethics? Personally, I think celibacy is appropriate for me – and ideally I think it would be quite good for a lot of ‘normal’ people, too – but this has more to do with my religious commitments than with my attitudes to intergenerational sex per se. I think the world might be a better place if there was a bit less sex generally; other people, I know, hold the exact opposite view. Why should all paedophiles agree on this matter? It’s not a matter of vice and virtue, but simply of divergent opinions. If I’m sanctimonious and a “self-flagellating subscriber to puritan sexual ethics”, I don’t see why that’s anyone else’s business. I’ve had a look at VirPed, and I’ve been rather annoyed at the way they trumpet their ‘party line’. It would be more honest to admit that morally responsible paedophiles can differ about sexual morality, rather than to try to create an pure sect of the right-thinking. (I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that B4U-Act was a bit more evasive on this question.) But then, I’m also slightly annoyed by the claim that everyone at this site is of the same point of view. Where, exactly, is the fun in that?
The question of probable harm is an empirical matter which can only be settled down here in the real world. High falutin’ theory is no substitute for real human experience. I’m pretty sceptical about arguments like Ethan’s, but those who think sex with kids is fine should perhaps have a care. We live in a society that makes things very tough for boylovers, and can make things pretty tough for loved boys. The harm that arises from such relationships may be the result of external factors – the need for secrecy and deception, the trauma of loss and shame if the relationship is exposed, the forensic and therapeutic menace – but this doesn’t exculpate boylovers from responsibility for all these things. It’s not our fault that this society’s attitude to man-boy love is deranged, but we do have to take this into account when considering whether to embark on such a relationship. We can’t consider the morality of boylove in a vacuum. My own view is that the risk of harm to both parties is so high – especially if the relationship is discovered – that it would never be advisable to have a sexual relationship with a child in the current climate. It would not be prudent, and it would almost certainly not be moral to expose a child to such a risk. I don’t think people who disagree are selfish and deluded, but I do think we need to look honestly at the way things are. Of course, if the cultural and social climate were to change dramatically, all this might change. In a society where boylove was openly accepted and socially regulated, such relationships might be well be morally permissible and truly free from harm to either party. In which case, surely the responsible thing to do is to strive in whatever small way we can for such a society, while admitting the limitations placed upon our actions by this one.
I agree, wholeheartedly, about the harm to children being mainly caused by “the way things are”. Yet surely, we are about changing the way things are? Or at least, changing public perceptions of the way things are? M T-W.
I agree entirely, and I am on record as saying so. If the VPs were to confine their displeasure to those who behave irresponsibly our complaint would have to be somewhat muted. It would need to be confined to distaste for their sanctimonious style rather than disagreement with their substantive message. It will be seen from one of their quotes on my blog, though, that they go further: “Because some pedophiles have a selfish interest in having child-adult sexual relationships accepted…”
If non-coerced adult-child sexual contacts were accepted, in law and in society more generally, we would not have the problem of non-intrinsic secondary harm, sometimes called iatrogenic harm, caused by the kind of bad reactions to it that we see presently, and to which you have rightly drawn attention.
“…their arguments should be greeted skeptically”, yes.
Tom, it reads like your beef with VirPed is largely based on this. I believe someone above already told you in different words “don’t take it so personally” — and I’d like to echo this.
I much appreciate your blog and the way you shine a light on issues. I don’t identify with VirPed any more than I do with you. Still, I completely identify with this point in their FAQ.
I’ve quasi naively/fearlessly walked around in the ‘pedo’ world for a little over a decade now, and met many interesting people and viewpoints. My perception is that a relatively high amount of the most vocal proponents of child-adult sexual relationships I’ve encountered, indeed “have a selfish interest” in seeing them accepted. If not that, there often is another reason why “their arguments should be greeted skeptically” – most often: they are unwilling (or just plain unable) to see a broader view than their own.
Many people lack the intelligence, the integrity, or the broader view to be able to respond to any rational arguments trying to widen their discussion beyond “sex is not inherently bad so it should be accepted, period”. And of those people, I do think their arguments should be greeted skeptically. And as a general small statement in a FAQ, I would stand behind VirPed’s wording as if it were mine.
In my mind, that does not in any way say that sex is always bad, or diminish your mostly excellent contributions to the debate.
So my advice would be: don’t take a condensed statement in a FAQ personally. That’s just a little side note I wanted to make – but this little side note does IMHO put a dent in the setup of this blog entry. (Defending yourself against fingerpointing, without fingerpointing is… tricky, and IMHO you’re not really succeeding in this one case.)
Thanks, Rod. Your view surprises me but I’m not going to say you are wrong. I’ll have to think about it. Yes, the evidence against VP is thin on this point and I also note the courteous tone of VP comments here, which is impressive. But the position of VP is clear: adult-child sexual contacts are always wrong. Thus if their view prevails, ours fails. They talk about being “sceptical” but it seems to me they are not sceptical but absolutist. Scepticism is intellectually respectable because it pays attention to evidence. VP, by contrast, don’t appear to be interested in evidence. In this debate so far, VP’s references to findings from other cultures and times, or studies of child development, sexuality, child-adult relations etc, have been conspicuously absent. VP’s position relies entirely on a priori assumptions.
As for taking things personally, you are right, I shouldn’t. But was I? I’ll have to introspect a bit on that one. Anyway, thanks for your “mostly excellent” point.
Tom, you’ve tagged your blog “heretic”. Your book on the subject, written in more accepting times, called its case “radical”. You know full well that the vast majority of society disagrees with you. We at VP are quite clear that we’re not scientists. We’re not sociologists who can accurately predict possibilities of change in a future society. We’re not professional ethicists either. So I’m not going to consider the entire scientific picture in detail. I’ve thought about it as a layman and decided I agree with society on the basic issue of how the potential harm to children balances off against the potential benefit. (Benefit is the main area where I think you differ from mainstream reasonable people. They wouldn’t frame it in terms of cost-benefit because they see the benefit to the child as zero.) That’s a question about what goes on inside children’s heads. Perhaps what surprises you is that even as a pedophile I accept that judgment. I don’t think being pedophiles gives us any special insight into what goes on in children’s heads — it may give us a little less, as they are the objects of our sexual desire, which clouds judgment. Being pedophiles does give us insight into what goes in our *own* heads, and that is where the VP message (which as you recall much of society rejects vehemently) is focused.
So what does your input here amount to? You have no scientific knowledge with which to challenge the scholarly information many of us are rather keen on here at Heretic TOC. Nor do you make any claim to philosophical understanding. You are being very modest, Ethan. That may well be a virtue you can justly claim, but is it worth much if you actually have a great deal to be modest about? Why should we listen to you if, on your own admission, you have nothing to offer us but majority opinion? Do you imagine we don’t get enough of that already?
It was “majority opinion”, I would remind you, that decided Socrates should take the hemlock. It was a howling majoritarian mob that did for Jesus. Hitler came to power through the democratic process. And most significantly for those of us who respect scientific enquiry, if majority opinion had prevailed rather than Galileo, we would all still believe the Sun goes around the Earth.
I will not say, along with Ibsen’s Dr Stockmann in An Enemy of the People that the majority is always wrong, nor that we should abandon democracy. I will say, though, that I do not see much point in your further regaling us here solely on the basis of your opinions. Ethan, I posted twice about VP, in none too complimentary terms, so I thought it right to give you plenty of scope to reply. You have done so, at length, and I am glad I gave you the opportunity.
That opportunity is now at an end. If at any time you wish to post here again, you will be welcome to do so provided you present more than just the opinions we now know about. If this stricture seems unreasonable, ask yourself this: would you allow me in perpetuity to post my views – supported by empirical information – all over your website?
On a more positive note, thanks for coming here and having a go. It has been brave of you and I feel sure your courteous demeanour has won you a lot of respect.
To be clear, I care less about their ‘majority opinion’ than with their very bad habit of exporting it to every corner of the planet, there to ram it forcefully and violently down other people’s throats.
Have your ‘majority opinion’, by all means, as you wish – we do acknowledge liberal democracy – but stay home with it.
For the remainder, it is not only the scientific papers and empirical field studies that matter, but due process in implementing their findings in public policy.
We are not only liberally democratic, we are after all civilised.
I am not at all sure there is such a thing as ‘society’, much less a unified social subject with a firm and consistent view on these matters.
The terrain is hotly contested. Like most issues, there are extremes at either tail while most people in the normative range simply don’t care that much so long as it does not affect them.
When it does, and this is my very direct experience, only a few will be angry and avoid you, primarily on legal advice, while the remainder especially those parents whose children spent years in our home, growing up with my own boys and subject to the same household regimen, are far more generally concerned that everybody is OK.
And I have been asking this too for many years, what on earth is everyone so worried about all the time? One of my business partners is a retired police sergeant, ex-Tactical Response Group and 79 Division. He was one of past Prime Minister Bob Hawke’s personal bodyguards at one point. He says the same thing, “Just don’t get caught.”
In my case too, I get a LOT of support from a lot of straight hetero men because I know a thing or two about human sexuality and able to advise them. In a real sense ‘boylovers’ with real knowledge of sex and sexuality are the least of the problem; they are a tangible asset. It may or may not astonish how much real sexual confusion there is in this ‘society’.
And again, the issue remains an Anglophone common law problem. Here in my current neighbourhood the Asians, fully aware who I am and the matters brought against me, smile when I come into their shop and offer me discounts when I go to pay.
They know precisely what it is to be orientalised, oppressed, sanctioned, alienated and rendered Other.
A couple of helpful blurbs that have been floating around for years that Nick and Ethan might might profit from:
Introduction to boylove for new boylovers: http://www.ibld.net/introbl/introbl.cgi
Basic facts about boylove for Muggles: http://www.blbasfac.info
I was going to start arguing about inventing crisis, inventing dilemma, but the sense of unreality experienced in trying to deal with these guys transcends fantasy; as Madeleine Albright once replied on being asked the reason for US aggression, “Because we are America.”
They honestly see themselves, as they say often enough, as the Third Rome.
They do it without rhyme or reason, for no greater purpose than to get their target to bite, then no matter what else to prevail anyway, because they can.
So they believe.
For the same reason they produce the world’s pornography, because they can, and since in the US child pornography is illegal therefore all childhood sexual activity, involving any other person at all, will get the parties thrown into prison, that’s why.
For the rest of us, better I argue to ignore them entirely. Better to not reject their jurisdiction in these matters since that requires an active agency, which is what they are looking out for, but to simply not recognise their jurisdiction to start with.
At risk of sliding even further into their insanity.
As Manuel was prone to respond in such a situation, “Que?”
Be oriental, align yourself with Asia.