A guest blog, today, comes from Dave Riegel, who also contributed The missing mechanism of harm back in February. His theme this time, as will be seen, is very much related to recent debates here at Heretic TOC. Dave has had a number of articles published in peer-reviewed journals, including the prestigious Archives of Sexual Behavior. He has also pioneered the use of internet surveys to reach minor-attracted persons, especially BLs.
Self Respect
“This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.” (Shakespeare: Hamlet, Act 1, scene 3, 78–82)
BoyChat is one of several fora primarily concerned with the legitimate discussion of boylove and related issues, and is perhaps the oldest and best known. Are you a boylover as defined in the BoyChat FAQs i.e., a person who has “…a particular affinity for pubescent and/or prepubescent boys… [which in] most cases… encompasses a clearly sexual attraction, plus an ability to relate to boys in an almost magical way?”
At another website there is a somewhat more detailed description: “…boylove is a relationship between a boy who has a desire for a close and intimate friendship with an older male, and an older boy or man whose love for that boy encompasses enjoyment of the boy’s companionship and a desire to provide a mentoring and nurturing environment… [which] also includes a definite pedosexual attraction on the part of the older, and [which] may include a desire for sexual experimentation, exploration, play, and gratification on the part of the younger.” Do you also subscribe to this definition?
People are complex and multifaceted beings, and boylove is only one aspect of that complexity; in addition to being a boylover, you may be a husband, father, neighbor, employee/er, coach, etc., etc. Do you internally accept the boylove aspect of who and what you are as good? If you do, should you not refuse to be intimidated by the current societal negativism concerning your orientation? Should you not rather have a positive view of yourself, and seek to have the most affirmative and productive life possible? That is to say, should you not be true to your own self? And although it admittedly would be foolish to express it publicly or to engage in illegal acts, should you not have inner self-respect, or even “boylove pride?”
The life of a boylover in today’s social climate can be difficult and frustrating, but in a survey of 517 self-identified “Boy-Attracted Pedosexual Males (BPM, i.e., “boylovers”) only 3.3% described their mental health as “poor,” and 1.4 % said they coped with their problems “poorly.” This fairly large sample was solicited through BoyLinks, and would seem to be representative of the worldwide boylover community.
There are a few regulars on BoyChat, and on other similar blogs and fora, who give the impression of being well adjusted to their boylover orientation. But there also are many who question the validity of their attraction and/or their ability to cope with their situation; these latter individuals may, in extreme cases, have some need of so-called “mental health services.” But it would seem that the vast majority, considering the percentages cited above, would better serve their own needs, and the image of the boylove community, by resisting and dealing with their problems by seeking out and communing with other like-minded persons electronically and/or in real life, rather than succumbing to the anti-boylove hysteria and then precipitately resorting to questionable mental health services. This, along with searching out and studying boylove-positive non-fiction literature, are some ways of building a peaceful and fulfilling life without endangering security and freedom by exposure to “mental health professionals” who may or may not be trustworthy.
None of the above should be considered disparaging of those who have clinically identifiable needs for psychological counseling, nor of those who attempt to provide help in the mental health arena. The point is that boylovers should not be misled by the psychology industry, or perhaps by well-meaning supposedly boylove-associated groups, into thinking that many – or even more than a few – boylovers are psychologically compromised and in need of mental health services. They should instead concentrate on the inherent goodness and beneficence of their orientation, make every effort to solve on their own any problems they might have, and thus be true to themselves and to boylove.
Reblogged this on other side of town and commented:
I liberation soon
I’m not quite sure what I’ve said to make Linca so angry, but let me elaborate on the question of general strategy. Some people say MAPs have a ‘right’ to safe sexual relations with fully informed consenting children. I agree. But saying this in the present climate isn’t going to help. Our audience will fail to hear the all-important qualifications and just register ‘paedophiles have a right to sex with children’. Instead we need to focus on more modest rights, such as the right to due process, to free speech and to proportionate sentencing for those who transgress. Once we have achieved recognition of these, we can reasonably hope that more radical achievements will follow.
I believe that it is also important to form a picture of what the world will be like when each milestone is won. I sketched a scenario earlier, but nobody has taken it up. Granted, it was the ultimate scenario.
When I was a boy, I had a dog called Rover. Rover deeply wanted to catch birds, and spent most of his life in the shadows near where my Mom scattered breadcrumbs for wild birds to eat. Several times a day, Rover would storm the birds and they would all fly away. He would retreat back to the shadows.
One fateful day, Rover rushed slightly quicker, or a hapless bird took off slightly slower, and was caught. Suddenly Rover had a flapping, shrieking, living thing in his mouth, desperately afraid for its life.
Rover got such a fright that he fell down dead form a heart attack. The bird in his mouth had died too.
I fear that, without a vision of what happens afterwards, the battles may be won, but the war will be lost.
I’m not sure that having a ‘vision’ is as important as you may think. I suppose one might draw a parallel with the American invasion of Iraq–they didn’t have a plan for when the country had been ‘subdued’ and the result was chaos. (By the way, please don’t take me as implying that the original invasion was in any way justified–it’s just that not having the post-invasion plan made the whole thing even worse) But the analogy is a weak one. What anyone comes up with in terms of a vision is unlikely to have much predictable effect on the distant future.
The kinds of things I am interested in speculating about have more to do with how one would relate to minors (both those interested in relationships and those not interested), their parents, their peers and anyone else with an interest once the barriers are gone, or changed.
Relationship skills have not been developed (by anyone) to move into this space with. Suitable activities and venues to practice them are not apparent.
The unlearning of internalised self-hatred would not happen overnight.
These are just random thoughts, but I would expect a lot of post change confusion, awkwardness and embarrassment.
I fear many Rover-like outcomes.
Peter, I think the Rover-like outcomes you envisage are part and parcel of many ‘conventional’ relationships: the person gets his (or her) heart’s desire, only to find the practical day to day realities of it are not so rose-tinted as they imagined, and the grass may be greener on another side. (cliche ‘field-day’ sorry!).In the case of minors, the difficulty would of course be intensified, but not essentially any different. We muddle through, and people around us get used to it. That’s how I would imagine it being. I think the unlearning of internalised self-hatred might happen a lot quicker than you suggest, (especially if the ‘barriers’ are gone). Nature asserts herself very quickly, wherever society’s neuroses and artificial edifices are pared away. Even as recently as the 1990s the residents of Pitcairn island felt it completely normal to engage sexually at 12/13 (possible younger), to the extent one of supposed ‘victims’ declared her experiences to be ‘shit-hot’, and adult female residents are reported as saying “what is all the fuss about? – it’s how things are done around here” as the British neo-imperial judiciary stamped all over them. As for suitable activities and venues with which to practise the relationship skills – well, I think most of these would simply be the existing ones, but used in a slightly different way. Example: I don’t think folk would be too affronted by the sight of a minor and an adult engaging in game of table tennis, or walking together in the country, or attending a movie… although holding hands across a table in a fine restaurant might take a bit of getting used to. Adults and minors would simply get to know each other in situations where they encounter each other presently, the only difference being they could express themselves a little more ‘freely’ and naturally – example, the natural affection that often arises between teacher and student in 1-to-1 situations,
As always, a lot of care would still be needed in setting the goalposts of right and wrong, to prevent ‘real’ abuses: which I guess is what society’s current laws of consent and victim-dogma attempts to do (ostensibly, aside from keeping overpaid idiots in a job) but in an asinine way.
People are tempted to say ‘It’s as bad as Nazi Germany’. But of course, if things like this can be done then it’s emphatically not as bad. (German Jews in the thirties couldn’t have got any of Hitler’s ordinances changed.) So let’s remember this and act to achieve change!
“Stand Up Fight Back” were the first things that came to my mind when I read your post Stephen. We have to know who to fight. We have to fight the ones who give legitimacy to law enforcement, the judiciary, and the legislative. Those are the health professionals.
I am reminded of when I was outflanked so bad in the past. I found out in deposition that it was my “Best Friend”. As testimony was being drawn out by my lawyer and the words were spoken of what he did behind my back I almost passed out and went under the table.
We get to thinking our counselors are our best friends: Trap.
Linca
We have to remember what ‘fighting’ means in this context, though. In most cases, it means persuading. Health professionals may be amongst our worst ‘enemies’ but to ‘defeat’ them we need to win them over–or at least a critical mass of them. The only exception to this would be cases where legal action is possible, but our resources don’t usually permit this.
Stephen,
When did you last count our resources? What makes you believe we can’t take them all on at once with one strategy?
I have in my history winning changes in Federal Law when EVERYONE told me that was IMPOSSIBLE. Thanx for you and the many others here and in our community telling me what I envision is impossible. Your words keep me focused.
Blabber on if you must. Aqaba will be ours.
Bye-Bye.
Linca
thats the point i was making,strength in numbers.
I mean globally, though, and every citizen, not just MAPs. Give the authorities 7 billion registered offenders to administer!
a read somewhere that people on the sex offenders register in america are forming together,and they were successful in defeating a law making them put notices on their door at halloween.maybe that will be the first wave of resistance,they must make quite a large proportion of the voting population by now.
What if every citizen signed up …
Phil, Linca, Fred, et al.:
I would submit that our fundamental enemies are ignorance, fear, and hate, wherever they are found. But our second worst enemy can be ourselves, if we do not internally resist the insidious machinations of those enemies to make us hate ourselves, whatever area of “expertise” they may claim.
I am not arguing the MHP are universally evil, there no doubt are a few rational and enlightened ones out there. Or that B4-UACT or any other purported organizations are all detrimental, only that by tacitly accepting the mental illness concept of boylove they fail to address the underlying problems of boylove, which are the abovementioned ignorance, hate, and fear. There are avenues to combat these maladies – I have been fortunate enough to have a few papers published in scientific sexology journals (e.g. http://www.boyandro.info) (cf. http://www.shfri.net/dlr/acapubs.html), and while the impacts of these publications have been far from earth-shattering, at least a few readers have been given the opportunity to be exposed to the positive side of responsible boylove. I would suggest that others make similar efforts.
B4U-ACT does not ‘tacitly accept the mental illness concept of boylove’. See my guest posting on ‘Mapping the Terrain of Better Therapy’ on this blog a month or so ago.
“Do you internally accept the boylove aspect of who and what you are as good? If you do, should you not refuse to be intimidated by the current societal negativism concerning your orientation?”
This is the central question, isn’t it, not just for boylove but for paedosexuality as a whole. My answer to this would be a qualified ‘yes’ to the first bit. My own paedosexuality is not always ‘good’ – in that sometimes I may have dark fantasies – who doesn’t?? – well, maybe some are blissfully and innocently devoid of them – but I do insist they are wholly natural AND harmless, if one’s conscience and basic human human empathy is in place. One does not act on them, but one ‘owns’ them and embraces them as part of the complex human being we are – as you say, father, teacher, coach, husband or whatever. So, the answer to the 2nd part is a simple ‘yes’ (yes one should refuse to be intimidated..).
The tricky part is in keeping your sexuality ‘good’. I think even the most ardent justifier of paedosexuality would have to admit any interaction with a child, especially preteen (which ought to be the true definition of ‘child’), would need to be extremely delicate – psychologically as well physically – even it were legitimized by our society. Delicate in assertaining with honesty his/her true state of willingness and curiosity, emotional well-being, and delicate obviously for practical reasons we don’t need to spell out.
Phil,
We are not yet aware of what deep trouble we are in. At some point we are going to have to somehow some way armory-up, i.e., legal armory-up and go after our deepest most influential enemy the mental health profession.
Linca
I hear what you are saying, Linca. Not sure the mental health profession as a whole is the biggest enemy, though – some part of it for sure. However, the medical text books are the place to get a proper definition of paedophilia, which the social services and the media, even the child care charities seem unable to grasp despite it’s huge simplicity: UNDER 13! Pre-pubescent! More important still, the vast swathes of people out there who can’t grasp ‘paedophilia’ as an noun has no relation whatsoever to ‘abuser’ or ‘assaulter’.
Phil,
We have all been under stress for way too long, all of us. Our minds are fragile, all of our minds. Our thinking has become nonsensical, all of us. We have got to step back and get our minds clear so we can make good moves ahead, moves that work.
Linca
“get our minds clear so we can make good moves ahead, moves that work”
Without disclosing any grand strategy (that would fail as a result), what sort of moves do you have in mind?
Take a scenario, purely as an example, where all AOC laws are repealed globally and simultaneously, but laws against rape (not statutory rape, which would no longer exist) and prostitution (procuring sex by exchange of money or gifts) stay in place.
What, in your view, would happen next, or what would need to happen next?
Peter,
The first thing that is going to have to happen is that the psychologist get slapped with a Supreme Court Order to incorporate the Rind Studies in their counseling of or testifying for or against persons accused of sex crimes against an underage person. Psychologists are violating our rights to the findings of science/violating our Constitutional Right to Substantive Due Process. The Rind Studies are SCIENCE. Until then psychologists are friends of our enemies and the enemies of all children everywhere, law enforcement, feminists, child protectors, etc., etc., etc….
A psychologist can be kind and caring to the max but until he quits violating our and all children’s Constitutional Right to Due Process he should be given NO slack whatsoever.
We need to take a clear stand on The Constitution.
Linca
I accept your point there, but in the world I have described, that would no longer be an issue. The only relevant crimes remaining would be those of coercive rape and prostitution, and they are not delimited by age. The MHPs would presumably get a practice note that says things have changed and we now have LGBTTQIxxx AND MAP and all are equal, along with the few remaining straight people.
There would no doubt be an ex-MAP movement offering reparative therapies, and it would no doubt implode in due course.
My question is, what comes next (after the new world, not after the implosion)?
Peter,
We will never get to the place you propose without drastically changing the mental health providers. Psychology as it is today has to be replaced with psychology based in science like Rind and Evolutionary Science. Those are science totally unlike normative psychology, the psychology we now have.
The thinking of all people who attack us is built upon Normative Psychology. This is a ‘House of Cards’ that will come falling down when psychology is based in science. And please forget measuring the frontal lobe that the people who attack us think is psychology science. I listen to the lead feminist in my city and her followers quoting frontal lobe research all the time. Makes me gag. Gets me in trouble too when I mumble to loud “What a stupid b_tch.” She is worshiped here.
Linca
Linca,
My version of the quote gets over 10,000,000 hits on Google, while yours gets a mere 12,000 so you’ve still got the quote overwhelmingly wrong, but in any event it’s irrelevant.
It is not difficult to know the identity of our enemy: it clearly is the lawyers, lawmakers, politicians, prosecutors, judges, and all the unjust, human-rights-violating laws to which that people who only want to share love are subjected. The role of the mental health profession is minuscule in comparison, and if the laws were to go away, so would the involvement of a great part of the MHPs. They are called in by those undergoing legal process in an attempt to mitigate sanctions, while the state calls them in in order to increase them. They just make an easy scapegoat for all the MAPs who properly feel wronged by the socio-legal situation in which they find themselves.
Furthermore, any harm which may be done by MHPs is offset, partly or completely, by the good help they have given to MAPs and others to which many will attest. The same cannot be said of the legal leviathan which has been constructed around and is engulfing and destroying us.
Our real enemies are all too happy to see us infighting over what amounts to merely a distraction. Refine your focus, and re-take careful aim.
Fred
Fred,
Those of us who see things different will get together: Fingers Crossed. Actually it is those people I speak to. We just do not buy your arguments. At least I think there is a “we” not just an “I”.
A few years ago I got to set in the same room with some Israeli Diplomats and listen to them. Those are people who know that they will never make the same mistake they made in the 1930’s Europe; make the mistake of not realizing who their enemies were.
Linca
Linca,
There is not really much to respond to since you give no reasons why you “do not buy” my arguments, and I’m sorry it thus seems you support the laws arrayed against us. It would seem to be an “identification with the aggressor” psychological defense mechanism.
Also, I fail to see how the anecdote about the Israeli diplomats relates to this discussion at all.
Fred
I just looked at Google, and “Too many cooks spoil the broth” gets 2,380,000 results, whereas “Many hands make light work” gets only 345,000, so obviously cooperation is a bad idea (or something).
Or maybe there are two different sayings with different meanings, and one is more popular than the other.
(Clearly the allies of your enemy are likely to be your enemy too, unless they change sides.)
If the ‘enemy’ is the law and society in general, I think mental health professionals may be more like slavish followers than friends (if I get Linca’s meaning right); maybe B4U-ACT is trying to change that.
“If the ‘enemy’ is the law and society in general, I think mental health professionals may be more like slavish followers than friends (if I get Linca’s meaning right); maybe B4U-ACT is trying to change that.”
I’m afraid you are right about MHPs; that was my point also. I think you are not getting Linca’s meaning right since he said he doesn’t agree with me (us) since he sees MHPs as a bigger enemy than the laws. How he comes to that conclusion I have no idea since he hasn’t explained it.
I am sure you are right about B4U-ACT. Theirs is one of the few battles that is winnable for us right now since many (most?) MHPs already resent having to act as an arm of law enforcement (via mandatory reporting laws) and realize that this lack of confidentiality and sometimes coerced treatment cannot ultimately be truly therapeutic. They are simply not free to properly do their job when it comes to the entire gamut of MAPs. Again, that is not their fault but that of lawmakers, the real “enemy.”
Mr. Riegel suggests that “supposedly well-meaning boy-attracted groups” (given recent debates on this forum, I assume he’s implicating B4U-ACT) are misleading boylovers “into thinking [they are] psychologically compromised.”
Given the general psychiatric consensus that pedophilia is a mental disorder, many minor-attracted people consider therapeutic consultation an act of self-betrayal, as if in seeking therapy one concedes to viewing his/her sexuality as a sickness. B4U-ACT works to collaborate with the mental health community toward the development of compassionate treatment options for minor-attracted people — including those who choose to embrace their attractions as an (albeit socially challenging) sexual orientation versus a mental illness — so MAPs seeking guidance for issues sexuality-related or otherwise may do so while remaining true to themselves.
B4U-ACT takes into account the untold number of MAPs who grapple in a self-loathing vacuum with sexuality issues, wholly unaware of the existence of the minor-attracted community and utterly estranged to the idea that embracing that aspect of themselves is even an option. B4U-ACT acknowledges the likelihood that mental health professionals will intercept these emotionally vulnerable individuals before a chance encounter with other MAPs — online or otherwise — presents itself, and so is committed to dispelling the negative cultural assumptions which frequently serve as barriers to compassionate therapeutic consultation. B4U-ACT’s goal is to de-stigmatize minor-attraction in the mental health community to the extent that clinicians themselves can serve as catalysts for self-realization in MAPs with limited access to alternative support options.
B4U-ACT is under no delusion about the uphill battle re-educating the mental health community entails, but we see no value in capitulating to a social climate that compels MAPs to rally inside anonymous Internet communities steeped in “Love Thyself; Loath Society” platitudes. Climate change can only occur if an MAP’s influence reverberates beyond his own community. B4U-ACT will continue in its grassroots efforts to forge inroads with the mainstream toward the realization of a social climate in which misanthropy and distrust are no longer necessary.
Paul Christiano, Administrative Assistant/Board Member, B4U-ACT, Inc.
Paul Christiano,
It has been said, “A friend of an enemy is “The Enemy”. How do we deal with that? Maybe there is a third way.
Linca
Linca,
Actually, the saying is “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
More appropriate here.
Fred
Fred,
Actually I got my quote a bit wrong but I did not get the premise wrong. It says on page 127 of the just published book on T. E. Lawrence by Scott Anderson: ‘Lawrence In Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and The Making of The Modern Middle East “… the friend of one’s enemy is the enemy….”
One of the hardest things to do in the situation we are in (War) is to know who the enemy is. We have to know that in order to develop the right strategies, the strategies that will work for us all including the children/all children/all man. I did not get the appropriateness wrong.
Linca
“Given the general psychiatric consensus that pedophilia is a mental disorder”
Are you sure about that? According to the paper below, approx. half of the respondents (MHPs) don’t think that it should be considered a mental disorder. The other half considers it a disorder, but cannot really explain why…
http://danpedo.sexualpolitik.se/peer%20comment.pdf
“Given the general psychiatric consensus that pedophilia is a mental disorder …”
To which country does the above statement refer? Solely the US? What about Europe? Where is the data to back this statement up?
Are you asking for the data that backs up the notion (proves without doubt) that paedophilia is a mental disorder (there isn’t any) or that psychiatrists generally agree that it is a mental disorder (there is some evidence – e.g. DSM, but they don’t all agree).
My apologies for intruding …
did anybody see the documentary who were the greeks last june,a positive insight into man boy relationships,quite surprising for the bbc,also the bbc doc with stephan fry about homosexual rights around the world.he points out the obsession the antis have with sodomy.
Yes, an excellent documentary series by Dr Michael Scott.
I am reminded of the old guy I sat next to on a Chicago Transit train the other day. He was in town visiting. As we visited he lamented that his wife who he used to enjoy so much did not want sex anymore saying we should have legalized prostitution so I could go down and get my needs met.
This zoo we have built for us to live in does not fit who we are does it? If a bear at the zoo is misbehaving we don’t send him to a shrink … we build a new place for him in the zoo that meets his needs. It seems to me man has no choice. We need to be about building a new zoo, a zoo that meets man’s needs.
Linca
In summer ’95, a 50+ hetero-ped friend of Tina was in a suburban park unoccupied mens’ toilets for a urinal straight pee, and then to view the pre-Web bog walls filled with sexual GRATIS graffiti fine entertainment. Suddenly an unusual sweet smell of perfume filled the air, and straight-ped turned to see a young teen boy in shorts, smiling up at him while wanking, and making suggestive eye-movements towards his proud erection. Streetwize straight-ped sensing possible entrapment, said, paraphrased, “Are you OK son, or are you a bent-cop’s plant, while they hide in the roof void? Those bloody hypocrites have caught many of their own in toilets over the years, in and out of uniform! ” The boy said nowt but scurried into one of the two cubicles, both unoccupied, and locked the door. At which the straight-ped made to leave, but as he did so the boy partly opened the cubicle door and beckoned with a sensuous forefinger. Straight-ped whispered: “I’m not gay, I’m over-50, and I could get 10-years just for talking to you in here. Anyway how old are you ?” Boy whispered: “I just turned 14, don’t worry, I’d never tell anyone, and you’re lovely!” Straight-ped: “If you had a sister as pretty as you I might be interested.” Boy: “My sister is only 11, and she doesn’t do sex.” Straight-ped: “I bet she thinks that you’re straight, and that you don’t do sex!” Boy: “Please don’t tell anyone, or any of my mates out there playing football. And if you see me in the street just ignore me.” Straight-ped: “No problem son, take care and be careful who you talk to, because you might scare some nice nervous man to death!” A few weeks later the same urinal unexpected scene occurred, and the boy said, “I’ve been on holiday with my family in Torquay. They’ve some good bogs down there with young travelling salesman who are married family men with nice cars, they want sex-fun while away and one or two gave me £20 pounds.” Straight-ped: “Well..nothing personal son, but I’ll give you £20 pounds to piss off! So take care and have good time.” That pretty boy would now be a 28 yr old handsome gay, closet married with young family? Himself now aMusing young boyz, in ancient humanity’s all age, time-honoured, unstoppable, Cycle-Of-The-aMused/SeX For All !
Willistina, have you ever written erotic fiction? If not, you should!
I read this with interest and couldn’t find anything inconsistent with my own Virtuous Pedophiles point of view. It sounds like we and the boylove organizations both welcome people who feel terrible about themselves and encourage them to feel better and not hate themselves.
I am a bit less actively skeptical of the mental health professions. Lots of therapists will be bad, but some will be OK. I have no reason to think that professionals will be significantly more accepting if you say that you don’t wish to change society to make adult-child sex legal and accepted than if you do. They will primarily focus on whether you are actually going to engage in such activity yourself. Lots of them will hate us both or treat us with cool disdain or have hurtful preconceptions. Others will be better or be willing to learn.
But let me ask about another group. What about men who are sexually attracted to boys but aren’t so clear on having a magical connection with them or seeing them in exalted terms? What if they just really want to, well, be sexual with boys? Are they entitled to feel good about themselves too? Is there an organization for them?
I see no reason to think the distribution of mental health problems in men attracted to boys differs from that of the broader population — or if it does, the effects aren’t big enough to be significant at the clinical level. It would be interesting to see if mental health of the romantic “boylover” part of this population differed from the more prosaic part. As you note, inherent in the situation of all men attracted to boys is the impossibility in today’s world of having the sort of sexual and romantic relationships most other people can aspire to and typically the need to keep a major part of one’s life experience secret.
“But let me ask about another group. …”
Surely that is the group that corresponds to heterosexual men who actively hunt out one night stands, and find women willing to oblige. To the extent that they are entitled to feel good about themselves, is it not equally true that men who seek out the company of boys primarily for sex are entitled to feel good about themselves (as long as their companions are equally willing to oblige)?
After all, there are surely women and boys who are in it primarily for the sex too? (I do believe I saw that remark made elsewhere very recently.)
Thanks for making me aware of some of relevant problems with my mini-essay, problems which I will work on correcting in the version posted on line.
While my hundreds of real-life contacts – and many more electronic contacts – indicate to me that the vast, vast majority of Boy-Attracted Pedosexual males have what you sneeringly refer to as “a magical connection with . . . [boys] . . . or seeing them in exalted terms”, there are a few who, apart from feeling affection and concern, only want to “be sexual with boys”. I see no rationale for them to be “entitled to feel good about themselves” unless it is in restraining themselves from acting on their self-centered desires and impulses. Perhaps the only valid excuse for the existence of so-called “organizations” such as B4UACT and VP is to serve these potential miscreants and deter them from “offending.”
But I would reiterate that the abovementioned vast, vast majority have no intrinsic reason to feel negatively about either themselves or their orientation. The problems that these males have are the results of misinformed, misguided, and malicious societal constructs, and, as I proposed, are best served “by resisting and dealing with their problems by seeking out and communing with other like-minded persons electronically and/or in real life, rather than succumbing to the anti-boylove hysteria and then precipitately resorting to questionable mental health services.”
So precisely who is or isn’t “entitled to feel good about themselves”, and who are you to decide?
What about straight men who just want sex with women? Or women with men? Or people who go to a restaurant and only want a meal? Are they “self-centered”, and if so, so what?
Romantic love is all very well, but there is also naked sexual desire in all its many forms.
You seem to be assuming an adversarial relationship here which was not my intent. Of course I know we have our differences, but I’m interested in exploring areas of convergence as well. You may recall that I think wonderful man-boy relationships are possible — some grown men reflect on their boyhood experiences that way, and I believe them. There was no sneering on my part; I know what it is to feel a magical connection to a child (girls, in my case) — though I tend to think that when ANY two people feel a magical connection a fair amount of it is an illusion.
My hypothesis is that the range of attitudes pedophiles have towards children covers the same range as what hetero men feel for women. Some men of course adore women and seek soulmates. Others try to connect as best they can but the sex is what drives them. And others are just after the sex. If there is something about attraction to boys that means the huge majority seek and would find (were it legal) a magical connection, that would be a surprising result. Maybe your experience can be explained by a huge selection bias, and men who are attracted to boys sexually in more mundane terms avoid the groups you speak of or leave them in shame if they do not measure up.
I can understand that striving to get society to accept man-boy sex is served better by limiting one’s attention to men who want sex only in the context of a deep soul connection, but the picture’s got to be much more complicated.
In arguing that man-boy relationships can be wonderful, you are of course acknowledging that it has to be the right man with the right boy. Maybe for some men there is no boy — there’s no shame in that. Maybe if a man just wants sex, he has a far smaller pool of suitable boys. Unlike you, I don’t think such men need to feel shame — their attractions are what they are.
Whether someone can ethically act on their attraction is in my mind a separate question. It requires as a first condition finding a consenting partner. You I presume think that for boylovers such partners could readily be found if societal attitudes allowed it. You feel that seeking relationships based on more mundane sexual attraction would be immoral — I’m not sure if a scarcity of willing boy partners is part of the calculation.
I of course think that in all adult-child cases, there is too much chance of some important aspect of the relationship being a harmful illusion for it to be acceptable. That doesn’t mean I think the attraction is sick or that harm is inherent in the situation itself.
Why do you describe B4UACT and VP as ‘organizations’ in inverted commas. Don’t you even think they’re real organizations?
It is my personal and subjective opinion there is a real and meaningful difference between sex for the sake of the physical pleasure, and sex as an enhancement of a prior sincere emotional attachment. Sex between a boy and an older male, can, of course come in either of these two forms. In the first, negative feelings and resentment are a distinct possibility if either party is not fully consensual and/or is not aware that no emotional involvement is intended or implied. I am not directly or indirectly knowledgeable of such liaisons, although I realize they do occur.
I am much more informed about the second form, and I have dealt with a substantial number of older boys and men who felt that their relationship with a boy did, indeed, have a magical quality, both in its quality and its transience – boys are boys only for a few short years. This I would categorize as “boy love,” whereas the first would seem to be more “boy lust.” It is the “boy love” relationship that I address in my little essay, admittedly leaving the “boy lust” paradigm for others to discuss. It is these “boy lovers” that I am suggesting should have no intrinsic reason to feel negatively about either themselves or their orientation, while I offer no thoughts on the “boy lusters.”
I would especially note that I am offering my thoughts and opinions for what they are worth, and do not presume to [decide] who is or isn’t “entitled to feel good about themselves.”
Given the social and legal climate that currently prevail, to what extent do you regard it as possible to achieve the beneficial outcomes of boy love (as opposed to boy lust) for both parties if “sex as an enhancement of a prior sincere emotional attachment” never happens? (Everything else, just no sex.)
On the other hand, where sex is introduced into a relationship based on a prior sincere emotional attachment, what kinds of damage to both parties (beyond the obvious: scandal -> jail) do you foresee, if any, and to what do you attribute that damage?
My previous question, repeated below, on this point is a serious one, and not a trick question that leads to the conclusion that “if you can accomplish everything, why is sex ever necessary”.
I would really like to know what you think.
Quoted:
Given the social and legal climate that currently prevail, to what extent do you regard it as possible to achieve the beneficial outcomes of boy love (as opposed to boy lust) for both parties if “sex as an enhancement of a prior sincere emotional attachment” never happens? (Everything else, just no sex.)
On the other hand, where sex is introduced into a relationship based on a prior sincere emotional attachment, what kinds of damage to both parties (beyond the obvious: scandal -> jail) do you foresee, if any, and to what do you attribute that damage?