Paedophiles to be treated like terrorists

Guantanamo Bay here we come! Brace yourselves, oh heretics of Britain; pack away your remembrance of freedom to the size of a crushed dream; it’s the only personal property we’ll be left with when they take us away: a war against paedophilia has now been officially declared, along the lines of the war against terror in the wake of 9/11.
Paedophiles are to be treated like terrorists. In his forthcoming legislative programme, prime minister David Cameron “wants to close a loophole that allows sexual predators to produce and possess ‘manuals’ giving tips on how to identify victims, groom them, and evade capture”, according to the Guardian. In future, they will face the same kind of sanctions as extremists who download guides to bomb-making. The issue came to light, we are told, after GCHQ and the National Crime Agency found examples of the guides online in the “dark web”. GCHQ, it will be recalled, is the UK’s electronic spying headquarters, whose Big Brother surveillance of entire populations has become globally notorious thanks to the work of Edward Snowden.
The new law is expected to be in force by the time of the general election next year, and could be implemented in an amendment to the Obscene Publications Act 1959, the Guardian said. The Terrorism Act 2000 outlawed terrorist training manuals.
Now, “virtuous” paedophiles of the “nothing to fear if you are innocent” persuasion, or delusion, may believe the measure targets only those who are up to no good. If you show people how to become engaged in illegal acts don’t you deserve whatever is coming to you? Why oppose such a law and thereby identify yourself with the “bad guys”?
Nothing could be more dangerously naïve. The proposed measure is a threat even to those of us who are not denizens of the “dark web” and have never seen the alleged “manuals”. I can say this with some authority, having personally been collaterally damaged in a previous attack on a so-called “how to” guide. Some here may remember the fuss over a book briefly listed on Amazon in 2010, called The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover’s Code of Conduct, by Phillip R. Greaves II. Amazon quickly withdrew it after taking flak for allegedly facilitating child molestation.
I do not know the author and have not read his book, which may or may not have encouraged readers to break the law. But I do know what happened next. Under pressure from a mounting campaign against selling books that had anything to do with paedophilia, Amazon caved in, withdrawing several other titles, including my own Paedophilia: The Radical Case, despite the fact that it has scores of citations on Scholar Google. Other writers of entirely legal and scholarly books who found their works de-listed were David Sonenschein, once a researcher with the Kinsey Institute, and David L Riegel, whose papers grace the peer-reviewed academic literature.
My suspicion is that even Greaves’ book was falsely demonised as a molester’s charter. Interviewed by CNN, he reportedly said: “True paedophiles love children and would never hurt them… Penetration is out. You can’t do that with a child, but kissing and fondling I don’t think is that big of a problem.”
What’s not to like about that? As an opinion it is fine, I think, and one many here would share, provided the author was describing what would be OK if it were legal, rather than recommending anyone to go and do it. One has to wonder whether some of the supposedly evil material on the ominously named “dark web” is really that different to Greaves’ rather charmingly artless – innocent, even – candour.
Not that it was deemed innocent in law. The unfortunate Greaves, based in the United States, was charged with “distributing obscene material depicting” (merely in words?) “minors engaged in harmful conduct”. He pleaded no contest and was put on probation for two years.
So, if writers can be silenced and punished even in the land of constitutionally protected free speech, how much more threatened should we feel in the UK? Much will depend upon how tightly the wording of the proposed new law is drawn. Previous legislation aimed against paedophilia affords scant cause for optimism, especially in view of the present enfeebled state of civil liberties campaigning in the UK: there will be little public pressure to amend any clauses that could be applied too broadly. At least Spiked has come good on this occasion, though. I blasted Frank Furedi recently, but his latest piece is positively excellent: The war on paedos: grooming the public’s fears.
Maybe my “open letter” to him had the desired effect!
Even somewhat overbroad legislation against “how to” manuals ought not to impact Heretic TOC legally, as this blog definitely does not incite law-breaking. Indirectly, though, it would have a very chilling effect. What worries me far more is the potential for yet another measure, because they never stop coming, do they? And what would it look like, this further laceration in our slow death by a thousand cuts? Now that we are to be firmly yoked together with terrorism it’s obvious, isn’t it? Glorifying terrorism was made illegal by the Terrorism Act 2006. So logically the next step would be to ban the glorification of paedophilia – a “crime” that could well be framed to include saying anything whatever in its favour. This could spell trouble for Heretic TOC, and possibly for any advocacy aimed at lowering the age of consent, even by only a year. Now, that would really be a scary prospect for democracy.
Overshadowed by the sensational terrorism rhetoric, meanwhile, another appalling measure crept under the radar recently. How many, I wonder, are aware of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which is now the law of the land, having received the Royal Assent a couple of months ago? The Act both covers and commits a multitude of sins, and our interest in the latter takes us to Part 9, Protection from sexual harm and violence, sandwiched between Part 8, Firearms, and Part 10, Forced Marriage. This measure has an important and complicated history, though, so it will have to wait for another time. If there are any lawyers here who would like to do a guest blog on this I would be mightily relieved!

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

43 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

[…] In the UK, the latest manifestation of this trend is to be seen in the Serious Crime Bill, which has already been debated in parliament and will reach its report stage in the next session a couple of months from now. This is the one Heretic TOC mentioned in May: Paedophiles to be treated like terrorists. […]

[…] The securitocracy, as noted here recently, is now adding paedophilia to its empire of anxiety. “Paedophiles to be treated like terrorists” was Heretic TOC’s headline. It referred to a forthcoming measure against online “paedophile […]

Society is turning insane.
“Paedophiles will be handed the same treatment as terrorists under a crackdown on child abuse to be included in the Queen’s speech.”
There are violent mobs, vigilantes and conspiracy theorists all calling the Queen and her family “a bunch of peados”, and she is going to regurgitate this ignorance and increase the danger her family is already in, on Xmas day? These people are dangerous. They do not require proof of anything, but rumour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evun9Ddk3U
“I want to ensure we do everything we can to protect children — and that’s why I am making them illegal.”
But, you really have made them illegal: for a mere sexuality and disorder, while you turn a blind eye to the bloody knife-rape of boys.
Talk about hypocritical and senseless stereotyping.
“The move was announced after it emerged that a paedophile teacher drugged and abused up to 60 boys as young as 10 at a British private school.”
There are people that have sexually mutilated a lot more than 60 boys, and society praises them! All sorts of people with all sorts of sexualities, disorders and belief systems abuse children, but do we then shove them all in one bag and say they’re all the same? This is what scapegoating is folks.
If these people are the terrorists, and those who strap boys down for a bit ‘o unnecessary sexual torture are the good guys, then I hereby accuse society of hypocrisy, insanity, inhumanity, and extreme child abuse.

There is nothing new under the sun.
When Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979 she declared war on terrorists and paedophiles, naming the IRA and PIE in one breath. Since then, the authorities have made peace with the IRA supporters,
but stepped up their attacks on the likes of PIE. Evidently it is preferable to befriend bombers than to talk with people who have paedophile feelings.
It must be a source of great pride and satisfaction to our masters that after 35 years of demonising paedophiles in the name of child protection, they have succeeding in creating a society in which – according to various surveys- live the most frightened and unhappy children in the western world.
And so a new generation of nervous Britons grows up, ready fodder for the scaremongering tactics employed by an insecure society looking for scapegoats to account for its own shortcomings.
Maybe that is the agenda.

The United Nations Committee on Torture handed down a decision on May 23 criticizing the Roman Catholic Church handling of Sex Abuse. Wonder what it is going to mean? Wonder if it is going to mean that worldwide Sex Abuse Crimes are going to be considered Crimes of Torture thus doing away with statutes of limitation?
Does anybody have any thoughts on this?
Linca

This writing has been on the wall for many years, I think.
One thing I neglected to say in my own post regarding this…is that it is quite a condescending slap in the face, for lawmakers to dismiss a pedosexual’s very right to exercise their voice…to a “loophole in the law”.
I think we all know, “how to manual” is an extremely subjective label, and it’s decided usage will be left to those who don’t like our style of speech.
…And they will build upon this…because they cannot stop doing so.
They are not crafty enough, and certainly not brave enough, to move in any other direction. If going back to this well and habitually ramping up the laws was ever taken away from them…I think most politicians would fall flat on their faces, in a completely perplexed stupor.
That something this reliable and easy could no longer work, simply would not compute with them.
That may sound a tad harsh…but politicians of this world, even in the so called “civilized countries”, have gone to epic lengths, in order to earn my harsh words.
What they have rightly earned for themselves, cannot be contained in mere words.
If there were any justice in this world…they would be living the exact same existence, which they have sentenced countless other humans too…with an intensity equivalent, to the sum of pain they have caused…

Hello Tom,
i can’t believe the timing of your blog-post. Just last sunday – the day you wrote this – the police in germany has temporarily arrested eleven pedophiles (girllovers) on an alleged meeting of a big childpornography-ring/pedophile-ring. Over 100 hundred policemen(!) (i kid you not) stopped them in the middle of the city aschersleben, detained them and got their information, name, occupation and so on. Afterwards they searched houses of some of them.
http://www.thelocal.de/20140505/german-police-arrest-paedophile-ring-at-yearly-meeting
So was this about child-pornography or sexual abuse? It was not… All of them were let free. The police has no evidence, they even had no evidence to begin with. The only shred of clue they had was from an JOURNALIST who pretended to be a pedophile and was invited to come to this “meeting”.
What was this meeting? Well, some members of a german pedophile forum (girlloverforum) wanted to meet some day after Alice Day just to meet, talk, and be under like-minded-people, making themselves a nice day at the flea market and in the zoo…
You might say bringing 5yr old niece to the zoo along with them was a bad idea because it could be easily misunderstood. But then again there was nothing wrong or illegal about it and all these allegation made are just that.
What the press and police did out of this is utterly crazy and wrong.
We are already treated like terrorists, when 150 officers with no evidence arrest 11 pedophiles in the middle of the city to attain their identity and can search their homes.
What is especially troubling to me is this:
“wants to close a loophole that allows sexual predators to produce and possess ‘manuals’ giving tips on how to identify victims, groom them, and evade capture”
This is highly subjective and almost anything can be misconstrued as that.
The police quoted a thread in our girlloverforum as evidence for planned criminal acts.
What was the thread? Well it was a 4-year old JOKE thread, started by a provocative question from a GUEST (not even a member of this forum).
If THIS can be construed as evidence for criminal acts, ANYTHING CAN… a thread with OBVIOUS satirical content.
Though i am pretty sure the police knows that.. they just needed something to justify their behaviour before the public.

Very depressing, indeed. Its hard to know how to fight this kind of thing.

I’m extremely sorry to hear this, Ovid. It would be 150 police, wouldn’t it: they want to put on a show. Ridiculous and frightening.

good link KIT here is the last few lines
we are a nation that dislikes discussion and loves consensus, and a nation that views itself as the conscience of the world,but in this matter decisions were
made over the heads of people affected by it.you could apply that to another
matter!

On the paedophiles = terrorists idea, it seems that one of the latest silly wheezes is using a fake social media profile to teach schoolkids how to “identify whether they or their friends are being groomed by fanatics”. Sounds familiar. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10785781/Children-as-young-as-ten-taught-how-to-spot-radicalisation.html The odious Michael Gove has also issued a letter to teachers instructing them to keep an eye on “specific safeguarding matters including female genital mutilation, child sexual exploitation, cyberbullying, mental health, and radicalisation”. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10816920/Michael-Gove-tells-teachers-to-identify-pupils-at-risk-of-radicalisation.html

This all seems to be heading towards a mass “coming out” of all minor attracted persons and other as yet unidentified minorities.
It is easy to pick off one at a time, but if the DSM is correct, and the prevalence is 3% to 5%, we’re looking at a couple of hundred million.
Guantanamo Bay would need some enlarging.
DSM-5: “The highest possible prevalence for pedophilic disorder in the male population is approximately 3%–5% (Seto 2008b; Seto 2009).”

I’m not sure if you are serious, Peter. There will be no mass coming out of MAPs, as the consequences for us would be catastrophic. The laws in the UK are already pushing towards greater isolation, incareceration or segregation for us, whether or not we have a criminal conviction. As seems possible, the gradual decriminalisation of recreational drugs will leave plenty of space in the prisons for our sexual minority.

I am serious.
The consequences will only become worse over time.
This will only change when society has to deal with MAPs that they know and love (parents, children, relatives, friends) and the bureaucracies have to deal with a couple of hundred million MAPs. (Globally, there are more MAPs alive today than US citizens.)
I am not suggesting that a coming out would be an assertion of a right to have sex with minors. But it would be an assertion of an identity and a claim to equal human rights in spite of that identity.
The process would entail prosecutions and civil commitments, but look at the alternative that is developing. It is death by a thousand cuts and makes the recently approved right to euthanasia for children in Belgium a reasonable alternative for the 12 to 14 year old who finds out what the next sixty or so years holds.
Do not be under any illusions. There are those in the world who would see every MAP on earth, virtuous, celibate, or otherwise, put to death or subject to lifelong civil commitment.
Waiting for this to become the reality is hardly an effective response.

This WordPress blog isn’t the ideal place for extended discussions as each reply gets displayed in a narrower column. But anyway… at the moment, almost all MAPs want to live a quiet life. They know the inevitable results if they were to become known: disowned by friends and family, social services take away their children, police harrassment, possible loss of job. So why would they risk that?
Two of your points are excellent and I’ve been using them for a while now in online debates. Personalising the concept of minor attraction makes most people think more carefully about us, in that they stop seeing us as faceless monsters but as people they love. I have been in two long term relationships with women and both understood and accepted my sexual orientation without disgust or rejection. It wasn’t always easy, but what is?
The second, regarding adolescents. I had a brief exchange online with someone expressing hatred towards us and asked what his advice would be for a young boy who realised he had this orientation. The reply was that the boy should kill himself.
So I accept and agree that we are in an increasingly dangerous situation. But I do not see public revelations as a useful way forward. No-one in the mainstream world has suggested any positive solution to the conflict between our sexual orientation and their wish to prevent their children from having sex with anyone over 18. They only want increasingly restrictive laws and harsher punishments, as we all know. I have no easy answers. One of possibly many paths would be to look for ways to get more academic opinion on our side, such as changes to the DSM and for studies that show intergenerational love as without intrinsic harm. We need to reduce the level of hysteria in public debate, to generate light rather than heat. Our opponents in the religious camp have long been afraid of this happening, as they see it as an inevitable follow-on from the academic acceptance of LGBT as legitimate orientations.
Any “coming out’ should be done only privately and with great care. The gay rights movement caused a lot of hurt when it tried to force public figures to admit to being gay. Let’s not go down that road.

I agree that there should be no involuntary outing.
I also agree that this forum is a difficult place for an extended exchange – it almost seems designed to squeeze MAPs out of existence.
To clarify my statement that I am serious about a mass coming out – I do not so much advocate it as a strategy as see it as an inevitable consequence of the way things are developing in the world.
Minor attraction is being made a crime of thought or fantasy with consequences out of all proportion. If you have not read “Censoring Sex Research”, I would encourage you to do so. The chapters by Mader and Hekma (soon there will be no historical artefacts left to study minor attraction because the artefacts themselves, including written ones, are being criminalised), and by Hubbard (MAP as homo sacer) are particularly alarming.
I think the mass coming out is going to start with adolescent MAPs who seek therapeutic support. The way in which the mental healthcare professions deal with this is going to be pivotal. I cannot predict what approach the professions will choose. None of the options currently available is ethical. Once they agree to counsel (which at present most do not) they will in all probability try to guide the client towards lifelong celibacy. Part of that process will have to be owning your own identity, and part of that is disclosing your identity. At that point, you have the beginnings of a mass coming out.
In a nutshell (or a WordPress comment column), that is the dynamic I see unfolding.

I suppose Cameron had to be seen to be doing something in the wake of the William Vahey case (which, if the story about drugging boys is true, *was* genuine abuse — but it’s not as though Vahey poses any more danger to boys, seeing he’s killed himself).
Someone on Spiked mentioned the ’emule’ paedophile guide, apparently referring to the book discussed in this news story: http://www.wbtv.com/story/18124513/underage-grooming-guide .
The Telegraph says the measure is not intended to criminalise possession of ‘legitimate’ literature (i.e. Lolita, one assumes), but not a word about whether or not legitimate research or discussion will be affected.
jedson303 makes a great point about the paedophile as homo sacer — I recommend everyone who hasn’t done so yet read classical scholar Thomas K. Hubbard’s ‘The Sex Offender System: Punishing homo sacer, the New Internal Enemy’ in the new book Censoring Sex Research: The Debate Over Male Intergenerational Relations (thanks to Tom for drawing the book to our attention in a post here).
And of course Martijn’s just been re-banned. A very depressing couple of weeks all round.

Probably also has something to do with the Cyril Smith case doesn’t it. Cameron has to be seen to be doing something in reaction to that, too. Labour MP Simon Danczuk and journalist and children’s rights campaigner Matt Baker have recently published an apparently scandal-mongering book, Smile for the Camera: The Double Life of Cyril Smith. Much is being made of the supposed similarity to the Jimmy Savile case — they both had keys to a school! New allegations have been made against Smith.
The second comment (scroll down) on this blog entry http://postmanpatel.blogspot.fr/2008/02/all-he-seems-to-have-done-is-spanked.html contains the full original Rochdale Alternative Press article from May 1979. I read elsewhere that Smith tacitly admitted to having done what the boys said he did, asking that his mother not be told as it’d kill her to find out. Given that some of the boys complained quite shortly after the fact and others not so very long after that, certainly before the culture changed radically in this respect, it seems that Smith’s behaviour did upset them, and that therefore the police force’s decision that it was not in the public interest to proceed further with the case was probably wrong, and wrongly motivated — as one of the former boys said, one law for the rich and one for the poor.
However, as for the men making the more recent allegations…well, they could be telling the truth. I don’t know that they’re not. But I’m inclined to doubt it, given the large number of accusations (144 so far), the claims by some alleged victims that they ‘blacked out’ these memories for years, and the discrepancy between what they say Smith did, such as force them to fellate him when they were aged about 7-9, and Smith’s admitted M.O. of smacking 15-18 year olds’ bottoms.

15 to 18 year olds?cant imagine that would go without some sort of struggle,I
know he was a big geza but even so,cant imaging someone trying to do that to me at that age without bloodshed.I watched the documentary on how he got away with it.If the claims are correct,he rubbed the genital area of a 16yo trainee,over the age of consent so i guess normal rules would apply there.
If he dont like then stop.there was a complaint made about him by a disgruntled
14yo boy,but it seems he had a relationship with him but then dumped him for another.thats why he made the complaint-)

One of the boys in the article I linked to says there was indeed a sort of ‘wrestling match’ when Smith attempted on several occasions to spank him, attempted seeming to be the operative word! Smith got another boy to submit to a spanking by saying he’d turn him in for missing work otherwise. Of course the culture was different in those days: corporal punishment, which is what Smith presented it as, hadn’t yet been banned in schools and was still pretty common and regarded as legitimate. The boys had probably all been caned at some point, perhaps also casually clouted by schoolmasters.

It’s obvious that most people didn’t read Philip Greaves book; the angry hysteria was created by the title alone. Greaves wasn’t even a pedophile, he was just a non who disagreed with the way pedophiles are treated. It’s not just about going after pedophiles, but also their sympathizers too or anyone who questions the aoc laws. It’s a myth of course that you have to be a pedophile in order to defend pedophiles or oppose aoc laws. Spiked may even be trouble some day if this insanity continues to pass.

The book on amazon you refer too,I dont think it was in your calibre,theres
an interview with the author outside his house on youtube,there was some grammar issues in the heading leaving him open to the usual ad hominem
attacks by apponents.Im aware that they may have some sort of historic pro
paedophilia blogs deemed criminal and come looking for us so to speak
while the country celebrates the second coming of the book burning rallies.
Have you seen the comments on youtube lately?If you round all them up it would be like grand central station.

“Now, “virtuous” paedophiles of the “nothing to fear if you are innocent” persuasion, or delusion, may believe the measure targets only those who are up to no good.”
For what it’s worth, I am with you 100% on this issue. “Nothing to fear if you are innocent” is not an idea I’ve heard expressed once in the Virtuous Pedophiles support group. We all have a great deal to fear from restrictions of this kind and the mentality behind them.
I personally oppose criminal penalties for possession of child pornography as a civil liberties matter of keeping governments off of people’s personal hard drives. I’m sure I would find some of it disgusting and horrifying and I would urge people not to look at it, but I am opposed to criminal penalties.

Thank you for sharing this rather interesting but ominous information. I’ve been corresponding with a friend of mine about the concept of “homo sacer,” which I think may be relevant to the topic that you’re dealing with here. In a brief post I can only touch on the concept. Basically it refers to a legal procedure by which a person is placed outside the law. He ceases to exist as a legal entity. Rather than explain in more detail (posts should be brief) I would suggest that you go to a Wikipedia article for a good overview. I would see the central issue being the definition of a person as a biological object rather than a biological subject. As a biological object you have essentially the same legal status as a cow in a factory farm. You lose your right to boundaries, to agency, to a voice, to be treated as a subjectivity, and to occupy a variety of physical and social spaces. In the United States the best example has to do with those who are defined as “enemy combatants.” These people exist in Guantánamo Bay outside the law. Anything can be done to them. The mentally ill and the mentally retarded or two other groups that are essentially treated in the same way. It would seem that they are making it explicit that “the pedophile” belongs to a group with this status. The procedure of defining people in this way side-steps the task of changing laws and constitutions. The group is simply placed outside the protection of the law.

That’s a fascinating post. I might be overstating the case, but the treatment of sex offenders on licence in the UK appears to be a step on the road to “homo sacer” status. The licence is determined in secret by the Parole Board, not by a judge in open court, and the conditions are often only tangentially related to the original offence. It can last for many years and restricts a person’s life to a degree unimaginable to most people.
To give a real example, someone convicted of a downloading offence would be banned from public facilities such as leisure centres and parks; banned from possession of a camera; banned from using a computer or a smartphone; banned from working with children, working anywhere near a computer or working in a job that involved contact with the general public; banned from voluntary work; given such restrictions on an adult sexual relationship as to make one impossible for the other adult… leaving very little of a normal life. There is no appeal against such a licence. The “homo sacer” effect is that such a person would be sent to prison, usually for several years and without a judge or court being involved, for engaging in harmless activities that are legal for the rest of the population.
And then, of course, there is the upcoming Sexual Risk Order, which will allow similar restrictions to be applied to any of us without a conviction. All that is necessary is for the police to believe that someone poses any degree of risk of sexual harm to children; they can then apply to a court for an Order to be applied, with any conditions of restriction the police deem necessary and a length of five years to life.

Yes. This is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. It is very difficult to know how one can fight against such things. The loss of an effective “voice” means that objections to these procedures, or questioning the “facts” that justify them, will not be heard by the general public.

jedson: Most of the intelligent, reasonable non-minor-attracted people I know are aware that there is something wrong with the sex laws. They think an age of consent set at eighteen, as it is in many US states, is too high. They are aware that sixteen-year-olds can be prosecuted for having sex with fifteen-year-olds, that men can be put on the sex offenders register for public urination, that teenagers can be charged with making and distributing child porn for sending naked photos of themselves, and they think these are Bad Things. And yet, not only do I see no will to change these things, I see little to no awareness that they can be changed. They’re accepted like bad weather or landscape features: something to be put up with and worked around. There’s little awareness, either, that it ever was feasible to campaign to change those laws. Look at this thread, for instance: http://ask.metafilter.com/47315/Will-there-someday-be-a-pedophile-rights-group

I don’t think you have any way of knowing that basic cultural assumptions cannot change in this area any more than I can know that they will change. “The future is not ours to see,” as the song goes. As recently as the 1980s in the Scandinavian countries they had rational policies in this area of life. The current climate in the US was created by a combination of evangelical puritanism and a man-hating brand of feminism. (Odd bed-fellows, really). Those political influences will not be so powerful forever. There is nothing impossible about the Scandinavian perspective becoming dominant at some point. (Read Sandfort “Boys on Their Contacts With Men” if you doubt the accuracy of what I am saying. Its also a useful book for describing what we are actually talking about. It’s not about the violent rape of 3 year old girls.) A more interesting question is what rational social policies in this area might be.

I’ve read the Sandfort. 🙂 Of course I don’t know that attitudes won’t change. I have no idea what things may be like in ten or twenty years. I simply find myself frustrated at the moment by the lack of reaction in some quarters to directly experienced injustices. For instance, I’ve met at various points several men who were given a bad scare and a broken heart in their teens when they had a somewhat younger girlfriend and irate parents ended the relationship by threatening to bring statutory rape charges. And when I try to nudge the conversation in the direction of “well don’t you think perhaps something should be done…you know the age of consent is fourteen or fifteen in a lot of places…” there’s not much interest. Likewise with parents of young children: once you get talking, many will say that they think childhood sex play is healthy, but that they don’t dare allow it in the current climate, and just leave it at that. I have very little luck stirring up indignation. Well, quite likely I am trying the wrong people or the wrong approach. I never was much use as a rabble-rouser.
But I do worry that there’s an extremely heavy boulder to shift at this point, because it’s not just that paedophiles are anathema, or that anyone under sixteen or eighteen is off-limits, but that many people condemn any relationship with a wide age difference. A rule frequently used is ‘half your age plus seven’: a fourteen-year-old may date no-one younger than fourteen, a thirty-year-old may date no-one younger than twenty-two, a sixty-year-old may date no-one younger than thirty-seven, etc., otherwise it’s ‘creepy’, ‘skeevy’, ‘weird’, adjective of your choice. A bigtime guru of the sex-positive, socially-liberal set is Dan Savage, who is on record as saying, about the Rind et al. study, “Speaking as a survivor of CSA at fourteen with a twenty-two-year-old woman; sex at fifteen with a thirty-year-old man–I can back the researchers up; I was not traumatized by these technically illegal sexual encounters; indeed, I initiated them and cherish their memory.” And yet this is someone for whom no kink is too kinky and nothing is off-limits, *except* paedophilia: he reserves his sympathy for ‘gold star’, i.e. celibate, paedophiles, and his advice to them is to stay away from kids forever and consider chemical castration.

I’ve thought and tried to put my finger more precisely on what I’m getting at in the second part of my answer above. I think it’s that our culture’s views on what an ideal relationship should look like have shifted quite a bit since the big wave of paedophile activism. In Some Boys, published in 1970, Michael Davidson defends his habit of paying for sex with teenaged boys by saying that all relationships are based not just on exchange (that I’d agree with) but specifically on financial exchange. He uses, if I remember correctly, the example of a young man buying his betrothed jewellery, or something along those lines. His argument would not go down very well with most socially-liberal types today. Many couples split the tab on dates, many women outearn their husbands. Likewise, the idea of a man initiating a boy into sex (which isn’t even an accurate picture of many man-boy relationships) was perhaps at one time more familiar and comfortable, slotting more neatly into the existing heterosexual paradigm, than now: most liberal-minded people now recognise that the idea that a teenaged boy should show his girlfriend the ropes, as part of the natural order of things, is messed up in all sorts of ways. Any new paedophile activism is going to have to take on board the good things about this social shift while somehow also arguing against the bad things about it, like the extremely strong and pervasive idea that, at least if the younger party is under thirty or so, wide age-gaps in a relationship are usually iffy to creepy.

I appreciate your thoughtful response. One thing I will be interested in seeing is just how narrow the columns will be if we keep replying to replies. Will it eventually work its way down to single letters, and then to half letters? So, anyhow here is a quick reply to your reply. For most practical intents and purposes, there is not really much difference between us. Well, needless to say, I am less than enthusiastic about Savage’s advise that we should “stay away from kids forever and consider chemical castration.” But I would not encourage a person to enter into the kind of relationships described by Sandfort in the present social/legal climate. That, however, is because of the cruel, unvirtuous, and damaging response of society if the relationship is discovered. Not because such relationships are intrinsically damaging. (Society does not have the high moral ground on this issue. Majority opinion ? high moral ground.) I think that this is an important distinction that we should continue to insist upon. At some point it may make a difference.

Looks like that poem in Alice in Wonderland doesn’t it, tailing off thinner and thinner…apropos since this is a paedophile blog! I absolutely agree with you that that is a crucial distinction to make and keep making. I also think that we are in some ways in a very strong place with regard to the new relationship ideals. The sort of people who consider themselves ‘straight allies’ of gay people, who are open about fetishes, etc., usually try these days to uphold a standard of ‘enthusiastic consent’ and continual sexual communication and negotiation. Fine, great, we have nothing to fear from that once we get down to the facts rather than the prejudices (if anyone will listen!). Since you mention the Sandfort, it contains many unimpeachable examples of such situations. Kees, fifteen, on sex with Max, fifty-seven: “If he has some special desire he asks me if I want to do it too, and if I don’t for some reason, he says, ‘okay’, that’s fine by him.” Erik, ten, on sex with Edward, fifty-seven: “Edward suggests it, and then we usually talk over what we are going to do. Usually we go lie down in bed, and then he starts stroking me and that’s how it begins.” None of the newly-minted advocates of affirmative consent and yes-means-yes could possibly find fault there if they weren’t told the partners’ ages.

I just wanted to see what happens when I reply to a column of text already down to a single word…

Im only in mid thirties i remember talking to a friend about thai women on dating websites,saying how nice some are,and that 18 20y olds can go for men 40 50 and older,he said you dont want that you dont want people thinking your a…..
it seems social norms in whats”correct”are trying to re write human nature.

Yep, you could say that!

really scandinavian countries had rational policies on the subject of MAPs
please tell me more,all i know of sweden dont go there if your a man
and certainly dont go there if you like prostitutes.

Criminalisation of buying sex is a pretty new thing. I think the Swedish law dates from 1999. There are many strong arguments against it being made from a feminist perspective by advocates of sex workers’ rights. A couple of good summaries: http://www.sexworkeropenuniversity.com/uploads/3/6/9/3/3693334/swou_ec_swedish_abolitionism.pdf ; http://www.humanrightseurope.org/2014/02/witness-sonja-dolinsek-respecting-the-rights-of-sex-workers-in-our-democratic-societies/

Mr. P. My understanding is that back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s most of the Scandinavian countries were very permissive about almost any kind of consensual sex. With regard to intergenerational sex, they pretty much ignored it unless somebody complained. They have, unfortunately, been influenced since then by the U.S.. Holland also was much more progressive during those years, and it has taken a huge turn for the worse.

The situation in Sweden at least is a bit more complicated than that – contrary to popular perceptions outside of Europe, the Swedes are a pretty conservative and conformist society in lots of ways. They may have had few legal restrictions on sexuality before the 1990s, but there have always been plenty of strong cultural taboos and social expectations which have helped to keep Sweden’s tightly-regulated social democracy afloat. The criminalisation of purchasing sex in 1999 was really a distinctively Swedish kind of ‘social engineering’ rather than an imported form of American sexual conservatism. There’s a good article from the LRB blog about Swedish society and prostitution – compulsory reading, I’d hope, for MPs who want Britain to follow the “Swedish model.” http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2014/01/20/valeria-costa-kostritsky/on-malmskillnadsgatan/

43
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
Scroll to Top