Raised, and brought low, on the registry

Sod me! Two six-year-old boys in the US have been charged with sodomy!
And first degree sodomy at that, which applies under Kentucky law when a victim is under 12 years old. In a case from that state, the two first graders “were found in the bathroom performing sexual acts” together, according to a report highlighted last month on Sexnet. As the pair were each other’s “victims”, they had both allegedly committed a Class A felony against a person under 12, for which the available penalty would ordinarily be 50 years in prison.
Even worse, the only media report of the prosecution focuses not on the craziness of bringing the case but on parental shock and horror that kids would do such a thing.
Not that we are entirely sure what “the thing” was. Sodomy is defined in Kentucky law as “deviate sexual intercourse”, which means “any act of sexual gratification involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another. It also means penetration of the anus of one person by a foreign object manipulated by another person.” Doctors have long known it’s not uncommon for little kids to try sticking things in each other’s bums, but I’m guessing the boys in this case were caught doing something more obviously sexual. After all, who is going to make a big fuss when an “innocent” explanation is available? It is not clear whether all the acts in question were seen directly but one or both of the boys may have “confessed” anyway.
In most jurisdictions, though, even a clear admission could not have resulted in criminal charges against children so young. A few countries, including India, have a minimum age of criminal responsibility as low as 7. In England, also on the low side in the international table, it is 10. In Canada and the Netherlands it is 12, in Germany and Spain 14, and in all five Scandinavian countries it is as high as 15.
But the US, as so often, is exceptional. Along with a handful of countries including such enlightened outposts as Somalia and Sudan, there are no fewer than 37 US states that specify no minimum age of criminal responsibility at all. Kentucky is one of them.
As for continental Europe, the cultural contrast goes beyond criminal responsibility. Some heretics will remember a couple of blogs here last year, one of them about a four-year-old boy in America dubbed a sex “predator”, the other about the more positive view of child sexuality taken in Scandinavian kindergartens: Being a predator is child’s play; and Mickey and Maria make out in kindergarten.
On another forum, Sexnet, an elderly professor said he was puzzled over the fuss about the American pre-school “predator”. Writing about his childhood in Germany, he said:

I had my first orgasm at 8 when humping a willing naked girl of 6. In the next 3 years, I, some male friends and some girls in the neighborhood (all of the same age) played all kinds of sex games. When, at age 11, we were finally discovered and scolded by our parents, we felt no guilt at all and thought the adults were crazy.

So they were chastised, but that was as far as any punishment went. This was not seen as a police matter and certainly not an occasion for criminal charges.
The four-year-old American “predator” got lucky. There was a police investigation and the kindergarten was closed down (natch!) but he never faced charges. Increasingly, others are less fortunate. In both the US and the UK more and more kids find themselves acquiring a record as a sex offender very early in life. And once that record is there, it stays: the dreaded sex offender registry schemes give a dog a bad name for ever, with devastating effects – as detailed in last years’ Human Rights Watch report, Raised on the Registry.
The 111-page report begins with an account of what happened to one victim of the registry:

Jacob C. was 11 years old and living in Michigan when he was tried in juvenile court for touching, without penetrating, his sister’s genitals. Found guilty of one count of criminal sexual conduct, Jacob was placed on Michigan’s sex offender registry and prevented by residency restriction laws from living near other children.
This posed a problem for his family – Jacob’s parents were separated, his father lived in Florida, and Jacob could not live in the same house as his little sister. As a result, he was placed in a juvenile home. When Jacob was 14 – and still unable to return home – he became the foster child of a pastor and his wife. According to Jacob, the couple helped him to “deal with the trauma” of growing up on the registry.
Since his offense fell under juvenile court jurisdiction, Jacob was placed on a non-public registry. But that changed when he turned 18 during his senior year in high school, and his status as a sex offender became public. Parents of his schoolmates tried to get him expelled and he had to “fight to walk across the stage” at graduation. Jacob attended a local university in Big Rapids, Michigan, but ended up dropping out. “[I was] harassed for being on the registry,” he said. “The campus police followed me everywhere.”

There’s more, much more. Aged 26 when the report came out, Jacob, finds his life is still being massively screwed up by the registry. Thanks to a violation of some impossibly stringent sex offender rules, including reporting daily to the police, he has lost visitation rights to a daughter he now has.
Yet available research, the report points out, indicates that youth sex offenders are among the least likely to reoffend. As a press release for the report said:

Numerous studies estimate the recidivism rate among children who commit sexual offenses to be between 4 and 10 percent, compared with a 13 percent rate for adult sex offenders and a national rate of 45 percent for all crimes.

Also, while some of the offences are serious, you can get on the register for consensual sex with another kid, and for harmless behaviour such as public nudity.
The report concludes with some shocking quotes from those who were raised on the registry:

Once while attempting to register my address, a police officer refused to give me the paperwork and instead stated, “We’re just taking your kind out back and shooting them.”
– Maya R., placed on the registry for an offense committed at age 10. Howell, Michigan.
One time a man from one of those cars yelled “child molester” at me. A week later several bullets were fired from a car driving by. The bullets went through the living room window as my family and me watched T.V.
– Camilo F., registrant since age 14. Gainesville, Florida.
Neighbors harassed our family. We later found out that one of the neighbors shot our family dog.
– Jasmine A., mother of Zachary S., who has been on the registry since age 11. Dallas, Texas.
For sex offenders, our mistake is forever available to the world to see. There is no redemption, no forgiveness. You are never done serving your time. There is never a chance for a fresh start. You are finished. I wish I was executed, because my life is basically over.
– Austin S., who started registering at age 14. Denham Springs, Louisiana.

A big irony in all this is that the kids in question are almost invariably described in legal, medical and political discourse as violent, yet the life- and soul-destroying hostility they face is far more violent than anything most of them have ever done.
Another excellent source on this is defence lawyer Andrew Heller. In a chapter of Tom Hubbard’s recent book Censoring Sex Research, he notes that the US Department of Justice describes sexual “aggression” as starting with three-year-olds, with the most common age of onset as 6 to 9 – which sounds suspiciously like an official state condemnation of all child sexuality.
Heller also reveals that violence of a far more insidious kind than drive-by shootings is endemic within the “treatment” regimes meted out to these kids. Some of it just plain abusive, such as teenagers being made daily to recite creeds such as “I am a paedophile and I am not fit to live in human society…I can never be trusted… Everything I say is a lie…”
Then there is stuff which is not just abusive but sexually abusive. He tells of boys as young as 10 forced to undergo sexual arousal testing in which response to “deviant” stimuli is measured by an erection detector placed around the penis. Programs include the use of aversion therapy in which kids (including girls) are made to inhale vile-smelling ammonia while listening to pornographic taped descriptions of adult-child sex, as an aversion therapy to stop “inappropriate” arousal.
These are the sort of methods that were used on gay men fifty years ago and then abandoned as unethical and dangerous. Yet, according to Heller, “no professional organisation has made any statements rejecting the use of arousal conditioning methods on juveniles and they continue to be used”.
Back to Kentucky. As the case of the six-year-old sodomites was presented on Sexnet only last month, I assumed it was a new case, yet to come to trial. The news report linked above is undated, so I was none the wiser from that. With a bit more digging, though, I found that this was actually a case from February 2005. When I discovered this, I thought about dropping the story from this blog: after all, the report Raised on the Registry is much more recent and it too exposes the awful fact that large numbers of preteens, as well as teens, are being prosecuted as sex offenders these days.
However, apart from the continuing intrinsic interest of such exceptionally young kids facing a sodomy charge in the Kentucky case, there was another reason to retain it as my initial focus: my research turned up a couple of later media reports from May 2005, three months after the charges were laid: Investigation Into Elementary School Sex; and Arrests of boys spark debate.
By this time the case had gone to court and been resolved. The judge had dismissed the charges with the condition that the boys were to undergo treatment.
Not “arousal conditioning”, one hopes. And not registration either, as the earliest for this in the US is the grand old age of 9, according to Raised on the Registry.
We don’t know about the kind of treatment, but one of the reports did give us some insight into why police and prosecutors had felt the need to take such extreme action. They claimed their intention had not been to punish; rather, they needed to charge the boys to determine whether adults had abused one or both of them, triggering their behaviour at school.
Police Chief J. Craig Patterson is quoted as saying, “They are both victims of someone. I want to know: ‘Where did these children learn this?’ ”
You know what? It’s entirely possible this cop actually believed what he was saying. The idea of spontaneous childhood sexuality has been written out of our cultural script so thoroughly that for many people it can no longer be imagined. It has become literally unthinkable.
We know that kids need good sex education; not as much, though, as many ignorant adults in positions of power.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
133 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cyril
gantier99

How about this for world gone mad:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/nov/05/lena-dunham-statement-abuse-claims
The comments after the linked article give a good illustration of PC-meltdown. The people who read that newspaper like this girl but they are confused by her actions as a randy child/teenager. Should they now accept child abuse /incest as a Not Necessarily Bad Thing? Or should they disown their hero and stop watching “Girls”? Difficult!

Peter

The World has gone mad *and* it is getting madder.
I usually don’t waste my time reading what shallow celebs do, and indeed I’ve not even seen this woman acting, but I will comment on it. From what I’ve seen, this seems to me simply child sexual exploration. And subsequently another non-entity seeking publicity.

gantier99

this seems to me simply child sexual exploration
Hi Peter! Goes on to describe how she would as a 17 year old masturbate in the presence of her 11 year old sister, and other juicy details, is what is being quoted from the book in the comments. No big deal for me or you, and I have no means of verifying, but it is fun watching the reactions of the Guardian readers, and that was the point of the comment really. Sure, this woman may not go down as one of the cultural giants of Western civilisation, but as comedians go she does her job well. I wouldn’t want to use the term non-entity (sounds a tad elitist) about anyone really, particularly not someone who has been open about her deviating sexual behaviour, for whatever reasons.

Peter

🙂 Hi! Granted your criticism of my elitism. Fair point.
As regards the elder sibling masurbating in front of the younger (and these days probably post-puberty anyway), I am sure you will agree this is most wholesome.
It is not only dishonest, but also a shame, that people make masturbation into a dirty secret. And this causes the young to continue the feelings of guilt and shame to others.
Isn’t it odd how married couples, who obviously copulate, secretly masturbate?

Peter

I too saw that TV documentary. You are probably right. Those ‘Feminazis’ simply hate anything male.
Some years ago I foolishly had a sexual attraction to one. She instead enjoyed teasing and belittling me. She could be very cruel.
I eventually realised that she had no intention of having sex with me. She was what psychologists call ‘cerebral’ rather than ‘somatic’.
I learnt that her father mentally and physically bullied his daughter throughout her childhood. Therefore she spent her entire adult life getting revenge on men.
However, she was not fully celibate. Instead, she told me that there was one type of man she was attracted to (tall and silver-haired). Guess what? Yes, just like her father! And she did “fall in love” with one such fellow, but he tragically died soon after of a serious disease.
Now she is like the old spinsters of the distant past. With no beauty left, IMO, to attract another man.

Peter

Thank you very much for your excellent response. It answered all that can be on a subjective subject.
That is me back to the drawing board! And TBH, frightened to tread as close as I originally planned. How I regret stating that!
To me, this whole mindset by our lawmakers is nothing more than social control and vote winning of the “moronic majority”.
As we all probably believe, senior polticians are some of the most immoral people. That they order soldiers to kill others (most often civilians nowadays) for their personal political gain. And there are numerous rumours of them truely abusing very young children. I am confident your intelligent readership would never knowingly harm a child.
Thanks.

gantier99

I am confident your intelligent readership would never knowingly harm a child
Thanks for the benefit of the doubt Peter 🙂 Just a couple of thoughts here, they are not new or original but they spring to mind:
1. Even “normal” relationships have their share of abusers. It’s just accepted as a sad fact of life. Doesn’t make abuse in atypical relationships the more acceptable for that, but standards seem to be set higher the further from the norm you are. Compare for instance becoming a parent (your right to conceive and give birth is generally not questioned) with the stringent processes involved for adoption.
2. A great word I came across here is iatrogenic as in iatrogenic harm. Meaning (roughly and sloppily) that perceived harm can result not so much from events themselves but reactions to them.

James

I’d say the main source of abuse is assholes who don’t care about other people as independent agents. I believe these people are sprinkled relatively evenly throughout genders and sexualities. However, I will say that, in our current society, an adult asshole in an inter-generational relationship can cause more damage more effectively than in a peer relationship.
Also, “iatrogenic” more accurately refers to the harm caused by an attempt to treat a malady. In the context of this blog, it commonly refers to the effects of legal interventions which, while trying to protect children, hurt them instead. Of course, around here its usage has kind of expanded to include all social harm. Sort of like how I used to sort of understand what other feminists meant when they said ‘Rape Culture’ but at this point I think the term encompasses pretty much everything.

gantier99

Hi James yes I basically agree with you, but can we really classify people as rigidly as assholes or non-assholes? Isn’t that a tad digital? And thanks for putting me right about iatrogenic. I rather like the wider definition though, hijacking words and tweaking their meanings can be a useful guerilla tactic…. 🙂

James

I didn’t really intend for it to be a black/white distinction. I just meant that, for the most part, it wont happen without some asshole-ish-ness. (Though I suppose stress/ignorance can bring out some of the same effects in the absence of “asshole-ish-ness”).
“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle (sic) their pockets for new vocabulary”
~James Nicoll

Peter

Hi, we here in Britain were very much the same with the sale of ‘pornography’.
Indeed, in recent years we went from both looking at 16-17yo images *and* being allowed to have sex with them, to now only the sexual contact.
How illogical is that!? So if I masturbate to photos of naked 16-17yo’s I am breaking the Law, yet I can copulate with them. Also, we are not allowed to view Lolicon cartoons. At least you Americans can.
I think this 18+ nonsense was finalised with those ‘2257’ disclaimers one sees on websites. Since then the publisher ‘Just Seventeen’ had to use models of at least 18 years. The World has gone mad!

Peter

Thanks Tom for taking the time to provide us with that information. TBH my mind is confused by all the legal combinations.
What I would welcome, from the readership please, is a ‘Plain English’ summary (in one or two paragraphs only) of what is legal in Britain. This must be a nightmare for artists to keep within the Law.
And this includes erotic writing. At what minimum age can one write about, whether stipulated or inferred? UK-only please.
Also, could/would someone please explain how a non-real image is considered as wrong as a real one? I just don’t get it! The answerer can either be in disagreement or agreement with the laws.
My reason for asking is for my plans to write some erotica, plus also have erotic computer art on my pending websites. Is 3D considered too realistic?
Much of this will portray as young as British law will allow.
Many thanks!

Peter

Hi Tom and fellow readers. To add a sensible and rational opinion about child erotica/porn, I recently discovered this website link:
http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade/
Do not panic! There is nothing legal to worry about here. The post is by Swedish IT entrepreneur and censorship campaigner Rick Falkvinge. He also founded the famous Pirate Party movement, which consists of The Pirate Bay Company. Similar to Tor.
I think his proposal is a breath of fresh air. See what you all think.

feinmann0

Good find Peter!
There is a similar blog at cpexplosion.wordpress.com/ started about eight years ago, and, for some time now, dormant. It aims to: explode ‘the lies, myths, doublespeak, and shoddy journalism surrounding child pornography. Advocating for the establishment of a legal, safe, regulated market for child pornography.’ It contains some great quotes such as this one from Robert A. Heinlein:
‘Whenever any government, or any church, or anyone else for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects: “This book you may not read, this film you may not watch, this image you may not see, this knowledge you may not have,” then the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives.’

feinmann0

Within the cpexplosion blog, one conclusion reads as follows: ‘We in the United States (along with much of the Western world) have lost our collective minds concerning the subject of child porn. The blind acceptance of government and law enforcement rhetoric, no matter how ridiculous and unsubstantiated it is, smacks more of McCarthyism, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Salem witch trials than of a democracy where free thought and debate are the rule.’
I can identify with this. I was found guilty of cp possession. The due process involved questioning, conviction, judgement and imprisonment. During that process I felt like the fictional character, Pierre Bezukhov in the courtroom scene in Tolstoy’s epic novel War and Peace:
‘These questions, like questions put at trials generally, left the essence of the matter aside, shut out the possibility of that essence’s being revealed, and were designed only to form a channel through which the judges wished the answers of the accused to flow so as to lead to the desired result, namely a conviction. As soon as Pierre began to say anything that did not fit in with that aim, the channel was removed and the water could flow to waste. Pierre felt, moreover, what the accused always feel at their trial, perplexity as to why these questions were put to him. He had a feeling that it was only out of condescension or a kind of civility that this device of placing a channel was employed. He knew he was in these men’s power, that only by force had they brought him there, that force alone gave them the right to demand answers to their questions, and that the sole object of that assembly was to inculpate him. And so, as they had the power and wish to inculpate him, this expedient of an inquiry and trial seemed unnecessary. It was evident that any answer would lead to conviction.’

gantier99

Every word so true. Thanks.

Peter

Excellent feedback thanks. I will have a look at that blog.
It seems you’ve suffered most badly for just being a “normal” person. And I mean so, as it is perfectly natural to be aroused by naked/sexual imagery, whatever one’s personal taste is.

David Kennerly

I think that there are others, including some here, who could deliver better arguments for re-legalizing child porn. The problem is that so many feel so qualified to discuss it, like childhood sexuality in general, who know virtually nothing about it. Worse, they possess BAD information. I do give Falkvinge credit for his courage, even if his head is not in the right place by some considerable distance.
As I age (admittedly), I come to see “hipsterism” of the type on display by the “Pirate Party” as being extremely light on actual substance even if partially compensated for by a few meritorious virtues such as an ardor for liberty. I am sadly reminded of my own generation’s nearly identical failings in which we failed to provide for the sustenance of our ideals through an appreciation for, especially, property rights and their capacity to secure liberty on a meaningful timescale.
Pity how we are forced to take courage and to derive hope from lesser-lights when far more capable ones have been extinguished or locked-away in one form of cupboard or another. We even become briefly enthusiastic.
That’s not a criticism of others as I readily acknowledge my own fleeting excursions into unwarranted optimism 🙂 I include the ” 🙂 ” to indicate that you should not take me entirely seriously on this point or, perhaps, any other.
I appear to be ‘waxing philosophical’ today, don’t I? Less painful, perhaps, than the increasingly popular trend in which adolescent boys wax their pubic areas!
What in the world to make of that??
It BOGGLES the imagination!

Peter

😀 Really good words, David, and funny too. BTW, since I was 16, I’ve shaved by whole genital area, including my rear end.
Yes, the writer is more a businessman than an intellectual, but at least he had (as you state) the courage. And maybe that is all we individually need.

David Kennerly

Thank you Peter. I find that I am, increasingly, in a struggle not to become my own father or grandfather, what with my growing propensity for tsk-tsking the younger generation for their rapidly growing hair! And the facial hair! Jeesh! Are they not able to benefit from our own poorly-conceived stylistic experiments? No, apparently not. I think a fine evolutionary trait might be to develop a wider repertoire of racial-memory attributes, starting with an innate sense for the ideal length of hair.
It sounds as though you have long been waging your own counter-“depilation”, what with your “close shaves” and all. I’m afraid that, on myself, I would find it most unconvincing nor do I think it would likely improve my prospects in any other way that really matters. I am stuck wearing this hair-shirt of chastity whether or not I am “hirsute”.
I’m thinking that we may have pushed Tom to record high numbers for comments even if they are not reliably high-minded.
Now leave me to my park bench senescence that I might throw breadcrumbs to the pigeons. At least, THEY can still have it off. Lucky bastards!

James

Thank God for small mercies and fellow travelers. When is the last time a 21st century politician came out in favour of decriminalisation? I think this is fine, by the standards of its (non-existent) competition.
But I do see your point and sympathise with your frustration.

James

Thank you! I’ve kept forgetting to link to it myself. Saw that a year ago when I was first exploring all this stuff with MAPs and what have you. I liked it a lot – managed to convince me for the first time – and showed it to my parents. Suffice to say they were less impressed.

mr p

Have you heard of the artist Mike Diana,the worst of boiled Angel,I think he created that just to offend lol

Dissident

And you will notice how deliberately vague and subjective the prohibition is against certain images which are declared “obscene.” What in the name of the gods is “obscene” supposed to mean in a purportedly democratic society? What obscenity law basically comes down to is this: Did the right person, in the right position, in your specific jurisdiction (or sometimes even outside of it) get sufficiently offended at a certain image you possessed, or which you looked at and possibly received some sort of “improper” gratification from viewing? It’s meant to be as subjective as it sounds, and it often comes down to what the judge and/or jury of your specific case happens to feel by the end of the trial or hearing. This has resulted in people, like Steve Knox, actually getting indicted not for the nature of the imagery in their possession per se, but for what it was believed they were thinking when they looked at it (in Knox’s case, images of fully clothed underage cheerleaders publicly conducting their routines, but wearing outfits and in positions that he happened to find sexually enticing).
The court that sentenced Mr. Knox simply wanted to punish him for “degrading” the “innocence” of those cheerleaders by thinking such thoughts about them.

Peter

Also thanks to @Dissident on the two responses.
Obscenity:
I couldn’t have put my opinion better than what you wrote.
The case of Mr Knox fills me with disdain. His prosecutors have attacked our thinking, never mind our acting on something. This is most menacing and threatens our whole liberty.
Somehow we rational and liberal people have to counter this, before it is too late. Once we lose our liberty we will never get it back!
Nudity:
Without offending the Americans amongst us here, a high number of them do have a particular problem with nakedness.
I often can see an attractive person that is naked and not be stimulated. And fully covered and yet be aroused. It’s all about context and that person’s personality.
As regards “under age” nudity, I think it is obscene that mankind is not allowed to appreciate and admire the beauty of youth. We like looking at flowers, puppies, etc, because they are beautiful things. Children are not withered by age.
Lastly actress Ms Dunsk. Have you noticed several celebrities lately are coming out with such pathetic statements? Why go public? Surely not ‘psychological deflection’, I say with my tongue in cheek.
I hope TOC will allow that last sentence! [TOC adds: Certainly not! 🙂 ]
Cheers.

feinmann0

I think Mathew Parris sums it up rather well when he says: “It seems to me a useful general principle in law, on to which we might try where possible to hang, that people should be punished for what they do rather than what they may be thought likely to do, or what they want to see, or what they might think while they are seeing it. To look at pictures is a kind of fantasising. We can call a picture to the mind’s eye, or we can call up a picture on a screen. That the latter involves a tiny but observable physical action may allow lawmakers to decree that in this case, but not the first, the individual has made the picture, but this, I suggest, is not the real reason for prosecuting him. The real reason is that he indulged a fantasy of which we disapprove. It unsettles me that this should become a crime.” London Times, January 20, 2003.

mr p

Also they had a bloke done for recording legal films documentaries etc,they got him on the fact that he recorded just nude sections,and candid sections
which were for his gratification.To be honest i have recorded sexy clips of films sports etc,even when in a relationship,it was part but not all the reason we finished,she would come in and punch and kick at me in the chair,I retaliated once,not proud of that,she never saw any minors on there though.

Linca

This thread of thought on art came to my mind as I was watching a documentary now available on BBC Player “Schama on Rembrandt: Masterpieces of the Late Years”. Right towards the end there was an explanation of Rembrandt’s “The Jewish Bride”. It is all about hands, loving hands. Simon Schama says “The Jewish Bride” is the greatest painting of love there ever has been.
I wondered as I looked at the painting what if instead of a man and a girl Rembrandt had painted a man and a boy in such a pose. Today he would have been arrested I am sure. Man and boy love is rape in the sick minds of people like the late Andrea Dworkin. We gotta get mad about the dirt road we have been led down. Nonsense is the only word to describe Andrea Dworkin.
Here is “The Jewish Bride”:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zVRkh3GtSQw/ThoZJFdSF9I/AAAAAAAAAdM/vXzLVRo9vIU/s1600/Rembrandt+-Jewish+Bride+copy.jpg
Linca

mr p

Thanks Linca, but she looks a bit chubby for my taste·:-)

feinmann0

and Linca, this from the Wiki entry describing the painting: according to Rembrandt biographer Christoper White, the completed composition is “one of the greatest expressions of the tender fusion of spiritual and physical love in the history of painting.”
also, if the painting was of a man and a boy, the man’s hand would be placed at at a significantly lower altitude ;o)

Dissident

This, Peter, reminds me of a statement made by American actress Kirsten Dunst back in the 1990s as to why she refused to do a nude scene in movies at the age of 19. She personally felt that at 19 she was “too young” to do a nude scene. I really don’t understand how the typical American mindset works, and why someone has to be specifically, say, 23 years old before it’s “okay” for the beauty of their nude form to be admired. At least without the admirer being considered immoral for having this sort of admiration, that is.

A.

I dunno…do you have the whole quote? Because to be fair to Kirsten Dunst (whom I don’t know beans about) she may have meant that she felt she wasn’t strong enough in herself, at only nineteen, to cope with having her naked body criticised somewhere on the Internet, as it surely would have been, or to be called a slut somewhere in the recesses of the Internet or of the gutter press for appearing naked on camera, as she surely would have been. She may have thought it was a bad career move to do a nude scene so soon. Or she may just have been trying to politely put off the nosy reporter who asked her the question. Bigtime actors under close media scrutiny live in a different world to the rest of us.

A.

To back up the first part of what I’m saying here, try Googling “Kirsten Dunst ugly” or “Kirsten Dunst slut” or “Kirsten Dunst whore”, dig around some, see what you find. Here’s one I turned up in under a minute, under the title “Hollywood is filled with whores” (some casting couch rumour): “I can’t honestly say I’ve ever had my penis in a bear trap, but the idea is a hell of a lot more appealing that [sic] my penis in a troll like Kirsten. At least I could put some lipstick on the bear trap and kinda make it look like a human girl. Good luck doing that with Kirsten Dunst. Seriously, If [sic] I had to choose between sex with Kirsten Dunst or sex with a dead Filipino boy, I would at least find out what the kid died of.” Elsewhere we have “Kirsten Dunst is an ugly slutty cow” and elswehere again, under the title “Kirsten Dunst’s sloppy boobs”, “God they horrible than she flaunts them” (????). Etc. etc., you get the picture.

James

Well, fuck. I knew it would be terrible but, yet again, I was insufficiently pessimistic. But seriously, from an incentives point of view, why would anyone do this?

A.

I can think of three possibilities:
— The person is a nasty piece of work.
— The person is not really nasty but they are trying to demonstrate their superiority and do some group bonding along the way. When I was right out of university I knew somebody who would make fun of her ex-boyfriend’s small penis to her female friends, and I think those were the reasons why.
— The person is spoiled in this department. I guess it is hard for those of us who grow up with a non-standard sexuality to imagine what it must be like to be a man attracted to, as the phrase is, 22-year-old blonde skinny chicks. Practically all the sexy photos in the ads and the magazines, and also most mainstream porn, cater to people who like “22YOBSC” (and also shape a preference and demand for them — it’s a bit chicken-and-egg). People with this preference are served an abudant diet of photos of very young, extremely beautiful women whose beauty is enhanced beyond anything you’d actually find in the real world by cosmetics, fancy hairdos, special clothes and lighting and camera angles, sometimes cosmetic surgery, and usually lots and lots of Photoshop. So they get spoiled, and they get the message that what they like is appealing to a whole lot of other people, and they also develop a subconscious expectation that their preference in visual titillation will and should always be catered to. Then an actress is served up to them with a fair amount of media fanfare, and lo and behold, they don’t happen to find her attractive, sexual attraction being the individual and variable thing that it is. Well, that’s JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH. They expect better quality than this. They are accustomed to better. What’s wrong with everyone, expecting them to accept this trash?

James

LOL. This is interesting. 1 is the Asshole Theory. 2 is a social-signaling model. 3 is what I believe mainstream feminists refer to as “Male Entitlement”. (Though, LBR, there’s a female analog.)
I think it may be a mixture of these. Particularly, I think 2 and 3 feed off of each other. People have their specific preferences catered for which generates entitlement. When their expectations are violated, they take a status-hit. To save face, they signal their own superiority and the superiority of their taste. Furthermore, they’re opinions of beauty were, to some extent, formed as a result of social signaling in their immediate environment. “These are the women you should be attracted to. All the high-status guys want them.” And, as any economist can tell you, the best way to send a signal is to actually believe it. So, of course, this becomes their attraction-default.

A.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Peter

Hi, I also get those dirty looks from parents and guardians. Young children really take to me and often smile/wave. Some even show off. Also, I receive many complimentary remarks/looks from mid-young teen girls. Usually when they’re in groups, after school, in the high street.
I don’t remember getting those unpleasant looks back in the “good old days”, before this mass hysteria started.

David Kennerly

Indeed not! They have become much more plentiful. I find myself most often around kids these days in airports and airplanes where I have spent too much time the last several months. Most of my interactions there are with very small children, since everyone seems to find THEM cute (and therefore, attention paid to them is generally graciously accepted). One three year old girl whom I briefly engaged in conversation, as she stood up in her seat and looked around the back to play peak-a-boo with me, sparked the now familiar ‘hostile young parent’ response from both of her parents. Nothing was said but you could tell that they considered any conversation between their child and strangers to be a failure on the stranger’s part to abide by now-standard unwritten rules of society. And the way to convey their displeasure is through simple blunt rudeness.
As I have said before, children who are taught never to speak to strangers grow up to become adults who never speak to strangers.
There is no doubt in my mind but that young adults today, on the whole, are of a much colder variety than those earlier.
Big surprise!

James

I find it kind of hard to imagine all this hostility. Nothing remotely approaching this occurs where I live. Adults in general are very much involved in the lives of children in general. There is no animosity of the type you describe. Of course, I live in a small, low violence, high trust society so maybe we’re just inherently different.

Peter

David’s experience is something I’ve quite often witnessed or suffered myself.
Without doubt, lack of adult-child interaction (non-sexual too) will lessen peoples’ social skills. Add to that, ‘Generation Y’ have been much glued to computers, and more recently, their tablets and smartphones.
I wish not to be unfairly critical of today’s young adults, as there is much I admire in them. And indeed, they have been lumbered with very much debt throughout their lives, because of the ‘Babyboomers’ and ‘Generation X’.
However, in my experience, they much lack empathy. We gain this firstly from our primary caregivers, then secondary caregivers, followed by our peers. With the financial pressures on modern parents, they work long hours and spend little ‘quality time’ with their children.
Also, young adults seem unable to relay sympathy, whether sincere or not. Nowadays it is common to see traits one used to only find in definite narcissists and sociopaths.

A.

More humorous good sense from Leach: she says that it’s not a good idea for parents to shriek and clutch for a towel if their child walks in on them in the bathroom, but a carefully staged nude parade is likely to baffle children; the point is to be relaxed about nakedness without making a big deal of it.
That police investigator could do with reading Havelock Ellis’s Sexual Inversion (1896), which I’ve just been digging through for evidence on pubertal timing. It’s full of stories of children who were raised in an atmosphere of repressive silence around sex nonetheless masturbating, engaging in sex play and feeling sexual attraction, sometimes to adults — all of this when they were well short of puberty. Two boys under ten put their penises in one another’s mouths (is this what the two boys in the news story were doing?) even though they had never seen or heard of doing such a thing: it was just “natural instinct”. One man recalls frequently playing sex games — mutual display, fellatio, and cunnilingus — with a group of boys and girls when they were all aged 5-14. The girls, he says, took the initiative as often as the boys.

A.

I recently came across an old copy of Penelope Leach’s Baby and Child, written in the 1970s and covering childcare for the years birth through age four. Leach gives parents the standard advice that it is normal for children to masturbate and not a problem unless it becomes truly compulsive, but that children who masturbate in public should be gently told to do so in private instead. She adds, however, that while a parent who walks in on their child “red faced and panting” is likely to be shocked, this is because adults prefer to think that children do not have any sexual feelings, “not because they either do not or should not have any”. Where has that good sense gone?
Another depressing realization: even those who know that playing doctor is normal will always advise that parents who discover it happening should gently put a stop to it, rather than letting it continue. But why, if it is harmless?
In places like Oklahoma, not only do they charge six-year-olds with sodomy, have no minimum age of criminal responsibility and try teenagers as adults, they also execute people, impose draconian prison sentences, try to restrict access to abortion and contraception, and promote abstinence-only sex ed in which kids are informed that girls must put the brakes on boys’ sexual desires and that girls who have sex before marriage are like battered flowers, or already-been-chewed gum, or spat-into cups, or bitten-into candy bars, or sticky tape that’s lost its sticky, or whatever the nasty little analogy du jour is. We shouldn’t forget that all of these things tend to go together.

James

“even those who know that playing doctor is normal will always advise that parents who discover it happening should gently put a stop to it, rather than letting it continue. But why, if it is harmless?”
I don’t get this either. It simply does not parse. The only explanation I can think of is that most people don’t think consequentially or are only selective Consequentialists, which is a depressing thought by itself.
“girls must put the brakes on boys’ sexual desires and that girls who have sex before marriage are like battered flowers, or already-been-chewed gum, or spat-into cups, or bitten-into candy bars, or sticky tape that’s lost its sticky”
I heard all these and more at my school. Have you heard the lock and key analogy? Basically: A key that opens many locks is very useful while a lock that can be opened by any key is useless. Guess who’s the lock and who’s the key?
Awful sex-negative bullshit. Kill it with fire.

A.

Oh, man. I hadn’t heard that one before.

James

Yep. Every time you think abstinence-only “education” has hit Peak Stupid, they prove their natural reserves to be boundless.

mr p

good point James,In my next life i dream of being a master Key

James

LOL.
(I assume you don’t actually think that’s a good point, right?)

Dissident

Nowadays, Dr. Leach’s successors would be afraid to publish such research, even if their data suggested it was true. They would worry about being condemned for revealing the data and going against the cherished public belief that has supplanted the scientific understanding and interest in this topic developed during the truly liberal decade of the 1970s. That was a decade where the Left of the time had courage and had sufficient principles not to vote in favor of any belief system that science could not back up, let alone refuted those beliefs.
Any university that funded the research of scientists like Dr. Leach today would be denied further state funding unless they agreed to fire the offending professor. This is a large reason why the rhetoric has changed so much since the onset of the sex abuse hysteria and the profitable industry that fuels it: Too many people in professional positions who know or suspect otherwise are too scared to say anything. Their careers have to be socially acceptable and politically correct in order to receive both fiscal and moral support from the world of academia and the powerful government influence behind it. Going against this belief today is viewed with the equivalent emotional outrage one could expect if they walked into a Catholic church located in the middle of a fervently Catholic nation and desecrated a statue of the Virgin Mary.

James

“That was a decade where the Left of the time had courage and had sufficient principles not to vote in favor of any belief system that science could not back up, let alone refuted those beliefs.”
I wouldn’t go so far as to say any belief system. This was the period when western academics started thinking you could overwrite human nature with public information campaigns and a nurturing home life. This is also when it started becoming popular to claim that there are no statistically significant differences between males and females. I’d say that, as usually, the political movement of the time embraced the facts that supported them and ignored (or shouted down) the rest. But yes, it was a better time as far as child sexuality research is concerned.
“emotional outrage one could expect if they walked into a Catholic church located in the middle of a fervently Catholic nation and desecrated a statue of the Virgin Mary.”
I can vouch that this would not be a good thing. I’m an atheist and even I’d be mildly offended. I think this country’s getting to me.

Dissident

What I meant to say was, the Left of the time would not embrace a belief system simply because it was popular. Since then, they have become fearful of defending any scientific research that public sentiment does not deem “safe.” This is why nowadays, the mainstream Left will gladly defend gay or transgender rights, but will unhesitatingly trample on MAPs or keep silent about the issue, all the while ignoring the research conducted by the likes of Okami, Sandfort, Green, Bailey, Rind, Tromovitch, and others in both the physical and social sciences that do not back up the popular consensus. In the 1970s you wouldn’t have had the entire Congress vote to condemn a paper like the Rind Report, which was produced with sound scientific methodology and fully peer reviewed, and without the slightest interest in sitting down and discussing the matter academically, as was the case in 1998. And in Britain, civil rights groups like Liberty’s predecessor didn’t risk their reputation by having open discussions and associations with PIE during the political atmosphere of the 1970s. Nowadays, the org is bending over backwards to condemn any politician who displayed anything remotely resembling an open-minded attitude towards the issues presented by PIE back then.
[TOC adds: I know what you mean, Dissident, and I agree with it; but when I first read it this confused me: “And in Britain, civil rights groups like Liberty’s predecessor didn’t risk their reputation by having open discussions and associations with PIE during the political atmosphere of the 1970s.” What I think you mean, correct me if I’m wrong, is more like this: “And in Britain, civil rights groups like Liberty’s predecessor were able to have open discussions and associations with PIE during the political atmosphere of the 1970s without risk to their reputation.” You are making strong points here. It would be a pity if anyone were to be left with the wrong idea about the old NCCL, which was a *proper* civil liberties organisation, unlike today’s Liberty which is a bit of a Sham (i Chakrabati).]

James

Ah, I see what you mean. Of course, it’s important to remember that popular and unpopular opinions vary quite a bit depending on one’s social circle. Overall, gay marriage is neither universally supported nor condemned in the US, yet the social grouping which comprises the open source movement is, as a whole, so far left that the CEO of Mozilla was forced to resign for not supporting it. I think it’s fair to say that, in the 70s, paedophile-rights were not as unpopular within the left.
(Thanks Tom! I was confused for a moment.)

Dissident

You are certainly correct there, James. Nowadays in the United States, however, the circle that is blatantly against gay marriage, and to some extent gay rights in general, is considered a *conservative* way of thinking, and not part of *mainstream* thought. It’s now considered politically “safe” under general principle to defend gay rights, including gay marriage. Such is not the case with MAP rights, or the overall issue of child/youth sexuality, of course. The attitude that these are *not* debatable issues in the first place still permeate mainstream thought, including that of the Left. In fact, the mainstream Left still has no overt interest in even acknowledging the platform of youth liberation, including the fact that they still often boast about being responsible for ending child labor in general, as opposed to simply sweat shop conditions.

mr p

I heard on the radio today,that family courts are going to give children more say regards to what parent they want to stay with,that could set a precedent.
It also reminds me of the letter TOC wrote to Frank Furedi.

Dissident

It’s nice to see any new bit of legislation that shows hope is on the horizon, Mr. P. Youth lib, like all past forms of emancipation, will occur in steps, sometimes a series of baby steps.

James

“the circle that is blatantly against gay marriage, and to some extent gay rights in general, is considered a *conservative* way of thinking, and not part of *mainstream* thought.”
At the moment it’s roughly half-half with the gay marriage side being slightly ahead. However, both views are popular enough to be considered part of the mainstream. That’s basically what it means for something to be controversial.
” they still often boast about being responsible for ending child labor in general”
To be fair, at the time of its abolition, almost all child labour was sweatshop labour.

Dissident

The thing is, the discussion of gay marriage is considered a legitimately *debatable* topic in the mainstream. Strong opposition to it is still considered a conservative belief, as it’s strongly supported by nearly ever Leftist. So I think the support is a bit more than half and half.
Also to be fair, sweat shop conditions were common for everyone employed in the early factory system prior to the establishment of unions, which led to the 40-hour workday, pension plans, and more humane working conditions in general. But when unions were first established, it was at a time when women were beginning to make real strides in their civil rights, including labor rights, and when younger people were losing them. Thus, when the unions came about, adults had enough power in them that they basically supported legislation that banned young people from the workplace altogether and established mandatory schooling until 16, largely to keep youths out of the labor force. As a result, younger people never got the opportunity to take advantage of the more humane conditions established in the workplace. Hence, many have doubts that the motives for eliminating most legal child labor had entirely pure motives, including youth liberationists Robert Epstein, who discussed this in his book TEEN 2.0, and former teacher John Taylor Gatto, who discussed this in much of his published work. The liberals of the time basically sacrificed the rights of youths to further the gains of women rather than working for both at once, much as contemporary liberals sacrificed the rights of MAPs to promote the rights of gays rather than working for both.

James

I’d be interested to know how child labour would even work, considering the fact that most young people have insufficient ability to effectively compete with adults in anything but the most menial jobs. Would everyone be expected to work? Would only the most skilled work? Would teens collect the dole? How would they represent themselves and organise? Who’d own the wages -the young workers or (as once was the case) their parents?

Dissident

Thank you for clarifying what I meant to say, Tom, and sorry about the confusion in the way I worded it. Of course, if that was an essay for the blog, you would be my editor, so I wouldn’t have that concern 🙂
Based on your point, I would argue that Liberty is a typical post-sex abuse hysteria org. Its predecessor thrived in an era when the issue of youth sexuality, of which intergenerational romance is a component of, was a politically *debatable* issue. Since the hysteria, that issue is now officially considered “off the table” for debate. This official status is now enforced to the point where members of Liberty are forced to retroactively change their stance and claim they were never giving any credence to the discussion in the first place, or get pilloried. The contemporary staff and writers for the American pro-gay magazine THE ADVOCATE do the same thing, including acting as if the current total rejection and vitriol spewed by the vanilla gay community against NAMBLA here in North America was in place from the earliest days of the organization’s existence (it was actually not until the early 1990s, arguably the heyday of the hysteria, that NAMBLA was completely banned from any public activity of the gay community, such as the Gay Pride parades, and that largely due to heavy pressure from UNICEF).
The fact that there was a different political atmosphere prior to the onset of the sex abuse hysteria in the 1980s is something that the ideologues of today are determined to “retcon” from the historical record (to use popular comic book vernacular) in order to perpetuate the lie that the attitudes of the past 35 years were universal throughout human history, as if it’s a “natural” aspect of the human psyche rather than an attitude specific to a certain moral panic during a particular point in time. Hence, there may no longer be what may be considered *proper* civil rights orgs, but only politically sanitized versions.

mr p

In some ways the 1970s were more liberal but not all,adult porn was censored more in those days,I’m a guy that likes to hit the surf from time to time,and we’ve been having lovely mild weather in this country,I was in the car park,already changed into the wet suet,a family walk passed,a small boy at the back looks at me,so i smile,the mother gives me a dirty look,now if she knew who i was and what my beliefs are, she may think it was justified,however i just smiled cos i look male and rugged,I just didn’t want to look threatening,and besides,he was to young for my taste.

Dissident

I can’t speak for mainstream gay porn or porn in other nations, but in the U.S. straight pornography was pretty widespread and legal in America during the 1970s. In fact, that was more or less the decade that it came of age, and ceased being unequivocally considered “obscene” in the penal code. Many things today considered “kiddie porn” was available for legal sale in certain Northern nations and Japan, and I believe the age for allowing participation in porn was 16, rather than 18 (someone correct me if I’m wrong in this). Nevertheless, the seeds for the KP hysteria of today were planted in the media during the late 1970s, and likely provided the first step towards the full blown sex abuse hysteria that reached its full potency by the early 1980s.

mr p

When the subject of CP comes,I usually start talking about child/adult sex in an intimate and non pornographic way.supposing child/adult relations were legal,would you still support the making and distribution being illegal to say under 16s,the reason i ask is because,though they may consent to the intimacy between two people,they may not comprehend the true meaning of
their image being out there for eternity?

Dissident

I think, having grown up in the midst of the Information Age, where kids even younger than six are routinely appearing in videos uploaded to YouTube, and in pics posted to social networking sites like Facebook, kids that young are fully capable of understanding the concept of digital perpetuity of images. I hardly see evidence that even kids as young as six lack the cognition to understand the nature of digital in a heavily digital age, as you no longer have to be older in order to participate in it.

mr p

good point about youtube,I didn’t consider that…many videos would cross the metaphorical borderline,which is narrowing as we speak,before being flagged
by the holier than thou moralists!

David Kennerly

Child pornography was technically legal in the States for a few years in the early-to-mid ’70s and was found in abundance in nearly all porno shops. State laws could ban porno but there weak or non-existent federal statutes didn’t come into place until 1977. And even conservative states, including those with obscenity laws on the books, often had porno of all kinds.
It was also ubiquitous in Amsterdam (the only place where I entered porno shops outside of the U.S.) up until, what, 1984 or so?

feinmann0

Ah yes David.
As a decidedly younger boy-lover back in the late 70s, I sought out a more liberal climate than what was on offer in my home country – not difficult: Amsterdam, for a week’s stay. I recall the gay shops with shelves catering for all tastes and featuring pretty much any age in glossy, seductive magazines and books – rumour has it that I acquired two books published by Spartacus from one of these shops comprising novellas and poems by many different authors. I recall a gay cinema complex, with two cinemas. On buying a ticket, one could turn left into the first theatre to watch man/man films, turn right into the second theatre to watch man/boy or boy/boy films. I recall walking down the street during the evening, and seeing a blond boy of about 12 years of age, very smartly dressed, chaperoned either side by a pair of adult male minders on their way to meet a client who had paid good money to spend the evening with the boy.
This was at a time when I felt included within the gay community and at a time when anything was possible – simply fabulous!

James

“I recall walking down the street during the evening, and seeing a blond boy of about 12 years of age, very smartly dressed, chaperoned either side by a pair of adult male minders on their way to meet a client who had paid good money to spend the evening with the boy.”
How did you find out that this was what was going on?

Linca

Fein…,
Your story of what you saw in Amsterdam reminds me of what I witnessed in Houston in the 70’s. A mob organization on the east coast was operating in several cities one of them being Houston. Cars would come driving up to the curb at “The Chicken House” (Maybe another name but had the word “Chicken” in it.) in the gay area at Montrose and Westheimer. A man would come to the curb from beside the building, words would be exchanged, then a cleaned up boy would come forward and get in the car. The man driving the car then would drive off with the boy.
The mafia was doing what they had always done: Provide goods and services that no one else would provide. Read about this in Thaddeus Russell’s book “A Renegade History of The United States”, i.e., booze, prostitutes, jazz.
In the Stonewall Inn neighborhood “Ed ‘The Skull” Murphy the manager of The Stonewall Inn ran a soda shop that you would have thought was the hang out of the St. Peters Catholic Youth League, all kids cleaned up and ready for dates with men. Oh, Ed “The Skull” Murphy paid for the first Gay Pride Parades and was put in a Cadillac Convertible at the head of the parades with a Sash around him proclaiming him “Mayor of Christopher Street”. How far we have fallen since them, i.e., pushing baby strollers in neighborhoods we have helped gentrify pushing out the poor. When are we going to stop that sh*t and become what we are: Radicals?
It is more important that we are free than that we are civilized. Rembrandt said that in his painting “Claudius Civilis”. I think I would have liked hanging out with Rembrandt. How about you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Julius_Civilis#mediaviewer/File:Rembrandt_Harmensz._van_Rijn_-_The_Conspiracy_of_the_Batavians_under_Claudius_Civilis_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
Linca
PS: To James if you ask how I know. If you look it is all documented in arrest records which are always a good place to document the goings on in our cultures as testified to in “Forbidden Friendships: Homosexuality and Male Culture in Renaissance Florence (Studies in the History of Sexuality…” by Michael Rocke. L

James

Thanks. Wasn’t sceptical, just curious.

feinmann0

Hanging out with Rembrandt … well, certainly hanging out with Caravaggio would have been a real gas, with the added benefit of frolicking with a few of his boy models. The ‘cultural desert’ we are stuck with now, makes the craving for a different place and and a different time more acute. It is natural for humans to reminisce, and that is true regarding my Amsterdam experience, but sadness is an additional emotion for me. We seem have lost something that is irreplaceable: tolerance.
Re The Chicken House in Houston and its possible mafia connection … fascinating … from the way you describe this enterprise, it sounds as if it was a ‘beneath-the-counter’ service. Where there is demand, someone will supply. The stunning thing about Holland, Denmark, Sweden etc. back in the 1970s, was the crystal clear visibility of it all, the normality of it all, and, for those other things where the visibility was necessarily reduced, one did not have to scratch too far beneath the surface to procure. In the case of Holland, I believe we had people like Edward Brongersma and his tireless work (and activism) in the Dutch paliamentary senate (and elsewhere) to thank for encouraging the society-wide tolerance that was evident then, particularly so in that country.

Linca

Fein,
I didn’t realize there was such a liberal time for boy love in Holland, Denmark, Sweden, etc… I do remember walking into a book shop just a couple of doors down from where the first headquarters of The Boy Scouts, Braden Powell was on Henrietta Street in London. There were boylove magazines right there on the racks. That was back in the 70’s. My psychologist who replaced my marriage counselor wanted to see them. He did not give them back to me. I didn’t pay him either.
Caravaggio once got run off the docks in Malta for watching the boys swim naked. This is the same time he got in trouble for killing a Knight of Malta and I think his relationship with the boyfriend of “The Knight of Malta”. Got Caravaggio killed.
What do you think? I think that boy and Caravaggio had a “Special Relationship”:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Portrait_of_Alof_de_Wignacourt_and_his_Page-Caravaggio_(1607-1608).jpg
”The Knight of Malta” painted by Caravaggio. (1607-1608)
Linca
PS: I will look into exploring who Edward Brongersma was and how he influenced people. If anyone here has anything to say about Brongersma please do. You probably have some insights that are not published. L

feinmann0

Hi Linca
Re Brongersma: ipce.info/booksreborn/brong_1.pdf and ipce.info/booksreborn/brong_2.pdf ; also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Brongersma and robinsharpe.ca/Brongersma.html may be of interest to you, if you have not already seen them.
Re Caravaggio: through the eyes of a biased boylover admiring the radiant, lush, sensual intimacy of his painted boys, I think Caravaggio had ‘special’ relationships, maybe even a boy in every port ;o)

Linca

Fein,
Thank you for those two links:
“Loving Boys Volume 1” By Edward Brongersma ipce.info/booksreborn/brong_1.pdf
“Loving Boys Volume 2” By Edward Brongersma ipce.info/booksreborn/brong_2.pdf
I am sharing them this morning with my Evolutionary Psychologist friend in Detroit. I know he will pass them on to Bruce Rind who probably has hard copies but might find these pdf’s useful. Wish I still had access to the computer and software to make them searchable.
Gosh there is so much to read.
In my mind’s eye though is that beautiful thought image you shared of the youth going to a rendezvous and the idea that this was once common and not so long ago. This just brought back to my memory that I once knew a young man who had been employed to accompany men on international journeys when he was a boy. So he could better meet the requirements of the job he was taught cooking skills by the Chef’s at The Hotel del Coronado in San Diego. In the brush of time that was not too long ago either.
God what a hateful world we now live in, one that could be so different.
Love,
Linca

feinmann0

Hi again Linca
Loving Boys Vols 1 and 2: yes, it would be great to locate some software able to handle the often very skewed text within the pdf. Converting the content to Word, results in impossible amounts of gibberish. I am glad you have found them useful. Brongersma is one of my heroes …
When you read Loving Boys, which I am sure you will, there is one story about a boy called Onno; his story may well have a parallel to that of the young man you once knew who accompanied men on international journeys.
Returning to the boy escorted to the rendez-vous in Amsterdam; I was thunderstruck by the beauty of the boy as he approached. The effect on me when he looked at me was palpable and indescribable. I know I shook. That short, almost surreal moment, when fantasy morphed into reality, will remain with me always. After all, it is all that I am ever likely to have.
H&K

Linca

James, Calibre http://calibre-ebook.com/ looks really interesting. Thank you for the recommendation. I discovered that the pdfs of “Loving Boys” Volume 1 and 2 are searchable after all.
And, Fein I read all references to Onno. Somehow I think my friend did not enjoy his time with men so much. I will ask another who is to show up here this week if he did as a boy. I will read him some passages.
Edward Brongersma is quickly becoming one of my heroes too. I am finding him in complete alignment with my Evolutionary Psychologist friend. In Brongersma we see the human primate in his full, uninhibited, beautiful glory. Word image after word image after word image. Up until now I had only read reviews of Brongersma. Pale is the word that comes to my mind. Thank you for bringing his words into my minds eye.
Linca

James

Have you tried using Calibre on that PDF?

feinmann0

To James:
Well, I installed Calibre. I added the two volumes of the Brongsmera’s Loving Boys pdfs, selected convert with output format initially set to EPUB, then TXT, then RTF. After spending what must have been roughly an hour on each conversion, it fell over every time and yielded precisely diddly squat. Maybe it is me that is at fault here.

James

That’s odd. It hasn’t had a problem converting PDFs to EPUBs and MOBIs for me. I’m not sure what happened.
Anyway, Linca says it’s already searchable so, if that’s what you wanted, it’s fine.

feinmann0

Calibre: Just after ‘Converting XHTML to RTF markup… ‘ I get ‘Python function terminated unexpectedly (Error Code: 1)’, and finally ‘MemoryError’. I have a 32-bit X86 processor, but the only guidance I get from the net to get solve this particular error, is as follows: ‘If you have a computer with lots of RAM, and a 64bit version of windows, install the 64 bit version of calibre, that may let you convert this document. Otherwise you are out of luck.’
So, I am no further forward – very annoying.
My apologies Tom, for clogging the blogging …

James

And my sincerest apologies for wasting your time >.<

A.

Glasgow University stuck by Richard Yuill OK, if I recall correctly, but that was very much an exception.

Dissident

The University of Missouri–Kansas City likewise defended the late professor of history Prof. Harris Mirkin for his important 1999 essay comparing the current situation of MAPs with homosexuals and women’s liberation in the past. This essay was published that year in the JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY. Its detractors insisted that Mirkin be fired or that the university be denied government funding of a level that was commensurate with Mirkin’s yearly salary. His detractors also made ridiculous attempts at refuting Prof. Mirkin’s point that intergenerational sexual contact has been permitted in other times and cultures by saying, “Human sacrifice was conducted in past times and places too. Does that mean we should embrace it now?”
Of course, that is a very unfair example to use. There is no scientific evidence that mutually consensual sexual contact between older and much younger people causes any type of demonstrable harm to the younger person at the time it occurs. All “damage” that occurs happens later, either as a result of the legal intervention process, which can cause iatrogenic harm; or the process of societal condemnation, which can cause sociogenic harm and an extreme reconcepualizing of the contact in accordance with societal pressure. This was likely to have been all but absent in cultures where such contact was accepted or tolerated. In contrast, human sacrifice–or any type of murder–causes very obvious demonstrable and scientifically verifiable forms of harm: If you’re stabbed in the heart, you die, and this is hardly comparable to claims of harm where the latter can be readily debated and its alleged victims entirely asymptomatic.

A.

I’d forgotten about Mirkin. I loved his article. And I totally agree with your second paragraph.

A.

I strongly agree with your last two paragraphs. The most liberal view you’re likely to find in the current mainstream is that it’s OK for young children to “play doctor” out of “curiosity” — as opposed to out of sexual desire or in the pursuit of sexual pleasure and orgasm. After this things are supposed to go underground as children become better able to behave in socially acceptable ways. Then “those feelings” should resurface as preteen crushes and hand-holding, early-teen masturbation, and then in the middle or late teens coupling up for “fooling around” and then finally “full sex”. Deviations from this trajectory are Not Acceptable. Especially, a young child who does more than you-show-me-yours-and-I’ll-show-you-mine is exhibiting “advanced sexual knowledge” that she or he could not possibly have acquired through anything other than sexual abuse. And even those parents who hold that doctor games are normal and healthy are so scared — and rightly so — by reports like these in the papers that they discourage their kids from playing them.

sugarboy

So, I understand that when a boy gets a hard-on while “playng doctor”, current mainstream assumes that that’s because of curiosity?!

James

No, current mainstream pretends they don’t get erections. When confronted with contradictory evidence, they’ll shout it down.

sugarboy

I see… Are they the same people who talk about “cognitive distortion”?

James

Maybe. I know that, at the least, they’re suffering from cognitive dissonance 🙂

David Kennerly

There is, increasingly, acknowledgement that boys can become, involuntarily, “excited” when being sexually “abused” and that one should be at pains to not discern in that “excitement” any sense of legitimate consent nor derive from it any encouragement that one is pursuing a mutually desired encounter. This is another of those adaptations which the abuse industry must begrudgingly make, from time-to-time, to effectively counter the effects of reality impinging upon their most cherished obsession, namely, that children and adolescents do not seek, nor will they accept, relations with disgusting and perverted older males.

David Kennerly

I would like to add one line to the above: “They reveal themselves to be quite desperate as they flail about, reflexively, to safeguard their very brittle conceit, reacting almost spastically to any who would challenge its sanctity. It being, for them, a source of peculiar satisfaction.”
Sorry for that, Tom! You encourage me to get it right before pushing “Post Comment”, I know. But sometimes it just happens that a thought emerges after the fact.

Lensman

Cases like this make it ever more apparent that what we, and children, are suffering from isn’t a ‘war against child abuse’ but a ‘war against child sexuality’.
Which leads to the question of why, in societies that have largely thrown off the puritanical strictures of religion, and in which the world of adult sexuality seems to be becoming increasingly hedonistic, child sexuality should be seen as such a, well, ‘danger’?
Such irrational fears often are symptoms of deeper fault-lines in a society – but I’m lost as to quite what these fault-lines are.
Maybe we’re too embedded in the present to see clearly – ‘the fog of battle’ maybe makes it hard for us to perceive what may be obvious to historians of the future.
I mean, this isn’t even a subject of study on sociology courses. I suppose during the Salem Witch trials or the Nazi holocaust the intellectuals of the perpetrating communities weren’t too concerned with what was going on – maybe to them it didn’t seem sufficiently problematic to merit critical thought – ‘if there are witches about then they’ve got to be dealt with – I don’t see what you problem is, what there is to investigate or study?’

Jack

It is a fascinating question:
“why, in societies that have largely thrown off the puritanical strictures of religion, and in which the world of adult sexuality seems to be becoming increasingly hedonistic, child sexuality should be seen as such a, well, ‘danger’?”
I wonder if child sexuality isn’t carrying the can for all that hedonistic free love in the adult world. The hook-up culture is based on the lie that sex can be as simple and fun as flinging a frizbee in the park. Which it can’t. Sex always carries a certain amount of unregenerate baggage with it. So child sexuality makes a convenient focus for all the doubts and anxieties that need to be expressed. Kids do have their angelic side, so what better place to see demons. They’re the taboo we have to have.
When it comes to adults interacting and dealing with kids’ sexuality, a level of personal restraint and mature responsibility is required which is totally at odds with today’s grown-up sexy-land shenanigans.

James

.” The hook-up culture is based on the lie that sex can be as simple and fun as flinging a frizbee in the park. Which it can’t. Sex always carries a certain amount of unregenerate baggage with it. “
Citation Needed
(Not necessarily disagreeing but this is a strong claim.,)

Jack

I guess the main source I’d cite is the many happy hook-uppers I’ve known over the journey, personally and anecdotally.
But the intellectual backing would be supplied by the writings of Camille Paglia. She knows sex sideways, that gal.

Linca

You nailed it Lensman: The Problem Is Child Sexuality. OMG they want what in their bum. Just look to “Alexander’s Choice” by our own Edmund.
I bought a book recently just because of the title “Primates In The Classroom”. When I see Middle School/Junior High boys in groups the word/vision that comes to my mind is “Primates”.
A primate is a good thing to be.
Let’s build a world that suits us rather than continue the wrong path that we are on of building a primate that suits the world which is fu*king impossible. The Mississippi River did run north for a short time, only as the result of a massive uplifting caused by overwhelming pressures on the shelf off the Eastern Shore of The US. Let’s call the overwhelming pressures put on us Human Primates what they are: The attempt to make the river called “Man” run backwards.
A primate is a good thing to be.
Linca

Jack

Love the “River of Man” metaphor.
Gotta be careful which primate you choose to be, though. Going bonobo would be a hoot; not so sure I’d want to live in chimpanzee society. From my memory of Franz de Waal’s work, their politics involve ripping opponent’s testicles off with their teeth…makes us almost look civilized.

James

I was about to draw the chimpanzee-bonobo contrast myself 🙂
Of course, if you believe the Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis, our intelligence evolved to make us good at politics, which seems pretty chimp-ish. On the other hand, our interpersonal relations (esp WRT sex) seem to be closer to the bonobo end of the spectrum.

Peter

Tom, it just gets worse!
What I found amusing was how the more puritanical countries have the lower ages of criminal responsibility, which also is in direct contrast to the maturity of their lawmakers. And law enforcers like that stupid cop!
Tom, the following link will interest you. It is a research paper contrasting 17th Century Puritans with their colonised Native Americans. Except for the Bestility (and that is just my opinion and taste) how much healthier our society would be if we copied the Indians.
https://eee.uci.edu/faculty/losh/resources/in-class/researchpaperV.html

gantier99

This global summary of ages of criminal responsibility may be of interest, even though some years old. It would seem to have been compiled as part of the consultation process for a change in law in South Africa.
http://www.pmg.org.za/docs/2003/appendices/030310minimumage.htm

mr p

It seems the american attitude about sex has been changing over time from that of the puritan view,to that of the more liberal New England Native american one…long way to go though..lol·:-)

Peter

🙂 Hi! Yes very much so, but as commenter @Lensman has just made, as adult sex has become more liberal/hedonisic, child nudity/sexuality has become more restricted. And when one considers TOC’s argument about earlier sexual maturity, this paradox is even more confusing.

Filip

In Germany (“age of consent” 14 years) 2011 a 14-year old boy kissed a 13-year-old girl and touched her clothed private parts. According to the boy both wanted to do that. But the parents of the girl saw the hicey and called the police. Four law courts were involved in the case. The boy accepted to be punished for “sexual abuse” but didn´t accpeted DNA-extraction for the reoffender-registration. After a law court sentenced him to do that the lawyer of the boy tried to get help from the the Federal Constitutional Court. In August 2013 the Federal Constitutional Court finally decided the requierements for the uptake in the DNA-registration were not given in this case. All the boy did was to kiss a girl!!!!!!

Jack

Maybe this is all our fault. Maybe we’re just not doing our job as “monsters” — so the government feel obliged to step in and do it for us.

Jack

Hi Tom
Been reading your magnificent blog for a little while now and just wanted to say hi and thanks for ruining my day with this post! 🙂
I’ve only been reading this sort of stuff for a couple of months and so my reaction to things like “arousal conditioning” is disbelief. Pure, rock-solid, unshakeable disbelief. We need a poster made up – the classic conditioning scene from A Clockwork Orange – but with a 10yo boy in the hot seat. Plaster it on every goddamn wall in every goddamn street, till it runs in blood down Palace walls.
If only the following fact:
“…37 US states that specify no minimum age of criminal responsibility at all.”
was followed to its logical conclusion. If a child has to take responsibility for any crimes committed, you are of course saying the child has the ability to choose his or her actions. So two kids choosing to have sex can’t be crime according to their own logic.
One of the most chilling statements:
“Police Chief J. Craig Patterson is quoted as saying, “They are both victims of someone. I want to know: ‘Where did these children learn this?’ “
How easy is would it be for these professional carers to put the child in a room and extract some names? Hardly an original way to work, but a spectacular way to drum up business.
Anyway, thank you for a fine resource and beautifully written blog.

James

“How easy is would it be for these professional carers to put the child in a room and extract some names?”
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
I find this to be quite appalling and agree that they should take their claims (about childhood responsibility) to their logical conclusion.
Also: Nice to meet you! 🙂

Jack

Ha! Don’t need to click the link – I spent way too many hours of my youth endlessly parroting those Monty Python routines (including the Parrot sketch of course).
Nice to meet you, too, James.

James

I don’t get to parrot them nearly as much as I’d like to since only one of my friends is British and none of the others recognise them.
(Well, their’s one girl I should get around to asking since we have similar taste in entertainment, and everything else….)

Jack

She’d be a rare girl, then. The girls I knew always thought the Python routines of us boys was stupid beyond words. Thankfully there was no youtube back then so I can safely continue to believe their judgement was totally wrong. Our pepperpot voices rocked!

James

I suppose she is, but I don’t think an interest in Monty Python would be particularly odd along gender lines. At least where I live, males and females have very similar taste in entertainment. There are a few things one gender or the other will mock for status reasons, but everyone knows that the boys and the girls watch equivalent amounts of anime and romantic comedy. The only area where a gender difference is pronounced is video games, and even there the gap is relatively small.

feinmann0

Let not the little children come to me, and by all means hinder them, for the kingdom of Hell belongs to such as these.

mr p

I think your wrong about Grisham Linca…he said at least it wasn’t boys,whats the difference,as long as sexual acts are consensual,but the main article was about viewing CP…arguments like…viewing CP gives traffic to sites which provide the images,and justifies its existence in the website owners eyes
so what!
sexual proclivity for children is sexual proclivity for children…awesome powers of deduction!
viewing CP can be a precursor to direct,sexual action…so can having a shit or eating a burger,or a few stiff drinks!
child abuse is child abuse…murder is murder,but is viewing murder murder?

gantier99

Further on age of consent/age of criminal responsibility in Denmark. Just over the bridge in Sweden (where I lived a while some years ago) both these ages are still 15. This means that children can enjoy sex to their heart’s content up to their 15th birthday. As long as the partner is also under fifteen (damn!). It’s a nuisance if you’ve passed 15 and your sexual partner is still 14, because then you have to wait for him/her to catch up and become mature enough for sex that you already had plenty of when you were immature.

ethane72

You and I disagree on some things, Tom, but I’m completely with you on this one. The US policies in this regard that make the news are outrageous. It would be nice to think they are newsworthy because they are unusual, but I’m not at all sure that’s the case. Maybe the 4-year-old and the 6-year-olds prosecutions are unusual, but I get the sense the 10-year-olds are not.

James

Never got around to asking you before: are you in favour of abolishing the sex offender registry?

James

I was asking Ethan because I’m aware of your stance 🙂
It would be great to see your citations so I can point to them the next time I have to argue this point.

ethane72

It seems Tom and I had the same misreading, lol. I had missed the fine point that you were asking me.
Yes, I support getting rid of the registry, and I support ending all restrictions on where released sex offenders can live. (Sarcastic parallels: No rapist of adult women can live within 500 feet of a woman. No car thieves can live within 500 feet of any place a car is parked.).
An intermediate step that would be a big improvement would be having registries that are known only to police and not the public. I think I remember that’s how it works in Canada? Far better to get it removed completely but that might be more politically palatable as a first step.

sugarboy

Did you know that the Safe Streets Arts Foundation has found a legal way to avoid being placed on the register? They have even published a practical guide on:
http://idiotsregistry.info/
(see link in yellow at the bottom of the page)

James

“No rapist of adult women can live within 500 feet of a woman. No car thieves can live within 500 feet of any place a car is parked.”
I laughed loudly enough that my family members looked at me funny 🙂
Glad to know you oppose the bloody tragedy these things seem to be.
But when the media speak to you guys, do they ever ask about this? If so, what do you tell them?

feinmann0

“… when the media speak to you guys …” James, the phrase ‘you guys’ I take it means us paedophiles? If so, this is not an everyday occurrence for ‘us guys’, believe me. Why would we want to have anything to do with agencies that are so thoroughly woven into the vile fabric that is the sexual abuse industry?

James

By ‘you guys’ I meant Virtuous Pedophiles, an organisation which does occasionally get media attention.
“Why would we want to have anything to do with agencies that are so thoroughly woven into the vile fabric that is the sexual abuse industry?”
You might be interested in Tom’s post ‘Why I am talking to the terrorists‘.

Linca

We have gone completely mad. Look how John Grisham was attacked and how he completely retreated from his first and correct position.
Our only and correct position is to support evolutionary science, i.e., the real science of psychology of the primates we are. We have for way too long supported the making of us to fit society instead of the other way around: Making Society Fit Us/who we are/the primate we are.
Linca

A.

We’ve been mad in this department for some time. Look at Victorian anti-masturbation devices, for instance. But there is a difference. I bet many Victorian teenagers laughed off being told that masturbation would make them sick and insane just as today’s teenagers laugh off being told that smoking marijuana will turn them into crack addicts. This sex offender registry stuff, however, gets into people’s lives in very practical and fundamental ways, and ruins them completely in many cases.

133
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
Scroll to Top