Pummelling the human face of paedophilia

Never again!  No more getting wasted for me! As I slowly come round from the monumental hangover of yet another PR disaster, I swear to shun the intoxicating liquor of publicity for ever ­­­– or at least until the next tempting but illusory opportunity comes along to promote an alternative narrative in the mainstream media.
This time, on Monday, it was an interview for 60 Minutes, the Australian version of the US current affairs TV documentary series.
They said they had been looking into the alleged Westminster VIP paedophilia scandals of the 1970s and 80s, including talk of a wide-ranging conspiracy by leading government and legal figures – the so-called “Establishment” – to sweep misdeeds under the carpet. Having seen my Heretic TOC pieces defending a couple of the putative “paedos in high places”, they wanted to give some balance by airing the sceptical view I had taken. They reckoned the interview would last about 20 minutes “and a large part of it would be used in the broadcast”.
Bearing in mind the specific and narrow nature of this remit, I thought it was well worth having a go. In fact, I strongly felt it was my duty to defend my friends if I could, especially Charles Napier and Peter Righton, who have both been anonymously accused of heinous acts of brutality against kids, acts of which I am certain they would not have been capable.
Neither man is presently well placed to defend himself. Charles recently started a 13-year prison sentence for “historic” sexual involvement with boys; Peter, who died some years ago, was even accused of murder by some squalid, lying, opportunistic, scumbag of a so-called “victim”.
The interview venue, the Travellers Club in Pall Mall, London, could hardly have been better chosen to fit the VIP theme:  the membership has included eight prime ministers, to say nothing of many great explorers and travel writers, as might be expected from the name. I arrived there wearing a tie for the first time in years as the dress code for this Georgian (founded 1819) gentleman’s retreat requires one.
It was almost as though the TV people were setting me up to look like a dodgy VIP myself, part of a posh old boys’ network of “abuse”, although they insisted they often use the club when they happen to be filming in London. So, nothing personal then.
My introduction to interviewer Ross Coulthart was inauspicious, though. He was perfectly civil, but ominously pointed out that scandal and tragic death were not unknown to those who had previously stepped inside these walls.  Among the club’s famous members were two who had committed suicide, he noted. He named one as Capt. Robert Fitzroy, skipper of The Beagle on Charles Darwin’s famous voyage and inventor of the weather forecast; another was prime minister Lord Castlereagh.
As for scandal, he continued, there had been Sir Peter Hayman, holder of many high ranking posts, including High Commissioner to Canada, who was also a spymaster in his capacity as deputy director of MI6. Hayman was eventually exposed in the press and in parliament as someone who used to compose pornographic fantasies about sex with children, sharing them in a correspondence circle of like-minded other writers who would also post their stories to him. It turned out he had joined the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), under the name Henderson.
Long before hearing about his Travellers Club membership from Coulthart, I had of course expected 60 Minutes to ask me what I had known about Hayman, who was always bound to be a key figure in the programme because his case constitutes the one example of an Establishment cover-up for which there is strong – in my view incontrovertible – evidence. He was never prosecuted whereas less privileged people were, including me and several other PIE committee members.
When Coulthart asked, I just told him that I had never known Hayman at any stage of my involvement with PIE. He had just been a name, a false name, on our membership list. Only much later did I discover, to my horror, that “Henderson” had been writing fantasies that were not just pornographic but also sadistic – truly obscene, in my view. No one can prevent having their own dark fantasies if sadistic tendencies provoke them, and it is infinitely better they are written down rather than acted out. But they are deeply disturbing all the same and I had no wish to be associated with them.
Perhaps because the Hayman story has long been in the public domain, Coulthart did not dwell on it once he knew I had nothing to add. Instead, He wanted new stuff from me, about people I definitely had known, especially Napier and Righton. The background is mainly in two Heretic TOC pieces, Hi, this is Charles. I’ve been a naughty boy and Exposé outfit murders its own credibility, so I won’t labour the details of what I told 60 Minutes about them.
What I will point out, though, is the extraordinary lengths this “investigative” journalist went to in order to suppress the results of his own investigation. Instead of simply hearing me out and allowing me to say how I knew neither Charles nor Peter were violent people, I found my own credibility was on trial from the outset. Nothing I could say was given any credence.
Not that he called me a liar. Instead, it seemed I was being set up as a deluded dupe, someone so heavily invested in the ideology of consensual paedophilia that I could not see that a violently abusive gang of VIP paedophiles – including Napier and Righton as well as Hayman and others – were using PIE as a relatively respectable front for their heinous crimes.
The only time I came near to disrupting this politically congenial narrative was when I introduced material Coulthart may not have expected. I reminded him of a BBC Inside Story documentary in 1994 called The Secret Life of a Paedophile, which focused on Peter, including his friendship with Charles. In its day, this programme was itself meant to be an exposé of the pair’s supposedly dreadful deeds. Seen against the present lurid background of murder allegations, though, it turns out to be an excellent piece of evidence for the defence.
Coulthart had played up the idea that Peter had been a “powerful” figure in the Establishment, darkly implying he could have had people killed at the snap of his fingers like some mafia boss, or, better still, a man with the resources of the state at his disposal. It would be truer to say that in his role as director of education at the National Institute for Social Work, Peter was professionally influential rather than powerful: it was not the sort of job that would put cadres of tooled-up heavies wearing shades at his disposal. His influence depended, rather, on his experience and wisdom when it came to improving the lives and prospects of children traumatised in the course of a difficult upbringing, including violent, neglectful, chaotic parenting.
As I pointed out in the interview, Inside Story interviewed a number of Peter’s senior social work colleagues. While they professed themselves shocked to learn he was a boy-lover, following his conviction in 1992 for importing child porn, they admitted he was a man of enormous gifts and “a degree of good intentions”. They conceded that he came across as a kind, avuncular figure and that the “unconditional affection” he was able to show towards difficult adolescent boys made him very effective in “getting through” to those kids so their behaviour improved. It was this rare talent that made him so well respected and liked.
Did this impress Coulthart? Oh, yes, it impressed him with the need to change the subject! But try as I might to add more evidence from Inside Story, he just shouldered me off the ball, insisting we move on. So I never got to mention the home-movies shown by the BBC, seized by the police after raiding Righton’s home. This was not pornography but footage that included a holiday scene with Charles and Peter giving a couple of boys piggybacks. The kids were plainly having fun, without the slightest sign of any fear or brutality by the guys. I could have added, too, the programme’s revelation that Peter became a godfather to some children of the kids he had taught, and that his friends included a number of men he had “abused” when they were boys: plainly, they did not regard themselves as victims.
For me, though, the biggest surprise of the interview was not Coulthart’s reluctance to face the facts, frustrating as that was. Rather, it was his decision to question me at length on the more philosophical side, especially my views on why I thought adult-child sex can ever be acceptable. I would have been delighted to speak about such matters to a reasonable interviewer asking intelligent questions, such as the Guardian’s Jon Henley a couple of years ago, or even, more recently, Corinne Purtill of Global Post. What I got instead, though, was not 20 minutes in which to defend my friends, as had been proposed, but more like an hour and 20 minutes, with a whole hour of bludgeoning by Coulthart mainly on a single very narrow aspect of a child’s ability to consent. It was boring and repetitious.
Whenever I tried to develop an argument by discussing relevant research I was interrupted and diverted. After introducing Susan Clancy’s data from her book The Trauma Myth, for example, which demonstrates that the harm in consensual cases comes not from the sex but from society’s response, often years later, her findings were brushed impatiently aside. He didn’t think people were interested in the musings of “some Harvard academic”, as he disparagingly put it, compared with the more urgent task of listening to the victims. Any “victims” who had not felt traumatised, it transpired, including Clancy’s interviewees, were not to be listened to.
I know I made a number of good points despite the heavy-handed tactics. My suspicion, though, is that these will end up on the cutting room floor – always a danger with a non-live interview – and that I will come across merely as a man in denial that “a child cannot consent”, as Coulthart kept simplistically insisting.
Should I have bothered? Was this really just another PR disaster, as I said at the start? Hard to say. Perhaps only someone with the forceful rhetorical skills of former MP George Galloway should have taken on such a tough mission. My own rather polite style doesn’t work at all without being given room to breathe. I suppose I could have stuck robotically to a few simple points, as media-trained politicians do in order to “stay on message”. This guarantees you won’t make a fool of yourself but intelligent viewers hate it.
One thing they cannot take away, though, is that anyone who turns up to face the cameras will be willingly presenting a “human face of paedophilia” that otherwise finds no place in the media. There must be some value in this, don’t you think? It would be better if the face happened to be younger and more attractive than mine as I near my 70th birthday, but even so…
 
MOVIE SCRIPT WRITERS WANTED
Well, sort of.
The good news is that a native French speaker was so impressed by David Kennerly’s film A Decent Life (click on the ad below the Blogroll in the right-hand column for YouTube links) that he has offered to translate it into his own tongue.
David and I very much welcome that, but this translator says he would appreciate first being supplied with a transcription into written English of the original words, spoken by me. He will need this to work from when doing his translation into French. The spoken English in question runs to about 68 minutes.
This will be quite a time-consuming task. Both David and I are incredibly busy right now, and we will certainly remain so for at least the next several months. Accordingly, we wondered whether we might be able to find a few volunteers to take on this task. If each volunteer tackles just one or two segments of the 11-segment film, the workload should be manageable. It will probably be best to reply to me at tomocarr66@yahoo.co.uk . Look forward to hearing from you!
For those who missed the background, you can catch up by reading my blog piece last month (beneath the main blog): A DECENT NEW FILM BY DAVID KENNERLY.

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

[…] yes, one more thing. I mentioned 60 Minutes. When I blogged about it in Pummelling the human face of paedophilia, I described the interview as a PR disaster, saying “I swear to shun the intoxicating liquor of […]

David Kennerly

The “Traveler’s Club”? Wow! This just proves that you’re part of an elite OxBridge cabal! I assume they didn’t extend you a membership during your visit. I can’t wait to see the visuals of the interview and how they play the whole exclusive private club angle. I think that, were I a “Traveller’s Club” member, I would be pretty upset about 60 Minutes’ use of the club in this way. It’s not something a self-respecting posh gent would wish to associate himself with, I would think.

[…] Pummelling the human face of paedophilia […]

Christian

Concerning BDSM vs. paedophilia, I advise reading:
Fedora & al, “Sadism and other paraphilias in normal controls and aggressive and nonaggressive sex offenders”, Archives of Sexual Behavior, February 1992, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 1-15. DOI 10.1007/BF01542713
The authors compare the incidence of various paraphilias, such as sadism, voyeurism, exhibitioninsm, cross-dressing, “courtship disorder”, … and paedophilia, with 3 classes of subjects: aggressive sex offenders, non-aggressive ones and “normal” controls. They find many things, in particular:
“Pedophilia had a low incidence of co-occurrence with other paraphilias whereas sadism, transvestism/fetishism, and the courtship disorder paraphilias had a high incidence of co-occurrence.”
I would say that paedophilia is a variant orientation (a different object of attraction), while the other “paraphilias” are variant forms of sexual expression, irrespective of orientation.

Edmund

“The abolitionists.”… But you do not to any degree show that any of these people effected change against the direction in which society was anyway moving rather than in accord with its deep-seated conscience. Having been ignored drawing this distinction twice, it seems a fair assumption you cannot come up with such changes.
“For instance, you referred to Josh as “naive,””
I pick on this as simply the most outrageous of the many absurd statements you have made here and before about me, presuming almost entirely falsely to know my age,sexual tastes, general political inclinations, ethnic biases etc. ad infinitum, simply on the basis of the personal assumptions you naively think you can associate with any opinion. These assumptions reveal much more about you than me. All I said or implied was that if the likes of Josh fell for your reasoning they would be naive. Far from thinking Josh himself “naive” because of his youth, rest assured that I think him and most young people (if such he is; I don’t know) are infinitely wiser than you, however old you may be, the ultimate proof being his disregard of your poisonously stupid dismissal of his instinct to avoid exposing himself. I could not be more willing to uphold the belief that the very young have generally good sense as to what is good for them, and you will always spring to mind for me as the logical reverse.
You know extremely little about me and understand less. I am content that this will always be the case both because my life and circumstances are and always will be private and absolutely none of your business, and because I have nothing in common with you, and because I have always entered into debates here strictly on the basis that one should be permitted to present an argument from the point of view of reason or attested knowledge rather than alleged personal experience.
Assuming Tom will indulge my strong need to explain my feelings about this here, I apologise to fellow heretics for a tone that may come across as discourteous, but I do not not see how else to convey the deep offense I feel at this person’s long-standing habit of making and publishing personal assumptions about other people in order to dismiss their arguments on that fatuous basis.
I reiterate that I have the highest admiration for what Tom has done with his life based on his entirely different capacity and taste for reasoned and fair debate, his personal priorities in life which I need no convincing should lead to different conclusions than those made by Josh, and above all the different world into which he emerged as a young man.

Dissident

“The abolitionists.”… But you do not to any degree show that any of these people effected change against the direction in which society was anyway moving rather than in accord with its deep-seated conscience. Having been ignored drawing this distinction twice, it seems a fair assumption you cannot come up with such changes.
I think it’s more than fair to say, Edmund, that the actions of activists are the outward manifestation of a change in the direction of society’s deep-seated conscience. The majority of people in the pre-Civil War era were not acting on this change, and in fact either accepted chattel slavery as an indelible aspect of American life (at least in the South), or simply tolerated it because they were too concerned about what was going on in their personal lives to put much action into effecting widespread change for the greater good. It was the activities of activists that gradually worked to change the mindset of the public by going against majority consensus, and believing that great personal risk was worth acting on these principles. These actions combined with various economic factors related to the fledgling Industrial Revolution to eventually sign the death knell of chattel slavery and the division of America into basically two separate nations, with its culmination coming a mere six years after Ralph Waldo Emerson declared that no person living would ever see the end of slavery. I think the evidence that activism and taking risks for principles that do not coincide with consensus opinion contributes to positive social advancement speaks for itself. Changes in societal conscience do not occur sans the actions of external forces, including both the actions of activists and various economic factors.
“For instance, you referred to Josh as “naive,””
I pick on this as simply the most outrageous of the many absurd statements you have made here and before about me, presuming almost entirely falsely to know my age,sexual tastes, general political inclinations, ethnic biases etc.

Yet, in all fairness, Edmund, you readily make assumptions about people’s level of competence based upon arbitrary factors such as age, including stating that Josh was naive while implying it was because he was young. I already pointed out that this came off quite clearly by you using the words “naive” and “young man” in the exact same sentence, with the latter right after the former. It’s not impossible, or even extremely difficult, to discern someone’s opinions, beliefs, and tastes if you are in the position to observe their statements on multiple occasions. I’m not a mind-reader, granted, but when people write, their thoughts are readily laid bare on the screen.
ad infinitum, simply on the basis of the personal assumptions you naively think you can associate with any opinion. These assumptions reveal much more about you than me.
In all fairness to both of us, I don’t think I have interpreted you wrong, or on the basis of hostile intentions from myself, Edmund. I think what you type is clearly evident to anyone who has scrutinized your writings.
All I said or implied was that if the likes of Josh fell for your reasoning they would be naive.
Yet you made a point to call him a “naive young man” rather than clearly stating, “If any individual thinks as he does, then I must say they are naive.”
Far from thinking Josh himself “naive” because of his youth, rest assured that I think him and most young people (if such he is; I don’t know)
I’m sorry, Edmund, but you readily assumed he was a young man before, because this is what you said in your previous post: “a naive young man.”
are infinitely wiser than you, however old you may be, the ultimate proof being his disregard of your poisonously stupid dismissal of his instinct to avoid exposing himself.
That ad hominem doesn’t change the fact that you said what you said, but I guess this is as close to a compliment that Josh will get from you in this discussion, so I think he should take it 🙂
As for the matter at hand, I clearly explained that the main reason it’s so risky to “come out” is because the vast majority of us remain in the closet. I pointed out (which you ignored) that it’s not an easy decision that requires much forethought, and many factors need to be considered by the individual before making such a decision. My personal experience, and those of other MAPs I am well acquainted with (several of them young), give me good empirical reason to believe that depending on individual circumstances, it’s not a universally stupid action for any MAP (young or otherwise) to “come out.”
I personally think that contrary to what you have said, it’s actually ridiculous to assert that if huge numbers of us were “out” that it would effectively make no difference how society thought about us and treated us. I understand you think we are best served by all staying in the shadows and tending to a personal nest of happiness amidst the hysteria, but I don’t agree; I think my personal situation and that of other MAPs I know, give me good reason to make this assessment, and we just need to agree to disagree on this. I don’t believe your opinion is wrong for all MAPs, mind you; it’s simply the absolutism of applying it to every MAP who happens to be young (at least) to stay in the closet that I disagree with.
Speaking of which, perhaps you may want to familiarize yourself with the recent Czech documentary Daniel’s World, about a young pedophile who has chosen to “come out” to the whole world, and has not suffered ruination of his life as a result. Granted he doesn’t live in the U.S.A. or U.K., but no country these days are entirely immune from the hysteria. I greatly respect Daniel for going this route, even though you wouldn’t agree with it.
I could not be more willing to uphold the belief that the very young have generally good sense as to what is good for them, and you will always spring to mind for me as the logical reverse.
I think much of what you say suggests otherwise, Edmund. You are free to disagree with me all you want, of course, but I likewise stand behind what I said.
You know extremely little about me and understand less.
Honestly, Edmund, these are the classic words of a person who had a “nerve” hit by someone else. I don’t know every aspect of your life and interests, of course, but I do not think I got your basic degree of conservative thoughts wrong. This is not the first discussion I have had with you.
I am content that this will always be the case both because my life and circumstances are and always will be private and absolutely none of your business, and because I have nothing in common with you, and because I have always entered into debates here strictly on the basis that one should be permitted to present an argument from the point of view of reason or attested knowledge rather than alleged personal experience.
Personal experience is a major component of gaining that knowledge, and for developing reason. You cannot get all of that entirely from studying textbooks, because what you are largely reading are other people’s views, which will inevitably color any study of facts they are conducting. There is empirical evidence, of course, and I think I have presented enough historical examples that are incontrovertible and not simply based on mere opinion. And yes, we seem to have nothing in common, and that includes a great difference in our views, which is part of my point here.
Assuming Tom will indulge my strong need to explain my feelings about this here, I apologise to fellow heretics for a tone that may come across as discourteous, but I do not not see how else to convey the deep offense I feel at this person’s long-standing habit of making and publishing personal assumptions about other people in order to dismiss their arguments on that fatuous basis.
“This person” (i.e., me!) has never been inclined to make assumptions that are not based on a careful reading of what certain individuals are publishing. We have a long-standing habit of disagreement on many fundamental issues, and I understand (as I’m sure others do) that you will obviously take umbrage when these disagreements come to the fore during discussions.
I reiterate that I have the highest admiration for what Tom has done with his life based on his entirely different capacity and taste for reasoned and fair debate, his personal priorities in life which I need no convincing should lead to different conclusions than those made by Josh, and above all the different world into which he emerged as a young man.
For the record, while Tom did not say he agreed with me in full, he did say he agreed with me “to a considerable extent” (his words, not mine). It’s not that Tom and I disagree on many things, it’s that his style is different in many ways from mine, and that is why you get on better with him than you do me and certain others who post here. I do not believe it’s about his being more in agreement with you than with me on a variety of issues.
Also, yes Tom did “come out” as a young man during an era which had a much different socio-political climate than the one that took over post-1970s. My point is, we should not simply tolerate this change as being eternal, and retreat from open public discourse, hoping that major changes eventually occur without the catalyst of important social work and discussion. That simply invites things to remain as they are for far longer than they may need to be. Change doesn’t occur in a vacuum, it needs a slew of catalysts, and the actions of both the controlling elements and activists, along with other, more material factors, often combine to make things ripe for a change.
I’ve seen many young MAPs who came out or were outed, like Paul Christiano (whom I know personally), who gained a lot of sympathy despite the obvious problems that arose for him, and resulted in affecting the feelings and thoughts of objective minded Non-MAPs in many positive ways. The climate that existed during the late 1960s and 1970s can exist again, but it’s not going to happen any time soon unless we work towards it, and to our best to catalyze the necessary factors for change. I think the entire history of social activism and social progress attests to that. The conservative elements that now control society will overreach in time, and seem to be doing so right now, and I think we may be approaching a crossroads period in history where the time may be right for many MAPs (I’m not saying all) to carefully weigh their options and consider coming out to let the world know that MAPs are very often decent and productive people who do not adhere to the common stereotypes.

Dissident

My apologies for over-doing it again. Thank you for allowing me the full reply, though.

Josh

Age is somewhat relative. To a child I’m old but to somebody Tom’s age I’m young. I’m 30 to be exact. I was not around in the 70s so I don’t know what it was like back then. At least not from experience. From what I’ve seen things have gone from bad to worse. The internet has been for the most part a disaster for pedophiles. While it has given us a platform in which to spread our views, so far no one has listened. Back in the 90’s at least child porn convictions were rare but now they happen all the time thanks to the internet. I knew somebody personally who was given a life sentence for downloading images from a peer2peer program. I’ve seen good, intelligent people like Lindsay Ashford who tried to speak out and tried to make a difference using the internet but nobody ever listened, instead they threw eggs at him until he was forced to retreat.

Dissident

A large part of the reason that happened to Lindsay Ashford was because he “came out” of the toybox pretty much alone. He also emphasized the fact that he was a pedophile rather than simply mentioning it as a matter of course along with every other progressive opinion he had on a variety of topics. These two factors, I believe, are what ultimately caused him to get “shouted down” and ultimately to leave the spotlight. He expected many other MAPs to follow his lead, but virtually none did of their own volition. This, IMO, leads further credence to my point that the fact the vast majority of us remain hidden leaves the one or two who do “come out” as the proverbial lone voices in the wilderness who are easy to slap down.

Dissident

I recall Martijn and Norbert also “coming out,” and being interviewed on talk shows in their native country (I do not recall if it was Denmark or the Netherlands, as it was so long ago), around that time, but I didn’t recall Lindsay coming out as part of a collusion with them, though I may be wrong. I do recall, however, that Lindsay’s saga took place largely in the USA for a time before he left the country in the hope of starting over elsewhere, so I didn’t see it as connected to the other two directly. The geographic separation made the other two’s “coming out” seem like an unrelated decision.

A.

Since I’ve been away for a while, a few things I found during that period that may be of interest to heretics:
We had a long discussion a while back about the age of puberty in Victorian times. The site Of Choristers Ancient and Modern states of the Choir of New College Oxford in around 1870 that “Normally, a boy would join as a probationer where he would learn the job for about 1¼ years, but some older entrants would go straight into the choir; conversely, some much younger boys would serve their probationerships for three years. The official age for entry was from 7 to 12 years, and the leaving age [when the voice broke, I assume] was usually about 14½, but boys were often kept until 15 or 16.”
I stumbled across this personal website: http://waldbaer.de.vu/ My German’s terrible, so I haven’t yet worked my way through all of it, but it looks interesting. The writer says that he’s a man in his mid-40s, lives in a small German town, works in a technical profession, looks a bit slobby and falls in love with girls aged 8-14. Young women under 25 can also catch his eye, he says, but he’s far and away more attracted to 11-year-olds. The site includes his thoughts on girl-love, his poems and some quotes from other people’s.
Another BL has been imprisoned for historic sex offences. This time she’s a woman and an award-winning headteacher. One article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11695677/Headteacher-Anne-Lakey-jailed-for-eight-years-after-having-sex-with-two-boys.html . Another: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-33252378 .
A 46-year-old Honduran lawyer and television personality has been arrested after a 15-year-old girl’s mother found out that the girl was having a relationship with him. The girl has admitted to the authorities that the relationship began when she was 13 and included sex. The guy has a previous conviction for domestic violence against his wife. lt looks as though I’ll have trouble linking to the article, which is in Spanish of course, because of the tildes. Run a search for “El abogado Mario Reyes permanece en prisión”.

A.

Oh dear oh dear, what a shame…Out of interest, what was the single narrow aspect of a child’s ability to give consent that he would not shut up about?
Interesting you mention the Clancy book, because the thing that most struck me about it was that a lot of the stories collected in it were hardly ringing endorsements of paedophilic love. ‘Frank’, quoted at the beginning of the book, is a family man in his forties who had sex with a middle-aged family friend over a six-month period when he was nine. He says he loved this man, he liked the attention and the baseball cards the man gave him, the sex sometimes felt good, and he missed the man when the man moved away. But unlike Frank, many of the former ‘victims’ say that the sex was confusing and not entirely pleasant. My impression was that many of these cases represent the ‘grey area end’ of consensual sex between adults and children. For a lot of Clancy’s subjects, the experience was neither happy and positive nor, at the time, traumatising; not great, but no big deal, either. The other very strong impression I took away from the book was that the adults in question had been under a crushing weight of fear and guilt, and that they had transmitted some of these feelings to the kids. One ten-year-old boy was told by a camp counsellor in his twenties that their that mutual fellatio was a way of cleaning their genitals! What was needed at the time, it seems to me, was some light and air and open discussion: “Do you like that? It’s all right if you don’t want to do it again.”
Just how often, anyway, do kids have consensual, enjoyable sex with adults and then, as adults themselves, come to view the sex as as negative? This study https://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/latino_men/latino_men_frame.htm makes a very interesting read. One hundred Latino men who have sex with men discussed sexual experiences they’d had before age thirteen with someone at least four years older. For thirty-two, their view of the sex had changed from what it was at the time. Seventeen of those were initially indifferent, and fourteen of them later adopted a negative view, while for three their view became positive. Eleven men changed their minds from an initially negative view, and of those, four took an indifferent view and seven a positive view. Only four who had an initially positive view changed their minds later, three feeling indifferent about the experience and only one feeling negative. So out of a sample of a hundred, only one person who felt good about the sex at the time felt bad about it later. That’s quite cheering, and it doesn’t contradict Clancy, because many of her subjects would best be classified in the ‘indifferent at the time’ not ‘positive at the time’ group. The biggest change in both study groups, for whatever reason, was from indifference to negativity.
The Latino men study found that those who did not currently consider themselves sexually abused were more likely to report that they kissed their older partner (44% vs 20%) and showed him or her their penis (50% vs 22%). There was no difference between those who currently felt sexually abused and those who did not with regard to the older partner’s age, whether the older partner was male or a relative, the length of the relationship, the number of sexual contacts, or, with the two exceptions noted above, the sexual behaviour engaged in. Those who currently felt abused were on average two years younger at the time of the sex than those who didn’t, and they were much more likely to report that they had been forced, threatened and/or hurt physically or emotionally. But that correlation was not perfect. There were some men who reported they had not been coerced or hurt, but still felt abused, apparently because they were very young at the time and didn’t know what they were doing. And there were some who were coerced and/or hurt who did not consider themselves abused. The researchers give as an example one man who, at age twelve, had sex five times over the course of a year with a boy of seventeen. He gave fellatio and received anal intercourse. He felt that he was physically and emotionally hurt by the experience, but that he was not abused because “I agreed to it. I insisted more than the other person for this to take place.”
Of course, Latino men who have sex with men are a bit of an unusual population. I knew one such guy who casually mentioned that at fifteen he had a sexual relationship with a man of about forty who worked for his dad. When his dad found out, the boy was kicked out of the house and went to live with his mother. As an adult, he had trouble keeping a boyfriend, but had a good circle of friends and worked in HIV prevention. It’s my strong impression that Latino men who have sex with men are more likely than the population at large to accept that children’s sexual experiences with adults can be positive. What about other groups?
In Terry Leahy’s fascinating book Negotiating Stigma: Approaches to Intergenerational Sex, one woman talks about something that happened to her beginning when she was eight. Lacking a close relationship with her father, she spent happy, affectionate times with her uncle and grandfather. Her uncle would sometimes sit her on his lap over his penis or put her hand on his penis through his underwear. Like Clancy’s subjects, she was not fully aware at the time of the sexual implications, but did have some awareness in that she felt what she was doing might be wrong. As an adult she became involved in feminism and one day, frustrated by her mother’s insistence that women who are raped are asking for it, came out with the whole story. For a while she did feel that she had been abused, because her uncle was getting something out of it that she wasn’t, and was obtaining sexual pleasure within his family circle. And yet, she says, it was not “all that detrimental” to her, she was “a happy recipient” of her uncle’s sexual initiatives, and she never tried to pull away, except once, and on that occasion he didn’t pursue things further. “I was not lying there thinking ‘Oh fuck, I’m not into this’, and certainly that has happened later in life!” But clearly this person too is a bit unusual in that she is more than commonly intelligent and self-aware and has given a lot of thought to the subject. The question of how common it is for an average person to switch from a positive — rather than indifferent — to a negative view of childhood sex with an adult, or in other words of how easily influenced the average person is by the dominant discourse around these things, remains unanswered.
Here’s The Trauma Myth: https://www.ipce.info/sites/ipce.info/files/biblio_attachments/the_trauma_myth.pdf
and here’s Negotiating Stigma: https://www.ipce.info/booksreborn/NegotiatingStigma.pdf

Robert

I know you want rights for pedophiles- those who don’t physically hurt children- but to me it is just weird that children can willingly accept to adults’ sexual signals or desires. When my father kissed me “goodnight” I always felt uncomfortable when he did multiple times at once, even though I know he just kisses out of simple father-son love. This was when I was 14. I don’t mean to be rude, but I personally believe “child-lovers” or intergenerational sex advocates are turning the world into one where apparently love between kids and adults has to be proven or defined on the foundation of sexual actions. You and your supporters fight and protest for that right but people who have had sexual relationships as kids with adults I’ve noticed some grow up to be hypersexual and only hunger for sex in a relationship. Some may say it was a “positive experience” and that could be true, but I just can’t get it out of my head that you really are taking advantage of youth. I read somewhere on this page about a man who was given baseball cards as a 10 or 9 year-old or around that age by his adult lover. Maybe these gifts turn it into a more positive occurrence. When they grow up, you guys lose interest (sexual, of course, or at least lose exclusively attracted to minors) and the minors grow up and feel hurt maybe not completely about the sex but because their lovers they had as minors never actually loved except mainly on their age. There are people who are raised with sex by one of both parents and stop after puberty and their daughters of sons continue to crave the sex. I think your arguments ultimately excuse these actions and only truly support sexual gratification for minor-attracted adults. You IMO are taking advantage of people at a young age and disguise it innocently with your views, the way minor-adult love occurred in ancient times, and actual experiences with minors. And ALL of this blogging to support it in the name of sexual gratification. Sex is in its core a very sensitive subject and you guys are twisting sexuality to your own arguments. I am sorry, but you only want sex. Adult-attracted heterosexuals are able to maintain a sexual relationship with a person forever, but minor-lovers only fight for the right to sex with minors, not marriage. Reading this blog I see the only interest is sex, not love. Love with a person is capable of lasting forever. A sexual relationship with a minor lasts as long as they are just that, a minor, and then you move on to another minor to pursue a relationship for sex.

PM

Not all of us seek sexual gratification only. You mistaken with me Robert, for example if I want to marry a young girl if that was legal, it is not thrown away the children and look others, is called the cycle of life, relationships between adults are mostly pure waste of jealousy, infidelity and lies, 50% of these marriages “between adults” just lies in divorces, the inherent goodness of adult-adult relationships is pure fantasy of a corrupt society.
However I would like to comment that Mr. O’Carroll and some advocates of pedophilia seem to talk more about sex with children that love and commitment, it may be an inherent flaw of pedophilia… or more simply that sex is so persecuted there defend it at all costs, at the expense, sometimes, of the feeling of the children themselves. Sometimes we think that we are a species of Jews in Warsaw and antipeds bigots make us suffer everything only for defend our interests, on the other hand, legitimate to be expressed and reciprocated, and not to end up dead or in jail, but also each think differently, I disagree with Tom on a few things, I’m relatively more conservative, so to speak, but most agree with him, but you do not think that all the relationships between adults and children is in itself bad that I assure you it is not.
No offense, Tom, I admire you, I just think that sometimes a bit of self-criticism is necessary.

A.

Sex is the obvious sticking point, though, isn’t it. Nobody’s going to object to a close, affectionate, non-sexual relationship between an unrelated adult and child (well, actually, I suspect many would, but…). The sex is the problem, in the minds of wider society. No point not tackling it head-on. And I always remember something somebody wrote on GirlChat, I think it was: that GLs have legitimate sexual needs too, and it’s probably not a good idea to portray them as selfless, sex-drive-less servers of little girls.

Dissident

Sex is the obvious sticking point, though, isn’t it. Nobody’s going to object to a close, affectionate, non-sexual relationship between an unrelated adult and child (well, actually, I suspect many would, but…). The sex is the problem, in the minds of wider society. No point not tackling it head-on. And I always remember something somebody wrote on GirlChat, I think it was: that GLs have legitimate sexual needs too, and it’s probably not a good idea to portray them as selfless, sex-drive-less servers of little girls.
I have no argument with your statement here, A. The problem that so often happens in the media is that the sexual component of the MAP attraction bases are emphasized to the point that all other aspects – emotional, social, aesthetic – get short shrift. This easily gives the public the commonly mistaken impression that the typical MAP attraction bases (pedophilia and hebephilia) are all about sexual lust, and little to nothing else. The fact that the sexual aspect alone is of such lurid, sensationalistic fascination to the public despite their disgust with it only adds to the problem of disproportional focus.
As for the “selfless” aspect: That depends on how you apply the word, I think. I don’t think the sexual component should in any way imply selfishness (not that you think this; I’m talking about public perception) as long as it’s made clear that like most Non-MAPs, pedos and hebes typically prefer any sexual contact (hypothetically speaking) to occur in the context of mutual consent, desire, and respect. The problem is, the public believes that no younger person would ever desire such contact in return, and that disconnect between reality and cultural belief is the rub here.

A.

On second thought though I think you do have a point. I read a BoyChat post (the reason I say this so often is that one week when I was sick in bed I did little else but trawl through the BC and GC archives) by a guy who said that he was almost exclusively attracted to boys 8-14 and preferred their company to anyone else’s. A GirlChatter wrote that while he could have sex with women, girls 7-12 were the people he really loved. For people like this, being cut off socially and emotionally from children is much harder than being cut off from them sexually.
But we’re a diverse group: while it’s safe to say that most of us are fond of kids and like being around them, this seemingly isn’t the case for all. One BoyChatter said he was attracted to men and boys both, but got all his emotional needs met by same-age partners and didn’t feel he needed a boy in his life. Another said that while he still found 12-year-old boys very beautiful and attractive, he had completely lost patience with them because of how annoying they can be. A GirlChatter aged 21 said that he was attracted to girls 8-14 but only sexually, and sought out relationships with young women his own age because they’re more mature. In the absence of legal restrictions, people like this might have casual sexual relationships with children, or simply keep a collection of photos of naked boys or girls, and there’s nothing wrong with that, and they ‘belong’ under our umbrella too, and certainly the persecution of blameless people for collecting nude photos needs to be argued against very vigorously.

Lensman

There no doubt exist child/adult relationships that are conducted in unethical and selfish manners by the adult – some of those may be because the adult is selfish and immoral. However a lot of problems that arise are those of any relationship placed under the strain of stigma, secrecy and illegality (think of moslem-christian relationships in countries under sharia dictatorships, or mixed-race relationships under apartheid).
One source of problems is that we live in a culture in which there are no positive role models to admire, imitate and learn from. The media vigorously and aggressively censors any positive accounts of child-adult relationships. The knock-on effect of this is that there is no easily-available philosophical discourse by which a paedophile can construct an ethical system. The only ‘role models’ the culture makes available are the worst the media can get their hands on – imagine if adult-adult relationships were portrayed only by serial seducers, users of rohypnol, wife-beaters and the Yorkshire Riper. Luckily sites like Tom’s, Girlchat, Boychat and certain sites on the darknet, exist which promote and explore what it means to be an ethical paedophile.
There are also inherent stresses. The question of what happens when as a child leaves the adults ‘age of attraction’ is the one you raise.
My own experience, and that of other paedophiles I’ve discussed this with, has nothing to do with the scenario you postulate (that the paedophile loses interest in the child and leaves him/her).
I have found that what often happens when a child approaches adolescence is that I have become increasingly irrelevant to that child – her interest transferring from myself to the normal desires and concerns of an adolescent (i.e. her peers, teenage boys and/or boys her own age). There is the terrible sadness of being some discarded once-loved toy, a bit of an embarassment hidden in the corner of a bedroom. The challenge has been to learn to accept my increasing irrelevance. In a sense the child has left me.
>”I read somewhere on this page about a man who was given baseball cards as a 10 or 9 year-old or around that age by his adult lover.”
Strange that you seem to think there’s something wrong in this. My Nan used to buy me toy cars. My dad used to give my mum gifts. I buy birthday presents for my friends… Giving gifts to someone you love and care about is not unusual or wrong – the man clearly liked to see his young friend happy. It’s even probable that the kid would occasionally buy or make the man a little gift…
> “And ALL of this blogging to support it in the name of sexual gratification.”
Err – I think there’s very little about actual intimacy in Tom’s blog. I think it’s you who, like a Freudian analyst, is seeing ‘penises, vaginas, breasts and bums’ when everyone else is talking about ‘sausages, lilies, milk jugs and peaches’.
I, as a paedophile, have been at my happiest when in a close, deep and enduring friendship with a child – that relationship was entirely chaste, the girl showed no interest in sex and I was happy with that (it certainly made life a lot safer and a lot less complicated). Nor does that make me any less a paedophile – I loved her with a commitment and respect that no adult male had done before, certainly not her father. I wouldn’t have done this if I’d not been a paedophile. Yes, if she’d have wanted sensual intimacy with me I’d have been seriously tempted – but as it happens – she didn’t, and I was happy with that.
Sensual intimacy is only one of the many possible ways I have of expressing my love for a child, of expressing myself as a paedophile.

Dissident

Hi, Robert. Thank you for posting here, and believe me, I understand your concerns. The media is very harsh on us, and there remains only small opportunities for a voice and scientific data that contradict the mainstream views to be presented. Tom’s blog is one of them, so it’s quite invaluable for those who want to research the full range of this topic. Please allow me to address your concerns.
One oft-repeated concern you made that has always sounded strange to me based on personal experience and empirical observations is the contention that for some reason, if (hypothetically speaking) an 11-year-old girl becomes romantically involved with a man in his 40s, she will fall in love with him deeply for the duration of her lifetime, which then allegedly puts her in the position of being “callously cast aside” by her adult MAP lover when she eventually grows out of his age of preference (for newbies, MAP= Minor Attracted Person, a value-neutral blanket term for pedophiles and hebephiles; I’m a hebephile, btw, which is an adult who has a preferential attraction to young adolescents rather than pre-pubescent children).
This contention doesn’t jibe with reality. It’s often observed and commented upon how pubescent and adolescent relationships with peers tend not to last very long, because younger people change so quickly. That is true. Thus, it’s quite untrue that the adult partner in an intergenerational relationship is likely to be the one to lose romantic interest first. I’m speaking as a law-abiding hebephile who has dated younger women in the age range of 18-early 20s; they, too, tend to change much faster than older adults, and it didn’t tend to be them who got their heart broken in my relationships; the only time I’ve ever broken hearts (which I deeply regret) is when I attempted to pair off with an older woman whom I was not attracted to on any level. It’s quite untrue that younger partners are taking the lion’s share of the emotional risk in age disparate relationships. I’ve had my heart broken numerous times by younger women who eventually moved on, or after their feelings changed form as time went on. Lensman also made this point clear, as it’s a common thing for MAPs of any age preference to experience. This doesn’t seem to be something that the average Non-MAP readily understands at this point in time, however. I’m hoping these discussions will change this situation in the not too distant future.
Here is another important thing to consider. As Tom mentioned, it’s also simply not true that we are only interested in sexual gratification. That is but one component of a very rich attraction base that includes full emotional capacity for love and respect, as well as a naturally strong social component where we have an in depth interest in their entire world. This often includes common interests throughout the social sphere. Their personalities and way of viewing the world, which we consider far from deficient or prurient, appeals to us on a very strong emotional and aesthetic level. In other words, we like them very much as people, and certainly do not view them merely as objects for a temporary period of carnal gratification. Because of this strong emotional bond, we tend to continue to love them and remain a part of their lives even after they grow out of our age of attraction. The love doesn’t end, it simply changes form. And as noted above, it’s rare that their romantic feelings for us remain intact longer than ours does. I think this is also the case for many couples who remain together after becoming elderly; the form of love they feel for each other remains very much intact, but it changes form.
Finally, there is the popular cultural conceit that the only type of valid romance is one that occurs within the context of a life-long monogamous pairing. Considering how this type of arrangement doesn’t even work for many adults with a conventional age preference, it also needs to be re-thought as an expectation that should apply to age disparate couples. Successful life-long monogamous pairings have indeed occurred between youth couples and between MAPs and youths (note the late celebrity hebephile Charlie Chaplain), but clearly it’s not a type of arrangement that can be beneficial to all of them. In a world where full diversity was accepted, where no “one size fits all” type of arrangement was expected of everyone, and where intergenerational romance was allowed, a variety of relationship arrangements would be accepted and applicable depending upon the needs and best interests of not only different types of couples, but individuals within the various groups.
Thank you for posting, and for listening, despite your disagreements, Robert. I hope we can provide you with some food for thought here.

A.

“This doesn’t seem to be something that the average Non-MAP readily understands at this point in time, however.”
And yet it can’t be so hard to understand. Many parents feel pangs of sorrow and nostalgia as their children enter adolescence and their friends, not their family, become the centre of their world. Parents and child-lovers both have to step back, but remain ready to help when they’re needed. It’s hard for both.

Ethanic

Dear Robert.
Paedophilia is not the equivalent of heterosexuality, as far as this goes.
Thus we can have heterosexual sadists, as well as paedosexual sadists.
But there is no such thing as a paedophilic sadist, as this would be a contradiction in terms.

A.

If you want something straight from the (former) child’s mouth, have a look at these three interviews: http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1_5.htm . They’re with three boys in their later teens each of whom was involved with the same boy-lover, Ferdinand, some years previously. For two, the sexual contact has now stopped. They’re moving on with their lives, finding girlfriends, living independently, but they remain close friends with Ferdinand, whom they declare they love.

Edmund

“Reading this blog I see the only interest is sex, not love.”
If it appears so, that is very simply because it is only sex that is the subject of contention. I doubt anyone here is more or less obsessed with sex than the average person.
However, whatever some claim for Platonic love and a few may have achieved, and blood ties aside, it is notoriously difficult to have strong love without sex, partly I think because of its effect in rapidly breaking down inhibitions, both physical and emotional. The intense bonding it facilitates is for everyone its one strongly useful function besides reproduction. Only a tiny proportion of sexual acts between a man and his wife make or are intended to make babies. The rest are still crucially important in binding them together for the benefit of their offspring. The potential benefits to be had for children (especially pubescents in my view) from bonding with adults do not need repeating here.
So, it is the bonding that really matters, but sex, sexual feeling and even just the imagined possibility of sex all make that bonding far more realistic. Reading this blog myself, I suspect most here would agree with that. If there really are any whose “only interest is sex”, my guess is that that’s because they have been made so sexually desperate by enforced celibacy that they cannot think straight and are not being their natural selves.
Edmund, Alexander’s Choice, http://www.amazon.com/Alexanders-Choice/dp/1481222112

A.

Yes, if I remember correctly Clancy does not accept that adult-child sex can be positive overall and in the long term, so obviously she can’t have been setting out to investigate positive experiences and the sample she wound up with reflects that. I see she has also written Abducted: How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped By Aliens, which looks like another interesting read.

Dissident

What was needed at the time, it seems to me, was some light and air and open discussion:
I think what was also needed, and not provided by current society, is sexual education from an early age. And I’m talking about a value-neutral form of education, as opposed to those that lack any acceptance of nuance and individual diversity of experience, while simply imposing a moralizing agenda. What we get instead are policies that attempt to entirely shield young people from the reality of sexuality. With this total suppression, and the frequent ire directed at young children who do express sexual curiosity in a certain manner, is it honestly any wonder that so many kids may react with confusion when someone of any age – including adults – react with sexual interest towards them? It seems our current education system doesn’t take simple reality into account when it comes to kids, and also appears to take the concern that teaching a major aspect of life is tantamount to actually endorsing the activity. Only a rigid combination of suppression and condemnation are applied when it comes to this subject where kids are concerned, and this is the major reason, I think, that so many of them find sexual interest towards them to be confusing.

bjmuirhead

Clancy says on page 38
Initially, from my perspective as a researcher and
academic, it did not matter that they knew, liked, or
trusted the perpetrator. It did not matter that no force
or aggression was used. The experiences were still hor-
rible, and listening to the details filled me with fear,
shock, and revulsion. As an adult I understood that the
events occurring were sexual in nature, very wrong,
and an egregious violation of a child’s rights.

She says many similar things up to that point (which is as far as I have read, at the moment). What is interesting about this is obvious: she has and maintains a moral position from which she seems unwilling to deviate, and from this position she maintains that all adult-child sexual contact can be so characterised. Hence, she would not approve of an age of sexual consent of 12, which was the prescribed age in most, if not all, of the English speaking world 100 years ago, when young adult women were presumed to be ready for marriage and sex. She would regard people of that age as children, irrespective of the way the society of the time viewed them.
It is difficult to adopt a non-moral viewpoint, and yet this surely is what is necessary if it is going to be possible to make any even handed evaluation of adult-child sex. On this point, the stories she has related up to where I have read are interesting because they all take place within a moral context which rejects adult-child sex which entails that the views of the child are formed within a context of uncertain moral evaluation. For me this is interesting because children explore sexually, usually with peers, without knowing that it is sex or sexual, as I did. (I think I’ve mentioned this in a previous comment.)
The point is that a person does not need to “know” that something is “sexual” in order to do something sexual. An act can be enjoyed or not enjoyed without that knowledge. The issue is whether or not one attaches a particular moral opinion to the knowledge that this particular act is sexual, over and above what actually takes place.
I think what I am saying is that it is not merely a matter of whether or not a particular instance of adult-child sex causes harm to a child, it also is a matter of whether or not it is wrong morally, with the latter being the most important aspect in the sense that, if adult-child sexual contact is regarded as morally wrong, there will be harm even if the act was mutually anjoyed, peaceful and loving, perhaps even if there is no actual sexual contact, but merely the (hysterical?) supposition that the adult sought sex with a child.
Taken from this point of view, books such as Clancy’s, at best, are a small step toward a moral re-evaluation which sees force and agression as the “evil”, and places adult-child sex within this differing context.
This moral re-evaluation is what I am concerned with (and not only in the area of adult-child sexual relations).
In what little I have read of Clancy, the moral belief that children are “sexually innocent” is implied rather than explicitly stated. Not mentioned at all (though it may be mentioned later in the book) is that children engage in what some theorists call “sexual rehearsal”, engaging in a variety of sexual activities (without necessarily knowing that they are sexual) with great pleasure. To accept this, and the extent to which it occurs in all known human societies, necessarily will alter the type of moral assertion which Clancy makes, and demands a re-evaluation of the public moral view. The reason for this is summed up in a simple question: surely childhood sexual rehearsal can occur with caring adults without ill effect?

Dissident

I’m sure you did your best on this interview, Tom. One of the things to remember is that too many journalists, even those who may have some legitimate sympathy for MAPs, are unable to put their strong anti-choice biases aside to objectively tackle the subject in any meaningful way. When they are interviewing a known pro-choicer, they too often give into the temptation to use this as an opportunity to “batter” the MAP in question with all of the mainstream ideology and opinions that are so sacred to both them and their viewers alike. They’re more interested in giving you a lecture and a “lesson” on popular moralism than they are with actually hearing what you have to say. With public sentiment so strongly on their side, they are well aware that they will almost certainly be forgiven by the public for any such treatment of the interviewee (“the fact that Ross was able to sit across from that wanker for more than 30 seconds without shoving a bloody knife in his neck showed him far more courtesy than he actually deserved anyway!”) .
They also likely operate under the arrogant conceit that they need expend no effort in seeking the truth of the matter with the interviewee, because on this topic the “truth” is already a given. This is why they mindlessly spout mainstream rhetoric as if they were facts, and have little interest in portraying the message of the interviewee as anything worth listening to.

Josh

I would strongly advise any young person not to publicly defend pedophiles. It’s too dangerous and it’s not worth it because people don’t listen. Try to live an anonymous happy life with young people you love. Visibility is a trap. Once the eyes are set on you there is no escaping.

Dissident

I would strongly advise any young person not to publicly defend pedophiles. It’s too dangerous and it’s not worth it because people don’t listen. Try to live an anonymous happy life with young people you love. Visibility is a trap. Once the eyes are set on you there is no escaping.
This I must, for the most part, respectfully disagree with, Josh. No doubt there are many risks involved with “coming out,” let alone in such a public fashion. But I think much of these risks largely exist precisely because the vast majority of us have stayed firmly hidden from public view over the past 35 years. Despite the individual risks that such a thing entails, if many more of us never take the chance to present that human face to the public, then progress will occur only at a snail’s pace. Things will too long remain at a point where it seems that “nobody listens.” It’s easy to ignore a few lone voices in the wilderness, but it’s night-impossible to ignore a group of faces and voices in a global choir.
I understand that not everyone is cut out to be an activist. Many of us cannot consider this route for a variety of important personal and professional reasons. But if every single one of us simply stuck to the shadows and did little more than set up our own little personal nest of happiness, and refused to look at the bigger picture, then achieving such happiness even on a totally personal level will be wrought with risk for far longer than it needs to be. The longer so many of us hide, the longer we allow society at large to define and portray us as they please. The lack of many people taking such risks is what creates and bolsters these risks in the first place, if that makes sense.
Further, many of us are not comfortable with simply hiding and pretending we aren’t MAPs, and being solely concerned with finding whatever happiness we can by forging friendships with a personal social circle of boys and/or girls. For some of us, that is just, well, “not us.” I have no doubt that many anonymous MAPs are truly enriching the lives of the few boys and girls who comprise their personal circle of friendship, and that’s great. But there always needs to be a number of us – the larger, the better – who are concerned with the big picture overall. Social progress for many wouldn’t occur for far longer periods of time if we all confined our attention and concerns to our tiny personal circle only. In fact, I strongly believe that the reason the world is in such poor condition right now is entirely because most people of any particular group limit their concerns only to those who comprise their immediate family and/or social circle of relevance, and have no concerns over what is going on in the greater world as long as they can have a few small crumbs of the happiness pie.

Edmund

I agree with Josh. I have yet to see any evidence that any activist has ever achieved anything except when he is acting in accord with the spirit of the age, by which I mean he is articulating the public’s (often uneasy) conscience. That is all that great reformers have ever done. Paedophilia is not in accord with the spirit of the age and virtually no one feels uneasy vilifying it. Far from it. Without endorsing Lensman’s green interpretation, I think he did well (possibly unintentionally) in showing how we are at the mercy of economic developments far beyond the control of individuals. Change will come one day, but not from anyone here and quite likely for reasons no one has even thought of. In the meantime, it is thoroughly irresponsible to encourage young people to ruin their lives by exposing themselves.
Tom is not young and his case is different. Besides being exceptionally articulate and resilient and having a strong taste for debate, he became a public advocate of this cause in the seventies, and having thus exposed himself then has no reason to abandon it now. The seventies was the age of the permissive society when, amongst other things, ages of consent were crashing down in Europe and sex involving obviously willing children became de facto legal in countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark which were then considered most representative of social progress. It was entirely reasonable for a young man such as Tom then was to conclude that he was acting in accord with the spirit of the age. In my opinion, his only extraordinary error of judgement, as expressed in “Paedophilia: The Radical Case”, was in expressing hope rather than fear of the change likely to emerge from one particular country which promptly acted decisively to turn the liberating tide of the others. This is too often forgotten.
Do you, Dissident, have any evidence that what you advocate people doing would not feed the fire of public hysteria rather than tame it?
Edmund, Alexander’s Choice, http://www.amazon.com/Alexanders-Choice/dp/1481222112

Lensman

> ” I think he did well (possibly unintentionally) in showing how we are at the mercy of economic developments far beyond the control of individuals”
Ahh, believe me, Edmund, that that any connections I made between attitudes and economics (and other ‘deep’ factors such as geography, climate, history…) were entirely intentional!

Dissident

I agree with Josh. I have yet to see any evidence that any activist has ever achieved anything except when he is acting in accord with the spirit of the age, by which I mean he is articulating the public’s (often uneasy) conscience.
That is all that great reformers have ever done.

Yet change and progress has occurred throughout history thanks to the determined efforts of activists. I think the cynicism you espouse is based on the fact that during an era of time when a certain type of bigotry is popular, it seems that things cannot possibly change. Change is the major rule of history, however, even if it doesn’t seem possible from one’s present vantage point.
Paedophilia is not in accord with the spirit of the age and virtually no one feels uneasy vilifying it. Far from it. Without endorsing Lensman’s green interpretation, I think he did well (possibly unintentionally) in showing how we are at the mercy of economic developments far beyond the control of individuals.
Yet these are human-created developments that we are only at the mercy of for as long as a majority of us continue to allow it. In a previous era, people were at the mercy of feudal lords and the system from which they benefited until the efforts of a growing minority of individuals created an accumulation of changes that eventually resulted in a major overhaul of the system and the majority’s thoughts.
Change will come one day, but not from anyone here and quite likely for reasons no one has even thought of.
There is no evidence to suggest that the efforts of activists have nothing to do with changes that have occurred in the past, and I think the case is quite the contrary. Tom’s work, as just one example, has resulted in dialogue being established where it wasn’t before. The efforts of emerging orgs such as B4U-ACT are also gradually encouraging changes in thought and research from a different angle. I don’t think your contention holds up to strict empirical observations.
In the meantime, it is thoroughly irresponsible to encourage young people to ruin their lives by exposing themselves.
Only if I suggested they just did that very thing with no consideration for the individual circumstances they live under, and considering all of the possible pros and cons. I did no such thing, and mentioned all of the potential risks. I am “out” as a MAP to most people who know me personally and professionally in real life, and I’m one of several MAPs I know whose life wasn’t ruined as a result. It can and has happened, but it doesn’t in a surprisingly large number of cases. But the more of us that remain hidden, the more our community remains a group of people who lack a human face, and allow the media to define us rather than our having the ability to prove ourselves on our own merits.
Tom is not young and his case is different. Besides being exceptionally articulate and resilient and having a strong taste for debate, he became a public advocate of this cause in the seventies, and having thus exposed himself then has no reason to abandon it now. The seventies was the age of the permissive society when, amongst other things, ages of consent were crashing down in Europe and sex involving obviously willing children became de facto legal in countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark which were then considered most representative of social progress. It was entirely reasonable for a young man such as Tom then was to conclude that he was acting in accord with the spirit of the age. In my opinion, his only extraordinary error of judgement, as expressed in “Paedophilia: The Radical Case”, was in expressing hope rather than fear of the change likely to emerge from one particular country which promptly acted decisively to turn the liberating tide of the others. This is too often forgotten.
It wasn’t a miscalculation on his part that was a “given.” There was good reason for him to make that supposition at the time, and it can still happen in a different way in the future. The type of liberal society we had during the ’70s is possible to obtain again, under similar circumstances. We simply have to keep fighting to make it happen. We cannot allow setbacks like the one that occurred with the onset of the ’80s to beat us down.
Do you, Dissident, have any evidence that what you advocate people doing would not feed the fire of public hysteria rather than tame it?
Yes, and that is common historical precedent. Oppressed groups are always weakest and most vulnerable when their voices are quiet, and when they are hidden from public visibility. That allows the powers-that-be in the media and government to make unchallenged claims about them while the majority of the oppressed hide in fear while struggling not to be discovered. Their lives are often then ruined when they are discovered, which happens all too often. I think our efforts would be served in working together to change public hearts and minds than individual struggles to keep ourselves hidden. That simply allows those who love and respect us to feel comfortable assuming that we can’t possibly be MAPs simply because we are people who earned such love and respect. When such minority groups have come out in large numbers to make their voices heard, they eventually gain enough support from chunks of the mainstream to make further moves towards achieving greater degrees of equality and consideration. It appears to be an extremely slow process from our vantage point due to the extreme brevity of the human life span, which can readily distort our perception of what constitutes a lengthy or short period of time when measured against the full degree of human history. The late historian Prof. Harris Mirkin made this clear in a lengthy and controversial 1999 essay “The Pattern of Sexual Politics,” where he compared the pedophile situation (as it was then) to the previous homosexual and women’s movements.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v37n02_01?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed#.VZ4IZvno6So

Dissident

So noted, in regards to the technical points! Thank you for your complimentary words, also.

A.

Asking very belatedly indeed: can you explain to a WordPress dunce how to do italics and how to turn a word into a hyperlink?

A.

Thank you!

Edmund

“Yet change and progress has occurred throughout history thanks to the determined efforts of activists.”
One tiny piece of evidence, please? I do not mean of what I have already said great reformers can achieve in articulating successfully something that the public deep down knows is not right, such as Luther did with Catholic sales of absolution, Wilberforce with slavery, or Gandhi with British imperialism . The case of paedophilia is absolutely to the contrary: in so far as the public is feeling deeply uneasy, it is over its supposed insensitivity to the plight of what it has been brainwashed into seeing as victims of paedophilia. What activist has ever genuinely turned the tide rather than simply moved it along? I still contend it is sheer vanity when activists imagine otherwise, though of course they are bound to do so or they couldn’t maintain their stance.
“There is no evidence to suggest that the efforts of activists have nothing to do with changes that have occurred in the past.”
I am not a scientist and may be foolish, but one thing my scientist father taught me when I was six and afraid of ghosts and that I am sure was correct is that a negative never needs to be proved. First try to demonstrate activists have had something to do with changes (profound, not reasonably predictable ones), and then I think I shall be able to refute you with logic.
In the meantime, I reassert that the lifelong harm you could be doing right now to a naive, idealistic young man is incalculable.
Edmund, Alexander’s Choice, a novel

Lensman

This may not answer your questions, but I think that there’s an absolute value to speaking out, explaining and defending what you believe is true, whether doing so changes things or not.
Many Germans took stances against the Nazis during the second world war and suffered for having done so.
They changed nothing, they didn’t prevent the actions of the Nazis, yet their actions (which would have seen as foolhardy at the time as a paedophile openly defending his/her love) served a valuable function once Nazism was defeated – they showed that in situations where insanity and unreason reign, sane and reasonable people still exist, still maintain their principles, still have courage to speak out. They provide evidence that Humanity and Reason can persist under the most unfavourable circumstances.
I think this discussion is flawed – it seems to be based on a hope that some Gandhi figure, a paedophile Nelson Mandela will lead us out of the desert, will change the world.
Who knows? Such a person may come along.
But, in truth, we’re destined to be foot-soldiers not generals – not to change the world but to change what we can change – maybe a friend, an acquaintance or some anonymous interlocutor on an internet discussion group. I know that many of us achieve a great deal within the circles of our influence. I know that Tom’s blog has influenced many open-minded people, made them think harder around the issues.
Though I believe that profound changes can only happen peacefully when they are congruent with social systems and structures, I also believe that ideas and facts and evidence have an inherent power.
People when confronted with hard facts, evidence and reason can be forced to question even their most dearly held ideas. My uncle, who smoked all his life, and long denied that cigarettes were harmful, had his mind changed by the hard fact of lung cancer.
We’ve facts, evidence and reasoned arguments to support our case – the world, confronted by these, won’t change – but individuals will.
Ultimately I think there is an absolute value in speaking what one believes to be the truth – though often, to do so, might take more courage than we have.
Nor must we give up on non-paedophiles – they are not all knuckle-dragging members of lynch-mobs. There are almost certainly more skeptical ‘nons’ out there than appearances would suggest. They are drowned out by the mob, but they are there, lying low, keeping their doubts to themselves, trying to work things out in a context that offers them no tools or ideas to work through their doubts.
That’s why we need to keep speaking up – we won’t change the minds of the mob, but we can maybe reach the skeptical nons out there and engage them in a deeper dialogue.

Edmund

“Many Germans took stances against the Nazis during the second world war and suffered for having done so. …. They provide evidence that Humanity and Reason can persist under the most unfavourable circumstances.”
I take it you mean the White Rose movement etc. In so far as their actions have the importance you ascribe to them, it comes down almost entirely to their purely unselfish motives. The analogy with a young paedophile coming out is false. If he does so and tries to explain why his feelings are not sick (which is Dissident’s purpose for him exposing himself), the public is simply going to think “he would believe that, wouldn’t he.” He will have achieved nothing but his own ruin. A truer analogy would be with a Jew in the Third Reich who, after years of successfully hiding his identity, suddenly came onto the street to say “I’m a Jew and your persecution of us is wrong.” He too would have accomplished nothing but his own demise. Even though what he said was true, the average German would still have thought “he would believe that, wouldn’t he.” In fact I have never heard of such an idiot. Have you?
“But, in truth, we’re destined to be foot-soldiers not generals – not to change the world but to change what we can change – maybe a friend, an acquaintance or some anonymous interlocutor on an internet discussion group. I know that many of us achieve a great deal within the circles of our influence.”
I quite agree with this, but in order to be a good foot-soldier you don’t need to expose yourself as Dissident wants young men to do. On the contrary, you need to learn good survival techniques if you are to have any success.

Dissident

“Yet change and progress has occurred throughout history thanks to the determined efforts of activists.”
One tiny piece of evidence, please?

The abolitionists. The women’s rights movement. The gay rights movement. Civil rights activists in general. Many variations of the latter throughout history.
I do not mean of what I have already said great reformers can achieve in articulating successfully something that the public deep down knows is not right, such as Luther did with Catholic sales of absolution, Wilberforce with slavery, or Gandhi with British imperialism . The case of paedophilia is absolutely to the contrary: in so far as the public is feeling deeply uneasy, it is over its supposed insensitivity to the plight of what it has been brainwashed into seeing as victims of paedophilia. What activist has ever genuinely turned the tide rather than simply moved it along? I still contend it is sheer vanity when activists imagine otherwise, though of course they are bound to do so or they couldn’t maintain their stance.
I think, Edmund, that you simply mistake determination, gumption, and a positive form of stubborn adherence to principles as vanity. I do not think small numbers of people are ineffective against various types of hatred when said forms of intolerance are at their peak; in fact, I believe they perform an important service by providing contrary voices and information so that those who are sincerely seeking accurate information amongst the chorus of hatred can find it if they are inclined to look hard enough.
“There is no evidence to suggest that the efforts of activists have nothing to do with changes that have occurred in the past.”
I am not a scientist and may be foolish, but one thing my scientist father taught me when I was six and afraid of ghosts and that I am sure was correct is that a negative never needs to be proved. First try to demonstrate activists have had something to do with changes (profound, not reasonably predictable ones), and then I think I shall be able to refute you with logic.

I honestly don’t think are you arguing with logic here, Edmund. I think you are very angry and cynical regarding the possibility of change due to having lived so many years under the policies of official condemnation of pedophilia and hebephilia, and this colors your interpretations of much of what you see. This is emotion, not logic or reason.
In the meantime, I reassert that the lifelong harm you could be doing right now to a naive, idealistic young man is incalculable.
Here is part of the problem as I see it with your interpretations of things, Edmund. You demonstrate here, as you have in the past, strong conservative biases and sentiments regarding younger people – and other things regarding the place of intergenerational relations in society, both historically and in contemporary times – that serve as a bias. For instance, you referred to Josh as “naive,” and then refer to “idealism” as if this is a negative thing, simply because he is young, when you do not know him personally, or much about him, as an individual. These are common geronto-centric biases and assumptions regarding youth and many of the traits they tend to possess. I don’t think I’m making an unfounded assessment here, because you used the term “young man” right after the adjectives “naive” and “idealistic,” which I believe more than logically implies a connection between these things in your eyes. And as Tom also noted, I did acknowledge that “coming out” can be a risk depending upon various circumstances, but you ignore this by reiterating the above accusation without mentioning this. That doesn’t mean that Tom agreed with me in full over you, but it does suggest he read my statement with more objectivity, since he made note of my acknowledgement whereas you did not. So among our differences in view, I do not presume that Josh is naive simply for being young, or for asking for advice. He is certainly idealistic, but I don’t see that as a problem, because I’ve seen idealism serve many people of all ages quite well. And I know many older people who are most certainly not wise, and who most certainly do not make good decisions. And I know of many others, as they sit in the chambers of Congress and the White House, and the policies they make speak for themselves.
I think Lensman said many other things in his response worth noting, and much better than I could have, as usual. Good food for thought potential.

Josh

It is much wiser to stay in the dark. If I told anyone that I was a pedophile I would never be allowed to be alone with a child ever again. If, however, I stay quiet about it then no one is bothered. This is the way it works. The only people who can talk about this are the people with nothing to lose because they’ve already had their life destroyed.

Ethanic

And It depends on more people coming out, too.
The fatalist approach, which is most apparent in a movement such as VirPed is a dead end street.
It seems to me that at this point it will only take a year or two or three for things to start turning around. After all, the mass of society can be misled in the dark only so long.

PM

So, how many approximate years happen to pedophilia start being accepted as the LGBT people?

Ethanic

seven point one-five, precisely!

Josh

Are there any boys in your life? Would you find it very difficult if not impossible to form close relationship with boys because of what people know about you? If the answer is no and then yes… your life has been destroyed.

stephen6000

” I have never suffered from depression. I do not need any sort of medication.”
But you did attempt suicide at one point.

stephen6000

“Not that I blame anyone for making other life choices, or for being depressed, if that is an implication that offends you”.
No, it doesn’t offend me, even though I do regularly suffer from depression. I agree that your 40-year freedom from depression since you came out is very telling and shows that it was the right decision for you, despite some of the other things that have happened to you.

Josh

Imagine we were both rabbits and I saw you getting attacked by a wolf. While my heart would certainly bleed for you, there is no way I’m going to try and fight the wolf to save you. That would be stupid. There are times to fight and then there are times to hide. Now is a time to hide.

feinmann0

“It is much wiser to stay in the dark. “ (Josh)
“Coming out is a really tough call I would say, and it all depends on by whom, to whom, and in what circumstances.” (Tom)
“I am ‘out’ as a MAP to most people who know me personally and professionally in real life, and I’m one of several MAPs I know whose life wasn’t ruined as a result. It can and has happened, but it doesn’t in a surprisingly large number of cases.” (Dissident)
Yes, a really tough call Tom, and in my experience, unlike Dissident, matters have been made infinitely worse by confiding in friends of many years, and then to have those very people turn against me. In one case, the person took it upon themselves to inform people in the village where I was staying, of the risk that I posed to the families that lived there. How can a solitary individual possibly hold his head up high and maintain any semblance of normality when his daily existence is wracked by fear?
In my opinion, Josh appears to be the wisest of us all with regard to coming out as a paedophile. Further, I certainly would not advocate “determination, gumption, and a positive form of stubborn adherence to principles” to any fellow minor-attracted person under any circumstances. Until there is a tsunami-sized sea-change in society’s mindset, one runs the risk of having one’s life significantly diminished once people become aware of the monster in their midst.

Red Rodent

You can but try, Tom…
BTW, wasn’t Peter Righton’s long-term partner himself a boy when they first met?

Linca

Sounds like Sir Peter Hayman was a kind insightful man who could connect with the young, especially the difficult young. We all have known them haven’t we, if in fact we weren’t one those men ourselves. No wonder we are hated. We inoculate difficult young men against war and murder. At least that has been my experience by being one of those boys and one of those men. May Sir Peter Hayman rest in peace.

stephen6000

One piece of trivia about Peter Hayman is that he was a Mastermind contestant and I think he won one of the heats, but he is not listed in Wikipedia as an outright winner in any year. I’m only basing this on my personal recollections, so it would be nice to get some confirmation of this.
Not that this really affects anything important!

stephen6000

I’ve just been on a BBC website called Genome and it does confirm that he was on Mastermind–on November 28, 1979.

stephen6000

Actually, I’m seeing them in the logically correct order i.e. the earlier one first.

A.

Which raises the question: is there a place in the world for the sexuality of MAP sadists? There must be a fair few of them: my impression is that in their sexual sub-preferences, if you will, MAPs seem very boringly normal. Lots of attraction to blond, blue-eyed, outgoing children; lots of foot fetishes; lots of girl-lovers who like little East Asian girls, little girls in ‘slutty’ outfits, etc.; lots of girl-lovers who like slender girls and boy-lovers who like boys of medium build; some lovers of chubby children, dark-haired children, quiet children, freckled redheads, etc.; some who aren’t much bothered as to hair or eye colour; some sadism and masochism. According to Sylvia Townsend Warner’s biography (I sought it out years ago after reading Paedophilia: The Radical Case), T. H. White was not only attracted to 12-year-old boys but was also a sadist. He seems never to have acted on his sadistic feelings. Is this the only path open to people like him?
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that sadomasochism, like other sexual orientations, manifests itself early on. Anne Lawrence’s Men Trapped in Men’s Bodies, for instance, contains a particularly extreme example: a man who from childhood fantasised about being stabbed in the belly. An early work of the gay filmmaker Todd Haynes, Dottie Gets Spanked, is about a somewhat feminine boy of “six and three-quarters” who fantasises about spanking and being spanked. Haynes says the film is autobiographical, so it’s a pretty safe assumption that he too had spanking fantasies when he was 6. Is it A-OK for an adult to involve such a child in a sadomasochistic relationship? I’d say no, sorry, kid, the risk of emotional damage is too great, wait till you’re older. But how much older? This boy http://www.just-well.dk/CrimeWithoutVictims/martin.html , though only 13 at the time, seems to have suffered no damage from his experience — but he does say that his stepfather, wisely and responsibly in my opinion, kept sex and punishment separate after the first incident. ‘Ron’, one of the subjects of this study http://www.human-being.nl/Library/extein.htm , is a secondary-school teacher and church youth group worker who has had many close friendships with boys and has also had sex with various boys aged 10-14. He describes one relationship with a “mid-pubescent” boy of 13 who “made advances to Ron. He would unclothe to nudity in front of him, ‘seeking it out’. Ron said that the boy liked to be his slave, with touches of S&M.” In that situation, the boy, unlike the Danish lad above, was not living with Ron or dependent on him in any way, but was free to withdraw from the relationship at any time.
In Morris Fraser’s chapter in Perspectives on Paedophilia, he mentions a young man of 25 who was exclusively attracted to, indeed was rather obsessive about, boys 8-13. He had turned down a university place in order to work in a boys’ care home. While supervising bathtime and bedtime he would engage the boys in “increasingly daring” sex games that included spanking, and on a couple of occasions this led to his masturbating a boy to orgasm. Fraser seems remarkably unconcerned about the spanking. Certainly rough-and-tumble play is very common among children, especially boys, and many children, especially boys, of that time (the 1970s) would have been used to being beaten at school — but of course the latter is no good thing. I don’t particularly like the sound of this case http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2754261/Jail-sex-pest-choirmaster-72-forced-young-boys-strip-private-lessons.html . The boy in this one http://www.gazetteseries.co.uk/news/1942565.choirmaster_admits_sexually_assaulting_boy/ , however, was laughing the whole time and didn’t even remember the incident when questioned about it. According to his father, he was formerly a quiet and caring child but his behaviour had become “erratic” following the choirmaster’s arrest. I wonder why! In this particular instance I can see no harm in the choirmaster’s little spanking game or in his hanging on to the video and masturbating to more extreme sadomasochistic fantasies while watching it. The boy would perhaps not have been too happy about it if he knew (and of course he did eventually find out), but my gut instinct is to say that this was an important sexual outlet for the choirmaster, perhaps preventing him from doing harm and probably making a big contribution to his happiness, so, well, what the kid didn’t know wouldn’t have hurt him.

Red Rodent

Hi, A.
Spanking and BDSM are common paraphiliae, as evidenced by the sheer volume of websites, printed matter, paraphernalia and, of course, brothels that cater for the fetish. I’m sure that it’s distinct from paedophilia, although it may well go alongside it more often than we assume.
It’s also distinct from sadism in that it’s not a desire to inflict actual harm on anyone. I’d argue that it’s harmless as a fantasy or when acted out as role-play between consenting adults — or consenting children for that matter. I’d agree, though, that never the twain should meet.
I knew well before puberty that it turned me on. As a kid I used to play spanking games with my friends and there was most certainly a sexual element to them. Moreover, I don’t recall any of said friends being particularly fazed by it, which leads me to conclude that I wasn’t unusual in anything other than my precocity.
But the thought of any adult finding out about this — never mind being actively involved in it — freaks me out to this day…

A.

Hi, nice to ‘meet’ you and thanks for your story.
“I’m sure that it’s distinct from paedophilia, although it may well go alongside it more often than we assume.” The assumption I am making is that paedophilia coexists with sadomasochism about as often as teleiophilic heterosexuality does. You find a lot of straight men who like blue-eyed blondes — so it is with paedophiles. You find a lot of straight men who like feet — so it is with paedophiles. So I’m making the assumption…but I could well be wrong. There’s been no research into this as far as I’m aware.
The view of many fairly enlightened people, I suspect, is that children do have a sexuality and should be allowed sex play with one another, but never with adults, because in the latter case the risk of harm is too great. Obviously I disagree, but I’m inclined to think that in the case of sadomasochistic games between adults and young children this view is right, that, as you say, “never the twain should meet”.

Ethanic

I do not endorse sado-masochistic etc. behaviour in the least, and have no taste for it at all, but I don’t think you have a good argument regarding the power imbalance.
After all this is one argument used against paedophiles in general. It is the same thing really.
Thus, a sensitive MAP will definitely know when to stop, whether it is trans-gen love making or trans-gen S&M games.

Dissident

Re: Sadism, I agree with much of what Red Rodent said. BDSM and sadism are entirely distinct from pedophilia and hebephilia. The “hurtcore” thing you see in the darker regions of the Web are likely a far-reaching fetish that can be an addition to any type of attraction base, without being unique to any one in particular. Do I think it’s common among MAPs? I would opine it’s no more so than amongst people in the LGBT designations, and because there are so many less of us than straight heterosexual same-age preferring Non-MAPs, there are much less of us with an interest in sadistic fantasies and BDSM than them for that reason alone.
Now, do I think simulated BDSM-like games would cause a child emotional harm if they themselves had a desire for it? I would say no, because that really makes no more sense than to say that mutually desired sexual contact in general with an adult would automatically cause them emotional harm simply due to their age. However, I do think it’s a VERY bad idea to act out BDSM-like games with a pre-pubescent due to the much greater possibility of physical harm being inadvertently inflicted upon them by the larger and stronger adult. Then again, it can be argued that men are typically much stronger than women, and women who are turned on by being the recipient of BDSM-style activities being directed at them are most often not seriously hurt by a male partner, and often take further precautions against this by having a code word they can use if things are getting a bit too painful or uncomfortable.
So this is a topic that really needs more research when the time comes that it can be conducted objectively. However, like incest, it’s nothing I would ever personally promote or endorse, even if I do not believe laws against it should be so harsh, if extant at all. It would require extra measures of responsible conduct that would really need to be taken into consideration, and this is why I think it’s better left completely within the realm of fantasy.
Of course, certain harmless simulations of mutually inflicted violence could be played between adults and children, IMO: Why not, for example, play a game of laser tag with each other, where they simulate hunting and shooting? (I don’t recommend paint ball shooting, because those paint pellets freakin’ hurt when they hit you!) I love laser tag, as it’s harmless, a good workout, and I’ve played against opponents of myriad ages at places that hold them. Or, alternatively, you can use action figures to simulate each other, or engage in a game of Rock-n-Sock-Em Robots. Or how about simply playing a video game like Call of Duty or Mortal Kombat against each other? There are many imaginative ways some people can simulate such things without actually incurring a serious risk of physical (or emotional) harm.

A.

“Do I think it’s common among MAPs? I would opine it’s no more so than amongst people in the LGBT designations…” Me too. That’s my best guess, in the total absence of research.
Oh, actually, not total. Out of 77 MAPs surveyed by Wilson and Cox, 2 said that their relationships with children involved spanking: two and a half percent. I would guess that the number who fantasised about spanking or something similar was rather higher than the number who acted out their fantasies. For instance, we know by following up his subject number, 23, that the man who fantasised about “mutual spanking sessions” with little girls had in fact “teased, kissed, spanked girls”, and we know by process of elimination that his favourite age must have been somewhere in the 8-10 range. But we don’t know if the man who fantasised about “being in control of large numbers of boys and being able to undress and spank them” had ever actually spanked a boy. And we do know there was at least one more person, subject 13, who described himself as “sodomy oriented”, very interested in buttocks, attracted to children on a purely sexual level, and given to fantasies of “rape in symbolic environments”, which he apparently turned into hand-drawn comics. He also described himself as very unhappy about his sexuality, which he felt did wide-ranging damage to his life. So 3, minimum, out of 77. But even if we double that number, we’re at 6/77, which is a little under 8%.
Despite the starry-eyed idealism of some, including some CLs, we know that children can be very bloodthirsty. In fact, the research I have read indicates that aggression peaks between the second and third birthdays and then declines throughout the lifespan. Lots of kids, especially boys, absolutely love rough-and-tumbles, video games complete with realistic death rattles and all the rest of it. I spent a lot of my time when I was about six making a gun out of my hand or shooting things with water pistols. That is quite different to a sexual spanking game though, and here the argument “but it’s duplicitous because the adult is enjoying it on a different level” may have some force. Most kids know something about sexual pleasure, but if they’re not that way inclined themselves they likely have no idea about sexual pleasure from spanking and suchlike. I certainly didn’t. I’m genuinely unsure how much this matters. Stephen Fry is on record (Moab is my Washpot) as saying that if it could be proven that one of the teachers who beat him when he was at preparatory school, aged 8-12, got sexual pleasure out of it, “I would shrug and say, ‘Poor old soul, at least he never harmed me’.”
As you say, full-blown BDSM stuff with safewords and hoods and goodness knows what all is just too dangerous — and I would argue emotionally as well as physically dangerous — for young children to be engaged in. The law currently says that only at 16 are you ready to go out and have intercourse and take all the risks of pregnancy and illness that that entails, but most of us would probably agree that there are 16- and 17-year-olds who aren’t yet ready to cope with that, and 14- and 15-year-olds who are. Perhaps the same goes for BDSM.

Peter Herman

The transcription task you seek help with may not be as daunting as it seems if you consider voice recognition software. It has come a long way since its shaky beginnings. I would add that you should be quite careful as to who the volunteer French speaker is. After your being betrayed by seemingly earnest interviewers the adage, “Once bitten twice shy” would be quite apt.
“My own rather polite style doesn’t work at all without being given room to breathe.”
You’re quite right. We all have different skills. You would not put a ballet dancer in a ring with a boxer even though both dance to a fashion.
“I suppose I could have stuck robotically to a few simple points, as media-trained politicians do in order to ‘stay on message’.”
There is nothing wrong with this technique as long as you know how to deftly parry the questions and make the questioner look foolish.
“This guarantees you won’t make a fool of yourself but intelligent viewers hate it.”
From what I understand, the viewers of the Australian 60 Minutes are likely to be mentally challenged. No loss there even if you did not manage not to look robotic.

Peter Herman

Earlier versions of speech recognition software such as Dragon Naturally Speaking did require training, but that no longer seems to be the case. My experience is with Google translate into which you can speak in English and find a passable translation in the language you choose. The fact that your words appear on the English side of the two windows (no need to bother with the translation window) allows you to copy and paste text resulting from your speech. The transcription is amazingly accurate. The main problem is using this free service is getting your interview responses into manageable clips. The Internet based service is free.
Though I did buy Dragon Naturally Speaking some years ago, I never actually used it, so I have no experience with it or with newer versions. The cost, I imagine is about $100 US.

mr pedo-man

I remember watching Inside story on youtube, Few years ago, There is a scene where one of the ‘abused’ pupils speaks to Mr Righton on the phone; Its
a short conversation: He asks, “Are you ‘very’ angry with me” The question was never answered — At least in the documentary — What was cut out is anybody’s guess. Did anyone see Newsnight? They had the abused pianist
James Rhodes, That’s the second time he’s been on Newsnight, In the last few months. People just can’t get enough of this stuff.
I’m not suggesting his experience was not painful, But to tarnish all liaisons, Well you get the picture! As someone still fairly good looking, (for how much longer in late 30s) I notice looks from boys as young as eleven, In the past I only noticed the eyes of females; Suppose I was in denial of one quantum of my sexuality — Like many bisexuals i suspect.

sugarboy

Tom, I think it’s laudable that you even take the trouble to continue to spend your time speaking to this kind of people even though you probably know that it will hardly benefit our cause, also in view of all the trouble that you have already experienced in your life. How did they decide to utilize your expertise down there in Australia? Are they aware of this blog?
And how did you manage the consent issue? To cut the bull’s head, as I already pointed out, you could simply have said that speaking of consent is a biased point of departure, because it assumes that sexual advances only happen from the adult towards the child, and never the other way around.
But again, I welcome your courage and thank you for holding out! I’m beginning to think that, in 100 or 200 years’ time, there will be five sculptures carved on Mount Rushmore: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt… and O’ Carroll!

bjmuirhead

Unfortunately, Sixty Minutes in Australia is one of the lowest of the TV gutter press. Very little will be positive, or even polite. On controversial issues, the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) is the only network that may, but only may, present issues with some fairness. Reason, research and intelligence has no relationship with that show. Apologies, on behalf of my entire, rather stupid country.

82
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
Scroll to Top