Heretic TOC is delighted to welcome a new guest blogger today. This is “Prue”, who recently completed a Master’s degree in critical theory, achieving a Distinction (first-class honours, in effect) with a dissertation on intergenerational sexuality. Prue, who goes by they/them pronouns, is not a MAP but is opposed to MAP demonisation. They plan further research on MAP / youth sexuality issues and aim for an academic career that will engage with related concerns, including pornographic literacies, asexuality, post-feminism (in contrast to victimological feminism), and contemporary fascism.
CHILD MARRIAGE: OFTEN IT WAS FOR LOVE, ACTUALLY
Should you go down on one knee for your young lover? (Should they go down on one knee for you?) In Nicholas Syrett’s American Child Bride: A History of Minors and Marriage in the United States, published in 2016, readers are presented with an appropriately myth-busting history that will appeal to heretics. To spark some discussion, I’ll address the early chapters.
Reflecting the chronology of the book, Syrett begins by comparing Susie King Taylor’s 1902 memoir Reminiscences of My Life, which narrates her escape from slavery and subsequent participation as a nurse in the American Civil War (1861-1865), with country singer Loretta Lynn’s more recent 1976 autobiography, Coalminer’s Daughter. Taylor married a soldier in 1862 during the war years, but her memoir does not focus on her marriage nor her age (14) at the time. In stark contrast, Loretta Lynn places her youthful marriage centre-stage, capitalizing on the “backwards” American South trope. In fact, “to appear as ‘country’ as possible” Syrett explains, Lynn “lied about the date of her marriage and thus her age […]: she had been fifteen, not thirteen” (p. 2). The difference in emphasis between the two accounts hints at the changing significance ascribed to the categories of ‘minors’ and ‘marriage’ from the 19th century to today.
Unfortunately for boy-lovers, this history is a squarely gendered one, with younger Assigned Female At Birth (AFAB) females typically marrying older AMAB males. It is not, however, a history of dumbfounded girls being forced to marry (either by their parents or prospective spouses). Although Syrett does not support the practice by any stretch of the imagination, he is at pains to explain how the 19th century ethos around youthful marriage meant that while a parent or caregiver (usually a father) had to give their consent, the girls were deciding for themselves.
The image of young girls forced to marry reflects in part, Syrett suggests, the history of American exceptionalism: the belief that “child marriage is practiced only in other places – India, Afghanistan, various African nations – or, if in the United States, only by religious sects where multiple girls marry one man against their will” (p. 6). “These versions of child marriage”, Syrett writes, “forced unions arranged by parents, sometimes the exchange of a dowry, brides below the age of twelve – are indeed different from what usually happens in the United States, where marrying girls have tended to be in their teens and have usually themselves made the decision to marry” (p. 6, my emphasis).
Syrett makes some perceptive introductory remarks. One (p. 11) concerns how research is unclear as to whether minors who marry suffer adverse health consequences because of the marriage or because of the events / conditions surrounding a person who marries. That is, poverty, histories of violence, prior mental / physical health issues, and a lack of access to education, sex-education, contraception, and so on.
The obligatory, problematic, comments on “pedophilia”, however, come as early as page 3. “Before the 1920s”, Syrett writes, “most people […] did not share our understanding of pedophilia”, which he follows up to define as “the sexual predilection of some adults for children” (p. 4). Other than taking this opportunity to point out that Syrett consistently appeals to some mythic shared and obviously superior collective unity – “us”, “we” – “our” beliefs, the author’s diction (word-choice), “understanding” in relation to paedophilia, is a stretch by any standard.
First, the stigmatized and misused term “pedophilia” is commonly invoked to shut-down understanding, especially academic research as per the “pedophile smear”. Second, Syrett’s definition is plain wrong, arguably misleading his readers when the author ought to know better. Paedophilia denotes exclusive or preferential (not occasional or one-time) attraction to prepubescents, whereas most “child marriage” occurs with late-teens! His language here seems even more strange because he later specifies his use of “child” to refer to the current American-legal definition meaning anyone under 18 years old, conflicting with this earlier usage where age demarcations are absent. Syrett’s inaccuracy risks leaving readers easily, and erroneously, conflating those who fancy a teenager with exclusive or preferential paedophiles!
Whilst I agree with him that the “child” as 18 is an “arbitrary” designation, obviously so when the age of consent varies considerably both today and in the 19th to early 20th century, the age thresholds for marriage stipulated by the original American colonies, a minimum of age seven for minors with minors to the more general 12 for females and 14 for males, were arguably less arbitrary in that they aimed to reflect biological processes of puberty and reproductive capacity.
When I first glimpsed the book’s cover, I thought the author was poking fun, making their own meme out of the current America-centric discourse where people under 18 are situated as “children”, with their desires and sexual subjectivities rendered pathological and morally unacceptable as judged by a conservative standard of decency (or Fascist so-called “degeneracy”). But no. In showing a buxom, voluptuous young woman strolling on the beach arm-in-arm with her older husband, the audience are seriously invited to accept, rather than to question and unpack, the labelling of this woman as a “child” (perhaps “woman-child”?).
Reading the first few chapters, which focus on the antebellum period, it’s striking to note that early Americans would typically not know their precise age, meaning that age demarcations would be less noteworthy than today. As Syrett explains, “earlier Americans had a functional, rather than chronological, understanding of childhood” (p. 4).
Of course, this entwined with many things we’d likely find objectionable, such as child-labour, notwithstanding wage-slavery in general. Yet the premise of taking young people seriously for what they can do, and moreover, want and give their consent to take part in (“willingness” being a variable influencing outcome; e.g. Rind et al., 1998), seems preferable to having young people’s identification as consenting agents with positive experiences being denied, obfuscated, overwritten, discounted, essentialized and pathologized based on arbitrary age markers (Bauserman, 1991; Leahy, 1996; Grondin, 2011). It’s become hard to imagine. People not obsessed with “arbitrary” age markers. People not being dismissed simply because they’re deemed too old (senile), middle aged (mid-life crisis), too young (naïve, stupid).
Whilst Syrett’s book doesn’t focus on relationships, he does give many examples, often in rapid-fire succession with the occasional deluge of dates and names. I’d recommend purchasing it ONLY if you’re interested in the nitty-gritty of child marriage as an institution, whereby regulation targets “marital beginnings” – who and when someone can enter into marriage. The book would also appeal, as a starting point, to researchers seeking case studies. Unfortunately, it’s hard to access and expensive for the lay reader.
Alternatively, look out for Syrett’s book An Open Secret, due for publication March 2021. The author also has a book chapter scheduled to appear in the February 2021 volume Heterosexual Histories, has written the chapter on “Age” in the 2020 Routledge History of American Sexuality, an open-access introduction in Historical Reflections’ 2020 journal issue dedicated to intergenerational history, and has argued for “the usefulness of chronological age as an analytic tool” as part of a roundtable discussion for The American Historical Review. For Syrett, as historian Alex Lichtenstein summarized, age “is not a neutral fact, but a vector of power through which officials and ordinary people construct and contest the boundaries of citizenship and belonging”.
Reading Syrett’s book on minors and marriage, however, I found myself suspicious at points, so I did the “sniff test” and checked a source. Having some experience with palaeography (deciphering old texts) myself, I’m aware of how easy it would be for an author to omit crucial details when citing barely known 19th century texts.
For example, let’s take Captain Thomas Mayne Reid. An author by trade, he wrote an adventure novel in 1868 called The Child Wife. At least one edition, Syrett explains, was endorsed by his wife, Elizabeth, claiming that “most of the events related in this book were actual incidents in the life of [or] within the experiences of the author.” (Syrett, p. 47). Elizabeth had married Reid at 15, in 1835.
Syrett uses the novel and Elizabeth’s own reflections on her husband and youthful marriage as an example of one reason for intergenerational marriage. Namely, for love. As crazy as that might sound to present-day readers tricked into believing that “men only want one thing!” (especially minor-attracted men!), Syrett explains how the reasons for intergenerational pairings commonly given indicate some combination of love, attraction, and fun.
Reid’s novel receives exposition (pp. 49-50) but Syrett runs into problems when narrativizing the events the novellist’s future wife recounts in her book. Syrett’s source is in the public domain so we can check it easily. Although his re-telling is broadly accurate, Reid is emphasized as the protagonist whilst Elizabeth’s role goes largely unmentioned, even though the account is hers and from her perspective. Syrett’s readers are told of a two-year gap, but we are not told of its significance for Elizabeth: it was the last time she saw Reid face-to-face, after flat-out rejecting his marriage proposal. In Elizabeth’s full account, she runs to her bedroom window and sees Reid leaving below. He looks back up at her, and blows a kiss…
Then BAM! Smash-cut to two years later, and by pure coincidence they see each other at a speaking-event. Things are different now. “Instantly”, wrote Elizabeth, “as though drawn by an invisible hand”, she followed Reid, and, with him sat at the front, facing the audience, their gazes remained fixed, “seeking each other throughout the whole evening”. In Elizabeth’s words, it was “like being in a dream. There was a sea of faces below me, but I seemed to distinguish nothing”. Nothing, that is, but Reid.
It is no surprise Elizabeth could develop intense feelings for Reid. Research (Hatfield et al., 1988) suggests “passionate love” can be experienced by all ages, and expressed by age four at a minimum. Already it’s becoming clear how much more is going on in Elizabeth’s inner-life than Syrett provides his readers. When Syrett tells us that “Reid thrust his address into her hands” (p. 50), he makes Reid appear forceful. There was no “thrusting”. Again, readers are not informed of how Elizabeth felt an “electric thrill” passing through her at the mere sight of Reid; how, afterwards, she rushed to him and they only just manage to speak before he leaves for a long, nearly-due train journey. Reid asks for her address, and when she doesn’t know, he simply gives his and quickly rushes off (the sheer horror!!! The “thrusting!”).
In giving his contact details to Elizabeth, the choice fell to Reid’s would-be-child-wife. And, by her own agency they got in touch and by her insistence that they be married, Elizabeth’s father reluctantly gave his consent. Remarkably, Elizabeth recalls telling her father that she ought to be able to marry Reid without his consent! “I remember telling my father”, she explains, “that I should be obliged to marry Captain Reid all the same, even if he could not consent”. (Read Elizabeth’s account by searching “child-wife” here, pp. 122-134). In an era of prohibition (Leahy, 1994) regarding intergenerational relationships, it is terrifying to think what would happen to Elizabeth and Reid today. By both Reid and his wife’s writings, their relationship was not about sex (as today’s reductionist accounts like to pretend), but rather love, affection, romance, companionship and fun.
Syrett’s account obscures the very child subject of the story, reflecting current Anglophone societies’ cultural tendency to place young people’s agency and sexual subjectivity “under erasure”, where terms like “child sexuality” increasingly appear as an oxymoron (Angelides, 2004; 2019). Recently, scholars such as Hoko Horii (2018; 2019; 2020) have begun challenging the global exportation of American norms regarding child marriage, where the agentic capacities of younger persons alongside various cultural differences have otherwise been subjected to denial and erasure.
To be clear, I haven’t taken the time to discuss Reid and Elizabeth’s story to impugn Syrett. Although it is in the author’s interest to present young people as only ever sexual objects to be acted upon, never sexual subjects until they magically transform at age 18, I raise their story and Syrett’s narrativizing as a reminder that all work (including history) can be more or less “objective”, involving the selection of material for inclusion or exclusion.
Appeals to “objectivity” often claim something to be “true” or “real” (as in material or physical). The problem is that there are multiple “truths” and no neutral way to interpret the “real”, as we are never without values (even unconsciously) and we must interpret information to go from what is (descriptive), to what should be (prescriptive), known as the “is/ought” distinction. Our access to any “reality” is always coloured by interpretation and values, or frameworks, more conventionally known as ideology. Some have been ascribed names – Conservativism, Post-Feminism, Marxism – some haven’t. Even down to the level of word-choice, the values of the author seep in.
“Objectivity” refers, rather, to a willingness to consider, incorporate, or critique and reject information and conclusions that conflict with previously held ideas, values, and information, pointing out where others are unaware of, or unjustifiably dismiss, contrary evidence. Or, alternatively, critiquing the production, selection or use of different research tools / methods used to interpret information and reach a given conclusion. Bruce Rind’s statistical writings (2007; 2013) are exemplary here.
This is important because although Syrett embellishes in this instance, the very fact of his including positive accounts and risking controversy when he ostensibly opposes the practice, is testament to his objectivity. While I am grateful for any work that advances knowledge and highlights the nuances within intergenerational relations, no work is above critique. In Syrett’s case, the copious extent of research coupled with his concise style, neutral and professional diction, makes his work a significant contribution. But this seeming neutrality does not mean readers should abandon a sceptical approach towards historical writing, nor accept the author’s interpretation of material, or their vantage point of cultural superiority, as more “real” or “true”.
Today we tend to romanticize marriage, thinking of it only in terms of “love”. This conception, however, risks obscuring what marriage is and what it involves other than “love”. Marriage is not “just a bit of paper”, it’s a contract that bestows recognition by a state, usually privileging the couple with rights that do not apply to unmarried persons. We might, therefore, ask whether MAPs should oppose child marriage by virtue of opposing marriage in general, in terms of equality under the law?
In the 19th century context concerning child brides, Syrett emphasises how marriage facilitated the movement of property / inherited wealth, asserting this to be a major consideration in marriages before the 20th century, particularly among elites. Making sure a man did not marry only to make-off with a girl’s fortune was partly why parents were the final arbiters to “okay” a marriage. Today, the requirement of parental consent to marry under the age of majority persists as a hangover of this provision.
If marriage was simply a dramatized expression of love, a fun ceremony-party where people come together, it becomes much harder to see why intergenerational couples would be prohibited from expressing themselves. At least, in a society where hostility and dismissal (coupled by prison-terms and iatrogenic harm / secondary victimization) were not the a priori response directed at such couples, the practice might find space for cultural sanction.
So, what do you think?
NEW YORK ‘CANCELS’ THEO SANDFORT
Many heretics here will be aware of the ground-breaking research on child-adult sexual relationships undertaken by Theo Sandfort in the Netherlands, in books and articles published beween 1979 and the early 1990s.
He discovered children as young as 10 who were in consensual sexual relationships with adults, some of them decades older, and interviewed both the older and younger partners in depth. He concluded that the children should not always be labelled as “victims”, and the Dutch age-of-consent laws should allow children “the right to accept as well as to refuse the sexual initiative of an adult,” as he put it in the May 1984 issue of the Journal of Sex Research.
His words did not fall on deaf ears. Between 1990 and 2002, the Netherlands in effect lowered the age of consent from 16 to 12. A law passed in November 1990, permitted sex between 12 and 16, but allowed a challenge by parents based on erosion of parental authority or child exploitation, which would be heard by a Council for the Protection of Children. Unfortunately, this pioneering reform was abandoned early in the new millennium under international pressure driven by ideology not evidence.
As all of us here know, such pressures have continued relentlessly right up until the present day, and just last month they caught up with Dr Sandfort personally, not in his native country but in America, where he has been a professor of clinical sociomedical sciences at Columbia University for nearly two decades, during which time he earned a high reputation, not least for AIDS-related research, and he served as President of the International Academy of Sex Research.
And early last month he was riding especially high, reaching wider prominence with the publication of a landmark study he had undertaken for New York City’s Administration for Children’s Services on sexual and gender diversity among the city’s foster youth.
This research, hailed by advocates and covered by The New York Times, led to the spotlight falling on his whole career, including his early work on MAPs.
Unsurprisingly, not everyone liked what they saw. His suitability to lead the city-commissioned project was brought into question. Before you could say “paedophilia”, the city’s Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) announced that it had “severed all ties” with Dr Sandfort. A media outlet reported an ACS spokesperson as saying:
The City of New York has zero tolerance for pedophilia, The health, safety, and well-being of children is our top priority, and those who endanger children are contrary to the values of our city.
The implication that Dr Sandfort is a person who endangers children is not only false and insulting to a distinguished scholar who has done vastly more to help young people, especially gay youth, than any number of blowhards like the ACS mouthpiece, it is even borderline libellous. Sadly, though, such ignorant disrespect is par for the course now.
One of his former students and research co-authors in the Netherlands, Henny Bos, a professor of sexual and gender diversity in families and youth at the University of Amsterdam, called it “a strange and stupid decision” for New York City to sever ties with Sandfort. She emphasized the quality of his recent study of LGBTQ foster youth, calling it characteristic of his “extremely important” work on related topics.
She is right, but who is listening?
A follow-up report in The New York Times a few days ago gives an extensive account albeit with a bias towards Sandfort’s critics.
MEET PENISMAN: NEW SUPERHERO ON KIDS’ TV!
Denmark, believe it or not, has launched a children’s TV show about a man with a giant penis that has superpowers. This mighty dong can perform rescue operations, etch murals, hoist a flag and even steal ice-cream from children.
The one mission even this prodigious trouser snake will be unlikely to accomplish anytime soon, though, is to get itself aired on British or American channels aimed at a similar age group, namely four- to eight-year-olds! Far too controversial!
See here for a report in The Guardian and here for an episode of the show itself.
in a new study “Significant correlates of higher state-level child marriage rates in the United States included lower median state income, higher religiosity, lower academic performance, and more Republican political lean, whereas state minimum marriage age laws, median distance to an abortion clinic, population density, and state law loopholes were not significantly correlated with child marriage rates.”
using a video game for the propaganda against child marriages. “The game was found to have modest, short-term positive impacts for both girls and boys on attitudes towards child marriage and feeling empowered to prevent child marriage.”
there is a new study showing that depressive girls are more likely to get into child marriages —because have despotic parents forcing them to marriage? The underage wives are more depressive when they experience “abuse” (the wedding night?) any give birth:
I just want to say this: child marriage IS NOT a girllove issue. I’m tired of people who go onto girllover forums and bring up this stupid topic to defend. As a girllover I would be highly against the idea of child marriage.
People who support child marriage are not pedophiles. Plain and simple. These are guys who want a girl young who they can condition and brainwash to be obedient wives for them in the future. As a pedophile why would I want to marry a girl who will soon be an adult that I will have to support? Why would I want to support a woman who I am no longer attracted to?
There is a reason why most guys who support child marriage also support patriarchy and women being subservient to men. They are against women’s freedom and rights and think of them as being lesser than men.
I’m not saying anything about the author of this piece. He seems to have done a lot of research and he puts a lot of thought into what he says. But I’m just saying from experience guys who go onto girlover forums to support this stuff are not at all interested in love and are mostly despicable in all their views. Perhaps it is the case of the adherents to a cause being worst than the cause itself.
Just to be clear, GirlLover, like you I am against child marriage. Thanks for your interesting post. As the regular blogger and moderator here, I hope you will read, enjoy, and perhaps comment on, some of the many other blogs on this site, especially the most recent ones.
You are the last star of Freespeechtube, Tom:
https://www.freespeechtube.org/v/13h7
By the way, when was this interview given?
Star? No way! For me, this was a car-crash interview, an embarrassment.
I blogged about it, though, giving what I hope readers felt were very understandable reasons why it all went so badly: essentially, dirty tricks by the interviewer:
https://heretictoc.com/2015/07/16/negotiating-a-little-girls-knickers-down/
As you will see, this was Australia’s 60 Minutes TV programme in 2015.
A great post from Prue and for me an educational one. I have used the cover of the Syrett book in one of my blog posts too and to irritate Twitter antis (when I was on that platform). Also that victimological feminism term is a classic! 🙂
Hey Tom. Do you, or any posters here, have the contact info for Gabriel Matzneff. An email or something. I want to show my support.
If anyone has a burning desire to look into child marriage specifically, I just stumbled on a recent 2020 book that might be of interest. It’s called “Sex, Law, and the Politics of Age: Child Marriage in India, 1891–1937”, by Ishita Pande. Link here: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/sex-law-and-the-politics-of-age/72EDBE067C24BD490E7C3FF5E4159695#fndtn-information
Just discovered that Terry Leahy, in addition to his exemplary essays such as Sex and the Age of Consent: The Ethical Issues, also wrote (or spoke) about Paedophilia at a conference in 1988. The piece is called Paedophilia & the construction of childhood (link here https://www.brongersma.info/Paedophilia_and_the_construction_of_childhood).
Also, Tom I sent you an email a while ago; did you get it?
>Also, Tom I sent you an email a while ago; did you get it?
Two days ago? Yes. Thanks for the paper on René Schérer, which I have now read. Hope to get back to you soon. Preoccupied with Sexnet correspondence this morning: interesting but time-consuming.
As for your Leahy link here, I am surprised to find I do not appear to have seen this one before. So thanks, Prue, for a great discovery! 🙂
About the section of the blog covering Theo Sandfort. Coincidentally, when I was writing the main blog piece I happened to feel drawn to Robert Bauserman’s article, “Objectivity and ideology: Criticism of Theo Sandfort’s research on man-boy sexual relations” (linked in the blog and again here: https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v20n01_17), which scathingly rebukes the (mostly empty rhetoric) attacks on Sandfort and his work. Anyone reading this should check it out if they haven’t already, I highly recommend it. Another, similar reply to Sandfort’s critics can be found in Paidika’s 2nd journal issue (https://www.brongersma.info/Paidika-02), by Benjamin Rossen. Either way, the responses are especially important because, at the time, a criticism shared by the 3 victimologists Bauserman responds to, was that Sandfort’s study was of 25 boys, and thus unrepresentative.
As Bauserman wrote: “This would be a strong point against the study if Sandfort had claimed that his sample was representative or if he had been trying to demonstrate that most boys experience such contacts positively.” (p. ). However, “Since the study only sought to address the question of whether such relationships could ever be experienced positively, an unrepresentative sample was adequate” (p. 299). Sandfort even made it clear in the very title of one of his early articles, “Sex in pedophiliac relationships: An empirical investigation among a nonrepresentative group of boys” (link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224498409551213)! (Face palm!) Bauserman directly calls them out: “It is very disturbing to note the lack of any criticism of the unrepresentative samples used by other authors who claim that such relationships are always negative. […] Where were Sandfort’s critics when studies using rape victims, psychiatric patients, criminal cases, and emergency room patients were used to draw conclusions about the nature and effects of all adult/child sexual relationships?” (p. 299). “Evidently”, he continues, “if a study claims negative findings then an unrepresentative sample is perfectly acceptable, but if it claims positive findings then an unrepresentative sample renders it invalid” (Ibid). Later, Bauserman suggests that Sandfort’s critics may not have actually read the research in question, since they either get details about the research wrong, or worse, they actively misrepresented, and thus lied about the research after having read it.
In the next article in the same journal issue, Finkelhor responds to Bauserman, writing that the findings “need to be […] replicated by other investigators”. I thought that, at the time (1990), Finkelhor’s implying that the study could have its findings reproduced – that other studies which account for ongoing and not only retrospective experiences could be conducted – might have been a valid statement if one assumes that mandatory reporting laws didn’t restrict research(ers) the way they presently do. So I was shocked (putting it mildly) to see Finkelhor repeat the claim, as he does in the 2021 New York Times article, that Sandfort’s findings are “unrepresentative”. From the vantage point of 2021, what else do you expect!? You’re misleading readers when it literally could not be any other way! The public have a right to know that Finky’s making a claim which he knows full-well cannot, under present conditions, be falsified and thus proven wrong … Mandatory reporting laws, not to mention a climate of stigma, as well as harassment and abuse faced by scholars in the field, both discourage research and render any attempt dangerous if not impossible. Paul Okami pointed out in his lengthy essay “Sociopolitical Biases in the Contemporary Scientific Literature on Adult Human Sexual Behavior with Children and Adolescents”, how shoddy research like Finkelhor’s was, and yet, ironically given Finkelhor’s 2021 stance, it’s works like these that set the stage for mandatory reporting laws to emerge in the first place! Perhaps an exception could be made for the purpose of scientific inquiry, but I don’t see Finky speaking up and calling for representative studies of mutually desired intergen sex to be conducted any time soon… My god, what a disingenuous *@!*%* !
It’s ridiculous that Sandfort’s job and reputation have been put in jeopardy. It sends an especially discouraging message to those who might wish to research and write on the topic, especially if they find results that go against prevailing doxa (Susan Clancy being a case-in-point). You sum up the difficult situation really well. You wrote: “The implication that Dr Sandfort is a person who endangers children is not only false and insulting to a distinguished scholar who has done vastly more to help young people, especially gay youth, than any number of blowhards like the ACS mouthpiece, it is even borderline libellous. Sadly, though, such ignorant disrespect is par for the course now.”.
What surprises me most is how Sandfort could choose to settle in a country like the US, not least when other serious researchers like Bruce Rind run the other way.
These days, it doesn’t make much difference. If anything, the Netherlands, once a haven of enlightenment – relatively speaking – may even be worse than the U.S. or Britain, though it’s a close call. From what I understand, it would not be possible for Sandfort to do his ground-breaking research on paedophilia now in the Netherlands. I think when he published his original work he said he would like to do follow-up research when the boys had grown up, This never happened and I imagine it is because of the altered climate.
Maybe he should consider moving to Rwanda or Burundi… who knows?
Where did bruce rind move?
He moved to Germany, but I don’t know if he is still there.
I thought I’d quickly point out that the Danish show John Dillermand, or “Penis Man” has already been taken off youtube, supposedly for violating its community guidelines. Deeply unfortunate. I watched an episode and honestly I can say it’s hilarious and incredible. I watched programmes for kids, as a kid, and vividly recall how I would watch scenes that were not explicitly sexual but rather, had romantic, humorous, or just simply character relationships which inspired ideas in my younger self. Even so I would impute sexuality into the media I watched; proximity and tension between characters can be enough to spark one’s imagination. In that sense I feel an affinity wih, and think heretics will like, the conception of desire and sexuality forwarded by philosopher’s Gilles Deleuze and Fexlix Guattari, in their 1972 work Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. For them, ‘sexuality is everywhere: the way a bureaucrat fondles his records, a judge administers justice, a businessman causes money to circulate; the way the bourgeoisie fucks the proletariat; and so on’. It’s immutable; even Asexuality is a sexuality, and so I fail to see how a programme that uses an unrealistic, supernatural, animated / play-dough looking penis to save the day is somehow an issue. It’s also nice to see a representation of the phallus as not merely a weapon, but instead used to help people.
>“Penis Man” has already been taken off youtube, supposedly for violating its community guidelines.
Absolutely pathetic! Not surprising, though, in the present crazy climate.
Are you really surprised, in a world where social networks have more power than the President of the United States?
> Are you really surprised
No, Sugarboy, I am not. As I said, “not surprising”.
Thanks for the Deleuze suggestion. I stumbled through two Marcuse works last year: “One-Dimensional Man” and “Eros and Civilisation”. I also read some of Foucault’s “History of Sexuality”. I think these Continental philosophers have a lot to offer. However unlike Tom I have a lot of respect for Roger Scruton too. You could say I am conservative in many areas of thought except crucially – 1. children and the family 2. the carceral state 3. compulsory work vs UBI. I admit this is something of a contradiction.
I am pleased to see that Prue’s excellent, extremely thought-provoking blog has been well received so far by heretics here.
A salient thought provoked in my mind concerns the definition and function of marriage. The writer, in later comments, rightly emphasises the importance of defining our terms, and attention is duly paid to this as regards the terms “child” and “paedophile”; but not, curiously, “marriage”.
Admittedly, leaving this key term untethered allows Prue to explore – especially later, in response to Christian – some headily radical interpretations and varieties of marriage, and excite us with their potential for enhancing children’s active control of their love lives within a culturally approved milieu, and with legal rights. That’s great, not least for the strength of this approach in enabling the discourse to be credibly presented as one in which romance, love and companionability are important, not just sex.
But we hear nothing about what marriage irreducibly means. The core element for traditionalists is commitment. Each partner makes a solemn and sacred vow to the other. In the words of the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer, the commitment shall be “for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God’s holy ordinance”.
It is not meant to be said lightly or playfully, and with good reason. For thousands of years, the marital home has been the site at which children have been conceived and reared by couples. In the modern era, when this pairing, this “nucleus” of family life, typically enjoys much less support from the wider “extended” family than in pre-industrial times, commitment to the relationship is arguably even more vital for the emotionally secure upbringing of any children the couple brings into the world than formerly.
There are massive dangers, it seems to me, in watering down this commitment and thereby trivialising marriage. Divorce, and the separation of couples who have children outside marriage, are not without consequences. Children suffer. It is one of the most tragic aspects of modern life.
In my book Paedophilia: The Radical Case, I was at pains to distinguish consent to sex from consent to marriage, the former being far less demanding in terms of a requirement for maturity than the latter. In connection with “informed consent”, I wrote: “…there is no need whatever for a child to know ‘the consequences’ of engaging in harmless sex play, simply because it is exactly that: harmless.” On the following page I said “…there is no reason why the same criteria of ‘consent’ that we would apply to a young adult signing on for a nine-year term in the Army, or for a lifelong commitment in marriage, should operate at all…”
Marriage, in short, because of its ironclad requirement that the partners solemnly commit to it for the long haul, requires the partners to have a very clear view of what they are getting into. For thousands of years, social circumstances were such that girls of 12 years and upwards were traditionally considered capable to making this commitment, especially if they had the support of their family and community. In the modern, developed world, though, it is much harder to make a case for early marriage, given that matrimony implies society’s blessing for procreative activity from the outset. In today’s society, young people of both sexes and all gender identifications are more likely to benefit from a serious early commitment to education and career advancement, which look at best a difficult fit with marriage and at worst completely incompatible.
This is not to reject what I see as the best aspects of Prue’s thinking, far from it. I very much like the imaginative options for romantically attached living outlined in Prue’s response to Christian, but I think we would do well to avoid saddling couples with the label and responsibilities of “marriage” as opposed to “betrothal” – the latter being a term that allows the couple to publicly declare their undying love, and be accepted socially as “an item”, but without any truly binding commitment to permanence.
Better still, there need be no barrier to consummating the union. Whereas the mainstream patriarchal tradition with which most of us are familiar demanded that the bride should be a virgin, there has also historically been an interesting alternative mainly associated with Scandinavia and eastern Europe, where there was no such killjoy requirement. When Scottish settlers took this other legacy of betrothal to the British American colonies in the 17th century, it was known as “bundling”. The sexologist John Money has explained this interesting tradition, which works in a way that encourages sexual equality and has much to commend it in allowing private space to young couples, and a wonderful way of them getting to know each other with a community’s support.
Hi Tom! I am not in any major disagreement with you, but as a youth liberationist, I feel that I must challenge you just a bit on this statement:
In today’s society, young people of both sexes and all gender identifications are more likely to benefit from a serious early commitment to education and career advancement, which look at best a difficult fit with marriage and at worst completely incompatible.
Is the challenge because I think you are wrong per se? No, not at all. It is only out of a concern for how some may interpret the comment to mean that society–led by an agency o adults, of course–should place some restrictions on youths’ decisions for their own good based on what we think is best for all or most of them. As a youth libertarian, I believe that should never be our decision to make for others on a blanket basis. This is because even though what you say above will indeed be best for many younger people IMO, they need to ultimately decide that for themselves in a society that allows them all the access they need to numerous opinions and resources culled from individuals of all age groups.
I also counter what appears to be your use of the word “maturity” being connected to the idea that quantity of general life experience always trumps that of the quality. The term “maturity” can be very subjective outside a strictly chronological context, since different people will have different life experiences at different periods of time in their lives for a variety of reasons.
For instance, there are many 22-year-olds who have signed up for a lengthy commitment in the military without fully understanding what they were committing to; many have done so simply because they could find no other source of employment at the time. The problem there is the unrealistic and exploitative expectation of the military, not the “maturity” level of anyone who signs up. All of society’s institutions need to understand that people of all ages can make what turn out to be poor long-time commitments on a whim without thinking things through first. As such, there need to be periodic and preferably frequent evaluation periods to determine how well someone is functioning in said commitment and to allow them an honorable “out” clause if it turns out their physical and/or mental well-being is being negatively affected.
That said and out of the way, I am not an advocate for permanent monogamous marriage as a norm that everyone is expected to follow. Note that in the Wiccan version of a wedding, the commitment is “for as long as love shall last,” not “til death do you part.” Further, a variety of allowances are made based on individual preferences, including degrees of polyamory and community raising of children. These “out” clauses should be included in all such commitments (e.g., marriage, military service), with the understanding that everyone can make a poor choice and that all such choices carry a degree of risk. Hence, I fully agree with what you said here:
… I think we would do well to avoid saddling couples with the label and responsibilities of “marriage” as opposed to “betrothal” – the latter being a term that allows the couple to publicly declare their undying love, and be accepted socially as “an item”, but without any truly binding commitment to permanence.
I couldn’t have phrased that one better myself 🙂 One thing I will go into a bit tomorrow or in a few days (to give you a bit of a breather from moderating my posting lol!) is the problematic traditional nature of marriage as a literal business-like contract tying a couple’s financial and personal resources together.
Hi Dissy, you add a good caveat to my point about prioritising education over early marriage when you emphasise the need for youngsters to be allowed to make their own decisions based on access to “numerous opinions and resources culled from individuals of all age groups”.
Good information is the key to decision making in many matters, including those of life or death in such cases as whether to undergo risky surgery. Even when the patient is a young child, only the child themself will be well placed to decide (on the basis of carefully explained medical information) what should be done with their body and their future life chances.
Affairs of the heart – setting aside heart surgery! 🙂 – are notoriously more difficult though. Love can make fools of middle-aged or even (though less often) elderly people, never mind teenagers, regretted choice of life partners is no monopoly of the young. Broadly speaking, however, there is plenty of empirical evidence to support the common belief that the young are generally more impetuous and headstrong than those with more experience. So, any decision-making combining strong emotions (love being the prime example) and irreversible commitments is not a wise thing to encourage.
You wrote:
>I also counter what appears to be your use of the word “maturity” being connected to the idea that quantity of general life experience always trumps that of the quality.
Yes, I agree; it doesn’t. The more we can avoid one-size-fits-all policies tied to particular ages, the better. This does imply, though, that the granting of rights, e.g. the right to drive a car on public roads, should generally be based on proven achievement, rather than age. It is quite likely, actually, that well trained prepubescent kids might on average be better drivers (more sensible, more “mature”) than testosterone-fuelled youth (especially males) of twice their age.
>Note that in the Wiccan version of a wedding, the commitment is “for as long as love shall last,” not “til death do you part.”
Ha, ha! Well, it’s a very agreeably undemanding form of vow, for sure, but what sort of vow is it that doesn’t really commit anyone to anything? A vow is supposed to be a promise, or a guarantee; but this is only a promise to do whatever happens to suit you! It’s like a dad who promises to watch his kid play in a football match but doesn’t turn up. He could explain that his promise was only a Wiccan one, but that wouldn’t go down too well, would it?
>Further, a variety of allowances are made based on individual preferences, including degrees of polyamory and community raising of children.
Community engagement in child-rearing is great, and there is a deficit of it in modern society. But kids also need the security of real commitment (no get-out clauses) from key carers: a child is for life, not just for Christmas.
>A vow is supposed to be a promise, or a guarantee; but this [“for as long as love shall last”] is only a promise to do whatever happens to suit you! It’s like a dad who promises to watch his kid play in a football match but doesn’t turn up.
The Wiccan promise is not to do whatever happens to suit you. If the promiser lapses but he wants the marriage to continue, he has to prove that, despite the lapse, he still loves his partner.
Happy to defer to your knowledge of pagan lore, Stephen! Yes, I think I could have made my point effectively without dissing our Wikkan friends unnecessarily and, as may well be the case, inaccurately. If there are any Wikkans among us who have been offended, my apologies!
I am reminded of the Wikkan maxim “Do what ye will”, which sounds terrible when quoted in this short form, as it all too often is. It sounds like a licence to rob, rape and murder. But the full form is “an it harm none, do what ye will”, which adds the precept’s proper ethical constraints.
I believe the short version been associated with Aleister Crowley, dubbed “the wickedest man in the world” in the media. If he really stuck to the short version, we might feel he was indeed the devil incarnate. But maybe he just had a bad press?
Getting back to what you were saying, Stephen, I do not think it detracts from my fundamental point i.e. that a vow (or promise) is not really a vow unless it commits you to sticking to what you promised, even when it doesn’t suit you.
I find myself struggling to see how your defence of Wikkan marriage provides an example of commitment even when it doesn’t suit a partner. It looks as though permission is being confused with obligation here. You introduce the concept of permission (“They can [may] continue the marriage” if love remains following a “lapse”), whereas my argument was grounded in obligation i.e. not may but must.
Vows/promises are all about obligation, aren’t they, not permission?
I suppose it could be said that for a Wikkan marriage to continue there is an obligation to remain in love, although no wedding vow could guarantee such a thing and the Wikkan one does not require it.
But there does not appear to be much, or any, obligation of the partners to do anything other than what suits them. If one of them ceases to be in love they are not obliged, or even permitted, to continue the marriage; but typically (unless there were property interests to resolve, say) they would not want to, would they?
I have no specialist knowledge of pagan lore. I was just taking the Wikkan vow given and interpreting it as best I could.
I think you’re right that the vow is very different from the more familiar Christian one. It has, as you in effect say, no absolute duties attached to it. But it does have, as you also recognise, permissions. But my point was that these permissions are conditional on continuing to love your partner – you don’t get the benefits of marriage unless this condition is satisfied. Now, you can’t choose whether to feel love as an inner emotion, but you can choose to act like someone who loves their partner and there’s the rub. If, for example, you’re unfaithful, you can’t just carry on as before. (I’m not a fan of ‘sexual ownership’ but the deceit typically involved in adultery is not a good thing.)
>the deceit typically involved in adultery is not a good thing.
Indeed.
As for your being deep into pagan lore, Stephen, I never really supposed it would be your Mastermind specialist subject, any more than it would be Richard Dawkins’! Admittedly, such non-religious scholars as psychologists or cultural anthropologists have reasons to be interested, but that is not the same as personal enthusiasm.
Broadly speaking, however, there is plenty of empirical evidence to support the common belief that the young are generally more impetuous and headstrong than those with more experience. So, any decision-making combining strong emotions (love being the prime example) and irreversible commitments is not a wise thing to encourage.
Which is why, as I noted, such for-life romantic commitments should not be encouraged. I was simply saying that they must not be legally verboten in younger people by law because they might be more likely to make a bad/impetuous decision. Let us note that this is one of the main reasons the anti-contact crowd uses to justify blanket prohibition against even simple romantic intergen relationships: the younger person is “more likely” to regret it. That is also why, as I suggested, that such liaisons (is that a better word than “commitment” here? lol!), if chosen, should be revocable and not come with an unrealistic vow.
Well, it’s a very agreeably undemanding form of vow, for sure, but what sort of vow is it that doesn’t really commit anyone to anything? A vow is supposed to be a promise, or a guarantee; but this is only a promise to do whatever happens to suit you! It’s like a dad who promises to watch his kid play in a football match but doesn’t turn up. He could explain that his promise was only a Wiccan one, but that wouldn’t go down too well, would it?
Which is why I concur that calling it a “vow” may be a misnomer. What a Wiccan bride or groom are basically saying with that decree is this: “I love you right now to a degree that I feel is worth taking the risk of entering this type of arrangement with you. However, since it is impossible to guarantee that these feelings will remain between us indefinitely, if we ever change to the point of becoming unhappy together, we can understandably part the ways and leave this arrangement.” Hence, there is far less stigma involved with such a parting if it must eventually occur.
Btw, you have a very interesting way of spelling “Wiccan” 😀
Community engagement in child-rearing is great, and there is a deficit of it in modern society. But kids also need the security of real commitment (no get-out clauses) from key carers: a child is for life, not just for Christmas.
This may not be the case in a youth liberated society that also had full-time professional caregivers who took care of very young children, either temporarily or permanently, and provided guidance as needed to older ones. Not everyone is capable of being a good parent, and they become even less so if they are legally compelled to perform the role, or if their biological children are legally compelled to live under their roof. This is why a caregiver must choose that role, just as the kids must have the right to choose whom they live with.
>Not everyone is capable of being a good parent, and they become even less so if they are legally compelled to perform the role
I agree.
>Btw, you have a very interesting way of spelling “Wiccan”
Really? Did I lapse into Wikkan? Sorry about that. Perhaps I was unconsciously influenced by Aleister Crowley, who has also been mentioned in this discussion. After all, one of his things was magick with a k!:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magick_(Thelema)
Hi Tom,
I should quickly respond to your comment just to reassure you that my lack of response was not because I was annoyed, but rather because I agree with what you’ve said. Although I was a bit nervous that some of your thoughts appeared too traditional at first glance, that nervousness (in my experience) is more a sign to read on and see where the argument changes or develops. I like the cheer-leading for Scandinavian “betrothal with benefits”! And, moreover, I can see why this would be preferable for both younger and older persons in or outside a MAP encounter / relationship. As the life of Norman Douglas attests to in the previous blog, as well as the lived experience of many minors and the older persons who love them, young people in an intergenerational relationship often (though not always, of course) go on to develop an interest in the opposite sex, with the older and younger party remaining friends in a very open way.
This is not to say, of course, that there aren’t commitments going on in such relations. In the “typical” consensual relationship that pro-reform advocates would support, there’s no shortage of commitment if, as you wrote in your 2018 paper https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-018-9519-1 (and I agree), that “What matters, ethically, in a child–adult relationship, is that it should not be broken of abruptly in a way that leaves the child feeling discarded.” (p. 1243). Is there not a commitment in the sense of openness to friendship?
I don’t think we disagree on anything here. Part of why I suggest MAPs might consider opposing child marriage is because, in its current form, marriage is a contract with a state conferring recognition and differential rights onto couples who marry, as well as having all sorts of religious connotations. In that sense marriage could be opposed because this isn’t what people in the secular, Anglo-modern era tend to marry for. They marry because they love each other and want to express it, having a fun ceremony-party in the process. Increasingly, therefore, it makes no sense to have a “binding commitment to permanence”, as you say, and this especially so for intergenerational couples where the attraction tends to wane over time for both parties…
As an after thought, no wonder conservatives hated PIE et al so much! Polyamorous, open, friendly and considerate relationships grounded in an ethics that priorities youngsters’ needs and wants! Children getting education and life experience outside the school and the home, threatening the stability of parental control and close-knit, panoptic family structure! And, in your case, or with NAMBLA, for instance, a lot of them were boy-lovers or elsewise gay! It’s literally a conservative’s worst nightmare rolled into one! Roger Scruton frothing at the mouth! XD … In that sense, it’s not hard to see the pro-Kind movement as way ahead of its time in what have since become, with the rise of polyamory, staple progressive values / dispositions.
Also, I like the inclusion of John Money, in part because he was so pioneering and seemed to be one of those “old guard” of scientists who believed that the full range of human experience ought to be studied as dispassionately, and in that sense objectively, as possible. Ford and Beach’s book Patterns of Sexual Behaviour, would be another example. For the reader’s benefit, though I’m sure you’re well aware, as the late David Riegel loved to quote him, Money wrote that “victimology is a science only in the etymology of its name”. In the paper this comes from (see https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J056v01n01_02), Money continues: “In practice it is a branch of the sexosophy of the judicial and punishment industry, not of sexology, the science of sex and sex research.Victimologists are, de facto, the new social-science police. Social science practitioners have never before been accorded the prestige of having so much power over people’s lives” (p. 9). Although perhaps less scathing, he repeated this line of thought in the SIECUS Report, Sexology and / or Sexososophy (1991), which can be found easily online.
He wrote: “Discipline, as a method of treatment, belongs to the adversarial tradition of the law and is totally alien to the Hippocratic tradition of medicine. Thus, whereas victimologists do not depart from the Hippocratic tradition of health care in their treatment of victims, they abandon it completely when they treat suspected victimizers as perpetrators or criminals to be reported and handed over to the law. It is not possible to serve both Hippocrates, the healer, and Hammurabi, the lawgiver and jurist, at the same time, even if the perpetrator is already in detention. Human sexuality professionals, who try to do so, are caught in the invidious position of being, de facto, undercover agents and members of the social service and health-care secret police. Without being articulately aware of it, they have been co-opted into membership in the forces of the sexual counterreformation” (p. 3).
Thanks for the info about the term “pro-contact” below btw. I think I’ll stick to “pro-Kind”, “pro-reform”, and perhaps for fun if I’m debating people IRL, “pro-choice”, just to throw them off a bit 🙂
All the best!
Glad you like “the cheer-leading” for Scandinavian “betrothal with benefits”!
Regarding PIE, you say, “It’s literally a conservative’s worst nightmare rolled into one! Roger Scruton frothing at the mouth! XD … In that sense, it’s not hard to see the pro-Kind movement as way ahead of its time in what have since become, with the rise of polyamory, staple progressive values / dispositions.”
Interesting you should mention Scruton right now, as he was mentioned in old cuttings I have been looking through this week in connection with the life and contribution of my successor as chair of PIE, Steven Freeman. This was a rare article from the early 1980s in which the Irish politician, historian, columnist, and former Observer editor, Conor Cruise O’Brien, a major public intellectual of his day, gave PIE an unusually fair hearing (he referred to a “carefully argued” letter I had written to him) while taking Scruton to task for his militant intolerance (“Cruelty, and other tests of tolerance”, The Observer, 8 Sept 1983).
>Also, I like the inclusion of John Money, in part because he was so pioneering and seemed to be one of those “old guard” of scientists who believed that the full range of human experience ought to be studied as dispassionately, and in that sense objectively, as possible.
Yes, I recall he was even able to discern a propensity for “paedophilic genius”, with specific reference to Lewis Carroll and J.M. Barrie. My enthusiasm for such a notion is probably not very dispassionate and objective though!
>Thanks for the info about the term “pro-contact” below btw. I think I’ll stick to “pro-Kind”, “pro-reform”, and perhaps for fun if I’m debating people IRL, “pro-choice”, just to throw them off a bit 🙂
All of your choices look good to me. Cheers, Prue!
>There are massive dangers, it seems to me, in watering down this commitment and thereby trivialising marriage.
I fully agree. However, I have seen parents, not their girls, watering down the commitment.
If we don’t trivialise the sexual desire of the young, why trivialise their desire for a stable relationship?
>If we don’t trivialise the sexual desire of the young, why trivialise their desire for a stable relationship?
I agree, Nada, there is nothing trivial about youngsters’ desire for a stable relationship. The reason such desire is not trivial, and should not be trivialised, is because stable relationships are themselves not trivial. They are a serious business because their very stability, especially stability underpinned by law and custom, as with marriage compared to a casual fling, is not easy to get out off. So, you’d better get it right. Get it wrong and there could be dire consequences, including being trapped in abusively controlling and/or violent relationships.
In making this point, I have needed to make a distinction between desire for stability and stability itself. The difference between the two is instructive. The desire for stability is arguably at the heart of romance: we are told it is what every woman and indeed young girl wants: the tall, dark, handsome stranger; the Mr Right; the hero of ladies’ romantic novels. The end point of romantic ambition in relation to these desirable figures is essentially that of the fairy tale: to marry and live happily ever after.
But there is a paradox in this. There is another, quite different, conception of romance, is there not? This is the romance of being wild, free, untethered, heedless of convention and propriety. This idea of romance seems totally at odds with stability. What are we to make of this discrepancy? Does such passionate abandon amount to an immature trivialization of love?
>Get it wrong and there could be dire consequences, including being trapped in abusively controlling and/or violent relationships.
Is it not preferable that abusive, or otherwise exploitative, individuals are trapped (if not neutralised), as opposed to free to cause more harm to others? Watering down commitment, giving easy outs, or attacking stable relationships favors this exploitation.
>This is the romance of being wild, free, untethered, heedless of convention and propriety. This idea of romance seems totally at odds with stability.
I struggle to find an example of it. Romeo was hardly free to love anyone, but Juliet, was he? Nor would he “trade up” from her; the tragedy lies in the failure of their families to accept the stable relationship.
Prue:
>Should you go down on one knee for your young lover? (Should they go down on one knee for you?)
A delightful, and fitting, brain teaser!
>Syrett’s inaccuracy risks leaving readers easily, and erroneously, conflating those who fancy a teenager with exclusive or preferential paedophiles!
The average age of menarche was higher in the 19th century (16.5 in 1840).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12319855/
>their desires and sexual subjectivities rendered pathological and morally unacceptable as judged by a conservative standard of decency (or Fascist so-called “degeneracy”).
From Syrett’s post, partially honest about the feminist hostility towards girls and men and their marriage, we can infer a feminist standard:
https://historiann.com/2016/10/19/the-great-life-long-mistake-young-marriage-in-the-united-states/
If we consider the conservative, relative to feminist, hostility over time, what can be said at small times? At large times?
It’s curious that Syrett’s obsession with power and age asymmetry, coupled with hostility, is limited to heterosexual men. Are ‘queers’ not well-behaved enough (pun intended!) for Syrett’s analysis?
Thanks for an important and enjoyable blog.
Cheers for the comment and the links! I’m really glad you enjoyed the blog. Personally, although Syrett’s book might come off as neutral to Anti-esc types, I started to find it depressing after a while. Especially after I checked some references it was clear to me that, as I’m sure we’re all very aware, intergenerational sexual (even simply romantic) experiences exist along a continuum, and can be very pleasant and positive in nature. Syrett often adds a line here and there to remind the reader of his tacit disapproval, and, honestly, it feels a little unnecessary and obstructs the flow of the text when I a a reader am more interested in learning rather than taking on an author’s particular ethical / moral prescriptions.
Even so, I’ve known about Tom’s blog for at fair while now, so I’ll try and comment more. Syrett’s thinking is very heavily influenced by old fashioned feminist though. I think feminist though in general is mired in 2nd wave, especially anti – pornography era feminist ideas – i think heretics will generally find much to agree with in 3rd/4th wave feminism, with authors like Emma Renold, Jessica Ringrose, R. Danielle Egan and Gail Hawkes. These authors address the discourse on sexualization but, unlinke others, they take children’s sexuality seriously. I think feminist discourse in academia has moved towards empowermant. It’s gone way past 2nd wave notions which often employ essentialist ideas of young girls’ sexuality as always risk / at risk. We should remember that it usually takes a long time for academic discourse to filter out into the population more generally, and often people like David Finkelhor and Diana Russell were exploiting a particular moment which coincided with a particular, 2nd wave brand of feminism which still predominates in Anglophone culture, at least in my view. I hope Heretics can look at the authors mentioned, and post feminist discourse more broadly, and see that there are authors who take children’s sexuality seriously, rather than dismissing it.
And yes, in Syrett’s case, he’s almost lucky that marriage under a given age of majority tends to involve an older heterosexual male marrying a younger female (though age differentials vary considerably). He’s able to exploit the still-prevelant gender norms that girls and their sexual expression are somehow inherently more vulnerable and at-risk (whatever we define ‘risk’ to mean). Rather than challening age binaries and a unitary theory of power (that a given individual irreduciably holds power, as opposed to negotiations of power differences with foucauldian/ post-foucauldians such as Steven Angelides), it’s easier for Syrett to exploit dominant images of vulnerable, passive girls. Unfortunate really. The case would surely change if addressing ‘queers’ more broadly; the image / fiction would be harder to maintain if gay “child” marriage, or other various forms, were more of a thing.
All the best!
Syrett’s hostility, while annoying, is to be expected – not his failure to apply his own model to “queer”relationships, which he has written about (even mentioning NAMBLA) or to gay marriage (between age asymmetric adults).
The hostility, towards men and girls and their relationships dates back to at least the 19th century. How are Finkelhor and Russell relevant to the past? How is mutual cooperation exploitation?
I have found no evidence the current (or previous) wave of feminism have broken with history. Howls about sexualisation or faith based rape claims does not a defense of marriage make.
Hey Prue. Who do you think is more opposed to giving teenage girls, 13-17, the legal right to choose who they want to be in a relationship with. Prudish, sex hysterical feminists. Or satanic ritual abuse conservatives.
Hi to both of you. To respond to Nada quickly, I agree with what you’ve said about Syrett’s hostility etc, and that hostility towards men and girls and their relationships dates back to at least the 19th century. The rest I was a bit confused by, and perhaps I should’ve contextualized my comment more. I brought up Finkelhor and Russell because, in my view, they “were exploiting a particular moment which coincided with a particular, 2nd wave brand of feminism”, and to suggest that Syrett’s follows in a similar lineage. Although Fink and Russell’s writing dates from recent, 20th century history, they are very relevant to history in that their ideas follow along a lineage of seeing girls’ sexuality as always risky / at risk, that it’s somehow wrong for cisgender females under a given age to behave sexually, make sexual choices or form relationships with those over a given age, or have those choices socially sanctioned. Fink, Russell, and to an admittedly much lesser extent, Syrett, exploit traditionalist images of girl’s as being sexual objects that are acted upon, rather than sexual subjects or active, willing, desiring participants. In Syrett’s case I would suggest he does this subtly by implication, tone, and even omission as with the case of Thomas Reid and Elizabeth Hyde I presented in the main blog piece. The point, which perhaps I didn’t make clear enough, is that all these author’s views didn’t come from nowhere; they’re part of a historical lineage, and in that sense they’re very relevant to history in the same way that we’re all products of history.
On to the rest, it seems both comments here are rather hostile to the label “feminist / feminism”, and assumed a lot about the authors I named (Renold, Ringrose, Hawkes) based on that. Although hostility is understandable, I should make clear that the authors I gave are critical of the discourse around sexualization, not defenders, hysterical or otherwise! There are many different “feminisms”, it’s not a monolith, and critiquing sexualization from a 3rd/4th wave feminist standpoint predicated on sex positivity and empowerment is absolutely necessary for a defense of child marriage, or any kind of intergenerational relationship for that matter!
If children’s sexuality is thought to always come from the outside, imposed on them by peers, porn, etc, as the discourse on sexualization typically claims, rather than what is actually the case – that people of all ages are normatively sexual, and do not necessarily conform to an innocent, asexual ideal, then the sexualization discourse needs to be challenged to show that young people’s sexuality is immutable, that they’re not just objects, sexual or otherwise, they have their own desires, including the possibility of desiring to marry! So yes, whilst “Howls about sexualization” won’t help, critiquing sexualization, including its premises that being sexual or being exposed to sexual material is somehow inherently dangerous to young people, will certainly help.
Heretics might like the paper, Feminisms re-figuring ‘sexualization’, sexuality and ‘the girl’, (see link: https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700113499531 ). Older feminist writing would include Shulamith Firestone’s chapter on children and sex in her book The Dialectic of Sex, and Kate Millett with her essay ‘Beyond Politics? Children and Sexuality’, in Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality, ed. by Carole S. Vance, or her interview in Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, entitled Sexual Revolution and the Liberation of Children. Again, I understand the hostility but feminism, just like Heretics here, are not a monolith. It’s just that right now it’s a very dangerous, non-hospitable space for critical writing in the area of intergenerational sexuality.
All the best!
>exploit traditionalist images of girl’s as being sexual objects that are acted upon
Except for the fact the feminist, not the traditional, conception of a girl object lacks methods to handle sex.
>On to the rest, it seems both comments here are rather hostile to the label “feminist / feminism”
Or, more parsimoniously, opposed to demonization of MAPs and the denial their relationships. Had it been Fascists, would you assume the label, not the actions, were the issue?
>I should make clear that the authors I gave are critical of the discourse around sexualization, not defenders, hysterical or otherwise!
You missed Ringrose’s spurious claims about rape, and her contempt for the public, asking her for evidence?
>critiquing sexualization from a 3rd/4th wave feminist standpoint predicated on sex positivity and empowerment is absolutely necessary for a defense of child marriage, or any kind of intergenerational relationship for that matter!
Then we’re well and truly fucked!
How on Earth could you predicate a defense of intergenerational relationships on feminism? Do you predicate a defense of giving children presents on Father Christmas, or of math on conservativism, or of biology on Marxism?!
>It’s just that right now it’s a very dangerous, non-hospitable space for critical writing in the area of intergenerational sexuality.
We would expect to find earlier feminists, also defending the rights of men and girls couples (not merely considering homosexuals).
>Then we’re well and truly fucked!
Nada, feminism just means equal rights irrespective of gender. I don’t see how that rules out intergenerational sex.
>Nada, feminism just means equal rights irrespective of gender.
The feminist attack on the rights of men and girls is sufficient to disprove this.
>I don’t see how that rules out intergenerational sex.
If feminists defend gay marriage or homosexual age asymmetric relationships of some other sort, does that imply a defense of marriage, or sex, between a 9-year-old girl and a man?
These positions and attitudes just go to prove that the so-called feminists are not really feminists. We’re better feminists than they are!
They prove the inconsistency of the proposed definition. “Better” feminists also tend to collapse into the plain variety.
How do they prove the inconsistency of the definition. Indeed, how is the definition inconsistent?
Your proposed definition fails to cover all feminists. Before proposing it, didn’t you read any of Prue’s references?
My aim was not to provide a definition that covered all who go under the banner of feminism but to capture a distilled essence of this view. It is possible that there are people who call themselves feminists whose ideas diverge from that core essence just as there can be people who call themselves Christians who cannot accurately be called Christians (because they do not believe in the resurrection, for example).
I think you want to say that a positive position on minor attraction is incompatible with feminism because most people who call themselves feminists reject that position. But this is to treat ‘feminism’ as being the name of a social grouping rather than as a philosophical position, which is what I think it is.
>It is possible that there are people who call themselves feminists whose ideas diverge from that core essence
Does chosing a core essence of “equal rights irrespective of gender” produce the <i>best</i> fit to the observations of feminism, from the 19th century until now?
A core essence of “rights for some few women” would fit at least the denial of the rights of men and girls, and the selective approval of sexuality and relationships, in addition to the squabble over gender (and partial acceptence of material reality among some feminists).
>But this is to treat ‘feminism’ as being the name of a social grouping rather than as a philosophical position, which is what I think it is.
Do you assume there are no atheists in atheist groups?
I guess you could take it either way. As long as we’re clear what we mean.
Some readers may not spot that my statement “I guess you could take it either way. As long as we’re clear what we mean”.was actually a repty to myself, not to Nada’s remark appearing immediately above it. I am conceding that the dispute is merely a semantic one and so not worth spending too much time on.
The idea of intergenerational marriage is certainly a nice ideal, as marriage connotes a spiritual bond between the two persons, and raises it above a mere casual relationship. The idea of guardianship in such a marriage would also be interesting, with the older spouse taking on a guardian role with the child – on the assumption that the child could not function fully and autonomously in society without adult assistance, which is a reasonable assumption at least without innovations such as lifelong UBI.
However, this belongs more to the realm of fantasy in my opinion. Admittedly it would be my dream, but I see no mechanism for the State to sanction such a relationship. Also on a practical level, there would have to be some provision for the lesser power of the child, especially psychologically and developmentally – it would be very much a guardianship-marriage.
I love the fact you put forward this idea even as an abstract and ideological possibility – because speaking for myself (everyone is different) I value the potential emotional and spiritual bond with a child over and above anything sexual, the latter being a very contentious area although sexuality is complex. We can feel a sexual attraction without necessarily wanting to realise that in any physical act. The contention at the heart of MAP demonisation is that sexuality harms children, which I believe is palpably false, but would I feel comfortable engaging sexually with a child? Not at all, In the current sociological climate I would feel shame, dread and anxiety. It would take the sanctioning (i.e. legality) of intergenerational sexual expression, and a widespread change in social mores, for me to ever feel comfortable in such expression, rather than simply within the demarcations of private fantasy.
The marriage question is important because it raises the question of intergenerational relationships above the merely sexual, to the emotional and spiritual, and therefore this I feel is a wonderful ideal. However to even allow for child marriage in law there would first have to be a revolution regarding attitudes towards the sexual child, which is one of the most contentious topics in Western society at the moment, despite the widespread evidence that children are becoming increasingly liberated and sexual. Child marriage in my opinion is therefore a high ideal but one that is fundamentally unrealisable without a seismic social shift in attitudes and values regarding the role of children in society.
I’m so sorry for not responding sooner. Every time I sat down, before I could start something came up! Anyway, thanks for your comment, and thanks for your short piece on Tik Tok in Tom’s previous blog, as well as your follow up comment. It was a great piece and I hope their accounts don’t get banned by Anti’s who’re simply disgusted at the existence of young people dancing, and also, of course, that said young people don’t get harassed.
Anyway, on to your comment. You’re right that marriage does elevate a relationship above being ‘casual’; often it’s a mark of commitment and seen as a significant declaration of sentiment. That’s actually part of why Anti’s oppose it. Similar to the recent brouhaha over gay-marriage, marriage as an institution has typically been seen as transformative, conferring legitimacy on a relationship. As Syrett writes: “marriage was seen as transformative. It made illicit sex licit. It legitimized offspring. Actions performed outside marriage that were dangerous, debasing or immoral were transformed into safe, respectable, and moral within marriage” (p. 7). Syrett’s problem seems to be that it conferred full adult citizenship to the younger party, which I’m not sure applies as much today, nor would be quite as desirable in some respects in today’s world (many people want to live with their parent’s, for example, but marriage might be the only way their older partner might avoid being arrested – it doesn’t necessarily mean a person wants, or does, begin taking on typically ‘adult’ responsibilities!). I should point out that part of why Anti’s have chosen marriage as a topic is because, under certain conditions, it is legal in some American states. So it’s already happened and clearly not impossible, but I’d agree that arguing for marriage provisions to be extended or more inclusive wouldn’t fly on social media or in press; even if many people privately agree they won’t speak out in our hostile climate.
In part it all depends on how different societies conceive of marriage, and whether, socially or in law, marriage gives one a privileged status, as it currently does. That’s part of why I suggest it’s possible that MAPs could oppose child marriage – not because people under 18 are too stupid, innocent, or anything like that – but precisely because right now marriage isn’t just about love or a bit of paper. Ironically, it could be used a possible point of agreement to start a dialogue with Anti’s, even if just to tease out whether opponents have any arguments other than disgust. If society thinks of marriage as all about expressing love, and this is what people today tend to marry for, then why not oppose marriage in its current form until it reflects a fun ceremony party declaring one’s love?
In that sense we could even think about marriage between lots of partners, polyamorous marriage or harem marriage! Sounds fun! It would be ridiculous, after all, to argue that someone under a given age cannot love someone 5 years or more older, or vice versa, or that it would be somehow intrinsically harmful the participants to have a ceremony-party to express it. I also like the idea of ‘guardianship’ as / as part of a discourse going forward. I can see this fitting in well with something like ‘open families’ which I mentioned in my other comment (see https://www.jstor.org/stable/583357?seq=1), where parental responsibility includes making sure that children always have some other household / stable place to go to, so always have the choice left open to leave and come back. There’s no reason this couldn’t include MAPs in the future if we keep at it challenging stigma and make sure people know that paedophilia literally means ‘child lover’, not child rapist and/ or murderer, and merely denotes attraction, not action. The term ‘guardian’ also suggests responsibility, protection and care, which I’m confident would appeal to most Heretics in how they typically feel about youngsters.
You wrote: “I value the potential emotional and spiritual bond with a child over and above anything sexual […] We can feel a sexual attraction without necessarily wanting to realise that in any physical act”.
This is really important! In my view anyone who writes on this issue must make clear that intergenerational attraction (and sexuality), like teliophilic or any other attraction, typically consists of multiple components as opposed to sexual aspects alone. Sensual, aesthetic, romantic, affectionate, parental and, like you say guardianship or a desire to protect and / or nurture, and potentially infinite others we haven’t identified or named yet. I find it useful to use the term “assemblage”. There’s a really good, quite beautiful paper yourself and other Heretics might like, Naomi Holford et al., “What (else) can a kiss do? Theorizing the powerplays in young children’s sexual cultures“, which uses this language and explains it well in my view. I find it’s very important to keep defining terms even if it seems repetitive. Often I find that Anti’s don’t know what paedophile or paedophila even mean, so they literally cannot define what they’re supposedly against; they’re literally raging over an image in their head! Because of a seemingly generalized ignorance, whenever a heterosexual teliophilic ‘situational offender’ does something horrible, using a young person sexually against their will, they get conflated with MAPs and it’s MAPs who get the blame! Ridiculous!
To emphasize attraction as a multifaceted “assemblage” is part of why I’m interested in asexuality. It’s quite radical in our current climate if we take asexuality seriously, because it’s then possible to conceive of asexual intergenerational relationships as well as sex acts. Some asexuals claim to engage in sexual activity without feeling sexual feelings / desire. Instead, romantic, sensuous, and other kinds of feelings are foregrounded, and this development could make for some really important nuance if we can start to recognize Asexual intergenerational relationships and bring them more into view alongside other kinds. It would also allow for probing whether those prohibitionist who oppose positive, non-violent and non-forced intergenerational relations, are opposed because of the sexual aspect, or whether they’re simply disgusted at the idea or image of older and younger people being attracted to one another or even in proximity to one another, which would be the case in a romantic relationship without any contact which could be deemed sexual.
Lastly, I completely understand why, as you explain: “In the current sociological climate I would feel shame, dread and anxiety [engaging sexually with a child]. It would take the sanctioning (i.e. legality)”. I think this completely justified. At school I experienced sex scandal, where a girl I was friends with was forced to leave school and most of her friends behind, and the man was put, incorrectly of course, on a ‘pedo watch list’ when he’s obviously just a hetero teliophile (sigh)… One of the remaining friends of this girl at the school told me explicitly to keep quiet about it, and it became a taboo in school to say the name’s of the people involved, even though (and probably because) we all had a shared understanding that the girl in question was neither a virgin nor a passive victim with sexuality forcibly ‘imposed’ on her; like many, she wanted to engage sexually, sought and happened to find. Sexually empowered by any definition. There was nothing ‘innocent’, if that term is supposed to mean innocent of sexuality or sexual desire; she and others were all very sexually active prior to their older partners. It shocks me looking back how dangerous it was for those men and how the illegality of it imposed a conspiracy of silence over the whole thing – the girl’s were very wary of talking about it to anyone, fearing the teacher’s would find out. Blanket prohibitions produce some awful problems in pushing things underground, and this could also apply to young people who are married or seeking to marry. Namely, that someone might be in a positive relationship and have some mild difficulties or complaints, but if they talk about it to the wrong person their partner will be arrested and dubbed a defacto ‘abuser’, heedless of the young person’s account, thoughts, feelings, agency and subjectivity. They’re structurally and institutionally disincentivized from airing their concerns if things aren’t perfect when they also don’t want their partner to go to prison; there’s no middle ground at present so it’s very dangerous. I fail to see how people think they’re protecting young people rather than making a subset of relationships more vulnerable 🙁
I’m telling this story simply both to show I agree with you, but also to ask your thoughts about what ‘pro contact’ means. Here, I literally saw iatrogenic harm / victimization as it was happening. In another kind of harm, surveillance increased and petty fights or threats that would have been part of quotidian, nonchalant childhoods are all on record and turned into criminal affairs, quite literally transforming and, in this case I think destroying, a hitherto important aspect of childhood – the ability to make a mistake, learn from it, and move on, as well as developing peer solidarity sub-cultures away from the prying eyes of adult norms – smoking by the bike sheds etc (rendered impossible).
Bearing in mind how these people’s lives and so many other’s are ruined in the current climate, made all the worse by iatrogenic harm, including mandatory victimization therapy even for those who are psychologically well adjusted, I couldn’t agree more with being extremely cautious and remaining celibate in regards to IRL young people and sexual engagement. It’s simply too dangerous for both parties and even marriage is risky given the vigilante terrorists out there – especially in America. Private fantasy is preferable in the current climate and doesn’t preclude good arguments. There are plenty of examples of intergenerational sex within scholarship to draw on, and people under whatever age is set to define a “child” will continue to be normatively sexual despite many societies’ attempts to deny or downplay it.
Finally, with all that in mind, I’ve been thinking a good way to explain ‘pro-contact’ is to say that it’s not the view that an older or younger person should, right now, seek sexual relations with a person 5 years or more in age difference, or, alternatively, accept another person’s advances / propositions. Rather, ‘pro-contact’ represents a loose set of philosophical, empirical, and ethical prescriptions. That, in a social order hospitable towards non-forced and non-violent, positively experienced intergenerational relations – one which recognizes these forms of sexual activity are not de facto intrinsically damaging – harms that might otherwise be iatrogenically induced could be more readily studied, identified, acknowledged, and then minimized, expunged and / or prevented. Ethical behavior could be practiced, examined, debated and so on, where in the current climate it is theorized and then largely marginalized and / or dismissed. Relevant distinctions which separate experiences along a continuum, function to prevent coercive, forced and violent sexual activity with a focus on harm reduction for those who are raped, assaulted or harassed. This could or would also apply to marriage, of course.
The ‘pro-contact’ position, then, is that, in the current climate, intergenerational sex IRL is to be avoided and deferred. The subset of intergenerational sex discussed is not categorically harmful in itself, but rather, some discernible harm arises as a product of external social artifacts. Relations are not inherently harmful because of a 5-year or greater age gap, but through iatrogenic harm (secondary victimization); current external forces of stigma, violence, censure, erasure, minimization, denial, institutional barriers and forced practices which need to be addressed and resolved before intergenerational sex can be rendered as psychologically and physiologically harmless as possible. As Malon wrote (2010 10.1007/s10508-008-9465-3): “neither is there reason or excuse for continuing to find—and even to create—childhood trauma when it does not, or otherwise would not, exist” (p. 645).
What do you think of that characterization? I think it’s important to be clear about what ‘pro contact’ means because the term could be misinterpreted or go undefined (though of course I am happy to be wrong or to disagree, I just think definitions and distinctions are pretty crucial). Of course, anyone else is free to chip-in to any of this and the main piece itself. I’ll try shorter comments next time – sorry for writing another essay! XD
Hi Prue, I’m aware Tom and most Heretics have a pro-contact position, as opposed to “Virtuous Paedophiles” which is anti-contact. However the latter seem to be a lot about self-flagellation and a guilt complex; maybe that is an exaggeration but they deny the essence of their sexuality.
“Pro-contact” obviously does not mean license to engage in “abusive” behaviours in the way “abusive” is currently construed, i.e. the illegal touching of a child. “Pro-contact” means a desire for a future social and legal settlement where the sexual child is properly understood and allowed to engage in relationships of their choosing. I think it is indeed helpful to think of some loose parameters such as friendship, romance, an emotional bond, which even now are not illegal…basically the tacit acceptance of love between an adult and a child which is different from and related to familial love. There is no reason why a MAP adult-child relation must be “defined” by eros, after all philia is friendship rather than erotic desire. But human beings are generally sexual in some form (I accept asexuality of course) so if a child desires sexual expression, that should not be denied them.
I think a simplistic perception of “pro-contact” is that it is “evil-doers breaking the law” but as I explained it is rather about a future settlement, and anyway love is (or should be) the hallmark of any relationship rather than sex; the emotional bond is more important than the sexual act itself. As for iatrogenic or secondary harm from “victimisation” I think this is a genuine and very sad and regrettable problem, that minors who engage in a sexual relationship are only traumatised and given psychological problems by the hysteric and sometimes brutal adult reaction: immediate family going into hysterics and the brutality of the State in its forced victimisation therapy and the heavy involvement of the police.
It is of course inevitable in my view that pro-contact means “don’t break the law and risk a long incarceration” but rather “fight for the social, legal and political improvements to this draconian situation”; also a responsible pro-contact position always puts the child first and their needs and provisions. In practice of course I am anti-contact, but in theory, or rather in ideological persuasion I am pro-contact, so far as the politics of this will ever change. But there are tentative signs that the politics will change, and long before the social stigma does (as occurred with homosexuality).
So yes, sexual attraction encompasses a wide range of things, of thoughts and behaviours, although ultimately one must be responsible towards any child and bear in mind the fragility of childhood. Personally, I feel better not knowing any children because that leaves me happier in the current situation, but everyone is different.
I should quickly say thanks for this. I think you explain the pro contact position, and other related facets, really well, and far less convoluted than myself. And yes, I’m no fan of Vir-Ped. Though some scholars lend their support to them becuase they’re the only group other than B4U-ACT they could safely support at the present time, Vir Ped would indeed appear to “deny the essence of their sexuality”, as you say. I think, to the wider, more bigoted public / media landscape, Vir Ped is seen as disingenuous for that very reason, and Anti’s of all kinds are just waiting for a chance for any Vir Ped followers to slip up or fall foul of the law. I think the position you outlined is far more cogent both philosophically and empirically.
All the best!
Officially at least, Vir-Ped do not “deny the essence of their sexuality”. For me, the problem with Vir-Ped is that they want to see non-offending MAPs accepted by mainstream society, but they do nothing to effectively combat the idea that MAPs are ‘dangerous’ other than claiming that they themselves and some other MAPs don’t offend. Mainstream society won’t be convinced, since as far as they are concerned the risk is too great. The only way to convince them is to get them to change their attitudes to child/adult sex. however hard that may be.
Hi ,Stephen. Yes I think largely this is true. Vir Ped point out something that should have been obvious – that many MAPs do not, or have not, engaged is some kind of activity deemed criminal which involves minors. It’s unfortunate that many MAPs are effectively thrown under the bus in this kind of discursive mileau / media-scholarly landscape. Progress is being made with B4U-ACT etc, helping to challenge stigma. But it seems at the moment we’re only seeing the idea of MAPs not being risky / or dangerous being challenged by showing that there are MAPs who don’t offend (which should have been obvious); not so much by pointing out that MAPs predominantly engage in non-violent, non-coercive behaviour, sexual or otherwise, with young people, that typically, MAPs quite literally love their younger counterparts (see 2020 paper https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01579-9 ) and feel a deep affinity and tenderness for them, and that this is itself is much less dangerous / risky than the wider public has been led to believe. Combating the conflation of terms like ‘pedophilia’ with murder and forced sexual activity, i think, is going to require that scholars, MAPs and media point out the multiple ways in which MAPs, their sexuality and sexual expression aren’t nearly as dangerous / risky than has often been sensationalistically claimed.
Out of interest, what do you think about the term ‘adult/child sex’? I’ve always though it sounds misleading b/c people hear ‘sex’ and they think ‘penetration’, not kissing and mutual masturbation. I get that advocates don’t want to infantalize or delegitimize children’s sexual activity, but the label seems very easily exploitable.
Hi Prue. Yes, you are right that the term ‘adult/child sex’ can be misunderstood for the reasons you mentioned. I actually said ‘child/adult sex’, which does have the merit of suggesting that the child might have a more pro-active role, which is often the case. Or another possibility would be ‘child/adult intimacy’, though that might be thought to be skirting around the key issue (that is, the aspect which tends to provoke condemnation and legal sanctions).
Prue made an excellent observation, with a link: “…typically, MAPs quite literally love their younger counterparts (see 2020 paper https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01579-9 ) and feel a deep affinity and tenderness for them”.
Yes, I was delighted to find a link to this paper posted early last year on Sexnet. The first-named of the four co-authors is Frederica M. Martijn, although I imagine the team leader is the last named, Michael C. Seto, whose work was featured in an earlier Heretic TOC blog titled The seven ages of sexual attractiveness in 2016 (Can’t believe it was that long ago!)
My response on Sexnet at the time may be of some interest, not least for the middle bit, which I have here set in bold, as it explains why old-timers like me have been somewhat reluctant (too much so, perhaps) to talk about love:
Out of interest, what do you think about the term ‘adult/child sex’? I’ve always though it sounds misleading b/c people hear ‘sex’ and they think ‘penetration’, not kissing and mutual masturbation. I get that advocates don’t want to infantalize or delegitimize children’s sexual activity, but the label seems very easily exploitable.
Fully agree! I have said this very thing often through the years. I think less potentially loaded terms like “sexual contact” should be used.
It is good to see you both (ZT and Prue) putting a positive construction on the term “pro-contact”. However, this originated as the antis’ language; trying to put a positive spin on it at this stage looks a tough ask. It is desperately chasing the game when we could be using our own terminology.
The term pro-contact was adopted as a vicious smear by Virtuous Pedophiles (irony intended, in my word choice) in their media pronouncements some years ago, especially by one or two particular spokesfolks of the Rottweiler tendency. For the background, see a blog here from five years ago titled Humble or haughty, nasty is naughty, and one soon after called Down and dirty in the VP basement. If you use “pro-contact” as a search term, you will quickly discover an extensive debate. Look out for the explanation by commentator Dissident as to the truly offensive context in which “pro-contact” has been used.
Also, stephen6000 as he then styled himself declared in favour of “pro-choice”, which has the merit of drawing attention to the younger party’s choice rather than an adult’s imposition. To his credit, one of the founders of VP, Ethan Edwards, joined the discussion and accepted that pro-contact all too easily has the opposite effect. He proposed “pro-legalisation” as a reasonable compromise. I would not complain if VP used it instead of pro-contact, but I have not checked whether they are now doing so. Maybe I should.
Yes, “pro-contact” has the unfortunate connotation of illegal assault upon a child. “Pro-legalisation” makes much more sense. No responsible MAP would touch or instigate online communication with a child unless it was in the context of a future legal framework with the attendant stringent safeguards to protect the unique vulnerability of childhood. And the draconian punishments involved ensure compliance with all except mostly low IQ MAPs.
Illegal images is slightly different as that is an easy trap to fall into, even with the highly intelligent as was seen for example with the Hebrew scholar Jan Joosten last year. It is at one remove from reality so can be beguiling. But considering the proliferation of legal images on the likes of Instagram and YouTube in recent times, it is completely unnecessary to delve into illegality and one can be careful to stringently avoid that trap.
So really a typical MAP (and there are probably hundreds of thousands in the UK) is a responsible citizen. Image crimes are a contentious area as it is used as a tool to trap, ensnare and demonise ordinary people. But “pro-contact” as a term confuses the notion of legal responsibility in the popular mind, and reinforces the ‘MAP as predator’ fable.
While I am certainly against non-consensual contacts, I get uneasy when people talk about responding to them by imposing ‘draconian punishments’. It is probably true that we cannot run society without some elements of coercion. But I think we should always look for alternatives where possible. In my view, only the very violent and truly dangerous should receive really hard treatment for the sake of protecting the public.
>No responsible MAP would touch or instigate online communication with a child unless it was in the context of a future legal framework with the attendant stringent safeguards to protect the unique vulnerability of childhood.
Then we’d better pray for “irresponsible” MAPs, who aren’t easily fooled by appeals to keep children “safe”, or the belief laws cannot be used against them – not false flagged “MAPs”, looking down their noses at us.
>one can be careful to stringently avoid that trap.
Presumes one can stringently prove what is always legal. I’ve recently read that (further) censorship of TikTok is probably on the way. Enjoy it while you can.
Nada, there is definitely nothing illegal on YouTube, Instagram or TikTok: keeping to these 3 sites would ensure compliance with the law.
Not quite sure if you’re suggesting MAPs should touch or (sexually) communicate with children, but that is a recipe for disaster. Punishments are too strict but the reality is MAPs could receive significant custodial sentences, which no-one wants to see. It’s important to be responsible, and facilitate change through legal means.
Your advice is good, Zen, and I concur. Here is the issue we need to contend with re: the watching of legal videos on YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok, which ties in with Nada’s concerns, I believe.
Even though these videos are legal, the truth is that most parents of these kids, along with the administrators of these sites, do not want MAPs watching the videos. This is particularly true on family-oriented channels that want to present an “innocent” ambience.
I should point out that this is not because the MAP viewers are frequently contacting the youths or leaving salacious comments. It is because the parents and other channel owners simply find it disgusting and alarming that adult viewers are admiring their kids in “that way,” because they are conditioned to believe that doing so is pathological and that MAPs are typically dangerous.
It should be noted that they are not finding out that MAPs are watching these videos because of contact or comments. The simple study of algorithms on these sites available to channel owners and site administrators have found that certain videos on channels garnered an unusual amount of traffic compared to others. These could then be tracked to see exactly what demographics were watching the videos.
Hence, a lot of videos admired by MAPs are getting taken down, along with whole channels, for this reason. I have seen a number of videos on various channels complaining about this “problem” and pointing out how it has been identified (i.e., usually not due to disrespectful or irresponsible behavior from MAP viewers).
This is also resulting in the call for more restrictions on what content younger channel owners are permitted to upload, which videos viewers are able to save to their personal collection of “saved” videos, how difficult such videos are to find via search engine (i.e., the phenomenon of “shadow banning”), and whether such videos are recommended by the site’s algorithms.
Finally, yes, there are some naive and irresponsible MAPs who insist there is nothing wrong with leaving borderline salacious comments and insist on rebelling against decorum regarding this (I have debated with them often enough on GC). But to be fair, we should acknowledge that the great majority of truly salacious comments that do appear are actually from non-MAP trolls seeking to cause mischief and garner negative attention. You can understand that most channel owners and site administrators do not care to make the distinction.
Thus, while I fully agree with you that it’s good to have legal video material for MAPs to privately watch and admire and that MAPs should stick to it over illegal alternatives, it should be noted that society does not want us to have access to such legal outlets.
Perhaps you’re right here Dissident, but from the evidence I have the big tech companies are indifferent and it is a small group of mean-spirited ‘activists’ (and salacious media reports) who are behind the blocking of legal videos. After the great ‘comments’ debacle on YouTube comments were silenced and the network of video suggestions was disrupted (superficially), at least enough to placate these activists. It is of course important for MAP mental health that legal videos are available in a safe and harmless way to provide a completely innocuous outlet for their suppressed feelings. I strongly discourage any attempted communication with minors, but I think from anecdotal evidence that violators of this have their messaging function removed or are suspended. But as I mentioned in my piece last month it is good for children to have a creative outlet too; so also by happy coincidence MAPs are free to admire them in a (I cannot stress enough) totally harmless way! It is simply good social policy to allow MAPs to watch safe videos on YouTube.
but from the evidence I have the big tech companies are indifferent and it is a small group of mean-spirited ‘activists’ (and salacious media reports) who are behind the blocking of legal videos.
No doubt that is who the censorship demands start with, but let us keep in mind that big tech companies can be bullied or cajoled into making those changes demanded. Not only that, but capitulating to such demands gives the administrators the opportunity to virtue signal and avoid public condemnation.
It is simply good social policy to allow MAPs to watch safe videos on YouTube.
I concur, but this is not a policy that the vocal general public, channel owners, and site administrators would agree with you on. They would consider MAPs watching those videos for admiration purposes to be “disgusting” or “creepy” (their two favorite emotive adjectives) and recite the misinformation of how MAPs are potentially dangerous stalkers, blah blah blah. In short, they do not consider us a legitimate minority group who is worthy of any degree of respect or compassion. Further, brutally attacking us and denying us anything remotely resembling a visual outlet, no matter how innocuous and free of contact, is an easy way to earn virtue points these days.
All people, whatever their erotic orientation, have the same rights, including to watch on social media videos and photos of minors, to click “like” and to write respectful comments on them. Don’t let yourself be bullied by extremists, who are the real “creepy” and “disgusting” people.I do not censor myself.
>Nada, there is definitely nothing illegal on YouTube, Instagram or TikTok: keeping to these 3 sites would ensure compliance with the law.
You are unaware of their censorship and the laws?
https://endsexualexploitation.org/articles/victory-tiktoks-new-privacy-and-safety-features-for-children/
I favor free speech, not keeping children “safe” from it.
I read your link, and the entire tone of that piece is execrable. I would actually support no direct messaging to kids, but the way they phrase things and present themselves is truly awful. They (of course they do) conflate ‘abuser’ and ‘paedophile’.
I quote: ‘this is a feature pedophiles used to point their predatory peers to additional minors to watch and target’. Note an additional conflation, ‘watch’ and ‘target’ as though watching a TikTok video is somehow an act of abuse in and of itself.
While I utterly condemn their use of language and erroneous assumptions, they are actually trying to stop nuisance idiots from sexually soliciting children. There is nothing wrong with that obviously. But this goes so much further as it is actually aiming at complete censorship of children’s accounts.
The only crumb of comfort from this is that their attempts at censorship are likely woefully inadequate, for reasons I won’t openly reveal, just in case there are ‘spies’ watching this website (the walls have ears, lol).
Very well said!
Until this…
although ultimately one must be responsible towards any child and bear in mind the fragility of childhood.
To a great extent subjective and societally engineered. Even young children have gotten through some extraordinary ordeals that would be daunting for many adults, and one day I need to share all the data I’ve acquired that easily makes this case. But I went on enough about that in my previous post to you today 🙂
Personally, I feel better not knowing any children because that leaves me happier in the current situation, but everyone is different.
Sadly, this is exactly how I feel 🙁 This state of affairs doesn’t leave me happy, but it at least leaves me in a better place emotionally than if I was regularly around younger people but was only able to interact with them at arm’s length. I know there are several MAPs who feel differently, but to me it would feel unnatural and disconcerting.
Yes, I have the unfortunate tendency to get awkward and embarrassed when in the same room as a child, in a coffee shop for example. I am convinced society has imposed this awkwardness on me as I feel inward shame at my minor attraction, but this is part of the repressive techniques of modern society I suspect.
Hi, Zen. I am sure you know that as a youth liberationist and civil libertarian in general, I cannot help but take exception and even offense at this statement:
Also on a practical level, there would have to be some provision for the lesser power of the child, especially psychologically and developmentally – it would be very much a guardianship-marriage.
Please do not get me wrong, I am not saying that you shouldn’t express this opinion simply because I and other youth liberationists would take exception or even offense, and I’m sure not going to scream at you and call you names like our hyper-sensitive comrades the SJWs are fond of doing. I also understand to some extent, because this is a popular notion in today’s world, based largely on the behavior and psychology of children in a culture where their development is deliberately controlled, monitored, and expected to follow a universal blueprint that is always subservient in authority to adults.
Nevertheless, I must pointedly disagree and mention that there is ample evidence, some of which you have even pointed out, in the current era of social media that kids of even younger age can display extraordinary amounts of agency, intelligence, common sense, and talent if allowed to grow, access information, self-educate, and disseminate info with far fewer controls. This blows a hole in the consensus thinking of kids being inherently inferior to adults. Yes, I concur that particularly young children, such as toddlers, do indeed have objective cognitive and developmental limitations, but we have no idea how children only slightly older would behave and participate in society if they were considered full citizens with access to value-neutral support groups and resources. We can, however, receive hints with the small, limited pocket examples of democracy mentioned above, and that evidence strongly suggests that the consensus opinion of the past 120 years or so is wrong.
Sorry to hear that Dissident, I certainly didn’t mean to cause offence! It’s an interesting idea that the limitations of childhood are a social construct. Certainly, under common law seven was the age of reason. This was the age where a child could not be held criminally responsible because their powers of reason were not fully developed. Similarly, in churches today seven is held to be the age of reason where children can receive communion or are held to be able to make an independent spiritual choice. I think this is an important demarcation and perhaps it is fair to say a child under seven does not have the full power of reason, in which case they need some form of guardianship. Over seven, they possess many intelligent and critical faculties, with which to make independent decisions, but of course have very little life experience. I agree with you though that it is an interesting idea that we impose limitations on children. I’m sure that is largely true, especially once they get to around ten, for example, and possess many mature powers of judgement. We infantilise children, and this may be behind the strident rebellion of early teens against their parents. So I am certainly open to your ideas!
Thank you for listening, as always! And I know you had no intention of causing offense, worry not 😉
Based on the evidence I have collected, which can mostly be found on YouTube, there are plenty of examples of children even under seven who have done admirably in life or death situations, including medical emergencies involving an adult or a home invasion scenario. If you can find a copy of Phillipe Aries’s book Centuries of Childhood (which I recommend) you will see that the way children have been treated and conceptualized throughout history is very different than what has become the norm since the Industrial Revolution.
Prior to that their treatment as third class citizens as opposed to being judged more objectively had begun occurring gradually, but it really accelerated during the late 19th century once the new adult-dominated unions of the industrial factories wanted younger people out of the labor force to prevent competition for adults, and at the same time instituted mandatory schooling to ensure that they were sufficiently babysat all day for five days awake. It was also at this time that the concept of adolescence was first developed, thus furthering the number of years that youths were infantalized and deprived of full civil rights.
Thanks for this, indeed I have Centuries of Childhood on my shelf, a purchase of many years prior, alas as yet unread.
The idea of “intergenerational marriage” always gives me a deep, rumbling giggle, far down in my intestines.
I am not being rude or dismissive, it is just that I have experienced two such marriages. My first wife was fifteen years younger than I, and my second (the perhaps blessed mother of my children) continues to be sixteen years younger than I, despite turning 49 later this year. (Of course, first wife was tender, at eighteen, and she changed, just as one would expect, But what a wonderful ten years it was for me and, I hope, for her.)
To me, it puts extra sauce on the notion that there should be no more than five years between the older and the younger partner.
Of course, this does not address the points being discussed, but it does highlight something quite relevant: the age of the younger person is of little importance if the relationship is based on love and trust, and all that other good stuff. What matters is that the younger person will change, and when they change the relationship may no longer suit them, and when that happens, the relationship ends, for good or bad, whether you are married or not.
Can a twelve or thirteen year old get involved in such a relationship? Surely, yes, and even if they cannot, there are many who want such a relationship. Indeed, as far as I can tell, the experience which comes with “maturity” adds a sourness to the personality. Certainly, it rarely is wisdom which accrues.
Ok, call me a sour grumpy old man, but I would prefer to talk to a vibrant optimistic twenty year old than have the best sex with a sour old woman of forty, and I have met enough of them with their lists of what they want, how they want it, when they want it…
Anyway, far enough off track, but for one thing to which I believe I know the answer: why the concern with the morality of an awfully normal aspect of human existence?
O, wait, just one more flippant comment: Show me a man who has not had sexual thoughts toward a sexually developed twelve year old girl/woman, and I will show you someone who [a] prefers men, or who, [b] is lying through their …er… teeth. (I said something like this to both of my father’s in law; one said yeah, I think you’re right, the other said no way ever, but I later found him watching a teenage sex romp some time later. Pissed myself laughing, I did.)
Apologies for rambling…
Usually youth (ages 10 to 24) is devoted to studying, going out and having fun, which is rather contradictory to having to raise a family yourself. Give young people contraceptives and sexual freedom, without marriage.
Hi Christian, thanks for your comment. While you’re right that youth in the age ranges you give, is usually “devoted to studying, going out and having fun”, I don’t see why a person cannot study or go out and have fun because they are married. This is especially the case in today’s Anglophone world, where people tend to marry more explicitly for love. I have no doubt that plenty of people study or go out to have fun whilst married; being married does not necessitate being trapped in domestic life; one an be married but not necessarily move in with their partner.
Moreover, if one partner (presumably a young female) decides to move in with their partner, and then chooses to take on a more domestic role, that 1.) might not be a great leap from their parent’s household if they grew up and / or enjoy domestic activities, and 2.) can be negotiated with other priorities that you named, as many people in any committed relationship do, such as education and having fun outside the domestic sphere. Should young people be forced to stay with their parents? Or, should there be avenues for youth to have more choice and freedom over where they live? We have to remember that there are other ways of childrearing besides the nuclear family, such as “open families” as practiced by Larry Constantine (see https://www.jstor.org/stable/583357?seq=1 ). In our time, pushing for universal basic income from birth to death might help facilitate young people’s choices in this regard.
Being married also doesn’t necessitate that you have, or are going to have, a family, assuming by that you mean go through pregnancy, give birth and begin raising a family. Neither does it necessarily follow that a youth who marries would be left to raise a child by themselves! Completely agree with contraception and sexual freedom, but I’m not sure that marriage itself is what you’re concerned with. Perhaps you’re more concerned about stigma, lack of financial and / or social support for young / single mothers, if not intergenerational couples more generally?