Jim Burton, Strategic Lead for Newgon, guest blogs again today following his debut here last year.  This time he makes “a positive, pragmatic argument for an alliance of the invalidated”, using fraternity between MAPs and Zoophiles as an example.

MAPs, Zoophiles, and Transids

Validity discourse and the Alliance

In my previous essay for HTOC, I discussed how associations between different socially marginalised communities can sometimes spell harm for the groups concerned. I conceded that to most, it’s obvious individual Nazis can exist in any community without invoking the idea that every member of said community is themselves one. Within a western context, net harm would nevertheless come to sexually deviant communities if they were seen to form strategic alliances with fascist ideologies. I also documented my own experiences of being smeared as a Fascist, or enabler.

Another source of potential harm to sexual deviants, I argued, sadly comes from associations with other forms of sexual deviance. For example, greater visibility of Sadistic “Zoophiles” (Zoosadists) is more likely to further tarnish the public image of Zoophiles (Zoos) as a group, inspiring the passing of new laws^[1] against all Zoosexual behaviour. Greater censorship of allegedly “Zoophilic” adjacent identities such as the Furry Fandom would also be likely. While non-practising Zoosadists should doubtless be applauded for their decisions, there is a reason why we hear so little about “Zoosadist Pride“, at least outside of a few highly questionable, and thankfully anti-contact online communities. The reason being, confirming harmful stereotypes of your own community makes very little sense as civil rights or identity discourse. At the same time, Zoos, Sadists and MAPs all exist in considerable numbers, and have a lot to gain from co-operating to overcome social invalidation – much of it arising from shared stigma. This leaves us with an ethical dilemma of sorts.

So, in this essay I will make a positive, pragmatic argument for an alliance of the invalidated, using the nascent online fraternity between MAPs and Zoos as my example. I should stress, this is not an attempt to exclude Paraphilias other than Zoophilia, but to make my argument clearer.

MAPs at present are in a situation similar to Zoos, with a few small differences. Both are stigmatised for their desires, which popular ignorance dictates are inseparable from “deviant” criminal actions linked to purported power imbalances. Both are also being distanced, or “pushed out” by larger adjacent groups, and are therefore haemorrhaging both demographically and in terms of credibility, to the benefit of those more socially acceptable identities. This makes it harder for MAPs and Zoos to reach critical mass alone; to get up-and-running as serious social/political movements.

Imagine for example, how much easier it is for a Zoophile to identify as a Furry or a Therian – the latter being people, mainly children and teens, who morph (at least spiritually) into different species of animal. The numbers don’t lie in this regard – polls and studies have found some overlap between Zoophilia and the Furry Fandom, with the potential for significant support from Furries on Zoo civil rights issues.^[2]

For MAPs on the other hand, those often hostile adjacent groups are taboo erotic fiction communities in general (principally Lolicons), and also on some level, Youth Liberationists. There are also numerous queers who might otherwise identify in some way as MAPs or AAMs; this includes Transids such as Transage people – some of whom it can be argued, suffer from similar stigmas.

All of these adjacent communities have their own somewhat understandable motivations for distancing Zoos and MAPs as the “real” sexual deviants, in a process social media users now sometimes refer to as “validity discourse“. It is common for such groups to use the adjective “invalid” to describe other less acceptable groups (such as MAPs in general, or pro-c Zoos in particular). This term, a Gen Z reworking of “sick” or “degenerate”, is obviously an attempt on the part of the larger socially marginal group to present itself as arbitrarily “valid”, i.e. clean, well-intentioned and harmless. It can be compared to assimilation strategy and respectability politics in the GLB Movement of the 1980s and 90s – something not alien to older MAPs.

How a Zoo-MAP+ alliance might work

While the communities I described as adjacent to Zoos and MAPs are not helping in any way right now, they could be considerable reservoirs for future recruitment. To take advantage of their adjacency to socially marginal groups, however, both Zoos and MAPs must have a game-plan, an agreed common cause and ultimately an alliance to form their own critical mass.

If, say 10% of Furries support Zoos and oppose all validity discourse, here we have a population Zoos must rally to action, and recruit from, in order to contribute their part to an alliance of the invalidated. The same goes for MAPs and their adjacent groups.

These allies will always be, to some extent, fair-weather friends. Consider, for example, the outright hostility and threat to life faced by out-MAPs. Now, compare this to the mixture of awkward bemusement and anti-woke posturing displayed by members of the public in response to Transids such as Transharmful, Transhateful, Transjudaism and Transabled/Wheelchairquior (their spelling). At best, we can at least say that all such groups are deviant. Many Transids appear to have considerable demographic overlap with aggressively invalidated identities such as Zoos and MAPs.

One would still have to query the compatibility of an across-the-board movement, especially if its activities were to be conducted “out in the open”. With Transabled Wheelchair Warriors and others already eager to burn along the avenues in Pride parades, would it not be necessary for MAPs to take a “back-seat” for their own safety? And how could this be done sensitively, in a way not ultimately deemed to be exclusionary towards MAPs?

Not only that, but how does our movement deal with hostile operatives such as “pro-c Biastophiles” – people who want to legalise rape, or use it as a political weapon? This, in sum, is why it looks like an online informational movement based upon simple facts countering social stigmas on the groups concerned might be the only way to go. In the early stages, I would at least argue for this approach as a “soft launch”. Searching for Zoophile or even broader Paraphilia Wikis and information resources, however, unfortunately proves two things. Firstly, Anglo Zoos have nothing that rivals Ipce or NewgonWiki, in terms of depth of information and frequency of contributions. Zetas (pro-choice/practising Zoos) have created one notable effort, and an informative blog site called Zooey.pub.^[3] There is still nothing methodical such as a Newgon’s Debate Guide or a detailed anthology, with relatively little in the way of Zoo research literature existing.

Secondly, outside of the corporatised, hollowed out and exclusionary LGBT paradigm, there is no online resource properly catering to a full variety of the most socially invalidated sexual minorities, and uniting them under one mantra. MAPs have attempted this, creating pop-up sites such as Transid.org and Radqueer.net to supplement the existing core of paraphile social instances. Unfortunately, these are hardly ever edited, rarely read and therefore simply represent “cool ideas” their MAP owners once thought to be viable. They lack support from non-MAPs, and have no contingencies in place for content creation and maintenance.

There are also some fundamental oversights to so-called “Radqueer” ideology in that it includes rather discretionary identities alongside the foundational gender and age-based sexual inclinations. For example is Transrace going to inspire nature-nurture debates mirroring those for homosexuality, or paedophilia? There is of course nothing wrong with covering this esoteric ground alongside sexuality, but we should not, in pained attempts to be “cool” and “valid”, pretend all such things are of equal substance or urgency.

So, we need to be clear as to the something our alliance is based upon. For me, that something can only be shared social invalidation, or relative “queerness” if you like. Accounting for the size of particular demographics, this forces us to focus more on groups such as Zoos, Young People, Transgender People and even the Men’s Movement. More so than our wheelchair-fluid friends, or Transgrassallergy sufferers, at least.

To this end, employment of the noun “invalid” has been suggested to civil rights organisers, as it makes clear that social invalidation is a fair-enough reason for anybody to be a member of the alliance, and that validity discourse itself is rejected. Identifying as “invalids” also makes clear that identities already considered “valid” or at least “marginally” so (e.g. novel Transids and fringe Paraphilia) will be considered less urgent priorities.

At the practical level, the new alliance’s rejection of validity discourse would mean the rejection of potential allies who engage in such discourse – many of them anti-c’s, although not exclusively so. In other words, to avoid setting itself up for factionalism and internal conflict, the movement would display an intolerance of the intolerant, as it set about finding its voice and purpose. Excluding the worst anti-c’s might be easier for pro-c Zoos. In many places Zoosexuality is legal, meaning anti-c Zoophiles are of little to no help at all – in fact, they are literal antis.

For MAPs, who arguably face even more stigma, anti-c alliances might be somewhat easier to maintain. In fact, under an alliance model, MAPs might even be forced to sacrifice extremist/abolitionist pro-c’s who cannot moderate their demands somewhat to aid the early development of this alliance. Abolition demands would most likely be considered an inappropriate distraction from the alliance’s primary goals of attacking stigma and reforming existing laws. For some Paraphiles, on the other hand (e.g. Biastophiles) it will often be the case that only anti-c, counter-stigma activism is possible without advocating harm.

Whoever takes on this challenge will need not only a set of principles (principle always trumps identity), but charismatic leadership. He/she or they will have to communicate effectively:

a) Not only who is in the alliance, and its purpose, but…

b) How, in the real world, the Alliance’s members must (due to their fundamental, and undeniable differences) be treated unequally to become civilly equal. Rape/Noncon fetishists vs Transgender for example.

Newgon’s Community Ambassador roles

On a related note, around a year ago, I created “Community Outreach Ambassador” roles at Newgon, hoping I could encourage collaboration with some of the adjacent groups mentioned in this essay.

Recently, I announced a blogger with whom some readers here may be familiar – as my first such appointment. Famous for his legal battles on freedom of expression, and often maliciously mischaracterised by the media, Eivind Berge has been a member of the PCMA server for a few years, and becomes Newgon’s Men’s Movement Community Outreach Ambassador.

NOTES:

1. Ultimately, acts of extreme Zoo-“Masochism” it could be argued, have been partly or wholly responsible for some of the few laws passed against Zoosexuality and filming thereof in the US.
2. See Tarro (2024) – 52.4% on Zooey.pub, Furscience (2019) and Zildenberg and Olver (2001).
3. For examples of relevant Zooey.pub articles, see Opinions on the anti-contact Zoo, and Non-Zoo Voices.

WARREN, A FRIEND TO THE END

A couple of years ago, former PIE Vice-Chair “Warren Middleton” (not his real name) expressed surprise that so many surviving members of our pioneering MAP organisation had remained friends for nearly half a century. “Having coming this far,” he said, “I suppose we’ll stick together to the end now, won’t we?”

About half a dozen of us had met up for a convivial pub meal in London. We had all been either PIE committee members or otherwise engaged in radical activism back in the day. Warren, a smoker, was already frail and chronically unwell by this time with COPD. I knew that for him, at least, “the end” was probably quite close, and so it proved. It was cancer that finally did for him, last year. He would have been about 75.

I only found out recently, hence this delayed obituary. I knew he had friends who lived much closer to him than me (he was in Putney, London, I was 300 miles north) and that he was getting medical and social services support, so when his phone stopped working and a letter of mine went unanswered (Warren had never caught up with the internet), I thought I’d soon be hearing news about him from someone. But it never happened. Anyway, long story short, on a trip south a couple of months ago I took a bus to Putney, where, having no contact details for Warren’s local friends, I took to ringing the doorbells of neighbouring flats until I found convincing confirmation that he had passed away, as I of course suspected by that time.

The details of his death need not detain us, and nor will those of his early life, because I know little about it beyond my impression, having met his very hospitable parents at their comfortable home, that his background was modestly “well to do”. Likewise their son was “well spoken”, suggesting a private education. He may have been a London boy but there was no Cockney accent.

What concerns us more here, though, is his MAP activism. Warren was part of the scene before my arrival, being one of the earliest and ultimately longest-serving PIE committee members, serving from 1975-8 as Vice-Chair. His most publicly visible contribution in this role came through interviews with journals including Gay News and Time Out, plus the editorship under PIE auspices of a journal called Understanding Paedophilia. Ultimately, though, the writing for which he would be best known was his book The Betrayal of Youth (1986) which he edited and to which he contributed two chapters.

The Betrayal of Youth: Radical Perspectives on Child Sexuality, Intergenerational Sex, and the Social Oppression of Children and Young People, or BOY for short, had a significant impact based on Warren’s astonishing success in obtaining contributions not just from other MAP activists, including myself, but also some big names, such as high-profile human rights activist Peter Tatchell, Catholic priest Michael Ingram, and psychologist Beatrice Faust; also Tuppy Owens, publisher and editor of the hugely successful Sex Maniac’s Diary,  Jeff Vernon, gay youth activist and committee member of CHE; plus several co-editors of Peace News, including Roger Moody, author of Indecent Assault, a personal memoir of a brush with the law which he won.

Warren won his own first court battle, too, as a co-defendant of mine when we stood accused, along with other PIE committee members, of “conspiracy to corrupt public morals”. He adopted a defence strategy very unlike that of the rest of us, choosing to passionately assert his innocence in an eloquent statement from the dock, written in his own words, instead of giving evidence on oath that would have been subjected to cross-examination. It worked! The jury acquitted him. It may be more than merely coincidental that the very next year the government passed a new law banning such unsworn dock statements (Criminal Justice Act, 1982).

He was less lucky in a more recent case, though, when in 2011 he was convicted and jailed along with my successor as Chair of PIE, Steven Freeman, and others, in a case of downloading and sharing illicit images. After serving his one-year sentence, Warren would live quietly for the rest of his days, except for an episode in which his long memory would play a key part – the unmasking of Peter Tatchell when, for the sake of political expedience in changing times, he tried to deny ever having written positively about paedophilia.

Tatchell had contrived to escape responsibility for his BOY chapter, but was put back firmly on the hook when Warren unearthed another Tatchell article in an obscure Marxist journal in which he praised BOY – the very book he denied ever having really known about or willingly contributed to. I blogged about it in 2021. As I wrote, Tatchell’s mendacious hypocrisy might have been forgivable had he simply been trying to salvage his own reputation. But Warren rightly decided to skewer him because he had gone further, ruthlessly trashing the name of old allies personally, including Warren and myself, in order to save himself.

It might seem from this that Warren had his own ruthless streak, but that was never how he seemed to me. I would affectionately say he was a man of hilarious contradictions. “Revolution!”, he would declare in his improbably posh voice, “We need nothing less than socialist revolution!” But the next minute he’d be telling us about his recent visit to the Vatican, and how honoured he had been to meet a cardinal and kiss his ring – on His Eminence’s finger, I hasten to add. And for a revolutionary firebrand, this loyal Catholic was generally very mild mannered, his fussy camp style more mother hen than outrageous queen.

He could be maternal, too, in his relationships with boys. I think one of them, John, would have been around 14, hustling in an amusement arcade or some such den of iniquity when they first met. Warren would have been in his early thirties. It was sex at first sight, one might say, but much more than just a one-night stand. Even after decades together they never married or called each other partners so far as I can remember, but they lived together for a long time and remained close friends “to the end”.

The way Warren would put it is that he had taken the boy under his wing, giving him security and protection. John had been a wild child, a “juvenile delinquent” as he would have been called in those days, or a “young offender” now. Staying with Warren offered him stability, taking him off the streets – something John’s family had evidently been unable to achieve.

And there’s another paradox. Warren the protector had also arguably been Warren the “predator”. Yes, he protected John, but only after picking him up in a hustling scenario. Which may be why one of Warren’s own chapters for BOY was on child prostitution. I think he wrote it as an exercise in thinking as deeply as he could about the morality of paying for sex with teens or younger children.

Re-reading that chapter for this remembrance of my old friend, I am reminded that he made a good job of it, starting with an erudite, copiously referenced, wide-ranging historical survey of the subject, packed with revelations the uninitiated will find jaw-dropping, a compelling read. But it is when he reaches modern times and explores the motivations of those involved that his contribution is at its most relevant and interestingly nuanced. While he comes to conservative conclusions on the undesirability of such prostitution, I am firmly of the view that it would be unfair to accuse him of hypocrisy. Unlike Tatchell, he does not resort to bogus puritanical moralising but instead makes a real effort to make positive suggestions for sensible policies.

Warren’s erudition is also somewhat paradoxical. He may have had a posh voice but he had never been to university or otherwise exposed to higher education. He earned a crust in modest catering roles, including that of hotdog salesman. He was self-taught, in other words, becoming an avid reader and enthusiastic bibliophile, with a particular interest in antiquarian books. In the course of this pursuit he struck up a friendship with Timothy D’arch Smith, a bookseller of note and author of Love in Earnest, on the Uranian poets, whose boy-love themes unsurprisingly attracted Warren’s attention, such that he became quite an expert on this circle himself. No surprise, D’arch Smith turns out to be yet another notable figure Warren cajoled into contributing to BOY, in his case via an Appendix on the Uranians.

In sum, it can be said that his activism and scholarly contribution were idiosyncratic and unique. His real name was John Parratt, but somehow Warren was the name that stuck, not just for me but for other old comrades too. He was a staunch friend, and sadly one of my last from that era. R.I.P. Warren.

CANCELLED KARL’S CUTE BOYS

Remember cancelled Karl, the Manchester University PhD researcher whose work proved too hot for the authorities to handle a couple of years ago? See here at HTOC.

The good news is that Karl, not to be beaten, stuck with his project, continuing his work on an independent, self-financing basis. And now, with the work completed, he has brought out a book with the fabulous title Impossibly Cute Boys.  The Amazon page tells us:

“Impossibly Cute Boys is the first book in English about Japanese shota comics and their fans. Shota features cute boy characters, but little is known about this manga genre and its readers since research is lacking, both in and outside of Japan.

Based on new research on PhD level, Impossibly Cute Boys details the history of shota (or shotacon) in Japan, before introducing us to the readers and creators of these comics, and asking them what it means to them to love shota. Their answers challenge both previous research and common assumptions about shota fans.

Impossibly Cute Boys is based on ethnographic fieldwork in Tokyo and Yokohama. An original contribution to academic research in the fields of anthropology and queer studies, the book is written in an accessible style and can be enjoyed by anyone wanting to learn more about an often misunderstood manga genre.”

Full title: Impossibly Cute Boys: The Healing Power of Shota Comics in Japan. Published by Breakout Bits in May, at £39.99 from Amazon.