Pedophile Terminology, Identity and Revolution
Roger Moody, the British libertarian journalist and boylover, charged with indecent assault in 1977 (and acquitted in 1979), penned the following words in 1980:
“The child-lover is no revolutionary yet. Pedophiles are trying to be acceptable, but will soon discover that they are unacceptable to everyone. Out of that will come change. The acceptance of being unacceptable forms the crucible of revolution.”
Is it not significant that, a quarter of a century later, despite no success in our campaign for emancipation, we are still grappling with the pseudo-scientific, media-distorted terminology of ‘pedophilia’? We are still arguing against the repression of pedophiles, and declaiming our right to enter into consensual relationships irrespective of age. Have we not accepted that we are unacceptable? Clearly, the time has come to confront the fact that the fight for a pedophile identity is dead. The reasons for this are many and varied, but not least among them is the view expressed here, that the battle being fought is the wrong one.
The great human rights campaigns of Western society in the 20th century were concerned with forging identity. Suffragettes; civil rights for ethnic minorities, gays and lesbians; equality for women. Each group was demanding that their identity be recognized and respected. These movements have all been successful, to a greater or lesser extent; they all gained a foothold in the political arena from which they were able to argue their cause. By contrast, the position of true pedophiles (as distinct from the current misconception of pedophiles) worsens by the year, if not by the month.
It is important to recognize that while racial and sexual minorities were concerned with their identity, the pedophile struggle is ideological; it is a fight not for identity but for a vision of society. Moreover, it is not a fight for ourselves alone, but also for the right of children to be accepted as humans in the fullest sense of the word – with the inherent freedom to make choices and not to be subject to the same repression that we faced in our own childhoods. Let’s not be hypocritical about this: crucial to our belief is certainly the view that children must be allowed to express their innate sexuality, but such sexual liberation exists only as one element of a wider context of freedom from oppressive social mores – those ‘accepted’ forms of permissible identity that serve only to limit human potential by requiring that a person fit inside a well-defined category.
As Chin-Keung Li has observed, an attempt at “reducing a person’s life to a diagnostic category masks the complexity of human existence”. He comments that such a reductionistic approach implies that the essence of the individuals concerned can be thoroughly known and it is this that enables them to be placed into a defined role in society (e.g. outcast, prisoner) and that within such a scheme, “individual personhood becomes impossible”. We must recognize that this is the current position of contemporary society, and that it is promulgated by the State, operating in self-interested tyranny. The State’s sole concerns are the maintenance of power and control, which are achieved by containment of individuality within carefully-defined categories. Sexuality represents the ultimate individualism, and hence it is no coincidence that its control has become such a high social priority.
How else can it ever have come to pass that, in the public perception, ‘sexual predators’ (used erroneously and interchangeably with ‘pedophiles’) have become equated with ‘terrorists’ as the most dangerous incarnation ever known to society? Relative to figures for illiteracy, homelessness, poverty, burglary, violent assault, theft (and almost any other crime you care to mention), acts of sexual violence against children by ‘strangers’ are so infrequent as to be almost unobservable. How, then, have such acts become one of the highest priorities of government? Is not the only possible conclusion that pedophiles are simply the most convenient scapegoat for the maintenance of State control, representing as they do that which governments most fear: unrestricted individual freedom and personal choice?
Since the Industrial Revolution, the State’s favored method of control has been organized around the construct of the ‘nuclear family’, and it remains committed to channeling all interpersonal relationships through this structure. In consequence, it has reserved for itself the right to determine which are the permissible forms of human interaction and to specify the exact limits of permissible sexuality. These are quintessentially issues of individual freedom; our inherent right to make our own choices has been usurped by the State. Our ultimate vision must therefore be nothing less than social revolution: the destruction of the overarching concept of the ‘nuclear family’ and a complete reversal of the hierarchical State structure – the return of the State to its rightful position as subservient to the interests of an individual’s freedom.
Clearly this is a long-term vision, but it must be the underlying consideration by which we construct our identity. Labeling – both as an internal process of self-awareness, and as a means by which we can be externally identified – is too limited by our current conceptional understandings. By utilizing those existing categories that describe our identity – pedophile, pederast, ephebophile, boylover – we limit our struggle to what will only ever be viewed externally as a self-interested cause. Moreover, in using these terms, we are trying to create an identify for ourselves within the narrow limits predefined for us by society’s own terminology.
The first step in addressing this must be to affirm that our sexual feelings are an indivisible part of our identity, and that sexuality must be integrated into the rest of life, not relegated to the status of a ‘special’, distinct category. Terms such as ‘pedophilia’ clearly represent this attempt at separation; its adoption as a medical/psychiatric term, a pathology, a mental disorder, was a means of controlling sexuality as something distinct from the person. This classification enabled the State to turn a ‘medical condition’ into a ‘criminal offense’. All laws relating to ‘sexual offenses’ (including those defining an ‘age of consent’) therefore enshrine a concerted effort to separate our sexual feelings from the rest of our lives. It must be acknowledged that there are no ‘sexual crimes’, there are only crimes of violence. Consequently, every person currently incarcerated for pornography offenses or non-violent ‘sexual offenses’ must be viewed prima facia as a political prisoner, and receive our support.
As Eric Presland has observed, words can be used tactically, and ‘tactics of the wider definition are needed to progress the pedophile movement; to define a pedophile as someone who seeks genital contact with a person under a certain age makes us a tiny minority, and by such rigid classification it does some of our oppressors dirty work for them’. Terms such as pedophile, ephebophile and pederast should all be abandoned, as they enable State control by reference to sexual acts, and our own use of them has potential to damage our solidarity by their divisive ‘age of attraction’ classification. Even seemingly positive terms that we have adopted, such as ‘man/boy love’ arguably reinforce the purely social constructs of ‘child’ and ‘adult’, by which people can be categorized by age, and administered accordingly.
This commentary opened with a quote by Roger Moody, and will close with one:
“Victims always remain victims until they realize the true meaning of words; that words are not neutral but tools to be used for or against other human beings.”
In contemporary society, pedophiles can, if we so choose, justifiably view ourselves as ‘victims’ of an oppressive system. The position put forward here is that, if we stand any chance of progressing the pedophile cause, even if only for future generations, the war must start with the adoption of a new terminology of identification; a reconstruction of who we are, based upon the vision of society for which we are fighting.
10 comments on "Pedophile Terminology, Identity and Revolution"
Comments are closed.
Let’s not be hypocritical about this: crucial to our belief is certainly the view that children must be allowed to express their innate sexuality, but such sexual liberation exists only as one element of a wider context of freedom from oppressive social mores – those ‘accepted’ forms of permissible identity that serve only to limit human potential by requiring that a person fit inside a well-defined category.
Obviously, no pedophile should campaign for reducing the age of consent “because” they are a pedophile, and that’s “what pedophiles want”. That just won’t work, and is probably dishonest and self defeating, considering that little change will be achieved in their lifetimes (or at least their sexually active lifetimes). I hope that those pedophiles who do write for us are simply fighting an ideological war, as opposed to a personal one. Of course, being a pedophile is more than likely to spark off that chain of thought.
Is not the only possible conclusion that pedophiles are simply the most convenient scapegoat for the maintenance of State control, representing as they do that which governments most fear: unrestricted individual freedom and personal choice?
That’s one way of putting it. My own idea is that the state must repress sexual desire, as to distract man from his basic pleasures and the clear rationality that is their pursuit. If man can be taught to hate what is most central to his own existence, governmental and religious authorities can keep him at work for as long as he lives. But still, as is reproductively necessary, there must be a norm. The issue of what abnorm is being used as a political tool in the sexnegative crusade is largely irrelevant. At the moment, pedos are the scapegoat.
The first step in addressing this must be to affirm that our sexual feelings are an indivisible part of our identity, and that sexuality must be integrated into the rest of life, not relegated to the status of a ‘special’, distinct category. Terms such as ‘pedophilia’ clearly represent this attempt at separation; its adoption as a medical/psychiatric term, a pathology, a mental disorder, was a means of controlling sexuality as something distinct from the person.
I agree with this. Human societies should attempt to move back towards the broad (or absent) sexual concept of their close, nonhuman relatives.
Terms such as pedophile, ephebophile and pederast should all be abandoned, as they enable State control by reference to sexual acts, and our own use of them has potential to damage our solidarity by their divisive ‘age of attraction’ classification. Even seemingly positive terms that we have adopted, such as ‘man/boy love’ arguably reinforce the purely social constructs of ‘child’ and ‘adult’, by which people can be categorized by age, and administered accordingly.
Who will start this? Will it not remain wholly impractical to avoid using such labels in the meantime?
I’m for the use of labels to a certain point; that of total sexual equality. “Boylove” could be a winner in popular culture, for example. On achieving total or near-total eqality for pedophiles, zoophiles, homosexuals etc, etc, we can work at deconstructing the rigid and divisive framework of sexual definitions.
If I remember, there was a short and unoffensive comment left in this space. I am struggling to understand why it was removed. Did it contain a link?
Not sure why the comment was removed. No link, I believe.
Thanks for the input Daniel. That’s an interesting point that one goal of State repression of sexual desire is to create self-hatred within an individual, as opposed to my initial thinking that it was directed towards generating external hatred of the individual. As far as the State is concerned, no doubt both techniques are useful mechanisms of control.
I’m not sure whether I correctly understood your comment that ‘there must be a norm’. My thinking was that if all human interaction is viewed as offering different degrees of intimacy (i.e. without separating sexual behavior into a segregated category, as currently happens), then there need be no necessity (or desirability) for a norm. So long as a norm is perceived to exist, anything outside of that realm will be ripe for target. As far as reproduction is concerned, should two individuals choose to create life, then their degree of interaction will be appropriate to that objective. The goal, as I see it, is to wholly remove the notion of categorizing a human act as ‘sexual’ or ‘non-sexual’, with the consequence that they are all simply ‘acts’, without further qualification.
On the issue of methodology, I completely accept your point that it is impracticable to avoid using accepted shorthands for communication in the short term. My vision comprehended a gradual change – perhaps commencing with the formation of a new activist group devoted to social revolution along the lines expressed, with broadly defined goals (so as to (a) attract as broad as possible a coalition and (b) to avoid being perceived as a CL advocacy group). This group could commence its operations in a very indirect, subtle manner, e.g. by targeting international, national and grass-roots groups who might have shared interest in the cause of social revolution (human rights/civil liberties groups, youth liberation groups, GLBT groups, etc); joining/participating in those groups, attempting to influence their policy via their message boards, and so on. Such a foundation would be necessary before proceeding to the next level, which would involve giving the activist group it’s own public identity. At that stage, the new vision-orientated labels/terminology would be brought into play.
Your final point is interesting, and requires further contemplation on my part. I am not certain that equality for sexual minorities can be achieved prior to deconstructing sexual categorization – or whether in fact the latter would be the most appropriate means of achieving the former. Chicken and egg, in some respects, and I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
I’m not sure whether I correctly understood your comment that ‘there must be a norm’. My thinking was that if all human interaction is viewed as offering different degrees of intimacy (i.e. without separating sexual behavior into a segregated category, as currently happens), then there need be no necessity (or desirability) for a norm. So long as a norm is perceived to exist, anything outside of that realm will be ripe for target. As far as reproduction is concerned, should two individuals choose to create life, then their degree of interaction will be appropriate to that objective. The goal, as I see it, is to wholly remove the notion of categorizing a human act as ’sexual’ or ‘non-sexual’, with the consequence that they are all simply ‘acts’, without further qualification.
Sure. Maybe even ditch the stuff about “acts”, since this still points towards some kind of significance and line drawing. Ultimately, we’re speaking about interactions.
And my comment about norms and how they interrelate with “reproductively desirable” behaviour, relates to authoritarian states and religions, not my own beliefs.
On the issue of methodology, I completely accept your point that it is impracticable to avoid using accepted shorthands for communication in the short term. My vision comprehended a gradual change – perhaps commencing with the formation of a new activist group devoted to social revolution along the lines expressed, with broadly defined goals (so as to (a) attract as broad as possible a coalition and (b) to avoid being perceived as a CL advocacy group). This group could commence its operations in a very indirect, subtle manner, e.g. by targeting international, national and grass-roots groups who might have shared interest in the cause of social revolution (human rights/civil liberties groups, youth liberation groups, GLBT groups, etc); joining/participating in those groups, attempting to influence their policy via their message boards, and so on. Such a foundation would be necessary before proceeding to the next level, which would involve giving the activist group it’s own public identity. At that stage, the new vision-orientated labels/terminology would be brought into play.
I have ruthlessly promoted the NVSH (http://www.nvsh.nl/)as an example of such a group. These national groups need not be at all CL focused, but only CL sympathetic. The “broader picture” is the actual focus of these projects.
Your final point is interesting, and requires further contemplation on my part. I am not certain that equality for sexual minorities can be achieved prior to deconstructing sexual categorization – or whether in fact the latter would be the most appropriate means of achieving the former. Chicken and egg, in some respects, and I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
Well, I am actually for the foundation of these NVSH type groups before such equality has been achieved. Although the aim of decategorisation of “sexual” practises would be present from the beginning, such groups would obviously have to focus on broader equality for homosexuals, etc, at least at the start of their active lives. But yes, pointing towards the futility of categories and the idea of sex as a set of behaviours in and of itself could even help accelerate that equality, but not very effectively at this stage.
You are still a fucking [heterosexual, homosexual, gerontophile, zoophile, llortophile etc – Daniel]
Strato,
This topic keeps resurfacing…”abandon pedophile”…
I’ve come out recently (though I wrote on this issue at least a couple of times in the past) with my stance on this issue, at BC.
In short…if we make up all of our own, new terms…what good is this, other than placing a band aid on top of the problem?
I think, if we place much faith in this course of action, we are entirely losing focus, on the real battle.
I mean, hey…I don’t know…
…maybe, we could invent new names…and maybe we could push the sex issues into the background…
…but, what would we call ourselves, and why?
How would this help anything, when there is a rampant viciousness in society, that attacks early life, and “culturally undesirable” sexuality?
We can call ourselves anything we like…but, if many of the people around us are freaking out over the typical, sexual characteristics which we have in common with each other (and falsely associating violent assault with us)…then where has the name change gotten us?
The problem is politics…the propaganda machine…the media…and opportunists (of many sorts).
We need to bring cultural understandings of human sexuality, and sexual development (in it’s broad scope, including childhood), in line with the reality of human sexuality and sexual development.
We need to destroy the phobias, and replace them with a rational and positive understanding, of just what is taking place, when people choose to come together sexually.
We need to expose opportunists, and corruption in this field of research, “treatment”, and politics.
If we don’t…It will always come back down to the attack that, “we are pedophiles”, even if we no longer call ourselves such.
We need to go after the root of the problem…peoples misconceptions about pedophilia and inter-generational relationships.
Steve,
Thanks for the comments. And my sincere respect to you for your coming out…
I agree entirely with your point about the crucial element being how best to attack the nature of societal misperceptions, viciousness, and a general desire to eliminate anything that goes against the nuclear family ‘norm’.
Ultimately the aim is to radically reconstruct contemporary understanding of the nature of interpersonal intimacy. My underlying point was really directed at the solidarity that, I believe, is necessary for us to achieve that goal.
My argument was that if we have an internal perception of ourselves as pedophile or boylover or childlover (or whatever it may be), such terminology merely describes a type of relationship – rather than than reflecting *what* we are ultimately fighting for: human freedom.
I felt, and feel, that if we accepted this perspective, as opposed to a narrow sexually-orientated perspective, then it would perhaps enhance the community sense of unity in a positive way. For example, you often see on BC etc a significant quantity of negative postings – and not just from opponents/detractors. Much like the concept of ‘internalized homophobia’, it is entirely possible (and perhaps inevitable) that many in the community have a negative self-image caused by years of persecution. This article was therefore intended to suggest a positive self-image (e.g. ‘freedom fighter’) that might hopefully generate a groundswell of solidarity upon which we can move forward.
The strategy of the establishment is to prevent the public from ever seeing a story in which pedophilia is not depicted as a violent, predatory act. Ony stories in which pedophiles are depicted as predators are allowed in the press. They will not allow an objective discussion of the issue.
The answer, therefore is to continually put the real message in their faces.
Use internet forums, like google, yahoo and craigslist. Create an account in google and post the positive message to as many groups as possible. If you limit yourself to only groups on the topic you will miss much of the population that needs to hear the message.
Get on yahoo and post on yahoo chat and in yahoogroups. If they hack into your account, so you cannot connect to your IP, it might work to change the password of your IP account.
Post the message in yahoo chat. Do not get involved in the accusations and threats they will throw at you. There is not time for that now. Just go into as many chat rooms as possible and post the positive message. Do not use this opportunity for any kind of solicitation or for any activity that can be construed as seduction.
Craigslist in the USA will delete any positive posts about pedophilia, but craigslist in non-usa cities will often allow them.
When you post to groups, try to post to the groups or chatrooms or blogs with the highest number of members and posts. It is more important at this stage to keep broadcasting the message as widely as possible.
If you want get an idea of how to make a campaign look up the email addresses for “commander_xero@yahoo.com” or “itisnotharmfulnoitisnot@yahoo.com” on google. Click on “search groups. This is one way to get as many posts out as possible. When google or yahoo deactivate one account, just create another.
The ruling classes are trying the big lie strategy. If they keep repeating the big lie about pedophilia and preventing any contradiction, the population will come to believe it. This is how they keep the population so afraid of imaginary enemies, it will forget about the real failures and tyranny of the ruling classes. This is called the “red herring strategy” in politics.
It is our job to contradict the big lie at every turn.
You may have come a bit too late to be seen on the blog frontpage. A good way of being heard would be to post this to GD on newgon.com/forum.