Uncommon Sense Edition 4

Edition 4

Uncommon Sense Magazine:

A quarterly digest of subversive minor-adult sexuality.

Edition 4, 1 Dec, 2009. PDF Version

To discuss this, and previous editions, see wordpress. Get involved in writing the next issue.

This issue

• Editorials - Two response articles.
• State of the movement - Media attention.
• News Digest - USA, UK and Worldwide.
• Letters to the Editor - Response on Gene Abel.
• On the forums - GC.
• Links and recommended reading - Essays and more.

Happy reading - The Editors.

Editorials

Two editorials in Edition #4:

Clarified position on four lobbying groups

A response by The Editors.

Shortly after its publication, Uncommon Sense Edition 3 (and #2) were quoted in an Absolute Zero blog post - itself a familiar, characteristically tame attempt to link Sex Offender Activism with what its blinkered author for some reason decides to see as "pedophilia". AZ is by no means popular, or in any way important, but their editorial, and recent attempts at intimidation are the catalyst for the positions we elaborate in this article.

Absolute Zero & Newgon.com

AZ's membership (with ego-boosting wallpaper)

There has been a number of legal threats and prosecutions recently, concerning web-vigilante organisations who label just about anybody who gets in their way a "pedophile", and/or deliberately seek out and entrap chatters who have an interest in minors. This, unfortunately for AZ - a group with a handful of members, is their creed. As the amount of potent material for hate-groups such as AZ has declined, it is unsurprising to see them return to their original tactics of spinning quotes out of context, in an attempt to draw meaningless links of supposedly "moral" relevance.

AZ describes our editorial as the work of "pedophile activists". Whilst for reasons explained later, it's almost impossible to find any thread of logic in this assertion, the motivation behind this attempted slur is much easier to pin down. It appears that we were quoted with the sole objective of claiming that Mary Duval (an activist for Sexual Offenders) and her peers were taking advice from us, or indeed other groups that AZ (conveniently) deems Duval and her peers to be witches for merely talking to. Despite there being nothing to demonstrate any information sharing between the two groups, AZ still thought it appropriate to draw the link. This is without doubt, due to the desperate need among Anti-Pedophiles to find something objectionable about the RSO Acivists who they, and Perverted Justice have lied about and attempted to intimidate for a number of years now. AZ and their supporters can not tolerate the idea of becoming less respectable or important than a group of Sex Offenders, despite the fact that their worth is with few exceptions, self-derived. In fact, when set against a history of sadistic and prurient vigilantism against innocent parties, and boastful fetishization of rape, this quest for "acceptability", even in relation to a gaggle of pervs, is somewhat comical to say the least.

What AZ did find in our article, was a quote suggesting that readers of this magazine should seek to exert discreet influence over a number of movements, including RSO Activism, and eventually amalgamate their attempts to achieve recognition for the wrongs that have been done against them. But in AZ's opinion, this comment in an editorial (one which states that there is no significant political movement behind it) goes to prove that we are feeding disorderly ideas to all of their chosen enemies. And this alone still isn't good enough for AZ. Despite finding no overt link, and nothing whatsoever objectionable in text (indeed, perhaps even because of this), they have to humour us with one final trick - a familiar "winning argument" if you will. This is to call their opponents pedophiles. You see, where the alleged links between two groups are doubtful at best, and when any sane person would conclude that you are a bully spoiling for a fight, the old tactic of labelling and name calling comes into its own. Introduce the slur, and the lie expands; the links they promised suddenly materialise as we are forced to ask ourselves whether we would even risk defending this scum. In AZ's logic, once you are labelled a pedophile, your every word becomes heresy (even agreement is dishonest), and you are assumed to be a criminal and a rapist.

What they don't realise is that this is a self-containing system of labels and assumptions - an exaggeration of what most would actually believe. They paint themselves as helpfully joining the dots required to discredit their chosen enemy, in the eyes of all "good, decent" people. But ultimately, anybody who is not already inclined towards their way of thinking, will look at their persistent negative campaigning and see them for the crooks they are. That is why we welcome their attentions. That is why we see them as harmless and funny, like an Oversexed Puppy trying to mount our legs. So with the issue of threat put to rest, let's bring this section to an end, with little bit on the topic of an idiocy, the subsequent mindfuck, and some name calling of our own.

We note that, at the same time as describing us as "Pedophile Activists", Oversexed Puppy/BabyHitler is kind enough to quote us word-for-word on what has now become a pre-emptive warning, and rebuttal:

"After all, neither Newgon or B4U-ACT is identified as a fundamentally GL, BL or pedophile group, and both oppose the gendering of minor-attraction. We would both surely prepare to deflect the "pedophile" slur, and indeed question why it must be a slur."

So for the sake of the above, let's phrase the question as follows: Why are Oversexed Puppy using a link to assumed non-criminal attractions, in an attempt to slur a political group brought together and based around those who have given in and acted "upon such desires"? Are we at the all-too-familiar point of once again recognising that BabyHitler, like PJ are united only by their hatred of the human condition, in any form they disapprove of, rather than a genuine desire to "protect the children" from physical threats? Stop licking your own dirt, comb what's left out of your tache and enlighten us.

B4U-ACT

It may only be small, but this group's existence and relative success just goes to show what many of us have suspected all along. Take communications out of the anonymous realm and representation out of the hands of the media, and it becomes a lot easier to find common ground. Only time will tell whether B4U-ACT will achieve its long-term objectives, and this may depend somewhat on future participants putting their prejudices aside, and not reading too much into the group's name and focus. We know, from the statements linked elsewhere in the magazine, that the objective is not to entrap or recruit patients, but to open up a dialogue, and to look at changing the way Mental Health Services work. The potential of such projects for creating unofficial friendships and partnerships is not to be undermined either.

As interesting as the group itself is the nature of attacks that have been made on it. Despite the fact that B4U-ACT openly bills itself as being a collaborative project between minor-attracted people and mental health professionals, AZ for example, repeatedly points to the fact that (shock, horror), some of its members are also members of bulletin boards for (wait for it) minor attracted people. The very fact that B4U-ACT has become a target for attacks, demonstrates once again, that its hard core of critics are not minded to foster safe environments or non-offending philosophies for minor attracted people. They have chosen minor-attracted people as their outright enemies, and will attack anything that even hints at them achieving some status or recognition, regardless of its effect on minors, who are (undisputed, it seems) their human body-shields.

We encourage our readers here to study what B4U-ACT is about, and consider joining one of its meetings. You will need to be recognised (as a MHP or MAP), or have someone to vouch for you.

SOSEN

Newgon.com welcomes registered sex offenders to take part in our project, given that they have no legal restrictions barring them from doing so! We would not think of distancing ourselves from a group defined only by a set of ideas we seek to challenge, even destroy. Much of our best work has been done counselling and drawing upon the insights of RSOs.

In fact, we are more concerned with the attitudes that groups (such as SOSEN), which were founded to support those who have given in to "deviant" desires are encouraging. Attitudes towards those who live with such desires (especially pedophiles), but do not apologise for, repress or act upon them. For example, SOSEN has a ban on members who also take part in forums such as BoyChat, some of the only supportive resources out there for people who experience these attractions. Public statements, released by SOSEN also hypocritically characterise these sites as advocating lawbreaking, the very same argument used by those who attack SOSEN! We find the idea of a supportive community for "registered sex offenders" that can not even stomach the admittance and expression of desires to be absurd and dangerous in that it legitimises denial. Implicit in this apparent hypocrisy is the idea that one may be excused for "touching" if he or she apologises for his or her offending, and does not "look" thereafter - a seeming reversal of the "look, but don't touch" policy that CP and Lolicon boards are often mocked for. A lot of RSOs are turned off by this puritan approach, which from a PR perspective, is totally unnecessary, but for two ineffectual groups already mentioned in an earlier section. They look to sites like BoyChat and Newgon (doubtless driven there by righteous, SOSEN-esque acts of shunning), where they get the full, uncensored truth as to why they are so oppressed.

SOSEN later published (and removed, one copy here) an article that correctly identified their objection as a legal one, failing to mention the solicitation of offending. We have embedded an editor's comments in bold:

"Bitter issues divide people and groups when it comes to the subject of former sex offenders. One such issue is Age of Consent, the other prevention. While some groups like NAMBLA = (North American Man Boy Love Association), feel that Age of Consent laws should be abolished and they discourage all forms of prevention, we at SOSEN feel this is foolish and dangerous.

This is all good and well. But for SOSEN, it appears - identifying yourself as a minor attracted person, is a faux pas, even though you may have acted on such a desire. Go figure.

(...)

should sexual activity occur, we favor decriminalization of Consensual Sex between youths under the age of 21 with reasonable so-called Romeo & Juliet provisions.

There is nothing reasonable about age gap exemptions. They leave you with exactly the same problems (consensual crime) and only stand to legitimise the wider state of oppression by giving an air of "reason" to exactly the same laws.

(...)

One must ask why a group would want Age of Consent laws to be abolished. Why would they be against all forms of prevention?

The answer is simple and quite disturbing. NAMBLA has a long history of promoting sexuality between adults and children of all ages. The removal the Age of Consent laws, gives these individuals free reign to do as they wish with your children and ours.

It is clearly SOSEN's intention to use the same appeal to motive arguments that have been used to discredit them. Notice the familiar language (sexuality - assumed to be a separate, dark place, and childhood - assumed to be distinct and absolute, permitting adult ownership of children's bodies and futures). No attention is given to asking why, without guilt or fear, the right to a sensual body should not be a given for all. No attention is given to the possibilities and benefits of destigmatization, and the pain caused by the CSA industry. SOSEN are only content in ignoring the experiences of minor-attracted people, and are out of touch with an entirely different group of people, too.

Any thought of prevention of sexual abuse is a hindrance to the goals of the men behind NAMBLA. At SOSEN we intend to hinder them in every way possible!

NAMbLA has existed to advocate on behalf of men and boys who refuse to identify their experiences as abuse. SOSEN choose to ignore the fact that "abuse" is as lazy, and value laden a term as "sex offender". With that said, SOSEN have never shown any real understanding of the assumptions underpinning the construct of "sex offending", beyond the simplicity of "we are not what they say we are".

In the past, NAMBLA members blended in with the gay activist community in order to promote their cause. After the gay movement ousted them, NAMBLA found a new group to join themselves to in furthering their intentions. The reform of the sex offender registry proved ripe, so NAMBLA blended in to champion this movement. Presently, NAMBLA is adding new features to their website, perhaps to legitimize themselves as a sex offender law reform group. NAMBLA members have also turned up in other legitimate SOL reform groups which causes confusion and outright disgust to many in the public forum. We, too, are disgusted by this.

SOSEN are claiming that the very real issue of SOR Reform is not pertinent to minor attracted people, many of whom have been given hell because of modern SO Laws! This is out of their own self-serving fear of confronting attraction to minors, including that in their own membership. How dare SOSEN stand up and claim that those who have an affiliation to NAMBLA are not earnest in their championing of an issue of such relevance?

SOSEN also fails to ask why the Gay activist community chose to reject NAMBLA and similar groups, as unlike NAMBLA's opposition to modern Sex Offender laws, the reasons for this were less than earnest.

We do not align ourselves in any way with groups like NAMBLA.

Our organization is made up of members who include former registered offenders, their families, and treatment providers as well as survivors of sexual abuse. As a group we firmly stand by our mission and objectives. We do not promote or advocate unlawful sexual activities nor do we condone others doing so.

We can state for a fact that this is incorrect.

It is evident that the quest NAMBLA champions is one far removed from that of SOSEN. We would go so far as to say that each and every member of SOSEN would fight with all their fortitude to stop that organization.

Would? Funny how SOSEN's primary focus changes according to the weather.

Further, SOSEN will not knowingly be a part of any organization with ties to NAMBLA or their affiliates.

We therefore back up our words by removing our name and links from any group that does not support Age of Consent laws, Education and Prevention, or that allows NAMBLA members among them."

And herein lies the utter absurdity: Dis-associate from the RSOL Campaign (a much larger, more effective group, with a more open agenda and membership), not because of what they are about, but because Bill Andriette et al agree with them! "This Sex Offender was made in the same factory as PEDOPHILES!!! Do not consume if allergic!""

Ages of Consent: A response to Catherine Willikers

Stephen James responds to a recent post.

It is unusual for writers wholly unsympathetic to our aims and ideals to contribute to any of the discussions on Newgon, so when one does, it seems important to respond. Here is what Catherine Willikers recently had to say at http://newgon.net/blog/?p=31 (Incidentally, PiedPiper has provided his own answer at the same location.)

"Outlawing the cynical exploitation of children, even throughout early to mid teenage years, from labor laws to sexual age-of-consent laws is one of the few ways that the U.S. protects humans from being used as objects by those who have not yet fully humanized themselves.

As in the case of so many other “adult” pursuits, even young people who may feel “ready for” and “knowledgeable about” sexual relationships with adults are protected, not hurt, by the laws that protect them from adults who have a more predatory outlook with regard to sexual congress.

Any adult who loves a child (even a 16-year-old “child”) romantically can only demonstrate that love by forgoing sexual consummation until the object of his or her love has matured to an age of ability to discern the intentions of others, their own intentions and needs, and physically and mentally has the power to put into action his or her own choices.

People who want to rush a sexual relationship timeline to take place during the youth of the object are highly likely, if not unanimously, people who require full control of the other person in their sexual relationships."

Right from the very start, we know we are in the discourse of ‘exploitation’ and ‘child sexual abuse.’ The age of consent laws criticised by CLs and others are linked to labor laws as being ‘one of the few ways’ in which young people are legally protected in the U.S. And from whom? From people ‘who have not yet fully humanized themselves’! So CLs are little better than animals? But perhaps she does not mean all CLs, only those who abuse their power. For the moment, we might give her the benefit of the doubt. She might be saying that age of consent laws are justified in order to tackle genuinely coercive relationships—that would leave it open to her to say that the criminalization of non-coercive relationships is just an unfortunate side-effect. This is a questionable position, but not necessarily an ignorant one.

However, what follows will start to disabuse us of that notion. We are told that even young people who may feel ‘ready for’ and ‘knowledgeable about’ sexual relations with adults need protecting. The scare quotes suggest that Willikers does not really think that they ever have such knowledge. But what about young people who have already had several sexual relationships with adults—might these not have given them the necessary knowledge and understanding—of the good as well as the bad? Arguably they will have more understanding than outsiders judging their lives from a largely a priori standpoint.

In the third paragraph we are told that a truly loving older partner would delay embarking on sexual relations until the young person had ‘matured’ in certain ways. We are also told in effect what particular knowledge and skills young people are supposed to lack, such that they are ill equipped for such relationships. They are not able ‘to discern the intentions of others, their own intentions and needs’ and they do not ‘physically and mentally [have] the power to put into action [their] own choices.’ But as some CL advocates have pointed out, there are young people who possess these abilities. Conversely, many of us will have come across individuals well above the age of consent who lack them. This links with the point I made above—if the abilities come largely through experience, and if some young people are quite experienced in these matters, then one would expect them to have developed the necessary skills. And if some adults, for one reason or another, have not had the necessary life experiences, one would expect them (sadly) not to have these skills. This is surely the key point, not the biological age of the individual. (I am not suggesting of course that young people should be cast off onto the seas of life without help and support. I fully grant that they need the help of their parents—and others—to soften the impact of their early mistakes.)

Clearly, there is a limit to this argument. Very young children (say those of four or five years) are not in a position to learn in this way. They need not just guidance and help, but actual control. But what we have here is a continuum of gradually increasing ability on the part of the child or young person to make decisions for herself, made more complicated by the fact that the rate of progress differs from one individual to another. A single all-or-nothing age of consent law—set at any particular age— does not begin to do justice to this.

Opponents of age of consent laws sometimes claim that ‘they are useless, because they never protect anyone.’ This is perhaps overstating the case. It is hard to believe that potential abusers (I mean ‘abusers’ in the true sense) have not occasionally been deterred by the thought of detection and punishment. The problem is not that age of consent laws have never done anyone any good, but that they also do a lot of harm in the process, and arguably the harm outweighs the good. Examples of harm done are:

• Discouraging many positive relationships between adults and young people.
• Tearing apart such relationships when sex is suspected, often creating considerable suffering, not just for the adult, but also for the young person (including in some cases guilt on the part of the latter, who may feel responsible for their older friend’s bad treatment.)
• Making pariahs of a group of people (minor-attracted adults) who are generally no worse than anyone else.

It must be acknowledged that these are very serious negative consequences. Surely they outweigh the good done by age of consent laws. But maybe we need not even assume this. It could be that there are other ways of achieving the limited good that age of consent laws achieve. One option is to limit criminal sanctions to cases of coercion only. Another possibility is a suggestion made some years ago by the British Paedophile Information Exchange. It involves allowing young people to take out legal injunctions against adults harassing them. The aim here would be simply to stop unwanted attention from such adults, rather than to punish them for the harassment that has already occurred. Both proposals have strengths and weaknesses, and I shall not try to evaluate them here. The important point is that both would give considerable protection to young people without causing any of the bad consequences listed above. At the very least, when people debate this matter, they should not simply assume that the choice is between having conventional age of consent laws on the one hand, and no legal protection at all on the other.

I have not yet commented on the last paragraph of Willikers’ critique. She alleges that CLs—or at least active ones—are likely, if not certain, to be people who want to have ‘full control of the other person in their sexual relationships.’ Now active CLs could be criticised for breaking the law (although, if we accept that the law in question is unjust, and that to obey it might in some cases require a good deal more effort than many of its upholders realise, our criticism should not be excessively harsh). Willikers’ charge, though, goes more to the heart of the moral status of offenders as human beings. But where is the evidence? Individual cases of power-crazed CLs do not prove the general point, and such surveys as have been done do not suggest a generally domineering personality type. (See, for example, the work of Glenn Wilson and David Cox, reported in The Child-lovers: A Study of Paedophiles in Society, Peter Owen 1983.)

Willikers’ response takes a high moral line. It is a pity that it is not more informed by the facts and by more careful reflection.

State of the movement

SVU addresses a straw effigy of civil rights

A plea deal may be the way forward for one time American Exile and BoyChat WM, "Dylan Thomas" (Jon Schilacci). And as we write, carelessness (and it appears, a great deal of irrational fear) have conspired to bring down two of the largest BL messageboards out there (larger BC discussions). Ironically, Schilacci's former haunt remains one of the only places for fanciers of the Male Youth to congregate. Of course, despite (as it appears) the fact that no site was used to facilitate illegal activity, all remain trading posts for "horrific" KP in the eyes of the media. In other news, Transgressive Resource Center has two domains, Norbert de Jonge has been rejected from yet another university, and controversy surrounding the "Stockholm Pedophile Preschool Blogger" roars on.

Academia

Male Age-Discrepant Intergenerational Sexualities and Relationships - a PhD thesis by Richard Yuill was published today, and is available at this library. Expect a response by Marcello Mega in either the Scottish Sun or Mail this week.

The Times Higher Education Supplement published an article on Sarah Goode's recent book, mentioning Yuill, and his one-time supervisor, David Evans. The implication here is that Goode's volume elaborates "radical ideas" - a notion the work of Yuill and Evans alone would easily dispel. Numerous talking heads, including Goode herself (who later wrote a full reply), and Nigel Oldfield chimed in on the article's comments section.

Sonya Arreola's information sheet for an AIDS Project in Los Angeles bravely highlights the example of a boy who had "voluntary sex at age 13 with a much older man". This is all the more striking, as Arreola compares his testimony to an example of real (forceful) "Childhood Sexual Abuse". The sheet highlights an important nuance in the current literature, namely that Latino Gay men who report having been involved in only voluntary sexual contacts are twice as common as those who were at one point forced. Whilst the former group are not at increased risk of contracting HIV, those the latter are, thus making the voluntary-involuntary distinction an important factor in AIDS research.

Ray Blanchard has published a blueprint for reform of the DSM criterion for pedophilia , and it offers little change.

Finally, David Finkelhor is still a safe bet ($1.8M to be precise) for the US Government, despite his recent cooling off.

Newgon.com

Newgon was mentioned twice in the media, during a period of unprecedented growth for the website's popularity. However, participation in the Wiki project remains disappointingly low, and we have sought to bolster it with calls to action throughout the site.

SVU, Afterelton.com and MalcolmOutLoud: If it's not a Dylan...

After Law and Order: SVU's barf-inducing edition in which a supposed "pedophile civil rights" group - "Our Special Love" was unleashed upon a court case, a small, and (incredibly) gay news site took the liberty of claiming that said collective "is based on a real-life pedophile rights group, Newgon". Effect on our hits? Meh. Enter tin-pot Tampa radio talkshow act/Glenn Beck wannabe, MalcolmOutLoud, and his female side-kick whose only job, it appears, is to make pointy comments such as "I think they should ban it". Effect on our hits? Well done, Malcolm. Thanks for the ego boost!

Our site is also being used by Free Spirits BoyWiki, in an informal, reciprocal sharing of articles. See Recent Changes for more information on that.

News Digest

Dancing Boy tradition alive and well in Afghanistan

Definitions of Offending and Law Enforcement/Prosecution tactics have been changing rapidly over the last three months, and not in a linear, positive fashion. These changes lead to debates on whether certain trends can be embraced and encouraged as vehicles of change, exposing and causing us to re-evaluate our ideas on what factors are influencing the contemporary situation.

From the US - We'll take your life, and your home

All stories

Sentencing in Child Pornography cases is becoming a major issue in the US, with mainstream media and advocates from within the legal system suggesting that the current regime is too "harsh" - particularly in cases where sentencing exceeds that used in hands-on offending. Similar stirrings can be seen in the area of Sex Offender Residency. However, prosecutors are still scoring some major victories. A disturbing new trend is the legal "theft" of sex offenders' personal property (homes, cars) by the state, (see also), (and here), underpinned by the notion that such objects are being "used to facilitate the crime". A subversive (and plausible) explanation for this trend would be that it aids fund-raising and stops sex offenders appealing their convictions.

Recommended stories: International Megan's Law?, Civ. Commitment Center to overflow, Panic In The Men's Room, Sex Offenders living like Dogs in Woods, Couey Dies, 30 years of data connects porn with child molestation, Sexual Beings, Sexist Feminists and Sex Laws, John Irving (...) seduced at 11, Sexual Predators: NOT an Internet Threat to Kids, Paedophile ring suspected of operating inside Customs, Senate inquiry, Father kills children over "abuse fears", FBI "Rescuing" Kid Pros, Ninth Circuit panel finds retroactive part of SORNA unconstitutional, Alamo - 175 years, Crusading Calif. D.A. retires, leaves painful wake, Dodgy rationale for death of prisoner, Michael Jackson - Chandler's Dad kills himself, Updated hell-raising over Obama Appointee's "NAMBLA" links, Obama hates privacy in digital age, Supreme court reviews Sex Offender Residency (studies), Jessica's Law: Too vague to enforce?, Federal judges argue for reduced sentences for CP convicts

From the UK - New Labour's death spasms, and a new kind of offender

All stories

One major theme in the news this quarter was the implementation of the ailing Government's legislation on vetting and barring (and similar) individuals who work with children, and its Orwellian implications, as enacted by the Independent Safeguarding Authority. Stories focused encouragingly on cases where the application of these regulations was seen as "overstepping the mark", and eventually, the UK's new Supreme Court mirrored these cautions in a ruling. Even the human interest fodder had a distinctly contrarian taste to it. First off, Scotland's Operation Algebra brought to our attention the fact that one of the ensnared was a prominent Gay activist (see here). The case of amateur pornographer, Vannessa George and her associates was presented as a "cautionary note" that "women abuse too", leading to a domino effect in publicity for the supposed problem (see here, here, here and here). Whilst this spurred Michele Elliot to admit that gentle fondling may have been benign, pleasurable and forgettable for nursery-age children, hysteria over a possible nursery ban on mobile phones showed that the loony lobby is still alive and well.

Recommended stories:

“Offensive” Virtual Images of Children are now Illegal in the UK, CEOP: Parents and industry must protect kids online, No under-14s on UK TV unless "singing, acting or dancing", Brooke Shields nude photograph causes controversy at Tate (UK) and Ovenden, Age of consent storm over BBC debate about making sex legal, Child porn police use spy software to arrest 200, Only 1 in 5 IWF-reported images CP, Kids May Be Barred From 'Nude' Airport Scanner, Lie Dectector Tests on UK Paedophiles get go-ahead, Sex attackers on register up 50 per cent in five years, UK surveillance plan to go ahead, Gary Glitter Doc, [TCAP-type doc http://newgon.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=1440], This shameful liaison does not deserve prison (awful "fem" article), Johann Hari on depiction of pederasty by playwrights

From around the world - Rise and rise of the Porn Ring

All stories

News of porn busts and planned infiltration of networks on a scale last seen at the turn of the century, dominated in many countries, including The Netherlands, "Thousands" in Australia, India, Canada (here), hidden "studies" and ISP rules, Argentina (here), Czech Rep (here), Sweden (here) and a refusal in Germany. Talk of chemical castration is taking hold in Eastern Europe (see Russia, Czech Rep and Poland), despite disapproval from the selectively humanitarian EU. At the same time, the insidious "Sex Trafficking" agenda has been upheld as an ever-present justification for intervention and legislation in the developing world, with South America receiving more than its fair share of "consciousness raising".

Recommended stories:

Dancing Boys in Afghanistan (interviews), Some 750,000 paedophiles prowling Internet: UN, Travelers unite to stop child sex trafficking in Peru, One million children trafficked for sexual exploitation, MEXICO: Child Sexual Exploitation Fuelled, Protected by (capitalism), Head of UNICEF condemns Japan's laws on child pornography, B.C. court upholds child-sex tourism charges, Kids raped in famous Ukrainian recreation camp?, Kaspersky calls for end to net anonymity, South Australian primary school bans hugging, Ferguson's beach frolic 'horrifying' - Hetty, The artful complexity of pedophilia, Korea (AoC - 13) set for online SOR

Featured News Article: Children of the revolution

Maureen Freely takes a look back at the 70s.

"In the 1970s, there was a war on. The enemy was sexual repression. It was everywhere, and it accounted for all of civilisation's discontents. But liberation could begin at home. Never mind that we'd been fucked up by our parents. We would save ourselves by saving our children from the scourge of shame. We would teach them that the body was beautiful, no matter what its age. So we left the bathroom door open and decorated the rest of the house with arty black and white photographs of all the fun we got up to in the tub.

Any question a child might ask about any bodily function got an instant and deeply thoughtful answer.

[...]

In The Dialectic of Sex, Shulamith Firestone, the great feminist firebrand of the 1970s, most famous for imagining a world in which gestation happened in test tubes, and child rearing in communes, thereby liberating mothers from maternity and children from parental control, suggested that "a child might form his first physical relationships with people his own size for sheer convenience... But if not, if he should choose to relate sexually to adults, even if he should happen to pick his own genetic mother, there would be no a priori reasons for her to reject his sexual advances... all close relationships would include the physical."

The German politician Danny Cohn Bendit, or Danny the Red, as we knew him in 1968, seems to have been playing with the same ideas when he wrote the following about his time working at a hipper than hip nursery school in Frankfurt. "On several occasions certain kids would open my fly and start to stroke me. I reacted differently according to circumstances, but their desire posed a problem for me. I asked them: 'Why don't you play together? Why have you chosen me, and not the other kids?' But if they insisted, I caressed them still."

At least, that was how he remembered it during the 70s. When his words resurfaced in 2001, he was appalled. "I admit that what I wrote is unacceptable nowadays. When I look at those sentences today, I say to myself, 'Hey Danny, that's impossible!'" He went on to imply that he'd just been exaggerating (though without saying categorically that he'd never touched them). But (without quite seeking to exonerate himself) he did try to remind people of the context: "Collective discourse of a new sexual morality," he said, "had yet to be defined."

There was, however, another collective discourse in full swing then. In The Red Decade, Gerd Koenen describes how the kinderladen movement in Frankfurt set out to solve the fixation of children towards their parents and the establishment of a children's solidarity "battle group" to fight imperialism. This reasoning was very much in line with Herbert Marcuse and the Frankfurt school. Having located the seeds of Nazism in authoritarian child-rearing practices, they sought to save the new generation by liberating them, sexually as well as politically. They viewed their parents, many of whom were Nazis that had gone unpunished, as "contaminated" and they wanted to make a "total break"."

Full article at the UK's Guardian.

Letters to the Editor

Our article on Abel is described as biased (damn right, it is).

The glare of a child abuser

To whom it may concern;

"I just read your article on Dr. Able(sic). What a pile of crap. The writter(sic) of this article is obviously a supporter of Sexual Abusers. I am a parent of a 5 yr old child that has been sexually abused. There is no way for anyone to grasp the reality of hell these children endure and you tell these scum bags how to pass the test. Great job protecting the innocent children that are destroyed daily by these abusers. This article just supports the ignorance of america regarding the signs of sexual abuse that is ignored repeatily(sic) by uneducated idiots. This article just negates the victims hell and helplessness and perpetuates the continued abuse of victims.

I hope that you educate yourself through other resources and revise this article.

- Susan."

Response: Hi, Susan. We could get into rounds of debate over the term "supporter of abuse", and ultimately, it is irrelevant. As is challenging the concept of abuse, something you are clearly unwilling to even think about. You want to know why we say what we say about Abel, yes? Well, here goes. He's one of the biggest child abusers in state and corporate America - it's all in the article you refer to. He promotes diagnostic models that manufacture abused/abuser children out of thin air - something you are surely against. He legitimises the drugging of "pedophile" boys, and the tying of their penises to a machine to incriminate them - something you are surely against. He sells tools whose intended use is to label innocent parties child molesters, based on the length of time they spend gawking at some pictures. Surely you are against this? Or maybe not. Maybe it was these very truths, and the cognitive dissonance they sparked in you, that lead you to complain about our article? Consider it, why not?

On the forums

GirlChat

A few gems could be found amongst all the infighting and lawyering. NFiH unearthed Lori Mattix's claim to have been seduced by David Bowie at age 13:

"Back at the Hilton, the youngsters [Lori and Sable Starr aka Sable Shields, aged 14] joined Stuie [Bowie's bodyguard] and David [Bowie] in their snazzy adjoining suites. "There was a big living room with fluffy white shag carpet, and Stuie rolled this humongous hash joint — one of those huge spliffs. I had smoked pot before, but it wasn’t like this. I got so fucked up. David went into the bedroom and said, 'I’m going to take a bath.' All of a sudden, the door opens and Bowie is standing there with that gorgeous white skin and carrot-red hair, no eyebrows, wearing a kimono. It was in his early Ziggy Stardust era, and that was the first time I thought, Oh, I want him! Sable was like, 'I’ll kill you if you go with him because I want him and you can’t have him.' He came out and said, 'Lori, could come over here?' and I said, 'Alone?' I was so paranoid—stoned and paranoid, and he said, 'Yes, please, just you.' I go in and he’s about to close the door, and I’m looking at Sable and she’s in tears. I was so nervous. I had boyfriends in junior high; all the smooching, but I’d never had intercourse. So he escorts me into the bathroom and takes off his kimono, gets into the bathtub, and sits there staring at me with those different-colored eyes. You have to understand—he’s so gorgeous, his skin is so white and flawless. So he says, 'Can you wash my back?' and that was just the beginning. He knew it was my first time, and he was so gentle with me. We started to fuck in every position possible. Then I told him I felt so bad about Sable, and he said, 'Well, do you think we should go and get her?' I said yes, and we walked into the living room and she was fogging up the windows, writing, 'I want to fuck David!' So he called her into the bedroom and we all spent the night together. David Bowie was the one who devirginized me.""

(Pamela des Barres, Let's Spend the Night Together, p. 179-180)

Now imagine how this story would sound if it wasn't told to another ex-groupie 30 years later, but to a DA out to get a degenerate British rock star (remember that Bowie flirted with bisexuality at the time). Wouldn't it be something like "Bowie drugged me [the spliff] and then he repeatedly raped me and my friend Sable"?

[PS. Sable Shields, who died from cancer earlier this year, told the story a bit differently: she was the center of Bowie's attention, and "I don't know where Laurie was. She was always there, but she never was, you know?" OTOH, Lori's description of Sable's antics agrees with what Ron Asheton and others remember about her stay with the Stooges. I don't think either of them was deliberately lying, they just remembered the same incident very differently; human memory is not a tape recorder.]

[PPS. A few months later, Lori became Jimmy Page's girlfriend. "Star magazine came out and he saw how young I was. Jimmy loved young girls — babies — and that’s how it happened."]

Frequent GC poster Dissident attended a B4U-ACT workshop, and produced a long reply that stimulated a response from Absolute Zero. Rkramer also reported back on a number of sites. Gatekeeper produced quotes on a number of intergenerational marriages.

Links and recommended reading

Roderik Muit, the subject of some new articles

• “Offensive” Virtual Images of Children are now Illegal in the UK - For AttractedToChildren.org.

• Roderik Muit and the linked article on a case he defended in 2007.
• Rusty White Knights - Article on the tactics of Perverted Justice.
• Backyard Politics For Minor-attracted Adults - Political Essay, submitted to Newgon.com.
• Homophobic roots of the Sex Offender Registry - Short paper by Marshall Burns.
• Jonathan King's Autobiog is coming out.
• My Story as a Norwegian Prisoner - A personal story, recovered from Web Archive.