Essay:Minors Can Be Victimizers--A Brief Analysis Of An Incident Showing Us Who Truly Has The Power In An Intergenerational Relationship

by Dissident

As our enlightened society loves to inform us, the young people we today label "minors" are always without exception a victim in even mutually consensual relationships with adults, and the reverse can never be the case, right?

Wrong. Take a look at this disturbing article detailing an extortion racket run by an enterprising teenaged boy named Klez Sutherland (and possibly some unknown accomplices) in Britain. The article doesn't explicitly state Sutherland's exact age, simply referring to him as a "teenager," which means if he wasn't a minor, then he was likely not any more than a year or two over the Magic Age as it's defined in America, so what can be said about a minor's capabilities--both good and bad--can apply to him as well. It's a short article, so please read it and then check out my thoughts on this below.

It would appear that this article provides still more evidence to toss aside one of Western society's most cherished myths regarding intergenerational relationships: that those we today label "teens" can never be anything other than victims in such liaisons, adults always "know better," and the youths in question are always easily manipulated by these adults due to the latter's "superior worldly experience," with the reverse being thoroughly impossible. The article linked above should serve as a wake-up call to everyone who believes that mythical nonsense, as well as those who doubt the competence of youths, which can be quite devastating when directed in a negative manner.

This situation makes a few other things clear that are of relevance to the Minor Attracted Adult [MAA] community:

1. MAAs are likely to be prime targets for extortion schemes of all kinds. The police need to be mindful of this, as many people, both older and young, may end up jumping on the bandwagon in regards to such schemes, and they can easily rationalize what they are doing by saying, "These guys are 'pedophiles,' so who the hell cares what happens to them? They should be arrested, not me!"

1. This incident makes it clear how terrified MAAs are of disclosure for the smallest degree of contact with minors, sometimes even just for admitting to the wrong person that they have the attraction base, and are willing to pay extortionists large sums of money not to out them or report them to the police. This makes it clear how easy it is for anyone to manipulate members of this community for just about any conceivable purpose as a result of the constant fear of disclosure they have to live under in today's world, including getting them to stay silent about attempts to harm them, and probably even to lie.

1. Who really has the power in situations when minors and adults engage in mutually consensual relationships with each other as a result of the current laws? Minors may not have their civil rights at the present time, true, and society considers them in a disadvantaged position with adults in intergenerational relationships as a result. But is it really and truly the adults who have the power under the current state of affairs? Look how easy it is for unscrupulous minors to blackmail and extort money from adults who engage in mutually consensual sexual relations with them, or who even talk “dirty” with them via the phone or cyberspace. Yet most people in our society honestly believe that adults hold all the power in these situations, and that the adults are always the unscrupulous manipulators in such relationships. A little bit of common sense--as well as incidents like this--make it crystal clear how the reverse can very often and very easily be the case, as well as the fact that “minors” are not as stupid or incompetent as we think.

1. The age of consent [AoC] laws are making possible a potentially lucrative business for entrepreneurial-minded underagers with a lack of scruples, who, as I said above, can easily rationalize what they do as being "okay" because those "disgusting 'pedophiles'" deserve no less. Hence, it is becoming easy in today's climate for many people to rationalize or justify any type of illegal or unethical act or scheme, as long as your targets happen to be MAAs.

1. Considering the number of men who were victims of Sutherland's scheme, it would appear that sexual interest in underagers by adults is a lot more common than our "polite" society would like to think. And this includes gay and bisexual men as much as straight men, the former of whom often go to great lengths to distance themselves from having anything whatsoever in common with the MAA community. Why doesn't the revelation that many gay adults find underage people attractive surprise me? And keep in mind that this was a sex line designed for gay (and presumably bisexual) men, and not the "breeders." Obviously, the adolescent Sutherland, and whoever his accomplices may have been, knew something that the mainstream gay community would like to deny. And no, I am not saying that gay people typically have a preference for underage boys (or girls, as the case may be), but I am simply mentioning that an appeal for the natural attractiveness of youths is not as uncommon or alien to the mainstream gay community as its members and advocates would like the general public to believe when they routinely deride the MAA community and deny any kinship with us from a social and political standpoint--or display nothing but close-minded and vicious scorn towards our movement for emancipation: "We aren't the deviants, it's those scumbag 'pedophiles' that you should be concerned about! We are nothing like them at all!"

1. None of the men who were bilked by Sutherland and his cohorts visibly went off the deep end or issued counter-threats of violence to him. They simply handed him the money and slunk back into the shadows. The one who refused to be a victim handled the situation in a sane and sensible way by calling the police. So much for the common belief that underagers who have dealings with MAAs are likely to be murdered or subjected to some form of violence or threats even in situations like this. And again, it would seem as if younger people can do a bit of coercion of their own. Who would have thought?

1. As indicated above, “underage” people are not as stupid, naive, pure of heart, or incapable of pulling a fast one on much older adults as our society likes to think when defending the AoC laws. Though the majority of underagers are decent people, many of them are capable of being quite devious, unscrupulous, and, yes, predatory. And the current AoC laws certainly do encourage such behavior in the less scrupulous youngsters out there. But that's just too damn bad for us MAAs, because society needs to keep young people "safe" from us, right? It would appear that the government, the media fear-mongers, and the social workers who make up the profitable sex abuse industry aren't the only individuals who are exploiting the current hysteria and bigotry at the expense of this community.

1. Sutherland's statement of defense in the courtroom was an interesting one, and provided a very, very telling commentary about the present degree of bigotry against MAAs. The men he and his possible accomplices targeted were "pedophiles" (actually, men displaying hebephiliac, not pedophiliac, tendencies), so Sutherland failed to understand why he was arrested and not the men he blackmailed. Hence, since it's commonly believed that MAAs do not deserve any consideration or decent treatment by anyone at all, and that everyone who chooses to victimize members of this community should be forgiven because we deserve to be victimized by others due to our "evil" ways, Sutherland doesn't understand why he is being punished for committing a crime against the indefensible. Is he--and the rest of society--to assume that MAAs do not deserve any protection or consideration under the law that is freely enjoyed by other people? And of course, not all of those men who were victimized were likely MAAs; sexual contact between adults and youths under the age of 18 is not as rare as society would like to believe, and teleiophiles [people with a “normal” preference for individuals in the same general age group] with either gender preference (or both) can likewise become attracted to underagers, particularly adolescents, who are--whether our "polite" society likes it or not--young adults and therefore can be naturally attractive even to adults who do not have a preference for their age group. Further, the more forbidden our society makes adolescents to “legal adults,” the more enticing the prospect of being with one can be to many adults who may not otherwise have a preference for them. There is a reason why there is a surfeit of stories throughout our literary history which make it clear that many seek to taste what is considered “forbidden fruit,” and this undoubtedly entices some underagers who do not otherwise have a preferential attraction to adults to do the same out of curiosity as to what all the “fuss” is about. Is this not the lesson that the Biblical story of Adam and Eve taught us?

This was a very illuminating case on many levels, to say the least. I can already hear Oprah Winfrey lamenting about what a victim poor young Kelz Sutherland was in his interactions with those vile "pedophiles." Then again, if she could profit so handsomely from the ongoing hysteria and misinformation campaign about us, why shouldn't Kelz? They are birds of a feather, and Oprah is clearly an inspiration for young aspiring businessmen like Sutherland.