Pedophile activism

From Free net encyclopedia

The pedophile activism movement, referred to by some supporters as the childlove movement, is a social movement that encompasses a wide variety of views, but generally advocates social acceptance of adults' romantic or sexual attraction to children (see pedophilia); social acceptance of adults' sexual activity with children; and changes in institutions of concern to pedophiles, such as changing Age of consent laws and mental illness classifications. Members of the movement also advocate the use of terms such as "boylove", "girllove" and "childlove" over the stigmatized term "pedophilia".

The movement is extremely controversial and has made little progress toward its goals in legal arenas or with the public.

Contents

[edit]

Brief history of modern pedophile activism

In the 1970s, most organized pedophile activity was centered in the Netherlands and to a lesser degree in Western Europe. Template:FactHere, a number of researchers, among them Frits Bernard, Theo Sandfort, Edward Brongersma and Frans Gieles, wrote a significant number of papers on the topic, both from theoretical and practical standpoints. A number of papers were produced discussing the effects of adult-child sexual interactions. The data for these papers came mainly from pedophiles, but also from adults and young people who, as children or adolescents, had been involved in sexual relationships with adults.

In the late 1970s, the center of activity briefly shifted to the United States and Britain with the 1977 formation of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) in London, and the 1978 formation of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in Boston. Both of these groups achieved relative notoriety in the early 1980s due to a public outcry against them. The PIE capitulated to public pressure and disbanded in 1985, however NAMBLA continued to exist.<ref>A 2005 newspaper article quoted an undercover police officer as saying that, in 1995, NAMBLA had about 1,100 members. Soto, "FBI Targets Pedophilia Advocates," San Diego Union-Tribune, Feb. 18, 2005.</ref>

In the 1980s, a number of other pedophile advocacy groups were created. The most significant of these were MARTIJN (1982), situated in the Netherlands, and the Danish Pedophile Association (DPA) (1985). This was followed by the formation of IPCE, an umbrella organization and repository for pedophilia-related research, in the early 1990s. Although MARTIJN and IPCE continued to function, DPA disbanded in early 2004 due to socio-political pressure and lack of support from other parties.

The primary medium for pedophile advocacy turned in the mid-90s to the Internet. In 1995, BoyChat, a message board for "boylovers", was established. In 1997, participants on BoyChat and other online resources formed Free Spirits, an umbrella organization with the mission of raising money and providing secure Internet hosting services. The Montreal Ganymede Collective was formed in Montreal by Free Spirits members in 1998 as a forum for "boylovers" to meet in the real world. In early 2001, the first "boylove" broadcast media source, Sure Quality Internet Radio, was founded by Jeffrey Gold in Florida, USA.

In Germany, the Krumme 13 organization, founded in 1993, stirred up massive (although mostly negative) press coverage in the years 2001 through 2005, in 2005 krumme13.org won a penal court case that a textual depiction of a love relationship between an eleven-year-old boy and a thirty-year-old man in the Pedosexual Resources Directory was not child pornography.

[edit]

Scientific papers' impacts on pedophile activism

Many pedophile activists attempt to refute scientific research that finds all sexual contact between adults and children to be harmful. {for example: [1] [2] [3]). Many in the movement use scientific papers in their arguments, disputing some claims of psychological harm from child sexual abuse and using other papers to argue for changes in policy or public opinion. The researchers Fagan, Wise, Schmidt and Berlin, in their 2002 paper on pedophilia, wrote "our knowledge base about pedophilia have significant limitations." The paper also concludes that most child-sex abuse cases involve adults not motivated by sexual attraction to the child (pedophilia per se), and who are therefore not pedophiles in the medical sense. <ref>[4]</ref> Individual reinterpretations of these papers are often used to refute other research or make claims for changes in social norms.

Prominent psychologist Richard Green has proposed declassifying pedophilia as a mental illness, along with other paraphilias. One paper published in a scientific journal that was publicly perceived as supporting pedophilia, Rind et al. (1998), has been acted against by the U.S. Congress.

The public often perceives papers cited by pedophile groups as "pro-pedophilia" papers, regardless of the author's claim to objectivity.Template:Fact

[edit]

Rind et al. controversy

Template:Main A meta-analysis of college studies by Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch and Robert Bauserman published by the American Psychological Association in 1998 found a weak correlation between sex abuse in childhood and the later stability of the child's adult psyche. It notes that a not insignificant percentage reported their reactions to sex abuse as positive in the short term. It concludes that for research purposes some cases of child sex abuse would be better labeled "adult-child sex". The article states in the addendum that "the findings of the current review do not imply that moral or legal definitions of or views on behaviors currently classified as CSA should be abandoned or even altered." (Rind et al., 1998, p. 47)

Nevertheless, the article received massive criticism from conservative activists and groups, including radio personality Laura Schlessinger. She and others called the article an attempt to normalize pedophilia. Congressman Tom DeLay and others sought a formal congressional action against the APA for the article. In 1999 Congress unanimously passed a bill stating that "children are a precious gift and responsibility given to parents by God" and that the study was "severely flawed", although it did not cite any specific errors.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.+Con.+Res.+107:</ref>

[edit]

Other psychology papers

Ben Spiecker and Jan Steutel, in a paper entitled Paedophilia, Sexual Desire and Perversity argued that consent is possible in some older prepubescent children. However, they also concluded that "paedophile sex is a form of exploitation because it endangers the long-term welfare of the child. Consequently, paedophilia involves desires towards behaviour that is morally wrong, but only in some forms of paedophilia are these desires perverse." <ref>[5]</ref> In one such study, Intergenerational Sexual Contact: A Continuum Model of Participants and Experiences, Joan Nelson writes:

De Young (1982) reports that 20% of her "victims" appeared to be "virtually indifferent to their molestation" Instead, they tended to be traumatized by the reaction of adults to its discovery. <ref>[6]</ref>

Many pedophile activists point to studies by Alfred Kinsey, Floyd Martinson, Alayne Yates and William Masters that show evidence of sexual response, masturbation and sex play with others in young children. Given evidence that children are sexual and that some seek sex play, pedophile activists argue children should be able to consent to sexual activity with any other partner, including adults. Thus many pedophile activists argue against age of consent legislation. The exact interpretation and validity of studies of child sexuality has been called into question. See Kinsey Reports#Methodology.

[edit]

Views and strategies of pedophile activists

In 1989, sociologist Mary DeYoung reviewed the literature published by pedophile organizations for public dissemination. She found that pedophile organizations used the following strategies to promote goals of public acceptance of pedophilia:

  • Adoption of "value-neutral" terminology. According to Herdt, an anthropologist who has studied sex between adults and children in other cultures, pedophile advocates need to replace "dull and reductionistic" terms like pedophilia and abuse when discussing sex between "a person who has not achieved adulthood and one who has". Moreover, words like "child" or "childhood", which have psychologically developmental meaning, should be "resisted at all costs".
  • Redefining the term "child sexual abuse". Another recurring theme among those seeking to gain social acceptance for pedophilia is the need to redefine or restrict the usage of the term "child sexual abuse". For example, Gerald Jones (1990), an Affiliated Scholar at the Institute for the Study of Women and Men in Society at the University of Southern California, suggested that "intergenerational intimacy" should not be considered synonymous with child sexual abuse. According to her, the "crucial difference has to do with mutuality and control" (p. 278). Jones suggested, "Intergenerational attraction on the part of some adults could constitute a lifestyle 'orientation', rather than a pathological maladjustment" (p. 288).
  • Promoting the idea that children can consent to sex with adults. The reconceptualization of children as willing sexual "partners" along with the decriminalization of consensual sexual relations is perhaps the key change sought by pedophile advocates. To counter developmental arguments that children cannot give informed consent, for example, David L. Riegel (2000) stated in his book Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers, "Anyone who holds to the idea that a young boy cannot give or withhold informed consent has never taken such a boy shopping for new sneakers" (p. 38). Many activists in the childlove movement, amongst them Tom O'Carroll, Frans Gieles and Lindsay Ashford, actively campaign against the idea that children are unable properly to consent to sex.
  • Questioning the assumption of harm. One of the greatest barriers to the decriminalization of sex between adults and children are the hundreds of studies demonstrating a consistent association between child sexual abuse and negative outcomes. Advocates of pedophilia have attempted to change these barriers in a variety of ways. For example, they often attribute the negative outcomes on parents or professionals who seek to prevent or intervene in intergenerational relationships. Riegel (2000), for instance, asserted: "The acts themselves harm no one, the emotional and psychological harm comes from the 'after the fact' interference, counseling, therapy, etc., that attempt to artificially create a 'victim' and a 'perpetrator' where neither exists" (p. 21). Similar arguments are made by SafeHaven Foundation, an organization for "responsible boylovers". On their website, they wrote, "The child abuse industry ... takes a boy who has enjoyed pleasurable and completely consensual sexual experiences with another boy or man, and traumatizes him in an attempt to convince him that what he did was 'wrong'". In addition, SafeHaven argues that, "many of the supposed traumas elicited by psychotherapy turn out to be nothing more than the result of the False Memory Syndrome" (SafeHaven Foundation, 2001).
  • Promoting "objective" research. Pedophile advocates such as Edward Brongersma have argued that investigators of child sexual abuse have biased views. (Brongersma, 1990). As such, they frequently call for a less emotional and more non-biased approach to the subject (e.g., Geraci, 1994, p. 17; Jones, 1990). A study that is frequently cited as embodying the type of "objective" research needed is Theo Sandfort's (1987) research on boys' relationships with pedophiles, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Sex Research. The study was considered the epitome of "objectivity" by some advocates of intergenerational sexual relationships (e.g., Brongersma, 1990, p. 168; Jones, 1990, p. 286), but critics have pointed to evidence which suggests that the study was "politically motivated to 'reform' legislation" (Mrazek, 1990, p. 318).
  • Declassification of pedophilia as mental illness. Activists reject the notion that pedophilia is a mental illness, believing that its classification as such is a political attempt to stigmatize a socially unaccepted paraphilia. Members of the movement quote Moser and Kleinplatz (2003), who suggest that all paraphilia be removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). They write that "objective", non-culturally-biased criteria for classifiying sexual behavior as psychotic is exceptionally difficult generally. For example, topless sunbathing, they note, is legal in some countries and treated as exhibitionism in others.

The common use of pedophile differs from the medical one. For example, in a paper entitled Special Problems with Sexual Abuse Cases, Underwager and Wakefield write, "Although the terms are often used interchangeably, a distinction must be made between 'sex offender against a minor' [a prepubescent child] and 'pedophile.' The former refers to a criminal sexual behavior and the latter to an anomalous sexual preference". Many ephebophiles (or pederasts) object to the term childlover since they are attracted only to adolescents, whom they consider to be physically and emotionally adults rather than children. However, those attracted to adolescents also often use the more specific terms "boylover" and "girllover".

[edit]

Pedophile activist literature

Those who advocate the legalization of sexual contacts with children claim that the inequality in the relationship is not, by necessity, a negative thing. In Pedophilia: The Radical Case, Tom O'Carroll writes:

The disparity in size and power between parent and child creates a potential for abuse. But, on the basis that parent–child relationships are generally positive we accept that inequality is simply in the nature of the thing. I would like to see paedophilic relationships looked at in a similar light. <ref>[7]</ref>

Some pedophiles also say that sex is not the raison d'être of childlove relationships. Edward Brongersma, in Boy-Lovers and Their Influence on Boys, where he reports the result of interviews with participants in adult–child relationships writes, "within a relationship, sex is usually only a secondary element." <ref>[8]</ref>.

Some members of the childlove movement want to change the perceptions that sex with children can not exclude vaginal sex or anal sex, emphasizing that they do not support any physical harm to any of the participants. To this end, they do not normally advocate penetrative sex with very young children. In a 1981 pamphlet entitled Pedophilia, the Dutch Protestant Foundation for Responsible Family Development writes "especially in the case of young children, sexual activity seldom includes any kind of sexual penetration. Children are not yet physically big enough for this." <ref>[9]</ref>

Many members of the childlove movement are also opposed to the current state of sexual education in many countries. Template:Citeneeded They argue that enforced ignorance and abstinence only forces those young people who wish to explore their sexuality to do so in secret, making them more susceptible to unsafe environments and coercive relationships. John Coleman of the Trust for the Study of Adolescence says:

In societies in which there's more sex education, more openness, there's a far lower rate of teenage pregnancy. And there's clear evidence that in families where it is possible and easy to talk about sex, children delay their first sexual relationships. Parents always fear that talking about childhood sexuality will lead to children experimenting earlier. But all the evidence shows that the more you talk to young people about sex, the more sensible <ref>The Guardian</ref>
[edit]

Ethics proposed by the movement

Rejection of pedophilia is ingrained in some of the world's cultures, especially in modern Western ones. Despite this societal rejection, many pedophiles claim to understand children's sexuality, and have proposed an ethical framework that could allow acceptance of their desire for sexual interaction with children.

In a 1998 newspaper interview, Dutch psychiatrist Gerald Roelofs suggested the following five guidelines for relationships between adults and children:

  • There should be no coercion
  • The child should be free to stop at any moment
  • Sexuality should be compatible with the psychosexual development of the child
  • The parents should know about [the sexual aspect of] the relationship
  • The child should be able to openly discuss the relationship without fear of disapproval

About the same time, Frans Gieles, in conjunction with the JORis workgroup of the Dutch Society for Sexual Reform (NVSH) proposed the following four guidelines:<ref>[10]</ref>

  • Self-Determination: Children must always have it in their own power to regulate their own sexuality, their relationships with others and their own lives.
  • Initiative: Even in a later stage of the relationship, it is always the children who make the choice to have sex.
  • Freedom: At any moment within the relationship with an adult, children must have the freedom to withdraw from the relationship.
  • Openness: The child should not have to carry unreasonable secrets.

More recently, subsequent discussions about these guidelines have produced a synthesis of these earlier proposals. The following four guidelines have now been officially adopted by MARTIJN and form the basis of the ethos of the Human Face of Pedophilia:

  • Consent of both child and adult
  • Openness towards the parents of the child
  • Freedom for the child to withdraw from the relationship at any moment
  • Harmony with the child's development <ref>[11]</ref>,

Most of the people involved in these efforts realize that such ethical guidelines can only work in jurisdictions where adult–child sex is not illegal and therefore do not address the ethical issues of having an illegal relationship with a minor. Instead, illegal activity is discouraged, such as in the Boylove Code of Ethics <ref>[12]</ref> which states that the pedophiles should "do everything possible to protect his young friend from any harm, including exposure or embarrassment from arrest," even if this means refraining from consensual activity considered illegal in their jurisdiction. MARTIJN's statement is unequivocal: "MARTIJN Association advises everyone to observe the law." <ref>[13]</ref>

Not all groups associated with the movement support these ethical boundaries. For example, the group Krumme 13 ("Crooked 13") <ref>[14]</ref> counsels convicted child-molesters to continue their activities once released.

A more in depth and broader code of ethics of moral pedophiles had been penned, no observation of such has been recognized. It states explicitly that,

Any violation, extension, or limitation of the code will be considered an act worthy of investigation, and possibly grounds for removal, by the local legislature, of the Childlover from the child depending on the child's suffrage, and other individual case circumstances resulting from relationship on a case-by-case basis..." and that "Any breach of these terms is not considered an act worthy of the Childlove movement. The movement will uphold these terms and these terms alone, as guidelines for consensual relationships with children should any adult choose to label them self a Childlover and carry out any relationship with a human child.

The terms outline in more detail the Boylove Code of Ethics, but are more inclusive to accommodate a childlove collective.

While members of the childlove movement claim that, within an ethical framework, these relationships can be mutually beneficial, society remains generally unconvinced and regards all child sexual activity as unethical and criminal.

Objections to the ethical framework are that a child is not mature enough to be able to have the freedom to withdraw from an abusive relationship and can be very easily coerced into maintaining this relationship with a pedophile. In most Western countries, the consent of parents and ongoing communication with them is not a consideration when prosecuting child abusers. Also, many child psychologists would not agree with the idea of child-adult sex being in harmony with a child's normal development.

[edit]

Activities

The primary activity of the movement is support for pedophiles. They attempt to provide support to others who would otherwise be reluctant to discuss their attractions for fear of being ostracized. To this end, some organizations provide online counselling and suicide prevention services. <ref>[15]</ref> Other organizations, like Krumm 13, encourage pedophiles to break the law.

MARTIJN, as well as publishing OK magazine and providing support for pedophiles, is also involved in overt activism, distributing flyers and pamphlets at public gatherings and gay pride marches.

"International BoyLove Day" is celebrated on the first Saturday after the summer solstice. <ref>[16]</ref> This is the day male pedophiles attracted to boys celebrate their attraction, often by lighting blue candles discreetly in public. "Alice Day", April 25, is a day of celebration for pedophiles attracted to girls. <ref>[17]</ref> This is the day Lewis Carroll met Alice Liddell, the girl for whom he wrote Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, on April 25, 1856. While some assert that Lewis Carroll could have been a pedophile, it is far from an accepted fact.

Robin Sharpe, a Canadian pedophile, successfully challenged some aspects of child pornography laws in the Canadian Supreme Court in 2002, arguing that his fictional writings were not illegal because they had artistic merit.

[edit]

Symbols

Image:BLogo.jpg Image:GLogo.jpg Image:Pedophile-butterfly.png A blue spiral-shaped triangle symbol, or "BLogo" was designed by an individual using the online nickname "Kalos" in conjunction with Free Spirits.

A similar logo, a heart within a heart, or "GLogo" was later developed by some pedophiles attracted to girls to symbolize a "bond of love" <ref>[18]</ref> between adults and girls.

Another logo, the "CLogo", was proposed by the CLogo team in the Netherlands as a logo that could be used to represent the aspirations of child lovers. Pedophiles have mixed opinions on this logo.

[edit]

Controversy and public reaction to the movement

Members of the movement claim that they do not support child abuse or illegal activity; public reaction to this claim has been skeptical. This skepticism has been reinforced by publicized incidents linking members and groups associated with the movement to actual sexual child abuse and by the similarity of the movement's views to the views used by sexual child abusers to justify their abuse <ref>[19]</ref> <ref>[20]</ref>.

The movement has sparked intense opposition and its political progress has been limited or minimal. Nearly all national governments conform to United Nations protocols for age-of-consent legislation and the criminalization of child pornography. From 2000 to 2004, over 130 nations signed a United Nations accord to criminalize child pornography. <ref>[21]</ref> The U.N. convention on age-of-consent has been in force since 1964.<ref>[22]</ref> In an interview with KCTV5<ref>[23]</ref>, Phill Kline, Kansas Attorney General, characterized the goal of certain pedophile activists to change age-of-consent laws as "twisted."

In the scientific arena, the psychiatric consensus remains that adult-child sexual contact is frequently associated with often grievous harm and that children are cognitively and developmentally incapable of giving informed consent to any kind of sexual activity.

In the battle for societal acceptance, public perception of pedophile activism has focused on incidents implicating supporters of the movement in child sexual abuse.

[edit]

Skepticism that the movement does not support child abuse

Many child abuse prevention advocates, law enforcement officials, and journalists note that the movement's claim of separating advocacy from abuse does not always hold true. Members of the movement often respond by claiming that high-profile child abusers were not members of the movement, or that the movement could have even helped them avoid crossing the line into abuse. Template:Citation needed Some claim that dwelling on these arrests attempts to smear the movement through guilt-by-association. Nonetheless, mainstream observers remain skeptical that ardent advocates of adult-child romance and sex do not act on the desires they claim are legitimate and harmless – citing these arrests as evidence. <ref>[24]</ref>

Many of these incidents involve members of NAMBLA, the organization most widely known to the public. Some claim that these activities are limited to members of this organization and are not representative of the larger movement.

Incidents include:

  • Rev. Paul Shanley, a priest accused of abusing children as young as six years old over a period of three decades, allegedly participated in early movement workshops and advocacy, according to contemporaneous accounts of the events obtained by the Boston Globe. <ref>[25]</ref> <ref>[26]</ref>
  • Charles Jaynes, also allegedly a member of NAMBLA, was convicted of murdering a 10-year-old boy then having intercourse with his body; the parents of the boy sued NAMBLA and its steering committee, alleging that Jaynes wrote in his diary that participating in NAMBLA and reading NAMBLA publications helped him overcome his inhibitions about having sex with young boys <ref>[27]</ref> <ref>[28]</ref>. As of January 2006, the suit is yet to be decided.
  • John David Smith, a San Francisco man convicted of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old boy he was babysitting, met an undercover investigator through his activities as a NAMBLA member; according to the investigator, Smith used his contacts with NAMBLA to trade child pornography and arrange sex with children <ref>[29]</ref> <ref>[30]</ref>.
  • Johnathan Tampico was convicted of child molestation in 1989 and paroled in 1992 on condition of not possessing child pornography. After moving without informing authorities of his new address, he was found after a broadcast of America's Most Wanted. He was arrested and convicted on child pornography charges. In his sentencing, the court found that Tampico was a member of NAMBLA, that NAMBLA supported a foster home in Thailand that sexually exploited children, and that Tampico and others traveled to Thailand in order to have unlimited access to young boys at the foster home, as evidenced by a number of Polaroid pictures, provided by Thai officials, depicting Tampico with young Thai boys sitting on his lap <ref>[31]</ref> <ref>[32]</ref> <ref>[33]</ref>.
  • James C. Parker, a New York man who, according to court records, told the police that he was a member of NAMBLA, was arrested in 2000 and convicted in 2001 of committing sodomy with a young boy <ref>[34]</ref>.

Publicity regarding these incidents — in addition to deeply felt opposition to the movement's views -- have led to extreme controversy surrounding the movement's activities and members. Many in the movement have professed that they don't uphold or support the ideals of NAMBLA due to the controversy attributed to its doctrines and the crimes involved with it.

[edit]

Terminology

[edit]

Childlover

Some pedophiles, who profess their attraction to children is not solely sexual, prefer to describe themselves using the term childlover. The derived terms girllover and boylover are sometimes used to specifically indicate a childlover's sexual orientation.

Unlike the term pedophile, childlover, as well as boylover and girllover, are self-identification terms. Some people use that to distinguish themselves from those who would abuse children, while others use it to identify themselves as members of the childlove movement.

Also, while pedophiles are normally grouped four categories: homosexual male and female, and heterosexual male and female; childlovers identify themselves by the sex of their objects of attraction, thus homosexual male pedophiles and heterosexual female pedophiles are both "boylovers", while heterosexual male pedophiles and homosexual female pedophiles are "girllovers".

[edit]

Pedosexual

The term pedosexual is usually used when positing that pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation, as are homosexuality and heterosexuality. It is also sometimes used simply as a synonym for pedophile.

[edit]

References

<references />

[edit]

See also

[edit]

External links

fr:Mouvement Childlove ja:少女愛運動

Retrieved from "http://www.netipedia.com/index.php/Pedophile_activism"