Pedophile activism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The pedophile activist movement, referred to by some supporters as the childlove movement, is a social movement that encompasses a wide variety of views. Generally the movement advocates social acceptance of adults' romantic or sexual attraction to children (see pedophilia); social acceptance of sexual activity between children and adults; and changes in institutions of concern to pedophiles, such as changing age of consent laws and mental illness classifications. Some activists also promote the use of terms such as "pedosexual", "boylove(r)", "girllove(r)", and "childlove(r)," wishing to further describe their sexuality, and avoid the stigma of the term "pedophile."

Today, the movement is extremely unpopular and has made little progress toward its goals in legal, scientific, or public arenas. The greater medical community remains unconvinced of the movement's claims that uncoerced adult-child sexual contact is generally harmless; no peer-reviewed study supporting the movement's view has been accepted by the scientific consensus. In the 1970s, however, there was some pedophile activist organizing in continental Western Europe, particularly in the Netherlands, see History of pedophile activism. And recently, a political party supporting pedophile activist views was founded in the Netherlands.

Contents 1 Criticism of the political movement 2 Views and strategies of pedophile activists 2.1 Promoted views 2.2 Terminology and symbols used by the movement 2.2.1 Terminology used by the movement 2.2.2 Symbols used by the movement 2.3 Ethics proposed by the movement 3 Activities 4 Scientific claims 4.1 The movement's scientific aims and claims 4.1.1 Re-categorization of data 4.1.2 "Socially Representative" sampling and change in ethos 4.1.3 The movement's use of scientific papers 4.1.4 Rind et al. controversy 4.1.5 Other papers 5 Controversy and public reaction to the movement 5.1 Skepticism that the movement does not support child abuse 6 Notes and references 6.1 Notes 6.2 References 7 See also 8 External links 8.1 Advocacy websites 8.2 External views 8.3 News articles

[edit] Criticism of the political movement

Classification of pedophile activism as a valid political or civil rights activist movement is itself unpopular.

Law enforcement officials and psychologists have asserted that the movement’s online support groups enable pedophiles to justify engaging in adult-child sexual contact. They claim that adults arrested for child molestation frequently cite the positions of the movement as justification for their actions. (Finkelhor, 1984) [2], [3], [4] [5] Some psychologists consider various positions of the movement to be the “cognitive distortions” characteristic of sexual abusers. [6]

For example, in August 2006, The New York Times published the results of a four-month investigation of online pedophile communications and activities. [7] The newspaper described how “pedophiles view themselves as the vanguard of a nascent movement seeking legalization of child pornography and the loosening of age-of-consent laws.” And while “pedophiles often maintain that the discussion sites are little more than support groups,” the newspaper found that, “[r]epeatedly in these conversations, pedophiles said the discussions had helped them accept their attractions and had even allowed them to have sex with a child without guilt.”

The movement’s members have vehemently opposed these characterizations. As described below, two debates surround the movement: whether there is such a thing as harmless child-adult sexual contact, and whether the advocating of such views spills over into encouraging such contact.

[edit] Views and strategies of pedophile activists

[edit] Promoted views

In 1989, sociologist Mary de Young 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". See also Promoting "objective" research.

• 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", recommending a child's "willing encounter with positive reactions" be called "adult-child sex" instead of "abuse" (Rind et al. 1998). 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 participants 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). Apart from that, many also reason in the 1921 (First Congress for Sexual Reform, see Magnus Hirschfeld) tradition of Kurt Hiller on intergenerational activities that, based on the theory that sexual activities are most and foremost a variety of social communication among others, also simple consent (i. e. agreement, willing) to sexual activity needs not necessarily yield detrimental effects in itself as long as the informed party watches their steps, and that exclusively simple consent yields the information needed for informed consent. Many pedophile activists, amongst them Tom O'Carroll, Frans Gieles and Lindsay Ashford, actively campaign against the idea that children are unable to consent to sex.

• Questioning the assumption of harm. The most common stance against child-adult sex is the assumption that it causes psychological harm to the minor. This claim is taken as true at face value, and any criticism about it is taken as a defence of pedophile activity. This remains to be one of the biggest barriers against pedohile acitvism, and advocates of pedophilia have attempted to change these barriers in a variety of ways. Various studies have argued that the negative outcomes attributed to adult-child sexual relations can usually be better explained by other factors, such as a poor family environment or incest. For example, these pedophile activists have argued that no there is little or no harm from child-adult sex.
  • Riegel (2000) 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).
  • 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."^[1]
  • 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",^[2] and he referred to supporting studies by Hass, 1979; Righton, 1981; Berkel, 1978; Ingram, 1977; Pieterse, 1982, and Sandfort, 1982.

• Promoting "objective" research. Pedophile advocates, such as Edward Brongersma, have argued that investigators of child sexual abuse have biased views (Brongersma, 1990), also calling for a less "emotional" approach to the subject (e.g., Geraci, 1994, p. 17; Jones, 1990). Brongersma and Jones have cited Theo Sandfort's (1987) research [8] on boys' relationships with pedophiles, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Sex Research, as an example of what they consider "objective" research (e.g., Brongersma, 1990, p. 168; Jones, 1990, p. 286). However, critics suggest that the study was "politically motivated to 'reform' legislation" (Mrazek, 1990, p. 318). Robert Bauserman (1990, see also Rind et al. controversy), in turn, has argued that Mrazek's criticisms are "vaporously distorted, irrelevant, or just plain false".^[3]

• Declassification of pedophilia as mental illness. Activists 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^{[citation needed]} for classifiying sexual behavior as psychotic is exceptionally difficult generally.

Further significant views and strategies not mentioned by DeYoung include:

• Promoting the testimonies of people who claim no harm from sex as a minor

Various people, mainly adults, who have been sexually involved with adults as a minor claim to have enjoyed or suffered no ill effects from such contacts. Some activist websites collect and publish that anecdotal material.[9][10]

• Referring to experiences of situations where adult-child sex interactions are not illegal, both historical and ethnical. Pedophile activists often point to situations where adult-child sex interactions are not illegal (though not necessarily common) and no negative effects are observed. Most refer to ancient Greece, while some employ ethnological studies. Very few also refer to post-antiquity historical situations in the Western world where such conditions existed.^[4]

• Pedophile activism is similar or identical to feminism, the gay rights movement, or to racial tolerance. Often by adopting anthropological theories such as by Marija Gimbutas, Mircea Eliade, Michel Foucault and others, some activists, including females such as Pat Califia, Camille Paglia, Katharina Rutschky, and Gisela Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg, argue that pedophile activism, feminism, gay activism, and anti-racism would all be opposed to a chaste and racist male warrior role model present in all Indo-European cultures (the Kurgan hypothesis). The tolerance increasingly granted upon females and homosexuals since the Enlightenment is in fact but a repressive one in that only individuals of these groups would be tolerated that show distinctive attributes acceptable to the dominant culture.

[edit] Terminology and symbols used by the movement

[edit] Terminology used by the movement

• Childlover, Boylover, Girllover. Some pedophiles and ephebophiles who claim that their attraction to minors is not solely sexual in nature prefer to describe themselves using the term childlover. The derived terms girllover and boylover are then commonly used to specifically indicate a childlover's preferred gender of attraction [11].

• Pedosexual. Some members of the movement use the term pedosexual, positing that pedophilia should be seen as a distinct sexual orientation as with homosexuality and heterosexuality. It has also been used simply as a synonym for pedophile.

[edit] Symbols used by the movement

• A blue spiral-shaped triangle symbol, or "BLogo", symbolizes a boy (small triangle) surrounded by an older male (larger triangle).[12] It was designed by an anonymous artist with the pseudonym "Kalos." [13]

• 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"^[5] between adults and girls.

[edit] Ethics proposed by the movement

Some pedophile activists have proposed ethical frameworks for sexual interaction with children. ^{[6] [7]} Such frameworks stress the consent of the child, their ability to withdraw from the relationship, and having open, rather than secret relationships, as key factors. ^{[8] [7]}

Most of the people involved in these efforts believe that such ethical guidelines can only work in jurisdictions where adult–child sex is legal 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^[9] which states that a pedophile should "do everything possible to protect his young friend from any harm, including exposure or embarrassment from arrest". MARTIJN's statement is unequivocal: "MARTIJN Association advises everyone to observe the law."^[7]

Not all groups associated with the movement support these ethical boundaries. For example, the group Krumme 13 ("Crooked 13")^[10] counseled convicted child-molesters to continue their activities once released. According to German AG Pädo[14] and Ipce[15][16], two other pedophile activist groups, Krumme 13's jailed leader was not trusted in the pedophile community, and the group was detrimental to the pedophile movement.

[edit] Activities

Members of the movement claim that the primary activity of the movement is peer-support for pedophiles. They attempt to provide support to others who would otherwise be reluctant to discuss their attractions for fear of being ostracized or persecuted. To this end, some organizations provide online counselling and suicide prevention services.^[11] Radical organizations, like the Krumme 13, have been accused of encouraging pedophiles to break laws regarding the legal Age of Consent[17]. Other organizations strongly encourage others to maintain constant vigilance in not breaking laws and maintaining a good standing in the public eye.[18][19][20]

Much online pedophile activism takes place on message boards for pedophiles, such as BoyChat.^{[citation needed]}

Many pedophile activists now have blogs.^{[citation needed]} Blogs are rarely removed, as blog hosts usually have liberal speech policies; however some legal blogs have been removed for alleged Terms of Service violations.[21]

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[22]

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.[23]

Various groups also promote 'holidays' intended to spread understanding and acceptance of pedophilia. International Boylove Day occurs on the first Saturday after the summer solstice and some people also celebrate on the first Saturday after the winter solstice.^[12] Alice Day is celebrated by female-attracted pedophiles, on April 25.^[13] This is the day Lewis Carroll met Alice Liddell, the girl for whom he wrote Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, on April 25, 1856.

[edit] Scientific claims

Current medical literature documents a high incidence of profound and grievous psychological harm caused by child sex abuse (for example, [24][25][26][27][28]). Members of the movement have criticized the medical literature's approaches and conclusions, also citing several scientific papers. The greater scientific community remains unconvinced by this research and by the movement's claims that voluntary adult-child sexual contact can be harmless.^{[citation needed]}.

However, the scientific community does agree that there is a difference between an adult who desires sexual contact with a child and one who acts on that desire. Fagan, Wise, Schmidt and Berlin, in their 2002 paper on pedophilia write:

"Pedophilia is a diagnosis applicable to only a portion of individuals who sexually abuse children. Information has been drawn from published research about pedophilia and child sexual abuse in general to present the current state of knowledge. Despite a sizeable body of published, peer-reviewed articles about topics such as child sexual abuse, child molestation, and sexual offenders, data and our knowledge base about pedophilia have significant limitations." [29]

[edit] The movement's scientific aims and claims

[edit] Re-categorization of data

Many pedophile activists attempt to refute scientific research that finds sexual contact between adults and children as predominantly harmful by stating there are a variety of different categories for adult-child sex interactions, commonly not acknowledged by mainstream scientific research. They claim that studies showing harm from adult-child sexual contact might have shown that some types of contact are harmless, if only the studies had carefully categorized the contacts into more narrow categories, such as 'consensual' contact versus 'non-consensual' contact. For examples of this lack of proper differentiation theory, see^{[2][14][15][16][17][18][19]}

[edit] "Socially Representative" sampling and change in ethos

Some activists claim that 'sexual abuse' studies, by their very definition and aims, self - select the categories of interaction that involve negative experiences, even in those cases where medical or legal samples have been avoided, and a sample more representative of the general population has been used. Some also claim that there is political pressure[30] on scientists not to produce results that are contrary to the political consensus, leading to fundamental biases in research techniques (such as the confusion of correlation and causality)[31]. Other criticisms such as the use of confusing terminology, confusion of morality and ideology with science, and the generalisation of clinical and criminal samples to society as a whole, are put very similarly to critiques such as those listed on the MHAMic research website[32]

[edit] The movement's use of scientific papers

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, concluded 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.^[20]

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.^[21]

[edit] Rind et al. controversy

Main article: Rind et al. (1998)

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 instability of the child's adult psyche. It notes that a significant 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 'Results of the present review do not support these assumed properties; CSA does not cause intense harm on a pervasive basis regardless of gender in the college population' (Rind et al., 1998, p. 46), but warns 'The current findings are relevant to moral and legal positions only to the extent that these positions are based on the presumption of psychological harm' (p. 47).

The paper faced multiple academic disputations, including sample bias, non-standardization of variables, statistical errors, and researchers' personal bias. ^{[22] [23] [24] [25] [26]} The article's authors have published replies to these claims.^[27]

In addition to academic criticism, 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.^[28];;

[edit] Other 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."^[29] In one such study, Intergenerational Sexual Contact: A Continuum Model of Participants and Experiences (reproduced on ipce's website), 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.^[30]

Theo Sandfort's 1980 study [33] in which 25 boys aged 10 - 16 and involved in pederasty were interviewed, concluded that:

"Except on the basis of violation of moral standards, there was nothing in what these boys said that would justify punishment. …[The law] should be so drawn up that the kind of sexual contacts which these 25 boys experienced would fall outside of their application."

[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 child sexual abuse and by the alleged similarity of the movement's views to the views used by some child molesters to justify their abuse^[31]

The movement has sparked intense opposition initiating in English-speaking countries since the late 1970s and its political progress has been limited or minimal since then. 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. The U.N. convention on legal age for marriage has been in force since 1964.^[32]

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 various child molestation convicts were also members of the movement. Those involved with the movement have responded by claiming that this was either not true, or that the movement could have even helped them avoid crossing the line into abuse by giving them a more positive identity than society does.^[33][34][35] 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.^[36]

Concerning the recent sex scandals involving Catholic priests in the US, some pedophile activists say that these scandals only or prominently involved minor partners that during the times of sexual interactions were adolescent and thus, these scandals have nothing to do with pedophile activism.^[37][38][39]

Many of these incidents giving grounds to skepticism 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.^{[citation needed]} Dutch psychologist and pedophile activist Frits Bernard has argued that NAMBLA at least started out as an ephebophile, not a pedophile activism organization as identifiable by its original political and social reform program, and that its program remained like that at least until 1982 when Bernard made his statement.^[40]

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.^[41][42] Pedophile activists have sought to cast doubt on Shanley's conviction.^[43]

• Charles Jaynes was convicted of murdering a 10-year-old boy then having intercourse with his body in 1997;^[44] the parents of the boy filed a $200 million wrongful death suit against NAMBLA, Curley v. NAMBLA, claiming that while being heterosexual, "immediately prior" to the murder, "Charles Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's Web site at the Boston Public Library'".^[45] By 2005, $1 million and five years had been spent to prove this claim.^[46] The ACLU protested against associating NAMBLA with this case and represented them, asking the case to be dismissed.^[47][48]

• 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.^[36][49]

• Johnathan Tampico was convicted of child molestation in 1989 and paroled in 1992 on condition of not possessing child pornography. After breaking his parole, 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.^[50][51]

• 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.^[52]

• Tom O'Carroll, author of Pedophilia: a Radical Case and a founder of the Paedophile Information Exchange, admitted to two counts of distributing indecent images in September 2006, and in December 20, 2006, he was jailed for 2 1/2 years at London’s Middlesex Crown Court.[34]

These incidents, in addition to a deeply felt opposition to such activists' views, have made the movement's activities and members extremely unpopular. Some activists in the movement refuse to support or be associated with NAMBLA, due to such incidents and general loathing^{[citation needed]}.

[edit] Notes and references

[edit] Notes

[edit] See also

• Abolition of age of consent laws
• Age disparity in sexual relationships
• Child sexual abuse
• Child sexuality
• Chronophilia
• Danish Pedophile Association
• JORis
• Paedophile Information Exchange
• Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit (NVD)
• Pederasty
• Pedophilia
• Rene Guyon Society
• Rind, et al
• North American Man/Boy Love Association
• -philia (list of philias)

[edit] External links

[edit] Advocacy websites

• NAMBLA - the North American Man-Boy Love Association
• "Ipce" - an academic pedophile advocacy group
• Paedophilia - The Radical Case. Book by Tom O'Carroll
• MARTIJN, Dutch association for the acceptance of child - adult sexual relationships
• Age Taboo, Resource for minor - attracted young homosexual men
• PACM Pedophiles Against Child Molestation (old site here)
• A list of organisations, on the Pedosexual resources directory

[edit] External views

• Boylove: Based on research, and interaction.

[edit] News articles

• Controversial Studies Push Change in Society's View of Pedophilia, Newhouse News Service, 2002.
• Academics Defend Pedophilia, NewsMax, 2004.
• "Pedophilia Chic" Reconsidered: The taboo against sex with children continues to erode., Weekly Standard, 2001
• "From Their Own Online World, Pedophiles Extend Their Reach" By Kurt Eichenwald, New York Times, August 21, 2006