Friday, May 5, 2006 at 12:31 AM
Edited Friday, May 5, 2006 at 12:55 AM The following was written by a woman, no less, who descibres herself as a "girl-lover". 1) ISN’T SO-CALLED CHILD "LOVE" JUST A FRAUDULENT WAY OF SAYING CHILD MOLESTATION?
No, the two are very different. Molestation is formed around activities that both parties don’t agree on, whether it’s sexual, physical, emotional, or psychological. I do not believe that all of these interactions, if gone about in a consciously consensual manner, always mean older people will take advantage of younger people. 2) AT WHAT AGE SHOULD A YOUNG PERSON BE ALLOWED TO HAVE SEX?
In our society it is this arbitrary confine of age that supposedly controls what a wide variety of individuals are "competent" to do. No one gets a chance to weigh each individual’s own desire or the fact that they themselves don’t look at their age and say: "Oh, that’s right, I’m too young to do this. I’d better stop." In a book by noted educator John Holt (Escape From Childhood; 1974) he said that kids want desperately to "grow up" because they often know that to be a "child" in our society is to be seen to be like a dog, or as Holt says, a "superpet." If kids get the chance, they’ll try to escape the "prison garden of childhood." The question is, do we create a society that constructively helps young people to make the choices they want, thereby promoting the idea of teaching future democratic citizens via enrichment strategies, or do we continue resricting and forcing them to conform to basically totalitarian forms of socialization, in order to play word games in our lip service to assist the next generations to solve society's problems? The truth is, there have already been many people who have tried and are now implementing enrichment strategies. The best example is the one going on in the "unschool" movement (not against learning, but against compulsory schooling and its oft consequences on kids' desire to learn). In many jurisdictions, reports "Growing Without Schooling" magazine, school managers have allowed students to virtually "come and go" from the compulsory classroom to the home and un-schooling world as they please! And, if you think that makes it harder to go to college, not so, says the magazine (in articles on this topic). I think that people should try to get beyond the prejudice or ignorance they have about these minority groups they don’t understand. Because, it is really about two people --albiet deeply wounded by society’s long history of sex hysterias--who care so authentically about each other that they wish to give each other taboo pleasure! Pleasure that other "consenting adults" find important enough that they fight long battles for. (i.e. the gay and lesbian, and larger sexual freedom movement) Young people are sexual like their adults. Depending on their individuality, they may be curious about different styles of sexuality or just love to have demystifying interactions with them --adults who they were socialized to imagine as very different from them. Engaging in the "evil" interactions with such adults, they often find that they are just people too. Why might society be interested in making sure kids don’t catch on to this early on? "Age of Consent" laws do not recognize or respect anyone’s individuality. This goes against our country’s basic ideals about "the people" having the god-given right to not only pursue their happiness, but be judged independently of arbitrary limits like race or class, or in this case, ageism. 3) HOW CAN A KID REALLY GIVE "INFORMED" CONSENT?
No matter what "age," no person can have a "total" understanding of all the ramifications of anything. That doesn’t mean that people must then be denied the freedom to do what they wish --provided that they respect the wishes of others. If a society wishes to solve problems concerning the nation’s future, it is probably a better idea to give an enriching education to its citizens than to give, say a restrictive one. The enriching one allows individuals to genuinely explore "whatever their heart desires," while the restrictive one is oriented totally to an irrational fear that says people are basically incapable (one example of this irrationality is supposed to be that human intimacy is "bad"). What enthusiastically alive kid would want to bow down to such a negative-oriented passion as restriction? Instead, they’d rather have the freedom to explore and play and have fun to their heart’s content! And, with this education via the broadest of spectrums, they’d learn to make intelligent decisions in tune with the needs of any democratic society --unlike their restricted peers, who at 18 or 21 haven’t learned to "handle" their new freedoms. The old addage: "put out their eyes and call them blind," comes to mind. I believe that people must be allowed to enrich themselves with authentic decisions concerning their own lives. If they are allowed the freedom to choose in a society that protects via strategies of enrichment, then our democratic society will be the better for it. 4) WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU WANT TO DO TO CHILDREN SEXUALLY?
Men, women, older boys and girls, (as well as kids’ peers) like to be intimate with each other! We boylovers and girl-lovers can express our affection in whatever manner we may find mutually exciting! That’s what all people want to do with each other if they’ve been able to "grow" beyond the sex-negative enculturation they get in our fear-oriented society. 5) WHAT ABOUT THE HARM THAT SEX DOES TO A CHILD?
Approximately one hundred years ago, "legitimate" representatives of the mental "health" community, including businessmen John Kellogg (with his Corn Flakes cure-all) and Sylvester Graham (with his helpful cracker), might have asked a similar question about the "harm" of masturbation --then called "self-abuse." We’ve gotten mostly over that one, knowing that hair doesn’t grow on our palms and that we don’t go insane from such heated activity. But, even today, society still has its "hang-ups," saying that these mystical creatures called "children" are so different from "adults" that what their adults love to do is definitely not what "innocent" and "defenseless" tots want. How could such an "angel" want something as "disgusting" and "vulgar" as sex?? Independently-thinking people know that sex isn’t about "getting over on another" or "taking" a precious state of mind away from their partner(s). They know it is about enhancing human interactions and creating bonds that no other interaction is capable of doing. The harm that does come is from a society that forces such desires into a world of secrecy and fear, where only parts of truth are tolerated to be "appropriate" and "discussable." Such tactics don’t "do away" with the "dysfunctional" desires, but instead often cause their victims to develop all sorts of tragic self-hatreds so that people like Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy may form. 6) DON’T YOU JUST DUMP THE KIDS WHEN THEY GROW UP?
Yet another prejudice is revealed about the misunderstood group. While we do live in an exploitative society that constantly manipulates people to selfish ends and tends to create a "walking wounded" that believes it has to "get over" on others before the others can get over on them, this is no reason to believe that sexual interactions between young and old are fundamentally about such destructiveness; --no more than any other sexual or human interaction! In older/younger relations, like other human interactions, you get all sorts of behaviors --and for a plethora of reasons and interests. Sometimes people with traditional power positions "dump" people not in such positions, and other times the one that’s supposed to have all the "power" is "dumped" by the ones who aren’t traditionally seen as powerful. This is the beauty of human contacts especially since kids often become enriched with the knowledge that their adult fellows are not these mystical all-knowing creatures. That’s what happens when you get to see adults as their genuine selves, instead of the authoritarian or institutionalized person kids usually see. A demystification process goes on. Then you have the challenge that many wounded men speak of, where the kids are allegedly "using" them! These men can feel quite powerless and incapable because the young dude or gal is not playing the game that they believe should be played. This is not to say that the relations are then fundamentally problematic, only that there are challenges of communication facing the participants. If it were fundamentally problematic, then you’d have to say that about traditional relationships where men are worried about their partners (women) whom are becoming more independent and thoughtful. While it is true that adults still have the power of finance and stability over kids, that’s something that society perpetuates by keeping laws that say kids can never be capable of living on their own, working, or owning property. Of course, people who genuinely care about people with less power are motivated to remain conscious of these realities so that their friendships will continue and the fruits of love will stay sweet. Lovers may decide for many reasons not to continue their interactions, but they most often want to do it in a way with the least amount of friction. 7) THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY POTENTIAL DANGERS. SO WHY NOT JUST LET KIDS BE WITH EACH OTHER?
Some young people would rather be with people their own age most of the time. They should have that freedom. But when they want to be with others, like adults, they should have that freedom too. Having done research about young people, we know that many seek ways to sometimes escape the "garden of childhood." Kids see themselves as, and want to be treated as people, not "children." They want to understand the world and sometimes have serious discussions and interactions doing with all of its aspects. Very often, they wish they had a "bigger friend" whom could be fully trusted and that they could share their deepest questions with. Adults have traditionally been the one group of people who are allowed to pursue freedom most often; they even have the capacity, within the system as it is, to change things. Younger people, on the other hand, have become a monolithic group where only "acceptable" childhood cliches are tolerated. Even kids who practice "sex play" are more and more being prosecuted, as news (September, 1998) of a 16 year old in California convicted as a sex offender for consensual sex with a 14 year old brings to light. 8) DON’T THESE CHILDREN JUST GROW UP TO BE PEDOPHILES AND CRIMINALS THEMSELVES?
First, what is this word "criminal" mean? And why do managers of our culture utilize it in such a negative light, and with such apparent forgetfulness? Remember, every "hero" of this country’s history was once branded a "criminal"--of the "worst kind." Anyone who challenges status quo mindsets is sought to be discredited in some way. Did anyone with power ever point this out? Should you ever ask why not?
Secondly, those who do "grow up" to become destructive in some way are not becoming this because of their sexual orientation(s). Distractors do want you to think this --just like they used to have people thinking that blacks were inherently "inferior" and women were naturally "child-like," and thus "incapable." Independent thinkers have known all along that such conclusions were superficial and that the authentic challenge was located in how individuals believed they had to behave, in order to be "happy." Today’s distractors say that young people have been inseminated with a psychiatric "disease" called "pedophilia" because of past "abuse" by a "mentally ill" adult or older kid. With their "souls" supposed "murdered" for "life," the unprepared "survivors" must be "healed" by years of therapy that costs a lot of money. They never let the public imagine that the kids or adults may’ve been inclined out of an awakened desire to build (threatening) bonds. If a 14 year old, say in Canada, has an awakening experience with say a 45 year old guy, and as an adult she re-creates that loved affair with another 14 year old, that’s viewed as a beautiful "coming of age" experience, especially if its heterosexual, as shown in many mainstream movies. In Canada, the official age of consent is remains 14, so it may be viewed that way. It’s exactly like a 19-year-old guy who wasn’t believed "mature enough" in England, where the age of consent used to be 21 for homosexuals. Such mindsets have nothing to do with individuality, but everything to do with distractive politics. 9) WHY WOULD ANY KID WANT SEX WITH AN ADULT UNLESS FORCED IN SOME WAY?
When was the last time you had to force any kid to look at a copy of some "dirty" pictures in Penthouse or Playboy? Funny how they’re so curious about what adults look like and what happens between them that they'll often go out of their way to obtain a copy and keep it hidden from their forever non-understanding adults (usually parents)!
Those that haven’t yet had their curiosities totally laid waste by the anti-pleasure currents of our increasingly violent society may choose to engage in interactions with a variety of partners doing a broad spectrum of things. Some kids even are able to overcome the taboo of realizing that adults are only people like themselves, and, if their lucky, may find one (or many) who not only fully and genuinely care about them and may even be committed to a principle of treating the younger as he/she would want to be treated, but enjoys sharing the greatness of living with them whenever possible! That kind of behavior is exactly what any oppressed person would like to be around, especially if they are used to only being around peers who have learned to take their frustrations out on each other (usually the weaker or marginalized members of their groups). Of course, "the perfect adult friend" is not usually easy to find in a society that attacks and fears such nonconformists. The reality is that most adults who want to fully and genuinely care about younger people see through the lens of their particular way of learning to adapt to society's bigotry. And I think that from this kind of treatment you find that most adults are so wounded that they don't know how to interact with those they naturally care about (you can see this across the board in interpersonal situations; especially in the way men treat women). Of course, like women have often done, young people (usually teenagers) involved in relationships with their older friends often tend to remain by their side, seeking to tend their wounds. And, what with both peoples' isolation in society (with no one to turn to for help), that can become a "co-dependent" type of relationship that could use some betterment. Even with all of these real problems, it's important to recognize that they are only symptoms of the larger problem of a prejudiced-oriented society which dictates its fear-oriented, and quite totalitarian "norms". Kids are people too, and they will continue to find interest and inspiration in making various connections with their fellow people whenever and however they can. 10) DOESN’T CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ENCOURAGE RAPE?
I believe that "child pornography" in and of itself encourages nothing, just like drugs, guns or governments by themselves encourage nothing. It is the people behind the use of these tools who create what all of these are in society. Like other arts, pornography in our society has often been made more into a profit-centered interest than anything else. And in this orientation the quality of communicating meaningful messages (such as understanding, intense pleasure, or questioning of the status quo) gets marginalized and even sometimes silenced. The consequences of this make for lots of room for a continuance and reinforcement of recurring social problems like treating people as objects, or making the form of communication into a replacement for human interaction. In a society that wishes to seriously solve its social problems, there would be movement towards an increasing civilizing effect, perhaps like what began to happen in the 1970s as more and more oppressed groups imagined that they could be heard and began speaking up (and exploring new angles of art). Sexuality in general would be "out of the closet," (as it was becoming in the early 1970s) and people would have no fear in speaking from their hearts about their feelings of a diverse variety. Images of sexuality, such as people enjoying nudity and sexuality together, would be something everyone could see; all they might do is pick up a library book or switch on the TV. With such tension filtering out through such social honesty, pornography --and other arts-- could begin to have more to do with their imaginative, heightened awareness, and socially critical sides. If the society buttressed this with official acceptance (like we now have with military imagery and violence in most video games, TV, etc. etc.), you’d find a lot of people becoming saner more of the time. But our politicians and social theorists like throwing up their hands, it seems, in a kind of mock "inability" to "solve" the increasing crises of our times. Why is it that they won’t use a little common sense? Instead, they take away more of our freedoms, saying we need more fear, police, and prisons. Why? 11) WHY DO PEDOPHILES ABDUCT CHILDREN?
f.b.i. statistics have found, conveniently after many years of hysteria and its consequences, that 99% of abductions in this country are related to parents in custody feuds. For those other 1% who choose to actually abduct, sometimes rape, and even kill kids, we think there are good reasons as to why. (Lawrence Stanley, Regarding Proposed Changes to Dutch [Penal Code?] 240b; Ophelia Editions; NY)
I believe that those adults and older kids who do involve themselves in such coercive and outright violent activities have been mortally wounded by a society that:
1)has decided to scapegoat yet another misunderstood minority.
2)continues to promote only conformity and subordination to the various social "Conclusions" of this era's scientific and religious dogmas in all its institutions (including the family).
I do think that while these people have learned to hate themselves so much that they cannot easily remember how to be sensitive--to themselves and others, they’d rather have a consensual relationship if they knew how to have one. But isolation, fear, and human stupidity have taken their toll, and as they lose (or never gain) a positive self-image, so too do they treat others with little or no empathy.
12) IF YOU COULD BE CURED, WOULD YOU WANT TO BE TREATED?
Some of us, before we knew that there were others who were genuinely interested in loving young people, had our consent manufactured in this way, and have sought "treatment". It was a natural assumption to believe that we were "sick" since we didn’t know of information from history or hadn't been allowed to think about the ideas of those organizing to defend themselves from state-backed attack. After various experiences in the mental health field --as victims of powerful, state-backed propaganda, some of us have luckily been able to start to wonder about what those schools of thought were saying. I think I can speak for others in saying that many of us pretty much stumbled upon the "despicable propaganda" (as it's called by most of the mainstream society) of these groups and found varying degrees of consequences in our lives. I myself experienced hypocrisy when a sex offender therapy group I was in (Note: as a voluntary participant) told me that I was "just trying to get attention," and was not "really" a "pedophile"; while my one-to-one therapist told me I’d have to remain in "treatment" for my "afflictions" for probably the rest of my life. By chance (?) I had happened to stumble upon information that was different than both, and wondered finally, if it was really true what "authorities" had said about that pro-boylove information. Others have been lucky enought to meet people like themselves in various areas of society. One man I heard about was even told about the info by his perhaps radical-minded therapist. What "gets our goats" is that if the state-backed powers of today can "cure" our "sickness" (with its various techniques of force) it can "cure" any fabricated "sickness"--including the "pest" of sexuality in general --which state-backed power has a long history in seeking to control. But unprepared people don’t see this, so when it happens to them, they’re so divided up that they cannot adequately defend themselves. (unfinished) —lundy | 
