Pedophile movement

The members of the childlove movement seek societal acceptance of their sexual or romantic attraction to children, and often also of sexual relations between adults and children (see pedophilia). Chiefly composed of pedophiles, the movement seeks to eliminate legal and social obstacles to pedophilic activity by:

attempting to change public perceptions of pedophilia and pedophiles;
promoting the repeal of legislation that criminalizing sexual activity between children and adults, such as age of consent legislation; and
promoting the use of the relatively unknown and benign-sounding terms "childlove" and "childlover" to avoid the highly negative connotations of the terms "pedophile" and "pedophilia" (which in its Greek roots actually means "child-loving" (παιδοφιλια < παις "child" and φιλια "love").

Many activists in the movement, amongst them Tom O'Carroll, Frans Gieles and Lindsay Ashford, actively campaign against the idea that children are unable to properly consent to sex — a belief held by the vast majority of people, cultures, experts in child development and legal authorities.

Many opponents of the childlove movement believe the term childlove to be a misnomer since they view any and all adult-child sexual contact to be abuse.

Terminology advocacy

Pedophiles in the childlove movement seek to avoid the stigma of the term "pedophile", which carries connotations of exploitation, perversion, and criminality. They promote the term "childlover" (as well as the terms "boylover" or "girllover") to replace the term "pedophile" due to its pejorative connotations. The term has been popularized among pedophiles through the Internet.

These pedophiles often reject the words "pedophile" and "pedophilia" arguing that it no longer reflects its original meaning. Lindsay Ashford in the Human Face of Pedophilia writes "many have problems with the word [pedophilia] since its meaning has been so warped by society and the media. [It] has grown to take on the meaning and connotations of an evil person who lurks in parks. Many of us simply do not resemble or relate to this stereotype, so we have chosen to adopt terminology that better describes what we are." [1] Ashford also stresses that childlove is "an emotional and spiritual attraction to young children that transcends a simply physical or sexual attraction to them." [2]

The ambiguity in terms is acknowledged in a paper entitled Special Problems with Sexual Abuse Cases, where Underwager and Wakefield write "Although the terms are often used interchangeably, a distinction must be made between "sex offender against a minor" and "pedophile." The former refers to a criminal sexual behavior and the latter to an anomalous sexual preference. Many pedophiles never act on their impulses. At the same time, not all sex offenders against a minor are pedophiles. All mental health professionals acting in an expert witness capacity should know this distinction." [3]

Many ephebophiles 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, the more specific terms "boylover" and "girllover" are also often used by those attracted to adolescents.

Origins

There have been varying degrees of pedophile activism since the 1970s. In the 1970s, most activity was in Western Europe, primarily in the Netherlands. Here, 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 a theoretical and a practical standpoint. A number of papers were produced discussing the effects of adult-child sexual interactions, using data from pedophiles as well as from adults and young people who had been involved in relationships with adults as children or adolescents.

In the late 1970s, the center of activity 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. NAMBLA still exists today, but was dealt a major blow when a man convicted of the rape and murder of Jeffrey Curley in 1997 was accused of having ties to the group.

In the 1980s, a number of other "childlove advocacy" groups were created. The most significant of these were MARTIJN in the Netherlands in 1982 and the Danish Pedophile Association in 1985. This was followed by the formation of IPCE, an umbrella organization and repository for pedophilia-related research, in the early 1990s. Of these groups, both MARTIJN and IPCE are still functioning, while the DPA decided to disband in early 2004.

The 1990s saw activity shift once again, to Montreal, Canada. It also saw the formation of online communities of childlovers. The Ganymede Collective was formed in Montreal in 1995 as a forum for "boylovers" to meet in the real world. Out of this group emerged the first online communities, some of which eventually coalesced under the umbrella of Free Spirits.

Objectives of the movement

While there is a wide range of views amongst childlovers about the objectives of the movement, most agree on at least some of the following objectives:

Change public perception of pedophiles
Assert a difference between "childlove" and child sexual abuse
Push for the decriminalization of child pornography possession
Push for the abolition or revision of age of consent legislation
Increase awareness of medical evidence of sexual activity in young children
Support movements and organizations that push for increased children's rights

Those who advocate the legalization of intimate 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." [4]

Pedophiles also stress that sex is not the raison d'etre 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." [5].

While society argues that children are unable to consent to sexual relationships, Ben Spiecker and Jan Steutel, in a paper entitled Paedophilia, Sexual Desire and Perversity write that consent is possible, even in older pre-pubescent children. "Surely, one can raise the criteria of being able to deliberate and to choose, as a consequence of which each prepubescent child misses the relevant capacities and all forms of paedophile sex become a moral lapse. However, then the problem arises that also many normal adults do not meet these criteria, while we still are not inclined to regard sex with such adults as morally reprehensible. However, if we try to avoid this problem by formulating more moderate criteria, then we have to admit that, in particular, older prepubescent children normally have the relevant capacities." [6]

Furthermore, peodphiles claim that sexual contacts with adults need not be harmful for children. They site the widely-criticized 1998 meta-analysis Rind, et. al and other works to support their claim. In one such study, Intergenerational Sexual Contact: A Continuum Model of Participants and Experiences, Joan Nelson writes "Clinical populations reveal nondamaging intergenerational sex. 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." [7]

They want to change the public perception that sex with children must lead to 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." [8]

Many pedophiles argue that children are innately sexual from their infancy. They point to the research of Alfred Kinsey and others that appears to show evidence of sexual response, masturbation and sex play with others in young children. They argue, therefore, that since children are sexual and that some seek sex play, they should be able to consent to sexual activity with any other partner, regardless of age. Thus many pedophiles argue against age of consent legislation. Alfred Kinsey is a controversial figure, however, and many leading psychologists of his day, such as Abraham Maslow, were highly critical of his methodology.

Many pedophiles are also opposed to the current state of sexual education in many countries. They say that children who are "properly" educated both about their bodies and their sexuality can be empowered to make decisions for themselves about whether or with whom to engage in intimate physical activity. 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. In an atmosphere of openness, they say that children would be less susceptible to abuse, and they would not feel the same stigma about reporting any coerced or non-consensual activities. This view does not take into consideration the research that shows that in the early stages of a child's development they are unable to make informed and clear decisions. Teaching young children about sex is viewed by many pyschologists as being damaging to children, and it is only later in life that they are mature enough to handle these concepts.

Ephebophiles are also largely opposed to consent legislation. They argue that in former times, puberty was considered to be the threshold of adulthood in many societies and that it is a natural indication that the body is sexually mature. They say that ages of consent are legal definitions that are both arbitrary and discriminatory. Instead of a set age of consent, they argue that such decisions should be made by each individual who wishes to engage in sexual activity.

Ethics

File:Clogopamphcov.jpg

Cover of CLogo's Pedophilia brochure

Western society in general completely rejects all forms of pedophilia because they believe that children will be manipulated or coerced because of a power imbalance between themselves and the adults they are involved with. Despite this societal rejection, many pedophiles claim to understand this power imbalance, and have proposed an ethical framework that could allow acceptance of their desire for sexual interaction with children.

In the late 1990s, Dutch psychiatrist Gerald Roelofs suggested the following five guidelines for intergenerational relationships:

There should be no coercion
The child should be free to stop at any moment
Sexuality should be compatible with the psycho-sexual 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 Association for Sexual Reform (NVSH) proposed the following four guidelines:

SELF-DETERMINATION: Children must always have it in his or her 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 the following synthesis of these earlier proposals. The following four guidelines have now been officially adopted by the Dutch advocacy group MARTIJN as well as by 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.

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[9] 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 goes yet further, stating that "MARTIJN Association advises everyone to observe the law." [10]

While members of the Childlove movement claim that, within an ethical framework, these relationships can be mutually beneficial, society is 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 that a child's relationship with a pedophile is in harmony with that child's normal development.

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 counseling and suicide prevention services. More radical elements have chosen to "out" themselves publicly, as is the case with the group Krumme 13 (en: Crooked 13) [11] that counsels pedophile convicts to continue their activities once released, and The Human Face of Pedophilia.

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.

Symbols

File:GLogo.jpg

GLogo

File:BLogo.jpg

BLogo

File:Lblogo.jpg

lblogo

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 developed by some pedophiles attracted to girls to symbolize consensual sex between adults and girls.

The "lblogo", a variation of the Blogo, is posted on the freespirits.org site[12]. Its creators say that "it distinguishes itself by appearing like a young boys scrawl, giving it an enhanced 'little boy' flavor. Its rounded, soft shape and lack of hard corners and steep angles, is symbolic of the little boys we love."

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. (This image is shown on the cover of the CLogo pamphlet, pictured above)

Some pedophiles labeling themselves boylovers and girllovers celebrate their sexual preference. International BoyLove Day is celebrated on the first Saturday after the summer solstice. This is the day pedophiles attracted to boys celebrate their attraction, often by lighting blue candles discreetly in public. Alice Day, April the 25th, is a day of celebration to pedophiles attracted to girls. This is the day Lewis Carroll met Alice Liddell, the girl for whom he wrote Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, on 25 April 1856.

References

Ashford, Lindsay (2002). The Childlover's Creed. The Human Face of Pedophilia.
CLogo Team (2003). Pedophiles.
Fagan PJ, Wise TN, et al "Pedophilia" JAMA. 2002;288:2458-2465.
Gieles, Dr. Frans EJ (1998). I didn't know how to deal with it. IPCE.
Gieles, Dr. Frans EJ (2002). Ethics and human rights in intergenerational relationships. IPCE.
Moser, Charles, Ph.D, MD; Kleinplatz, Peggy, Ph.D (2003). DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal
O'Carroll, Tom (1980). Paedophilia: The Radical Case. Peter Owen, London.
Rossman, Parker (1976) Sexual Experience Between Men and Boys: Exploring the Pederast Underground. Association Press, New York.

External links