(In other words: Just the same old story.)

Here are some quotes from the Introduction

The problem

In responding to the views expressed by many Member States, UNESCO is deeply concerned with the problems of sexual abuse of children, child pornography and paedophilia on the Internet - because these children are at the very crossroads where education, culture, tolerance and peace should be making headway, and not the traffic of moral corruption, violence and hatred. These are the children who should be in the schools that UNESCO and its Member States seek to assist and for which the Organization seeks to provide the latest resources and techniques in education, science and culture. The minds of children are the seeding grounds for the peace of the next generation. And if these very children are corrupted in morals and their ethical sense is distorted at this very tender age, what is to become of the adults tomorrow.

[…]

Scope of the problem

The sexual abuse of children, child pornography and paedophilia on the Internet today are problems of international proportion. Through satellite, cable and the Internet, they touch all levels of society, they reach all regions, they put at risk children who should be in school and studying to contribute to their society.

The global community has recognised (ie it sounds good if we say it) that children who are victimised by implicit or explicit sexual acts and recorded on camera photographically or digitally for commercial sale and distribution also face a future of psychological trauma and potential sickness. It should also be realised (ie it sounds good) that repeating this audiovisual presentation over and over again to audiences of several thousands also repeats the sense of victimisation of these children.

It is estimated (ie. It sounds good) that many of the girls and boys trafficked for sex slavery and tourism in Asia and Africa end up victims of AIDS (over a million in South Asia alone). A proportionally high number are tempted to commit suicide.

The problem is internationally widespread. The solution must also be international, enjoining the resources and forces of all concerned. There are no excuses for sexually abusing children at any time, in any place and under any circumstances. Every child has the right to protection from cruelty, neglect and exploitation (except of course, exploitation by us). Every child is a human being and must be respected and treated as such.

The numbers

Most of the data regarding the extent and nature of the problem have focussed on North America and Northern European regions, which have also played a key role in the production, distribution and consumption of child pornography not only in these regions but all over the world. In developing countries, the reality of child pornography is often dwarfed by the magnitude of other problems such as poverty, infant mortality, illiteracy, hunger, and disease and often there is little reliable data on the subject. 

(It would cost us a lot of money to do anything really effective about all these problems so instead we will concentrate on the popular subject of child abuse and hope that the public don't see we are doing so little about anything else).  

Street children, poor children, juveniles from broken homes, and disabled minors are especially vulnerable to sexual exploitation and to being seduced or coerced into the production of 

(what we call)  

pornographic material. Thus, a combination of factors  -- economic, social, cultural, attitudinal 

(and of course our political ineptitude)  

-- push children to fend for themselves, 

(This means that they are outside the school system and therefore outside our exploitation so we will say that it is…)  

often taking them into situations of exploitation. Wherever they live, problems within or among the family environment often either precede or become the causes for child abuse, neglect or exploitation. One cannot be remiss in appreciating these social factors when proposing solutions. 

It has not been easy 

(probably because the figure is too low to attract the sort of attention we desire)  

to determine how many child pornographic or paedophiliac sites there are, nor to estimate how many consult these sites deliberately every day. Simple key word searches could raise from 100,000 to over a million 

(we always like to work in nice round figures which the dupes (sorry - the public) can grasp)  

sites dealing with everything from sexy pinups to videos of paedophilia. But this does not take into account multiple use of keywords nor multiple referrals to the same sites. Nor do any of these counters distinguish deliberate visitors from casual or accidental visitors, or those doing research. But numbers aside, the problem of paedophilia and child pornography on the Internet does exist. Perhaps quantification is itself a problem to be analysed, tackled and referred to a competent institution 

(as long, of course as the institution is one of 'ours'.).

Redefining the jargon

It is always helpful to clarify terms 

(so that everybody gets the ideas which we want them to get).  

The meaning of the sexual abuse of children is usually self evident, until one starts to quibble between research definitions and those used in legal work and jurisprudence. Sexual abuse of children refers to the persuading or forcing of children (as determined by the legal age of majority) to engage in implicit or explicit sexual acts, alone or with another person of any age, of the same sex or the opposite sex. 

Most dictionaries define paedophilia as a sexual aberration or perversion in which the preferred sexual objects are prepubescent children, usually under the age of 13 

(actually it doesn't but we hope that by stating it here the reader will believe it and therefore not go to a dictionary to seek the truth - perish the thought!).  

Paedophilia is thus a synonym for the sexual abuse of children. Because this is usually understood as a psychiatric description, law enforcement agents often employ a broader definition of paedophilia to include adults who have a sexual attraction for persons legally considered children 

(This makes it a lot easier for these law enforcement agencies. It's not very ethical but it's only against paedophiles (so far) so that's ok).  

The question of what constitutes child pornography can be complex. The standards applied are often subjective and contingent upon moral, cultural, sexual, social and religious beliefs that differ from country to country and sometimes among different societies in the same country. 

(However, this will not deter us from foisting our morals on the rest of you)  

Nor do these mores readily translate into law in the strictly juridical sense. Legal definitions of both child and child pornography differ globally and may differ among legal jurisdictions within the same country. However, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, now adopted by 191 Member States, provides an international definition of the Child as being anyone under 18. 

The Council of Europe defines child pornography in broad terms as any audiovisual material which uses children in a sexual context. The International Criminal Police Organisation (INTERPOL) defines child pornography as the visual depiction of the sexual exploitation of a child, 

(but expects police forces to prosecute on an even broader definition)

focussing on the child's sexual behaviour or genitals. For this meeting, it is difficult to separate any one of the three aspects of the meeting title for an exclusive discussion. The three aspects must be considered together: child pornography and paedophilia on the Internet are two mediatized aspects of the one evil, the sexual abuse of children.

The paedophile

(WE tell you) Child exploiters, paedophiles and pornographers represent a cross-section of the larger community including highly esteemed members of the population. Furthermore (WE also tell you), they frequently seek occupations that bring them into habitual contact with children, such as schools, social centres, orphanages. Such sex exploiters (WE tell you) frequently target neighbourhood children or those with whom they have contact through their occupation. 

It is important to note that (WE tell you) child pornography serves significant purposes for both paedophiles and child molesters. Child Pornography and paedophilia on the Internet are usually sought 

(of course, all this (except the blackmail bit) is true but we reckon we've got you all sufficiently brainwashed so that you won't believe it so it's safe for us to say it and it makes us look clever to have discovered this)

Paedophiles and child molesters often possess large collections of child pornography that are meticulously catalogued and carefully guarded. The incidence of women paedophiles, however, is (according to feminist belief) rare.

Digitized paedophilia?

How has such a (what we call) social sickness as paedophilia or sexual abuse of children been so quickly internationalised?

[Etcetera… Etcetera… Etcetera…]

"This worldwide initiative follows UNESCO Director-General Federico Mayors declaration of 20 July 1998 on the need for urgent action against the "unthinkable perversity" of paedophiles and the sexual and commercial exploitation of children and adolescents that he considers to be "crimes against humanity". On that occasion, Mr. Mayor expressed support for an international observatory on abuses committed against children."

Open Letter to the UNESCO Expert Meeting, Paris, 18-19 January 1999.

16 January 1999

Ladies and Gentlemen, participants of the conference:

I support the struggle to win greater public consensus to support the rights of children and adolescents. I applaud the UN's fight to improve the overall quality of the lives of the young.

So it was with genuine interest, I read, on the World Wide Web, the text introducing the public to the UNESCO Expert Meeting entitled: "Sexual Abuse of Children, Child Pornography and Paedophilia on the Internet: an International Challenge."

I was disappointed, however, to read that, instead of presenting scientific analyses and clarification, in harmony with its UN mandate to educate governments and the public, the pre-conference paper for the UNESCO Expert-Meeting disseminates unscientific concepts.

Quote:

"It is always helpful to clarify terms. The meaning of the sexual abuse of children is usually self evident, until one starts to quibble between research definitions and those used in legal work and jurisprudence."

Then the UNESCO pre-conference paper on the web presents the public with superficial definitions of the term "paedophilia" without reference to the reliable and peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Quote:

"Most dictionaries define paedophilia as a sexual aberration or perversion in which the preferred sexual objects are prepubescent children, usually under the age of 13. Paedophilia is thus a synonym for the sexual abuse of children. Because this is usually understood as a psychiatric description, law enforcement agents often employ a broader definition of paedophilia to include adults who have a sexual attraction for persons legally considered children."

But paedophilia is not a "synonym for the sexual abuse of children," even if law enforcement agents, legislatures, and the mass media in some parts of the world confuse these issues.

Paedophilia is the erotic and/or sexual orientation (or preference) of adults toward children under 13 years of age (American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual [DSM] IV). Scientists and psychiatric diagnosticians widely agree on this simple definition for now.

The term "child sexual abuse" cannot be responsibly included in any UNESCO definition of paedophilia. The word "paedophilia" would then become a negatively valued expression, and couldn't be used any more by psychiatrists, anthropologists, and sexual scientists to describe and understand the phenomenon -- as intended by sexual science, which introduced this term ("Paedophilia Erotica", Krafft-Ebing) more than 100 years ago. In its pre- conference paper, the UNESCO accepts the corruption of the scientific "jargon" without justification and without the informed agreement of the world's scientific community.

In the UNESCO pre-conference paper, the authors restate:

"...the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, now adopted by 191 Member States, provides an international definition of the Child as being anyone under 18." (Article 1).

But the UNESCO pre-conference paper then misleads the reader about what the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child says. Article 34 of this Convention, which is about child sexual abuse, limits itself to unlawful sexual activity and the exploitative use of children.

Article 34 of the Convention reads:

"States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent:

(a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any *unlawful* sexual activity;

(b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other *unlawful* sexual practices;

(c) The *exploitative use of children* in pornographic performances and materials."

The age of consent is lower than 18 in most of the countries of the world. Therefore, the definition of "child", "children", and "paedophilia" cannot be accurately linked to the adolescent age of 18 in this context.

Furthermore, UNESCO paper fails to define the term "child sexual abuse". This failure, and the unscientific re-definition of the terms "pedophilia", "child", and "children", lead the Conference into extreme positions in a world context and to unbalanced and culturally insensitive action. Without formal authorization from the governments that signed the UN-Convention on the Rights of the Child, the conference seems to justify the extension of repressive governmental activities in those countries and cultures which do not accept or follow the lead of the Anglo-Saxon/American and neo-Puritan understanding of how these matters must be dealt with by government. For a conference, sponsored by a world-wide organization like UNESCO, this is unacceptable in any of its papers.

I want to state clearly that I do not advocate behaviors or activities that bring harm to the young. I condemn the exploitative use of children, and would support rational and balanced efforts by the United Nations to eliminate it.

I respectfully ask the conference to consider my concerns.

With my best wishes for a positive outcome for children and adolescents from this conference,

Somebody from Germany

Amsterdam, January 18th, 1999

Dear ladies and gentlemen,

With interest have I read your web-pages regarding the pedophilia conference being held this week in Paris. Some parts of these web-pages struck me, and I'd like to comment on them and raise some questions via this E-mail message. If you feel my comments bear something important, or this message might give the conference some other viewpoints which could be of interest, you are invited to print this E-mail message and share it with the people attending the conference. Of course, I'm willing to answer any questions directed to me via my E-mail address […]

First, the meeting is said to be an *expert meeting*. I'm really wondering who those experts are. Will all sides of this controversial subject be represented? Will people who have suffered terrible child sexual abuse be represented? Will people be represented who experienced great benefits from their relationship as a child with an adult? Will psychologists and sexologists be there, representing different sides? Will child-lovers themselves attend? I just fear your meeting will again be one of those unilateral meetings. Your list of web-links seems to support this feeling.

The DSM-IV reads: paedophilia is the erotic and/or sexual orientation or preference of adults towards children under 13 years of age. There's no reference [there] to its being an aberration or perversion. Being a paedophile doesn't mean one actually abuses children, so a paedophile cannot be equated with the sexual abuser of children. But this is exactly what you did in your paper: explicitly defining the word paedophile as a synonym for "sexual abuser". Later in the paper you referred to the child molester and paedophile as being different sorts of people, as you differ between acts of paedophilia and the sexual abuse of children. This confused me, as I fail to see the difference when keeping in mind your own definition of the paedophile being a sexual abuser. For the sake of clarity, I will follow your definition of the paedophile and use the word child-lover for the person who feels erotically/sexually attracted primarily towards children. I do hope you understand and acknowledge the difference between the two.

From the DSM-IV definition, I didn't read paedophilia is a social sickness, nor will any social researcher agree that it is. But in your paper you literally wrote paedophilia is a social sickness. If we would be warped back 40 years, would you also have written homosexuality is a social sickness? And how about transsexuality?

How should I interpret what is known about the ancient Greek and Romans, as well as the customs of many tribes, when reading that sexual relationships between children and adults run diametrically counter to universal social and human values? If you had written "current Western social and human (and maybe Christian) values," I would have agreed with you, but here you seem to be ignorant of our history and of other cultures.

You twice suggested paedophiles are keeping children away from school for their own sake. Is this really true? Where did you learn this? My experience is that child-lovers really care for these children, encourage those children to go to school, to study -- they want only the best for them. In many cases, this friendship lasts many years, often even a lifetime.

I wonder how large the actual market for commercial childporn is at this moment. Do you have any serious estimates? Do you have any estimates about how many children have been involved in childporn movies in, let's say, 1997? Is it 5, 10, 500, 10,000? Has any research been done on how much child pornographic material has being made lately and how old (and previously legal) material keeps popping up, as if it were a terrorist handbook? Later in this message, I will provide some statistics.

Has any research been done for the conference about the extent the repeated presentation of the material actually repeats the sense of victimisation of the children? If so, has it been corrected with the social factor: how would the retrospective experience be in a somewhat more permissive society?

You refer to statistics in your introductory paper, but I couldn't find any statistics. I wonder, for instance, whether you've read the research printed in Psychological Bulletin 124 (1998) which revisited and corrected many important, well-known and often-quoted statistics.

The number of web sites containing childporn struck me: 100,000 to 1,000,000 sites!? I wonder how you got to these figures -- even the quite inexperienced Internet user can check the validity of your figure and realize it just has to be wrong. Having a web site always means you can be tracked down, and while childporn is illegal in almost all countries worldwide, having childporn on your site is one certain way to be caught and sent to jail. So, it's not too surprising that a simple keyword search on any search-engine won't reveal many sites containing child pornography. On the other hand, all search engines do return thousands of hits. When researching these sites, it soon becomes clear these sites are those which fight against childporn on-line or the more 'clever' adult porn sites which use phrases like "child-porn" as meta-tags to generate more hits (i.e., more people accessing their site).

Many sites exist on the Internet which do focus on paedophilia, but not in the way you define paedophilia, but the way I defined "child-lover". These are web-sites which exercise their right to free speech, bring information to the public, give room for discussion between child-lovers and often other people, et cetera. Most, if not all, monitor their discussion rooms intensively just to make sure their platform doesn't get abused as a location for people to make appointments with children, to orchestrate illegal acts or to exchange childporn images. I haven't seen any of these sites advocating sex with children -- most child-lovers will advise everyone to keep away from having sex with children. If these sites advocate anything, it's the discussion of this subject and sincere research. They know this is almost like fighting a losing battle, as the fight against child sexual abuse and child-porn is big business, whereas striving to find more of the truth regarding child-loving, child sexuality and such, isn't. Of course, you'll acknowledge these sites have a right to exist.

Didn't Noam Chomsky once say "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." Don't think I need to add anything to this statement.

While childporn is extremely rare on the web, it apparently isn't in another corner of the Internet: on the Usenet, also known as newsnet. The Dutch police have done thorough research recently on this issue (my sources: Internet and several Dutch newspapers). The research focused on 48 so-called newsgroups. We can expect the police to have carefully selected these newsgroups as those where child pornography might be expected. The research period started on August 11th, 1998 and ended on September 23rd, 1998. Over this period, 120,000 messages were downloaded by the police of which 82% contained an image. 2.1% of these messages were judged to contain illegal child pornography. The total number of messages posted during this period can be estimated at 24,144,376 messages (using statistics at news.radio-msu.net). So 0.01% of the messages consisted of child pornography, as defined by Dutch law. Now it appears most of the material consists of reposts of already posted images. My guess is 95% of these images are reposts, and my sources came up with similar estimates. The conclusion is the growth of new childporn material is extremely small: 0.00053% of all messages are estimated to contain a new child porn image. These figures are easy to recalculate, if necessary. I can send you exactly how I calculated it. Do these figures really justify the attention this issue gets?

The assumption that child pornography leads to more child sexual abuse, as you seem to be saying, isn't one sexologists have found agreement upon. Another viewpoint is that child pornography keeps people away from children because the use of child pornography lowers their lust-feelings. I even know from some pedophiles who do use pornography as some kind of medicine before meeting any children. To my surprise this opinion got backed-up just this Friday by Judge Duncan Shaw (British Columbia Supreme Court judge in Canada) who ruled that possessing of child pornography should not be a crime. His [careful judicial] reasoning is available on-line.

Your paper stated the Internet leads to more internationalisation, which causes childporn to spread easier worldwide. Is this true? Indeed it's available worldwide. But, say, 20 years ago, many magazines -- which would be qualified as child porn magazine nowadays -- were legally available and got shipped worldwide as well, just by the ordinary postal services. The same happened with videotapes. By the way, many [old] pictures from both these magazines and movies are popping up on [the Internet] nowadays.

Commercial child pornography is very difficult to market these days, as one doesn't know if he's dealing with an undercover cop. So childporn networks are destined to stay relatively small, just because marketing the material too openly is just far too dangerous. Besides that, the need for commercial material is close to nil, due to the availability of old material which can be obtained for free and which answers to an existing need. But the increased patrolling of the Internet could have a terrible side-effect: the increase of child-porn production, just because the demand will increase due to the disappearance of free material. More children will get hurt due to the efforts of exactly those who try to fight child porn and to save children from being hurt. This should be a horrific thought for everyone! On the other hand, a laissez-faire approach isn't the right one as well: in my opinion the police should look for those people producing child pornography (focusing more on commercial/professional stuff) instead of the spreading of old material.

The safety of the child on-line isn't all that bad. Yes, I do advise children to never tell anyone their age, address, phone-number or last name on-line or at least discuss the issue with their parents or me. The chance that a child comes across childporn on-line is extremely small. On the web, it's almost impossible to find this material and on the Usenet, one has to be looking deliberately for it. But as with everything on the Internet: if you're really looking for something extremely weird, the odds are you'll find it in the end. The child looking for pictures showing a hamster being torn apart, he'll find it. But if this kid isn't interested in the abdominals of a hamster, he won't ever come across such an image.

By the way, the suggestive drawing on your site regarding those children surfing the web struck me. Two kids are looking at some soccer-site, one is looking at the Mona Lisa and a third is angrily looking at me, as if telling me the image on his screen is a forbidden one. What's on his screen? A picture of a naked child. What's wrong with the image of a naked child? Is nudity becoming a problem now? Is this an effort to obfuscate and exaggerate the child-porn issue? Nudity, eroticism, sexuality and sexual abuse, to me these are four different issues. I feel it would be very wrong to teach the public a nude child should be associated with child sexual abuse, as you seem to be suggesting.

Does the need exist to shield information from the child on-line? I feel a child has no need to access sexually explicit sites and should not enter them, just like a child has nothing to do with porn magazines, but I can imagine other people might have different views here -- who am I to impose my opinions and views upon them? But informational sites are quite something else. Bennett Haselton (Peacefire, you have a link setup to his site) can tell you more about this and about the censoring of sites by several blocking programs. Regarding child-love, I think children might be interested in this issue, especially the theoretical part: what does child-love really mean? An example: most child-lovers know they feel attracted to kids from the time they were about 12, 13 years old. Almost all of them didn't have any access to information regarding their odd feelings, except extremely negative ones. As a result, they will try to respond to the expectations his society sets: being a good heterosexual, pushing away their own emotions and feelings, wearing a mask and becoming a super-macho. It doesn't need any explanation that this could very easily lead to extreme frustration, and these persons could turn into very dangerous persons: one day they might explode, sexually abuse a boy or girl and afterwards realize what they have done and kill the kid, or, at least, scare the hell out of the kid. How different could this be if the person was able to learn about his feelings earlier, to have discovered he wasn't alone and to have managed to cope with his feelings without ever hurting a child, although living in a hostile society. Also, children who have a relationship with an adult might find important information, confirmation, warnings, and so on, on sites like these. This way decreases the chance something bad will happen. I'm really afraid the current hysterical hunt for child-lovers will turn out into something dramatic: many children will suffer, while this was exactly what the [Paedophile] hunters tried to prevent.

Maybe it helps to put all this into perspective by mentioning some other statistics: one in five people in the world lives in extreme poverty, has no chance to ever come across a computer, let alone surf the Internet. Every hour, 1400 children die from malnutrition and preventable childhood diseases. Sixty-five percent of all child deaths worldwide are caused by a) Acute Respiratory tract Infections (3.6 million children a year) b) Diarrheal diseases (3 million children a year) c) Immunisation preventable diseases: measles, tuberculosis, tetanus, diphtheria, polio, and pertussis (2.1 million children a year, of these, almost 1 million are attributed to measles). Who's causing this? Can anyone be accused of being the bogey man here? No. Is action being taken? Yes, there is; but apparently it's not enough, by far.

Now back to the issue of the almost non-existent child porn production and the almost non-existing danger of the on-line predator. Isn't the balance a bit weird? How many children's lives could have been saved just by the money spent for this conference alone?

During the past three years over 300,000 soldier-children were fighting in wars around the world. During the 1985-1995 decade, the number of child victims of war has been estimated at 2 million killed, 405 million disabled, 12 million left homeless, over a million orphaned or separated from their parents, and 10 million seriously psychologically traumatized. How can all this be compared with the issue of paedophilia and child-pornography? I don't want to play down the serious issue of child sexual abuse. But I do feel we need to keep things in balance and perspective, and if something has been lost in the last two decades, it's just that: perspective.

I wish you all an educationally productive conference,

Kind regards,

[….] (On-line activist, academically educated in the science of psychology and sexology)

[Site disappeared]

Declaration and Action Plan - 19.01.99

On 18 - 19 January 1999, some 300 specialists in child care and child protection, Internet specialists and service providers, media practitioners, law enforcement agencies and government representatives met at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris to consider ways of combating paedophilia and child pornography on the Internet. Taking account of work that has already been done, the experts' meeting prepared an action plan and issued the following declaration.

Declaration 19.01.99

The Internet provides a new world for curious children. It offers entertainment, opportunities for education, information and communication. The Internet is a tool that opens a window of opportunities, but it is available only to a tiny minority of the worlds children. Today only five percent of children have access to the Internet and most of these live in the developed regions of the world. This information gap between have and have not countries must be closed.

As Internet use grows, so do the risks of children being exposed to inappropriate material, in particular, criminal activity by paedophiles and child pornographers. While the benefits of the Internet far outweigh its potential drawbacks, these dangers cannot be ignored. If left unanswered they pose a threat to children and will become the object of resistance to future Internet use.

We believe that future use of the Internet will be determined by the next generation who have been born into a digital society and are beginning to think, work, play and learn in fundamentally different ways from their parents. In this current period of transition, however, the use and development of digital technologies must take account of current social,cultural and democratic values.

Above all, we need to know more about what is available, its accessibility, the content, how many and which people consume it. To date, not enough is known about the scale or extent of paedophile activities on the net, their consequences and impact on young people.

Child protection on the Internet is not a matter of censorship. Creating a safe environment for children online must preserve and enhance fundamental liberties, such as freedom of expression, freedom of information and the right to privacy, while ensuring their right to protection from harmful and illegal material.

The fight against paedophilia and child pornography on the Internet requires a coalition of forces involving children, industry, policy makers, educators and parents to ensure that users are aware of the potential dangers and have available to them the necessary means to combat these threats.

Action against illegal content needs industry co-operation in restricting circulation and a fully functioning system of self-regulation aiming at a high level of protection, which must go hand in hand with effective law enforcement. Harmful content needs to be treated differently from that which is clearly illegal.

In this spirit, we have identified concrete measures which are needed in order to encourage an environment favourable to the development a child-friendly Internet. The following Action Plan requires strategic approach which is both global and inclusive, and carries with it the commitment of all the actors, in particular governments, to ensure a framework of coordination, financial resources and political support. We request the Director-General to bring this text and Action Plan to the attention of the Member States of UNESCO, the National Commissions and the General Conference.

Paris, 19 January 1999

While the Action Plan is addressed primarily to UNESCO, it contains elements which must be taken up by all actors in the fight against paedophilia on the Internet. Governments, international agencies, NGOs, industry, educators, parents, law enforcement agencies and media all have a role to play but special effort should be made to ensure that the voice of children is also heard in the elaboration of strategies to make the Internet safe. UNESCO's role in this joint effort should be primarily that of a catalyst.

Within its field of competence, UNESCO has a specific role and responsibility for action. In particular, a clearing house should be established for the exchange of information and to promote cooperation among groups concerned with child rights.

UNESCO educational, cultural and communication programmes should take up the issues raised at this meeting and in particular should:

UNESCO's role regarding law and regulations should be developed according to the following framework :

1. Targeted regulation to be used by those who are against child pornography including support for anti-child pornography laws covering possession .

2. Self-regulation to be taken as an industry response and ethical guidelines to encourage the industry's broader participation.

3. Co-regulation, which implies that regulation with the backing of governments, NGOs, industry and civil society should also be possible.

UNESCO in co-operation with others should set up a Task Force or Experts Committee bringing together experiences from all sectors concerned by sexual abuse and pornography to protect children on the Internet. It should act on the following questions

Paris, 19 January 1999

Robbing kids of their childhood and teaching parents to panic

Let children be children and adults be adults,

says Frank Furedi

Reproduced from Living Marxism, issue 113, September 1998

My name is Michael and I would like to address some issues that constantly amaze me like the allegations against us so called 'sex offenders and pedophiles' and even worse the convictions that are 'plagued on us at this time'.

In my eight years of incarceration, I have watched many talk shows, programs such as 20/20, Prime Time Live, 48 hours and Oprah. All of these talk show programs have addressed these topics and we are now hearing more and more about them every day. Something's wrong with this picture?

I wonder sometimes, what will it take to one day stop this crazed 'witch hunt' against us. It kinds of remind me of the puritan days when we burnt people at the stake or banished others from the community and even stoned some to death. Yeah, 'this sounds like America!'

With no more evidence than we have in most sex cases today, we have to ask ourselves how can the courts convict us with little or no evidence? 'Easy, this is how!'

The Constitutional Rights were drawn up by our forefathers that helped settle the United States of America - home of the free 'Yeah Right!' Anyway, the Constitution was set up to protect our rights and give each of us, man, woman and children, equal rights - or at least, this is how it's supposed to be anyway.

The problem here is our government and the people. We, the people, need to take back our government that was set up for the people, by the people to protect us from wrongful aggressions such as greedy high minded people like the Kings of England, dictators of Russia and our own District Attorneys today. Our juridical system has suffered greatly from power seeking attorneys looking for a prominent political career or a high powered practice.

Now to make matters even worse is to take a good look at our media system today. Our media system (tv's, radio's and newspapers) have gone way to[o] far running stories into the ground and making matters look worse than they really are or appear to be. Now, I don't know how most would feel but I think this about take the cake, yes / no. Today, the media are about 97% corrupted. I mean all we hear baout today is crime like robbery, murder, rape, arson, drugs, and etceteras. Looks like our whole legal system around the world is very corrupted and getting worse day and day. This is no fiction, it is reality.

This kind of reality we don't need, but only we can make the difference. Let's look at it like this:

1. About 100.000 to 500.000 people have gotten together in meetings and/or conferences about the age of consent laws. Well, these people are set up and waiting to take action to get new laws passed.

2. I come running alone in an election, then this 100.000 to 500.000 people come to me and say that I've got their votes if I do something about getting a lower age of consent set and passed.

3. Well, I know this amount of people will get me elected so, yes. I'm going to fight for my voters so that I may be re-elected again one day.

It's hard to say NO to those people that make our government which is us, the people!

Now to say a little about the organizations. Today, it shouldn't matter if a person is gay, lesbian or a boy lever. Here's the point. I'm a boy lover myself and I need the support of not only my fellows boy lovers, but the support of the gays and lesbians as well as they need our support to help them. Today, we have, that I know of: NAMBLA, Fag Rag, Gay Community News, Ipce, ILGA. These are just a few of many organizations out there that need our support and contributions to survive.

This is something that's very wrong. The United States of America is supposed to be 'freedom fighters'. We fought long and hard to be free but yet, in The Netherlands, a boy of 12 years old can now have a consensual sexual relationship with anyone they want. Yet, America is still in the dark with this 18 years of age to legally have a gay relationship. The people over in The netherlands stood strong to archieve their goals which in the long run they got a positive outcome.

Please, people, all we've got to do is look at the facts. We need to stand together and support our organizations and make the government work for us, not for themselves.

Please, send your comments and/or suggestions te me and I will try to answer them but again, I am incarcerated so it might take me some time to respond back and keep the letters clean and to the point.

Thanks, Michael

[Name & address known by the Ipce Secretary]

[Note from The Netherlands:

The Dutch law has not worked as Michael described here above. Factually, the authority of the parents was stronger than the legal 'freedom'. Recently, the Dutch Minister of Justice had declared to propose the parliament to change the law in this aspect. Frans NL]

By Don, Down South

1. Create a stock of words and phrases to replace such phrases as "sex abuse." Such words and phrases and what they replace could be collected up and distributed by web sites. […]. Boy love activists could change the rules for the media games and shift the size and shape of the playing field, so we can become included rather than rejected. In capitalistic societies, boy lovers need strong financial muscles. Nudists state that they are "sensual," not "erotic." Such word-plays must surely be someone's forte. Boy lovers could coin similar phrases to emphasize a male nurturing instinct. The term "male mother" was useful but seems to have disappeared from public discourse.

The term "sex abuse" has beneath it hundreds of years of prejudice against sex not consummated between a man and woman within a marriage. What the sex abuse industry has done is to build their propaganda into their terminology.

2. Encourage […] writers to compose op-ed pieces [for newspapers] that can be distributed […]. The pieces would be commented on by anyone wishing to make improvements and the finished piece would then be available to persons to be adapted for their local newspapers, radio and TV stations.

3. Become advocates for democracy and pluralism. Democracy is inherently pluralistic. The job of government should be to build a consensus among minority beliefs, behaviors and lifestyles that exist in a community. The current emphasis on creating new laws, punishment, and law enforcement is anti-democratic. Man/boy love must become an integral part of a community consensus.

4. Become involved in political and other groups that encourage discussions, debates and other open-ended group problem-solving. Democracy is a practical way to solve problems. At its best, democracy is completely secular. Quoting from the Readers Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary: Secularism is "the belief that morality should be based on the well-being of mankind without any consideration of religious systems and forms of worship." The Libertarian Party {USA} was supportive of gay males, and in some places of man/boy love.

5. There appears to be a trend in the USA toward girls dressing in boy clothing and cutting their hair short. Much emphasis is being put into clothing styles to enhance the girl's sex appeal to boys. Such things as the bare midriff and short shorts may be an indication that heterosexual society feels it is necessary to either enhance the girl's erotic appeal for boys, or watch the boys fall in love with other boys and men. The other side of the clothing styles is a trend toward having boys wear baggy pants that extend below their knees. Newer styles discourage boys from exposing their midriffs. The trend in girls' clothing styles is so strong that teenage girls are attending less formal church services, in the area where I live, dressed in short shorts {hot pants} and a thin tee shirt that exposes the belly button and two or three inches in the middle.

One cannot stop girls from dressing like boys, but it should be possible to encourage a revival of boy styles that are equally suggestive. The man who loves boys can employ passive resistance to the girl takeover of boy clothing to good effect. On hot summer days a boy dressed in short shorts and without underpants can either wear a too-short tee shirt or go shirtless. Such a boy standing on or swinging from a tree limb above other children can enjoy hearing them talk to and about him and enjoy their undivided attention to him. Sitting in a circle with other kids, this modern-day Huck Finn is sexier than if he were completely nude.

6. All-boy dance groups could become popular. Existing groups, such as the Chippendiddys, draw large crowds of people, mostly girls. Boys dancing is a phenomena that defies description. They have boldly crossed over into an area that has traditionally been reserved for girls doing ballet. Dancing boys are like soft, cuddly teddy bears expressing a sensitivity to the expression of themselves that is downright eerie. They are living proof that people want the sexual stereotypes that underlie American Puritanism replaced. Boys dancing is remarkably sensual entertainment. We need to encourage boy dance groups. They can help popularize a sensual vision for boyhood and manhood that mirrors the pedophile's tenderness and love in his role of boy nurturer.

7. Recently I have noticed that J. C. Penney, K-Mart and other department store advertising booklets inserted into the Sunday newspaper contain fewer and fewer pictures of boys wearing a variety of clothing for sale. Is this shift a deliberate maneuver to protect these large companies from legal entanglements such as Calvin Klein experienced? These same booklets contain pages of women wearing only the skimpiest undergarments. Boys in underwear are noticeably missing. In many pictures even the youngest boy is shown holding hands with a girl. About a month before school starts these same booklets begin sales on boy and girl clothing.

Perhaps the lack of summer sales for boy and girl clothing indicates a basic change in what children wear. Recently, on a trip to the mountains, I was fascinated to see a boy about 8 yo riding a bicycle close to the highway. He was wearing a helmet and only a pair of underwear. Later, I parked my car at a state run facility and noticed another boy about the same age standing close by. He was also wearing only underpants {no helmet}. One wonders what boys wear when they are at home. Perhaps nothing!

8. The May 11, 1998 issue of "Newsweek" contains an article called "How To Build A Better Boy." Barbara Kantrowitz, Claudia Kalb and other well-meaning feminist women are encouraging boys to be kinder and gentler in their play. Isn't it a pity that the lives of boys must be shaped by women? This is an area just waiting for the man who loves boys and also has expertise in research and child development.

I have tried to brainstorm some ideas that may prove useful to boy lovers committed to social change through non-violent means. I am sure that you can add many more ideas that I have missed.

Don, Down South

A discussion thread from BoyChat

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by Dgennero on August 18, 1998 at 23:55:05:

Now I have a question: Why is it so often that BL, TBL and so on seem to have a very difficult youth/childhood?

There are many examples where it shows that in their youth they were neglected, maltreated, abused a.s.o. Death, drugs and other bad things play a role.

I ask that because this is something I don't really understand. There are people who claim ALL BL/TBL follow that pattern.

Well, at least I am a "counter-example". My youth was sunny, my family is intact, I hadn't experienced more bad things in life than average. Do I have to ask now how one can become a (T)BL DESPITE his happy childhood?

Dgennero, quizzically.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by Seeker on August 19, 1998 at 22:11:39:

In Reply to: boylove and a problematic childhood submitted by Dgennero on August 18, 1998 at 23:55:05:

My Childhood was pretty fucked up. When I was growing up...I don't have a father (died before I was born) and mum is never home (she's out working to make some money so we can eat). I grow up with my grandmother who I called mother rather than grandma. When I was around four I was one sick boy. I got this lungs problem probably caused by lack of food. At the same time mum was sick too, she was spewing out blood (we got the same sickness but mum got it more worse 'cause she was working hard and not eating stuff like that)...

I remember wanting to go outside to see kids play but I couldn't get up on the bench where I lay all day long. I can remember how dark the room was and how noisy the kids outside. Every time I get up I fell down. When I couldn't get up, I crawled, but I ended up falling off the bench and hitting my head. I remember having to drink all this kind of medicine that makes me puke. I can even taste it now....peww........and the smell of it didn't help....

Growing up without a father is something that I always seek. I never had a father figure when I was a toddler. I've always liked when my mum's boyfriend came over with a guy. I would ask mum or Grandma if that's my father....

I think you are right that Death and other things play a role. It did play a big role on my part. Me not having a father figure really effected me. I am still seeking a father figure which I really still need right now.....

Thats my basic childhood....

....Seeker......

________________________

Submitted by BlueBear on August 19, 1998 at 09:44:54:

In Reply to: boylove and a problematic childhood submitted by Dgennero on August 18, 1998 at 23:55:05:

I am not sure if it is not a warranty (sic) problem. Since I was very small, I remember being attracted to the same age range before, during and after belonging to it. I rather think of this just as different wiring than what is normally "under the hood of a hetero/homo-sexual being '.

By the time life started beating me up I was already aware of my condition. I however have noticed that most of us Bl do seem to share a very strong motherly instinct. I wonder if there is any type of relationship between these feelings and those of the sealant emotional attraction.

Could this be in part hormonal? I don't know. I think it might be some sort of screw-up between feeling paternal/maternal and sexual about the same individual...(yikes "cute little boy" does sound better than "individual" doesn't it?)

Ok I'm delusional. Somebody call Freud....

The Furry psychologist...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by Babel-17 on August 19, 1998 at 09:29:56:

In Reply to: boylove and a problematic childhood submitted by Dgennero on August 18, 1998 at 23:55:05:

This question comes up like dandelions and I have lots of thoughts about it. Are BLs BLs BECAUSE of a neglected/abused/etc childhood?

Let me begin by suggesting that we may be putting the car[t] before the horse here. Perhaps the reason it seems many BLs had dysfunctional childhood[s] is not because the abuse/neglect/etc "caused" them to be boylovers. Perhaps the fact that they were BLs (seen as simply another orientation, at least for purposes of this argument, and in my opinion generally) CAUSED the abuse/neglect....

To elaborate: In my experience on this board, I have found in general (and I loathe making generalizations but this one is remarkably accurate) that BLs as a group are MORE SENSITIVE [than most other] people. At least in American culture, sensitivity is not encouraged in little boys. Perhaps the "pattern" is set up in reverse: the more deeply sensitive little boys (i.e. the ones inclined by nature to be boylovers, pedophiles or perhaps in some cases transsexuals) are the ones most likely to be abused and neglected by hyper-macho dads and societally-programmed moms.

I note that this abuse/neglect pattern seems to hold true for transsexuals as well, as the same question has been raised on the numerous TS email lists to which I belong, rephrased as "Am I a transsexual because mommy/daddy/both abused and/or neglected me?"

And on a perhaps related note, it occurs to me that we might gain some insights here by asking: What exactly is it about a 12-year-old boy that is so darned appealing to us?

If I may venture MY opinion on that, compare a 12 y/o boy to the average 21 y/o male, just as an example. There are certain qualities in the 12 y/o that IMMEDIATELY leap to my attention. The 12 y/o is (and I KNOW there're exceptions to this, I'm speaking in generalizations again so indulge me) non-judgemental, open, affectionate, unpretentious, refreshingly naive and perhaps most importantly offers that cherished and difficult to find magical element called "unconditional love" Try and find a 21 y/o with even ONE of those qualities. Quite a challenge!

Looked at in this way, it seems amazing to me that EVERYONE is not a boylover or a girllover for that matter, for those so inclined, since the same qualities apply to kids in general.

No....there's not a darned thing wrong with us. There IS something desperately wrong with a society that attempts to program children into a certain social role (remember Brave New World?) If you consider many of the time-honored "do's and don't's" of parenting, it would seem that the intent of most so-called "child-rearing" is to produce obedient wage-slaves who will then in turn be heterosexual enough to breed MORE obedient wage-slaves to keep the powers-that-be in power....

The alternative of course is to raise happy, healthy, self-actualizing individuals who are capable of thinking for themselves. But it seems to be harder to control self-actualized individuals through mass-media generated propaganda and the likes (John said with tongue firmly in cheek)

Like CSNY said.......Teach your children well (;

Just some thoughts, love ya's

John/Babel-17

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by Kabouter on August 19, 1998 at 10:14:10:

In Reply to: unable to resist this debate......V submitted by Babel-17 on August 19, 1998 at 09:29:56:

Very nicely out and just the right blend of liberation politics and insight!!!

I home in on the question of needs. Everyone has needs and everyone has these satisfied to some extent. The greater your needs the greater the difficulty in having them satisfied however. The highly sensitive child has a greater need for insightful and enabling parenting than the less sensitive one. Probably needs more love as well.

I remember working with large working class families where just one child - usually the middle one on the younger end - presented problems for the family and society. (I am talking shop-lifting, fire-raising, running away etc.) Yet all the children in an otherwise happy family received the same share of love. All the others were content. The child in question was highly sensitive and needed much more than his siblings. This means that he was by default deprived. He had greater NEEDS! The argument then is that the child who becomes a boylover is the one who was more advanced than his peers in respect of his greater awareness of his need for love.

I tend to see other ways in which boylovers are ahead of their peers. Perhaps a higher general level of intelligence. Verbal skills?? Creativity?? Then I am not looking at a representative sample.

love

Kabouter

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by Kabouter on August 19, 1998 at 07:04:25:

In Reply to: boylove and a problematic childhood submitted by Dgennero on August 18, 1998 at 23:55:05:

I have a very wacky theory that goes something like this. It's based on my traumatic childhood life experience and in depth studies of environmentally and emotionally deprived boys.

Small children enjoy a measure of emotional and environmental security by virtue of the desire of their parents to cherish and protect them. Done in the right way this provides a suitable climate for true growth and the adult collaterally reduces this level of protection as the child develops because the adult, as a nurturing parent, is sensitive to the developing child's needs. The child thrives within the parameters of these relationships having no real need to breach them. As the child becomes sexually mature (in the biological sense) then these support structures become less essential and they detach. This enables the boy to bond with a sexual partner for example.

What of the child who has little or no nurturing family experience? This child is threatened by terrifying forces, by inner chronic insecurities and by a misunderstood and occasionally hostile environment. The need to make new attachments is paramount. Therefore the sexual drive kicks in powerfully at what could be seen as a premature (or earlier than expected) age. This child is sexually aware and sexually inquisitive because he is seeking a partner in essence to remedy his emotional deficits.

Its just a wacky theory - feel free to demolish it if you wish. I am not fond of it.

love

Kabouter

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by Zerlegen on August 19, 1998 at 06:40:13:

In Reply to: boylove and a problematic childhood submitted by Dgennero on August 18, 1998 at 23:55:05:

Hi Dgennero. It is very nice to know that you have had a happy childhood and consider your childhood sunny and pleasant. As many know, my childhood was filled with great pain and some very difficult times. Perhaps I am a survivor who has learned to overcome my past, whereas you have learned from your past how to be happy from example as you have lived it. Either way, we both are people who keep a special place in our hearts for boys. This makes me feel special and indeed blessed.

Speaking as someone who lived through so much, I had no desire to help others for a long time. When my current young friend walked into my life as an abused child, there was something inside of me that refused to allow me to walk away from him and his problems. Had he walked into your life, I'm sure that you would have helped him as well because you already knew what or rather how life can and should be.

So you may be the exception as far as being a BL/TL who had a good youth, though a "counter-example" is a very positive thing. What is important is that we all go on helping the boys of this world as best we can. I feel confident that we always will as we know best what life can be like in our own ways. Zerlegen.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by White Mouse on August 19, 1998 at 03:32:50:

In Reply to: boylove and a problematic childhood submitted by Dgennero on August 18, 1998 at 23:55:05:

Hi,

I guess it might seem as though most BL's have had a troubled past because the ones who do, have a need to share the hurt in an effort to relieve the pain. What you don't hear for the most part are stories from those of us who have had happy childhood. I've even feel guilty at times for having had a normal one while others, like Scruffy and Joel, have endured such pain in their youth.

I don't believe that BLs have the troubled youth market cornered either. I'd be willing to bet that a cross section of other sexual groups, including those considered normal, have a similar percentage of members with troubled childhoods.

And ... we don't "become" a BL/TBL, it's all part of the package at birth. Well, that's a Mouses perspective of things, anyway.

Hugs,

Mouse

________________________________________________

Submitted by White Knight on August 19, 1998 at 01:46:03:

In Reply to: boylove and a problematic childhood submitted by Dgennero on August 18, 1998 at 23:55:05:

No, it wasn't, because I never had a friend. I was "frozen out", and outcast, and there was nothing I could do that could change that (or so I thought). All I can see, when looking back at my childhood, is an endless stream of gray days - with me standing alone, on my own, while my classmates were gathering in a circle, chatting. My family was nice to me. I was never bullied by my classmates (sometimes I wished for it - it's easier to fight an enemy with a face). Nobody picked on me. Nobody hurt me. And nobody loved me.

I know what could have changed it all, or rather who could have changed it all: a boylover. Sometimes I dream up conversations with my younger self, educate him a little, hug him, and let him cry.

Love & Luck,

White Knight

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by rtoodeto on August 19, 1998 at 00:14:10:

In Reply to: boylove and a problematic childhood submitted by Dgennero on August 18, 1998 at 23:55:05:

I was never abused sexually at home. I had a bitch of a stepmother, real cruel, but a loving dad. We were upper middle class, all the comforts, lotsa trips, lotsa fond memories, 'cept for my bitch stepmum

I split when I was 12, asked my dad to send me to boarding school, I ended up in a military all-boys school, by choice, it was that, or a Jesuit boarding school, ughhhhhh!!!

Never went home again, except on vacation.

That's my recollection of childhood.

Did that make me a boylover..? I don't think so

A discussion thread on BoyChat

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by BlueBear on August 20, 1998 at 11:24:03:

Humn..

Somebody here was asking a day or two ago what can we do to improve our situation as BL.. This morning I drove up to my Cookie Monster's house for a cup of coffee. His mom was up already but he was sound asleep.. I walked into his room and sat on his bedside. He looked so cute sleeping.. it was almost a shame to wake him...I had to since I didn't have that much time. I stoked his head gently and I could see him booting up […]

He opened his eyes and just looked at me...He's not much of a morning kid so he just stretched out and closed him eyes again.. I rubbed his belly.. That always makes him smile. He opened his eyes and looked at me. He just sat down and wrapped his arms around me. That is a "take me downstairs I want breakfast.." So I did. His getting kindda big to be carried around like that, but who's gonna complain?

His mom said Good morning dear, but he just waved hello. I agree I'm nobody before my first bowl of Lucky Charms. He asked if he could have coffee? His mom just gave him a "Yeah sure look" So he grabbed my cup and sipped some out of it. 2 creams 3 sugars, he likes it. Sometimes I wonder how much coffee is in there. His mom saw him but just ignored it; not worth a brawl.

I spent some time with him. We watched cartoons until I was in my limit of I'm already late but who gives a ...I'm the boss you know ;o) ...

It was a yucky morning so he dug his feet under my legs to keep them warm. He was having a Strudel and I was getting my share - 10% in my shirt, 20% in my face and he was gobbling down his 70% I think he just enjoys making me look like I had just gotten out of a pie eating contest. He was laughing his ass off.

As I drove of to work (you can imagine how much I enjoy doing that) I thought to myself that I really love that kid more than anything in the world. I figured out that the reason everybody considers us monsters is because they believe us incapable of love: we are just sick fucks who have only one thing in mind SEX Yes whatever it takes whoever it hurts. SEX is all there is to it. I think there might be people that apply to. I don't know...

I think the couple dozen of you I've talked to over the last several months are caring and motherly guys. I wish there could be a way to tell everyone out in the world that most of us really love children. Not in a sexual manner, but we really DO give a shit about them. We look at them and we smile, we don't grunt...

It's sad there are child abusers, even in here, but there's also some of us that deal with our emotions differently. Perhaps if people could see that there 're many of us around them that love and care for kids without looking for anything else.

Perhaps if people could see us as just another human being trying to deal with conflicting emotions, not just a Red-eyed demon lurking around the sandboxes in the parks.

I think our image is one of the biggest problems we have. Hey, perhaps we could chip in and hire an Image consultant... and pay a few TV commercials...Hell, it works for politicians and we are talking about real scumbags here.

Anyway. Love to hear your thoughts.

The Bear

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by CBAF on August 20, 1998 at 15:47:20:

In Reply to: About LOVE and our image as BL's... submitted by BlueBear on August 20, 1998 at 11:24:03:

I loved your description of waking the boy up and bringing him down to breakfast. It reminded me very strongly of a relationship I had with a boy who was a very close friend of the family. I was close to his mother as well.

I knew all along that I was in love with him, but have just recently shed all of the denial and guilt over it. We had a great, prolonged friendship that lasted into his teens until we finally grew apart through natural progression.

Yes, I was sexually attracted to him and he was very physical when it came to wrestling, sitting on my lap, and unexpected kisses and bear hugs. I loved him so much that I could never have done anything to hurt or confuse him, nor did I want to shatter my relationship with his mother. I had to put his interests ahead of my sexual feelings. Somehow he knew I was attracted to him and often teased me about it. I'll never forget one time when we were wrestling he stopped for a second and said with a big knowing smile, "You're enjoying this, aren't you"., then continued his assault on me. At times he was very sexual in his behavior as boys often are... God, I loved him. He's a young adult now and doing fine. I miss the boy I once knew and wish him all the luck in the world.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by --=wzzzy=-- on August 20, 1998 at 14:00:41:

In Reply to: About LOVE and our image as BL's, submitted by BlueBear on August 20, 1998 at 11:24:03:

Hi BB......

Ahhhhhhhh, are you saying you are a non-sexual BL ??? I mean that's OK and all. I was just wondering about the image you speak of. The people I hang with know I am gay, know I am a sexual person, know I like "Boys". And guess what there is no image problem.

WHY????? Because I do not try to be something to them I am not. I do have secrets, though.. :o)

So I think the best image is the truthful one.......

Wzzzy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by Piece Peace Peach Fudge on August 20, 1998 at 11:43:20:

In Reply to: About LOVE and our image as BL's... submitted by BlueBear on August 20, 1998 at 11:24:03:

My thoughts are that you're a bigot who's passing judgement over me because I both love boys and enjoy them sexually. This statement alone says it all...

"Not in a sexual manner, but we really DO give a shit about them." You have a long way to go through all your denial, so I'll leave you to it. But you might want to stop presuming to speak for everyone here, because there are those of us who believe in and enjoy SEXUAL boylove.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by BlueBear on August 21, 1998 at 09:04:07:

Hum, amazing. I made just a little remark about non-sexual love with children and a day later I got over 30 messages from people complaining, criticizing and even burning the barn on it...

I wonder why is everybody so aggressive. (Don't get me wrong. I'm not whimpering.) I'm ready to discuss my points of view anytime, no sweat.

Yet it scares me to think that people… that some people here are so incredibly intolerant and aggressive [about] someone else's point of view. Wow, I would not like some of you near children even if you were not BL's. Somehow it would seem reasonable that the fact that we belong to a minority that is and has been so incredibly misunderstood and hunted, should teach us a lesson in tolerance and patience.

I wonder if it doesn't go through your mind what kind of influence you make on kids, that you are probably important on their life, that perhaps you are their role model.

My kid walks like me, dresses like me even talks like me. Somehow I think that I try to teach him to be a good guy, to be kind to people, to not be afraid to be caring. To say "I love you" when he means it. To be considerate and to think twice before he says things or does things that might hurt others...

Somehow I think I'm good to kids. What kind of person are you around kids? What do you think your kids will remember from you when they are 25?

Just some food for thought....

The Blue Bear

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by not on August 22, 1998 at 05:37:06:

In Reply to: A lesson in tolerance, submitted by BlueBear on August 21, 1998 at 09:04:07:

Blue Bear, the greatest thing I have learnt as a BL is that there are a lot of things about the world that are widely accepted that I cannot accept ... and one of those things is intolerance. So do I avoid critiquing and working to change things because I have to be tolerant of what I see as people doing real harm? In particular, are you asking me to be tolerant of the revival of authoritarianism or of those who peddle fear to ensure their own incomes? My tolerance of them will not make them tolerant of me. The only thing that will grow tolerance is to discredit and destabilize the intolerant.

Australian politics has recently been blessed by the media circus, lifting a dysfunctional bigot who snuck into parliament on the wings of a protest vote (after her right wing party had disendorsed her) to the leader of the first "minor party" to win (eleven) single representative seats in an Australian parliament in a lifetime. And when those who are threatened by her racism protest noisily, she is first to demand "freedom of speech". Maybe the biggest lesson on all is that we should never talk about freedom unless we are prepared to give equal attention to responsibility.

You also said: "I would not like some of you near children even if you were not BL's". That reads as though you do not think BLs should be near children.

Trusting that was not what you meant

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by BlueBear on August 22, 1998 at 09:24:41:

I myself am a boylover; lets say a platonic one, since my child is only 10, perhaps in a few years something may change, though I am not waiting for an age or a date. He might turn 20 and I might still think of him as my baby.

I think we boylovers have as much right as anyone else to enjoy the company and the friendship of a child, if the feeling is mutual. However I do believe that although we might be attracted to them sexually, which I am and I will never deny that.

Our responsibility as mentors or even just as friends is to put there interests above ours.. Oh it is very easy to trick any kid into you bed (and again I'm not implying that they can not enjoy it or be willing participants).

But it would very naive to think that this is an equal-equal relationship. Under any circumstance and I'm referring to someone under 15 (yes some mature faster yary-yary-yar.. you all know what I mean) you will have much more control and much more idea of how your relationship is going to evolve let's say those 10-20-40 years of difference have taught you something.

Again I am not saying sex is wrong [or] whoever tickles a dick is going to hell, or should be sent to an IRS audit. But the thing is it is a very sensitive thing (not in that sense you perverts). We are talking of a young man here. He's growing up and learning.

One of the most beautiful things in life is love and a sexual relationship. Chances are you are introducing him to something very important, and whatever you do is somehow going to affect his way of perceiving what a healthy and normal relationship is. I've taught my kid everything he needs to know about sex, but without digging into his underwear and showing him how it feels.

For some reason I think, some day soon when he falls in love. That fist love kiss, that first kiss that is so sweet and sensual is better off in some young girl's or boy's lips if he so chooses.

Some people here may tell me I'm in denial, and yes, I might cry a little when I go to sleep, but when I leave my cookie monster's house. and his mother tells me to take care of him, somehow I know he could be safer and more loved in anybody else's arms... and that makes up for everything.

The Boy loving bear

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by Robbie on August 22, 1998 at 11:25:34:

In Reply to: About sex... and boys submitted by BlueBear on August 22, 1998 at 09:24:41:

Why do you assume that a relationship, which involves sex, is necessarily one of "control?"

I don't think either my YFs nor I "control" our relationships - it is, indeed one of "equal-equal" - and that is not a naive concept. In fact, it is the quality that my YFs enjoy MOST about our relationships - that there IS NO controlling partner. Most kids are pretty sick of discipline, bossing, forced behavior norms, etc. - all symptoms of the "adult-child" relationship syndrome.

When they are sick of being controlled, and they want to relate to an adult on equal terms, they come to visit me. WE choose the time, WE choose the duration, WE choose the activity, WE choose to allow the relationship to become sexual or not. There is no one who is in control. Instead, we rely upon mutual respect to guide our relationships.

Seems to work for us

Robbie

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitted by tb on August 22, 1998 at 09:31:12:

In Reply to: About sex... and boys submitted by BlueBear on August 22, 1998 at 09:24:41:

I've been recently involved with 2 boys, brothers. I won't say their names or ages, or even my identity...But the younger one has brought a little sex play into the relationship and I thought about it the other day: why jeopardize this relationship, why chance loosing my 2 boys?

I won't ever be in love with their mom...so I won't be their "dad" and their real dad is more than 1000 miles away from them, and he don't give a shit.

I'm going to (over the next month or 2) try to start slowly abstaining from sexual activities with the younger one (the older one has shown no interest). Yes, the younger one DID bring it on and we never have done anything that makes him uncomfortable, but...

There is a new book on our subject on the market, by

David Sonenschein: Pedophiles on Parade, 

Includes bibliographical references, filmographies, and indexes.

ISBN 0-915289-02-4 (set), 1998.

Published by D. Sonenschein, P.O.Box 15744, San Antonio, TX 78212, USA