Paedophilic curiosity is normal for human men. At least a sizeable minority of normal men would like to have sex with children. Normal men are stimulated by children.
The declaration that paedophilia is normal was made last July as part of a primary declaration by an academic display that was presented, at the request of organisers, at a convention held by the University of Cambridge.
Other presentations included: Setting free the paedophile, a verbose study, and the Risks and differences: the stakes of hebephilia.
Hebephilia is the sexual partiality for children in early-maturing pubescence, typically 11 to 14-year-old.
Another attendee, and a keen participator from the floor, was one Tom O’Carroll, a reoccurring child sex offender, long time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. “Wonderful!” he wrote on his blog afterwards. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular! ”
Last week, following the guilty verdict of Rolf Harris, the report into Jimmy Savile and declarations of an establishment cover up to defend a sex offending cabinet member in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet, Britain went into a seizure of apprehension about child abuse in the Eighties. However, unseen, unnoticed in the midst of the excitement is a much more current threat right now, in parts of the academic establishment to thrust the boundaries on the acceptability of child sex.
A fundamental factor in what occurred all those decades ago in the dressing rooms of the BBC, the wards of the NHS and, by allegation, the passageways of authority was not merely institutional shortcomings or establishment conspiracies, but a climate of considerably vaster intelligent lenity of practices that appall today.
With the Pill, the legalisation of homosexuality and shriveling taboos in opposition to premarital sex, the Seventies was an epoch of entirely abrupt sexual liberation. Numerous libertarians, of course, saw through PIE’s sardonic euphuism of child Lib. Nevertheless to others on the Left, sex by or with children was simply another repressive boundary to be swept away, and some of the most illustrious backing came from academia.
In 1981, a respectable publicist, Batsford, published Perspectives on Paedophilia, revised by Brian Taylor, a sociology lecturer at Sussex University, to dispute what Dr Taylor’s introduction called the “prejudice” against child sex. Disturbingly, the publication was pointed at social workers, community workers, probation officers and child care employees.
The people, wrote Dr Taylor. “generally thinks of paedophiles as sick or evil men who lurk around school playgrounds in the hope of attempting unspecified beastliness with unsuspecting innocent children”. This, he convinced readers, was simply a “stereotype”, both “inaccurate and unhelpful”, which flew in the face of “empirical realities of paedophile behaviour”. For what reason? Most adult-child sexual relations took place in the family.
The attitudes of nearly all, but not all, contributors, seemed actively pro-paedophile. At least two were members of PIE and at least one, Peter Righton, who was, astonishingly, director of education at the National Institute for Social Work, was later found guilty of child sex crimes. However, from the angle of today, the enthralling thing about Perspectives on Paedophilia is that at least two of its contributors are however academically active and influential.
Ken Plummer is a respected professor of sociology at Essex University, where he has an office and tutors courses, the most up-to-date programmed for last month. “The isolation, secrecy, guilt and anguish of many paedophiles, ” he wrote in Perspectives on Paedophilia, “are not intrinsic to the phenomena but are derived from the extreme social repression placed on minorities …
Paedophiles are told they are the debauchers and rapers of children; they know their experiences are frequently loving and tender ones. They are told that children are pure and blameless, without desire; they know both from their own experiences of childhood and from the children they converge with that this is not the case.
As recently as 2012, Prof Plummer published on his own blog a chapter he wrote in another book, Male Intergenerational Intimacy. In 1991. As homosexuality has become a little less open to sustain ethical panic, the new pariah of child molester has turned into the most recent folk devil. Numerous grown-up paedophiles state that boys actively seek out sexual partners, and that childhood itself is not a biological given but a historically produced social object.
Prof Plummer verified that he had been part of PIE in order to promote his research. He stated: “I would never want any of my work to be used as a rationale for doing ‘bad things’, and I regard all coercive, abusive, exploitative sexuality as a ‘terrible thing’. I am very sorry if it has impacted anyone negatively this way, or if it has encouraged this.” Nevertheless, he did not reply when asked if he still retained the views he displayed in the Eighties and Nineties. A spokesperson for Essex University insisted Prof Plummer’s work did not represent support for paedophilia, and quoted the university’s charter which gave academic staff liberty inside the law to put forward debatable and unaccepted viewpoints free from placing themselves in danger.
There actually is no shortage of evidence of the harm done by child abuse. In the latest craze regarding the crimes of the past, it’s worth scrutinizing whether we could, in the futurity, get back into the intellectual climate which sanctioned them.
We could debate that sexual relationships between children and adults have been known for aeons and accepted in a few primitive groups as an induction into manhood. We could also point out that there are no differentiating traits on personality testing between paedophiles and normal controls. Plus studies cite that there is a notable minority experiencing lewd fascinations to children.
Pedophilia is a paraphilia that involves an unnatural interest in children. A paraphilia is a dysfunction that is defined by repeated intensified sexual urges and sexually stimulated phantasms usually involving nonhuman objects; the affliction or mortification of oneself or one’s partner, not only simulated, or animals, children, or other nonconsenting persons. Pedophilia is also a psychosexual dysfunction in which the phantasm or real act of participating in sexual activity with prepubertal children is the preferred or exclusive means of attaining sexual excitement and enjoyment. It may be directed via children of the same sex or children of the other sex. A few pedophiles are drawn to both boys and girls. Some are attracted only to children. Whilst others are attracted to adults as well as to children.
Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) was a British pro-paedophile activist organization, established in October 1974 and officially disbanded in 1984.
PIE was set up as a specific interest group inside the Scottish Minorities Group by founder member Michael Hanson, who became the group’s first Chairman. Since the bulk of enquiries was from England, PIE relocated to London in 1975 were 23 year old Keith Hose became its first Chairman. The group’s established intention was tantamount to relieve the suffering of numerous adults and children by campaigning to eradicate the age of consent consequently legalising sex between adults and children.
Paedophile Action for Liberation had developed as a breakaway organization from the South London Gay Liberation Front. It was the subject of an editorial in the Sunday People, which dedicated its front page and centre spread to the story. The outcome was coercion of, and deprivation of employment for a few of those who were exposed. It later united with PIE.
This exposé on PAL had an influence on PIE members’ enthusiasm for activism. In the PIE Chairperson’s Annual Report for 1975-6, Keith Hose wrote that ‘The only way for PIE to survive, was to seek out as much publicity for the organization as possible. If we got bad publicity, we would not run into a corner but stand and fight. We felt that the only way to get more paedophiles joining PIE was to seek out and try to get all kinds of publications to print our organization’s name and address and to make paedophilia a real public issue.
In the same year Hose also attended a conference arranged by Mind, the national mental health organization, where it was implied that PIE should submit proof to the Home Office’s Criminal Law Revision Committee on the age of consent. PIE submitted a 17 page document in which it suggested that there should be no age of consent, and that the criminal law should concern itself only with sexual pursuits to which approval is not given, or which continue following forbiddance by a civil court.
PIE was established to campaign for recognition of paedophilia by producing arguable documents. However, it’s formally specified intentions also included giving guidance and instruction to paedophiles who wanted it, and furnished a means for paedophiles to get in touch with one another.
To this end it held regular gatherings in London but also had a Contact Page, which was a bulletin in which members placed advertisements, giving their membership number, general location, and brief details of their sexual inclinations and other interests. Responses were managed by PIE, as with a box number arrangement, so that addressees were unidentifiable till they wished to reciprocate their personal details. Since the intention of this contact page was to empower paedophiles to get in touch with one another. Advertisements indicating that contact with children was sought and advertisements for erotica were turned down. The Contact Page eventually resulted in a prosecution for a connivance to corrupt public morals.
In 1976, both PIE and PAL had been requested to assist the Albany Trust to create a booklet on paedophilia which was to have been published by the Trust. This collaboration was ‘uncovered’ by Mary Whitehouse, who alleged that public funds were being managed indirectly to subsidize ‘paedophile groups’. Albany Trust was partly supported by government grants. The Trustees decided not to publish the booklet, saying that it wasn’t sufficiently ‘objective’. A year later a question relating to the incident was asked in the House of Commons by Sir Bernard Braine but, despite a statement by Home Office Minister Brynmor John that there was no evidence of public money going to PIE, the issue was drawn out into 1978 in the letters pages of The Guardian and The Times.
In the summer of 1978 the residences of a few PIE committee members were stormed by the police as part of a full-scale inquiry into PIE’s activities; as an outcome of this inquiry, a substantial report was capitulated to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the prosecution of PIE activists followed.
In particular, five activists were charged with printing contact advertisements in MagPIE which were computed to promote immoral deeds between adults and children.
Others were offered minor charges of conveying improper material through the post if they testified against the five. These charges correlated to letters that the accused swapped specifying diversified sexual fantasies. It ultimately became transparent that one person had corresponded with most of the accused, however, had not been tried. Following the trial, it surfaced that there had been a cover-up.
In 1981, the former PIE Chairperson Tom O’Carroll was found guilty on the conspiracy charge and confined to two years in prison. O’Carroll had been working on Paedophilia: The Radical Case in the period between the original police sweep and the trial. Whilst the charges did not correlate in any way with the publication of the book, the fact that he had written it was set down by the judge as a factor in ascertaining the length of his sentence.
In 1984 The Times provide details that two former executive committee members of PIE had been found guilty on child vulgarity charges however, cleared on charges of provocation to carry out illicit sexual acts with children and that the group’s impresario had escaped the country whilst on surety. It was said that the group was closing down in the PIE Bulletin as of July 1984.
One-time bursar of PIE Charles Napier is claimed to have sexually assaulted a boy whilst a gym instructor at Copthorne School. He became an English Language Trainer at the British Council and was convicted of sexual assault against minors in London in 1995, and investigated as an alleged constituent of a paedophile network operating in British schools in 1996. He set up his own school in Turkey and recommenced English Language Training with the British Council after completing his sentence.
In January 2006, the Metropolitan Police Service Paedophile Unit apprehended the remaining PIE members on child pornography charges. One of those held in custody, David Joy, was warned by his sentencing judge that his beliefs may prevent his ever being released from prison.
In March, 2014 proof surfaced that PIE had been given grants calculating £70,000 from the Home Office. After a whistle-blower told police he witnessed a prosperous three-year grant renewal application for £35,000 in 1980, signifying that a comparable grant had been made in 1977.
A number of senior Labour Party politicians were associated with press stories to PIE in December 2013, and once more in February 2014, as a result of their entanglement with NCCL at the time of PIE’s affiliation. The party’s deputy leader Harriet Harman had been employed by NCCL as an in-house solicitor and met her husband, the MP Jack Dromey, then a member of NCCL’s executive committee, whilst operating in this capacity. In addition, Patricia Hewitt MP was NCCL’s general secretary for nine years. The threesome was named “apologists for paedophiles” by the Daily Mail. The former chair of PIE, Tom O’Carroll, insisted the three had not endeavored to get rid of PIE out of fear for the repercussions this might regard on their careers at the NCCL.
Harman disputed she had supported PIE whilst at NCCL and the particular allegation that she supported a campaign for the age of consent to be decreased to ten, and displayed regret at the involvement of the NCCL with PIE. She blamed the right-leaning newspaper of both setting out on a slander crusade and of hypocrisy, making the counter-accusation that the Daily Mail sexualises young girls. Dromey also disputed the accusations. Hewitt apologised separately, stating she had been “naive and wrong to accept that PIE was a counseling and campaign group”.
There are numbers of countries where children are coerced into matrimony, or even violated, there is no consent, or they are beaten to death for refusing to marry a man old enough to be her grandfather. Teenagers are dragged by their family to be raped to force her into marrying. There are between 39,000 girls coerced into marriage each day around the world, sold like cows to enrich their families.
More than one-third of all girls are married in 42 countries, according to the U.N. Population Fund, relating to females under the age of 18. The highest number of instances takes place in some of the most impoverished countries. The agency figures show, with the West African nation of Niger at the bottom of the list with 75 percent of girls are married before they turn 18. In Bangladesh the figure is 66 percent and in the Central African Republic and Chad it is 68 percent.
The notable barrister specialising in reproductive rights has called for the age of consent to be cut back to 13.
Barbara Hewson explained to the online magazine Spiked that the move was essential in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal to stop the “persecution of old men.”
The NSPCC described her views “outdated and simply ill-informed” and said “from a highly experienced barrister simply beggars belief”.
She declared that “touching a 17-year-old’s breast, kissing a 13-year-old, or putting one’s hand up a 16-year-old’s skirt” are not offenses comparable to gang rapes and murders and “Anyone suggesting otherwise has lost touch with reality”.
Any hint of reducing the age of consent could put more young people at risk from those who pillage on helpless young people. We are no longer a third world nation, and children should be treated as children up to the age of consent. No one has the right to interfere with anyone, whether a child or an adult, and in the absence of consent no one should assume they have the right to infringe upon another human being.
We are not part of an era where human beings have the exemption to haul their victim by the hair and bludgeon them to death for the reason that they will not have coitus with them.
A teenager is a teenager up until they turn 20, at that point they become an adult, nevertheless, it would be illogical to state that one cannot marry until that age, or even have a sexual relationship, so long as it consensual, and that they are both willing participators in this performance.
The age of consent should be raised to the age of 17, when one can marry without a parents consent, and have coitus if they wish to do so. Before this time, copulation should be made illegal, and a prison sentence should be appended to it.