|
|
|
|
I receive a considerable number of press releases on any given day and in today's offering was this from LUCAS ENTERTAINMENT in New York City.
The author, Michael Lucas, is a Russian-Jewish immigrant created who Lucas Entertainment, one of the largest studios producing all-male erotica, in 1998.
Lucas says the furor over an Amazon.com book on paedophilia highlights society’s erroneous treatment of people with a terrible condition.
Here's the contents Of Michael's opinion piece to which I am not going to add further comment:
Last Friday pedophilia was once again the talk of the airwaves. Network news anchors and the hosts on cable news went apoplectic about a self-published book called The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure for sale as an e-book in Amazon’s Kindle Store. Predictably, the book became an instant best seller for a brief moment — until Amazon pulled the plug. It was shocking to see the visceral hate that the mere word pedophilia stirred — journalists, prosecutors, and legal consultants fulminating and calling all pedophiles “disgusting criminals.” Upstanding citizens demanded a boycott of Amazon. There was not a single doctor on any of the shows who might have pointed out that the majority of pedophiles don’t act on their desires.
There is more pity and understanding for terrorists held in Guantanamo than for the disease of pedophilia. This just shows once again how incompetent our sexphobic society is when it has to deal with sex, sexual orientation, and sexual desires that are out of the mainstream. This behavior is both stupid and counterproductive.
We have to be clear: Pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality. It’s genetic and unalterable. That’s proven by science and illustrated by treatment failure. Remember, the same treatments are being used to cure pedophiles that were used not so long ago to “cure” homosexuals: electric shocks, strong cocktails of psychopharmaceuticals, and aversion therapy. They don’t work here, just like they didn’t work there. But even basic logic should be enough to understand that pedophilia is a fixed orientation. Who would make a choice to focus their sexual attraction on children, with all the misery and ostracism that will bring? Would somebody casually pick up The Pedophile’s Guide and on a whim decide to wander over to the playground and cruise young girls? That’s an even more ridiculous thought than the idea that we “make a choice” to be gay — just in time to be beaten up by the high school bullies.
No. Pedophilia is a condition. It’s a curse that can’t be lifted, only resisted. Child molestation is evil; pedophile orientation is not. One is a crime, the other is a tragedy.
Our objectives must be two: to prevent the crime itself, and to alleviate the miserable suffering of the people who are inclined that way. Only if we help potential perpetrators to strengthen their defenses will we achieve meaningful reduction of actual molestation.
We have to absolutely keep children safe from sexual molestation. To accomplish this, we also have to recognize the pedophile as a victim. The tragedy of being born this way means that one’s sexual fantasy can never be realized because the object of desire must be absolutely forbidden. In fact, most pedophiles never act on their desires. But sexual needs are powerful, and morality does not always successfully stand in their way. If we really want to prevent pedophiles from turning into active child abusers, we need to recognize their fundamental and miserable humanity. We don’t need gory TV shows like To Catch a Predator where presumptive child molesters are lured into a trap, publicly shamed, and then arrested. We need to be able to have a dialogue with them because shame and embarrassment lead to alienation and introversion, and both make it less likely that somebody will be successful in combating inner demons.
Dialogue doesn’t mean approval; it’s a search for understanding. Before we turn humans into demons, it would be helpful to listen to testimonials of what it’s like for pedophiles to live their lives. But we will never be able to listen to these voices because we ostracize people for the desire alone, even if they never act upon it.
There is a big difference between understanding (and even pitying) the people who are drawn into a behavior and justifying a behavior. I disdain groups like the North American Man/Boy Love Association that attempt to construct shaky justifications for fundamentally immoral behavior — but I am also aware that the reality of NAMBLA is a bunch of middle-aged men jerking off to the fantasy that some nubile pre-adolescent might actually find them attractive. There is a lot more sublimation than dangerous advocacy here.
And again we see how dysfunctional mindless demonization is. We think that pedophilia is inherently evil and conclude that only evil people can be pedophiles. NAMBLA-ers, shadowy men in frumpy raincoats, oily voices in anonymous chat rooms — but never the rich and the talented, never the beloved or admired, never people who, in all other respects, are just like us. Wrong on all counts.
Michael Jackson acted on his desire, lied about it, and used his celebrity status to continue to act on and lie about it. And because he was rich and talented, a jury of presumably sane people could be convinced that little boys slept over in his bed because — well, who knows, but not for the obvious reason.
And as for the beloved, the admired, and the respected, most children are molested within their families, in churches, and wherever people with authority have easy access to them. But we search for evil and often miss what’s mostly in plain sight.
Todd Field’s movie Little Children is the first film in which I have seen pedophiles depicted humanely. The character Ronnie, a convicted child molester, released from jail, lives with his old mother in a small community and tries to come to terms with his urges. His mother agonizes over his struggle, and when she dies, she leaves him a note reading, “Please, please be a good boy.” Overwhelmed with grief, Ronnie castrates himself. Here is a lonely human being, alienated by society, who has recognized his condition as unalterable and takes desperate action to keep himself from causing harm.
I don’t know what the ultimate answer is. What I do know is that we need to pity, support, and help people who can’t celebrate their sexuality as a source of joy but need to disable it to keep it from doing harm. If you demonize and ostracize them, you just increase the likelihood that their defenses will fall, crimes will be committed, and children will come to harm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I guess that was more sane the current hysteria. But it was still pretty hysterical.
It said nothing about the difference between paedophilia and ephebophilia (prepubescent vs pubescent "children").
It made comparisons to homosexuality and then went on to say that "paedophilia is a disorder, but homosexuality is normal" without any justification as to why.
It accepted as fact that Michael Jackon molested children, when the truth of the events are something that is between MJ, the children involved and any deity that may exist.
It accepted that doctrine that sex is a big deal and dangerous, no matter the type of act or level of consent it's harmful to children.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I may have more to add after I think more. In general terms I agree with what you have said.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I do have some extra thoughts
I have no evidence to back my opinion up, but I do not believe that paedophilia is a sexual orientation or a sexuality. I can see how it might be argued that it is. I simply do not agree with those arguments.
I think it is arrested development, a psychological issue, and a very deep seated one. I think sufferers, for that is genuinely what they are if my belief holds true, have huge obstacles to overcome before they are able to function well in the adult world of sex.
In part it may be related to the thoughts about anorexia nervosa, where the sufferer is thought to wish to control their impending adulthood by seeking to maintain a child's body and appearance. I may be wholly off target here.
A person whose sexual desires have not elevated in years along with their own body is not unusual. We have often congratulated elderly and decrepit men for marrying 19 year old nubile girls. It's pretty obvious that bey they 19 or 90, almost all men will find the 19 year old nubile young thing attractive.
Where society makes it a problem is where the object of desire is physically mature but under the age of consent. Even so it is normal and biologically useful to be attracted to that group too.
At the leading edge of that age group is the topic referred to as ephebophilia. Since we grow up with people of our same age range and our same level of maturity it is perfectly reasonable to be attracted to our peers. One ephebe is attracted to others. That's fine. Bodies and minds are maturing and we, as normal and healthy pubertal kids are attracted to other normal and healthy pubertal kids. It's all biology working normally.
It's probably unsurprising that a pubertal teen is attracted, perhaps intellectually, perhaps physically, to one who has not yet entered puberty. It's nature again. It happens, but it is not an orientation nor is it a sexuality. Biologically it's a pointless dead end. But biology isn't logical. Just what is the appendix for? Biology is just biology. Most times it works well. Sometimes it misfires.
A very difficult misfire is if someone is naturally sexually attracted to those who can in no manner be considered themselves to be sexual beings. Generally I am referring to those not even on the cusp of starting puberty, probably eight years old or below.
But all the foregoing deals with my perception of what is natural, biologically normal, even though some is unlawful and societally unacceptable.
If we add some stimulus into the mix that can create a form of arrested development. Lte me try to illustrate it with a picture.
This picture shows one boy as he was going through puberty. The youngest version is the bottom centre picture. This is the boy I fell in love with when we were both 13. That was a normal and healthy attachment, at least me to him. It was unlawful and society back then woudl not have approved.
As I aged he aged, though he aged slower than I. His puberty was late, mine was early. That is significant in my eyes. The next picture, bottom left, shows him several months later. He remained boyish. I was maturing. I had pubic hair, he did not. I had the start of a man;s appendages, his were juvenile. I did not love him because of that. I loved him because of him.
Move a year later. Top left he remains very boyish, though starting to mature. I was miles ahead, with hairy legs and chest. He had started on the pubic hair front. I was in love with him, not his boyishness. But his boyishness was also what I saw daily.
As we move to the two right hand top pictures he was catching me up in physical development. I adored him and his body was fascinating. I did find his hairy legs a disappointment. I wished they could have stayed with the light dusting of vellus hair, but I remember being determined not to let legs with dark coarse hair stop me from adoring him.
Note the word 'determined'.
Centre left is him at 18, as near a man as makes no difference. He had an adult body, though a young mind. I was in love with the mind, forgave the adult body, even loved the beard he grew. And yet I never forgot falling in love with the child in the bottom row, either in the centre or on the left.
When people ask me what age I wish I could be again my answer is 15. Without hesitation 15. And that is because I caused myself sufficient trauma to arrest my own sexual development.
After 1970, when I lost touch with this alluring creature, I was still fixated on the boy. Not the man. In my minds eye there were no dark hairy legs. There was a 13, 14, 15 year old version. IN 1970 I was only 18. The age difference was acceptable for girlfriends, so it was immaterial for boyfriends.
The trauma I caused myself was to keep fixating on the child, not on other people. My sex life was limited to solo performances and in those performances I saw him in what I felt was his ideal state. But I allowed that enjoyable fixation to continue well into my life. And that created an adult whose sexual fantasies were rooted in his young teens.
And that means that I find the bodies of young teens that I have seen on nude beaches, in gym changing rooms, to be bodies that are sexually appealing. A boy at the very leading edge of puberty is also appealing. The boy in the picture was when I was his age, and that has carried forwards. Why would it not carry forwards?
I see that as a learned behaviour, not an orientation, not a sexuality.
In time I have learned other behaviours.
I have learned to find older males appealing. I was struck dumb the other day by a man of my own age who is fit as a butcher's dog and has a lovely face. A dozen years ago that would not have happened. I have forced my sights out of teenage years into young adults, twenties. I now, generally, find this age group appealing.
Those are learned behaviours. But I can not unlearn my prior behaviours. I can only learn new ones. Can you learn not to read?
None of this makes me a {insert definition here]. It makes me a man who caused himself deep enough suffering to be arrested in development. What I do know is that I have a deep seated psychological and self inflicted trauma that I have had to work to supplant with a correct outlook.
The question I ask myself at times is twofold:
"If I were 15 and that boy, also 15, declared undying love for me, would I be happy to take him in a passionate embrace?"
I would.
"At 58, if that boy, aged 15, declared undying love for me, would I be happy to take him in a passionate embrace?"
I don't know. I would like to say no. I believe I would say yes.
Society would call that paedophilia. Saben woudl call it ephebophilia and be ignored by society who would overrule him.
What would you call it?
And would you call it an orientation?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I think a lot of the comments you make about your age attraction being arrested development could also be made about gender attraction.
Your first "love" was a boy, you became fixated on a boy. Not because he was a boy (you've admitted it wasn't the particulars of his body you liked but because those particulars belonged to HIM) but because he was who he was.
I'm not sure that paedophilia or ephebophilia are any more "learned behaviours" than sexuality is. As the original article suggests none of the reparative therapy that failed on gay men has had any more success on people with lower age attractions. From a psychological point of view, it seems like lower age attractions are rather similar to gender attraction.
I'm not sure if that says more about homosexuality or more about paedophilia to say they function similarly on a psychological level.
I think that paedophilia can functionally impair an adult- being attracted to prepubescents is definitely not practical. It also seems that a lot of cases of prepubescent attraction are accompanied by traumatic childhood experiences. But the sample size is small. The paedophiles that report childhood trauma as motivation for "offending" are usually only those that get caught. If (as I've read before) 1 in 6 men is sexually assaulted as a child there's a hell of a lot more paedophiles out there that aren't caught. Not to mention the paedophiles that don't actually act on their attraction. I wonder how many people if honestly asked would report sexual attraction to prepubescents? Of these I wonder how many exclusively like children?
The DSM lists (exclusive) paedophilia as a mental disorder. Because of the functional impairment it causes I'd probably agree with that diagnosis. The majority of prepubescents are asexual and an exclusive attraction to them won't result in any kind of lasting, fulfilling relationship. Even consensual sexual gratification would be hard to come by. By the same token, however, an ugly male that has become fixated on depictions of hot women in porn may be functionally impaired in a similar way. He may be unable to form relationships or have sex with the objects of his attraction and he may well end up miserable and lonely as a result.
The DSM does not list ephebophilia as a disorder. The only potential impairment that can come out of attraction to pubescent teenagers is legal in nature. There definitely are teens attracted to adults, teens are capable of forming relationships (even if these relationships are often more turbulent and shorter lived than typical adult relationships) and teens are capable of engaging in and consenting to sex (leave the issue aside of whether consent is "informed" enough- what I mean by consent here is purely that a teen knows what sex is and can say yes or no to it).
I think that age attraction is psychologically comparable to gender attraction. Ephebophilia does not have the same level of functional impairment of paedophilia. I think it's important that they remain distinct. Most people express interest in teenagers- my 20 year old straight male friends almost universally say they'd get with a 14-15 year old girl if it was legal (the exceptions being those that prefer older females). Paedophile hysteria fails to make that distinction and fails to see what is right under its nose.
In Australia we have close-in-age exemptions with our age of consent laws. It is not a crime for two 14 year olds to get together, but it is for a 20 year old to get with a 14 year old. What I'm wondering is- if a 14 year old is capable of saying "yes" or "no" to another 14 year old what makes them suddenly unable to say "no" to a 20 year old? Or say "no" to a 60 year old. "What 14 year old would want to have sex with a 60 year old?" is no excuse. What person would want to let others piss or shit on them while they have sex? Either a person can consent to an act (irrespective of participants!) or they cannot.
Treating paedophiles humanely is better than the current witch hunt. But I still don't see it as a very useful position. How should we treat paedophiles?
Firstly by recognising the distinction between paedophilia and ephebophilia and recognising exclusive age attraction and those with mixed age attraction.
Once that's established I think we should treat ephebophiles not with condescending compassion, but as normal and encourage them to stay within the bounds of legality as most people with teen-attraction do. We should also ensure news doesn't demonise people that have sex with teens (unless it is actually rape!) but rather highlight what a stupid mistake it was to go too young. If the laws don't change then adult-teen sex should be treated not hysterically but like marijuana usage- something understable but dumb that a lot of people have probably considered doing even if they haven't done it themselves.
Paedophiles we should probably treat "compassionately", but only in the interim until we find out more about what causes paedophilia. It's never going to be useful to be attracted to children that are, by and large asexual. Even if it was legal to have sex with children, it'd still probably be useful for paedophiles to get help from a mental health professional so they could negotiate a way that they'd be able to find a lifelong committed relationship for themselves. Then again I guess adult-attracted people don't necessarily always find the idea of lifelong relationships attractive- but I think those people could probably at least use a talk with a psychologist, too!
Either way I don't think calling any type of attraction a mental health disorder is particular constructive until a way is found to control it with drugs. Paedophiles are often reckless and it should be highlighted that their behaviour is reckless. They're toying with the lives of children for sexual gratification, especially in a society where the child will be told constantly they were a victim- no matter the nature of the act.
Just some more thoughts... Somewhat inspired by your questions, timmy, somewhat not.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DesDownunder
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Registered: September 2010
Messages: 127
|
|
|
Timmy, I think your post, although personal in detail is overall fair and accurate.
Like you I do not have the evidence to assert that paedophilia is a sexual orientation or a sexuality, but arrested development does not seem unreasonable. I also tend to agree with the idea that it is a stunted behavioural response which fails to advance to seeking ones peer age group into the twenties.
However anthropologically, we may see some variation, as you describe, of differing age groups being biologically sound and culturally acceptable.
We might see someone who has not completed puberty as being still a child, still vulnerable to psychological (and physical) damage where an adult tries to impose sexual demands, but peer (early teen) sexual experiences are natural occurrences without such damage provided force is not used.
One of the difficulties facing the issue of paedophilia is the modern media confusion or ignorance about pederasty and paedophilia:
From Wiktionary:
pederast (plural pederasts)
A man who is engaged in an erotic relationship with an adolescent boy; a practitioner of pederasty.
Usage notes: The term pederast has sometimes been incorrectly used to describe child rapists and men sexually involved with pre-pubescent children. For an adult fixated on sexual involvement with prepubescent children, use pedophile instead.
Whilst this is similar in definition to ephebophilia:
ephebophilia
a sexual orientation or preference in which an adult's primary sexual attraction is towards pubescent or postpubescent adolescents.~
I raise the point to show how pederasty and paedophilia have lost their distinction from each other in the public usage.
pedophilia (from Wictionary which has elaborations on the word.)
A sexual or erotic feelings of desires directed towards children in general.
Overt sexual acts directed towards children.
So we have to be careful to allow for the public impression of Paedophilia and pederasty being the same thing. They aren't.
It is in this regard we might consider the mentor-ship between an older person and a younger one, where the younger has survived puberty and the older has gathered sufficient experience of life (generally and culturally) to assist the younger towards their development and maturity.
Whilst historically, (ancient Greece, and in Oscar Wilde's mind) such mentoring occurs between an older and a younger man, the same relationship can occur between a man and a woman, (think Mrs Robinson in the movie, "The Graduate.")
What we should deduce from this is that the child cannot enter the mentoring relationship because it lacks the ability to informed consent of what the stakes are. The adult being the responsible person to know that they should not intrude on the prepubescent's experiences with sexual objectives.
The adult who does so intrude on the child, being in my opinion, correctly called a paedophile, regardless of gender.
Psychologically it is possible to ascertain the paedophile's actions as being arrested development with misappropriated sexual feelings for children.
Now the real danger in Michael Lucas's article is his parallel of paedophilia to homosexuality both "being an orientation."
Whilst it first might appear to be a possibility, it does not admit the natural inclination of the homosexual person to grow and develop into a mature, relationship of peers, or informed, developing and consenting post pubertal participants, in just the same way that heterosexuals do.
This is most important. Both the heterosexuals, and the homosexuals, develop mutually consenting, intimate relationships from a basis of informed sexual understanding. The paedophile-child situation lacks the understanding by the child as to the paedophile's motivations.
The paedophile being an adult is supposed to know that the vulnerability of the child is off limits and importantly, that the child has a right to not be molested.
If the paedophile is incapable of honouring the child's rights, then we have what I can only see as a psychosis for which help should be available with compassion for their illness.
Whew, my apologies for the long winded definitions and roundabout way to get to this conclusion, but the public mind is so ready to believe that anything other than the missionary position under the guidelines of matrimony, is wrong, that we must make the effort to understand that human beings have many valid freedoms of sexual expression, but paedophilia as described here, is not one of them.
Whether the law seeks retribution or rehabilitation, or a combination of both, for acts of a sexual nature against an innocent, the welfare of the accused is I hope, discussed constantly amongst the judiciary and legislators in relation to matters of deterrence, punishment and assistance. I think this might reasonably, be the best for which Michael Lucas could hope.
The children of course must have the best possible assistance to overcome the trauma of such intrusions on their innocence, but that is not easy either.
DesDownunder
Call me naive if you want, but life without trust in the goodness of others would be intolerable.
Religious indoctrination: It gets better, without it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
If homosexuality were a learned behaviour, do you not think a 32 year marital relationship with the same beautiful woman would have made me heterosexual, or at least bisexual?
Would I not find female genitalia at least interesting, possibly erotic?
It's not for lack of trying!
[Updated on: Tue, 16 November 2010 18:13]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
There's no way to "gradually" change from liking guys into liking girls.
You said that learning to like older people required you gradually lifting your age of attraction.
There's no gradual way to change gender attraction.
Both sexualities MAY be learned but it's possible that gender attraction is much harder (impossible?) to unlearn, whereas it may be possible too gradually lift age of attraction.
I don't feel that I could stop being attracted to teens, though. And I find the idea of older men as repulsive as women. I could masturbate to either, though, if I was horny enough.
I'm still attracted to Ryan, partially because I love him but partially because even as a 20 year old he barely has any facial hair and he has limited body hair. He also has a cute, round, young-looking face.
You might be right that they are different. I'm just not sure. To me, I don't "feel" they are.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Saben wrote:
> There's no way to "gradually" change from liking guys into liking girls.
And there is no way to do it suddenly, either.
For all the trying, for all the looking at porn, for all the 30+ year relationship with one, I cannot find the female form anything other than aesthetically pleasing when well proportioned. And I have tried very hard indeed.
So I feel your hypothesis, based on no greater set of facts than my own thoughts, fails. MIne may also fail. Even so it os borne out empirically in a sample of one. And that sample has no axe to grind and wishes with all his heart that he had not grown up to be homosexual.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Op-Ed: Michael Lucas Opines-- Treat Paedophiles Humanely 
