Summary. A wide experience with boy-lovers has convinced the author that one can often learn more about them from reading some excellent novels than from so-called scientific studies. All to often research is unreliable becauseRepresentative samples for research cannot be drawn from members of boy-love organizations. The incidence of violence is very low in pedophile contacts with boys. The influence can be strong in lasting relationships; it can be either wholesome or unwholesome. Within a relationship, sex is usually only a secondary element, although it can be important in sexual instruction and education. The impact of the law, the hostility of parents and the problem of the partners' inequality are discussed.
- it assumes pedosexual activity is a positive indicator of pedophilia;
- no distinction is drawn between pseudo-pedophiles and real pedophiles;
- no difference is recognized between boys and girls as partners;
- and it is highly distorted by bias.
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
But even for male boy-lovers these associations are not totally representative. People fighting against discrimination and for the abolition of laws directed against their activities are not average citizens. Moreover, the man who has a great deal to lose if his essential erotic tendencies are discovered will be reluctant to join such a group, and will be even less inclined to show up at its meetings. Fear of discovery, however, sharply diminishes after one's cover has disappeared upon police arrest. Studying the members of a pedophile association (a selection) having the courage to present themselves at a meeting (a selection of this selection), Bernard (1979) found - no wonder - an extremely high percentage (54%) who had been convicted in a court of law.
[...]
The reaction of boys to sexual approach by an adult are strikingly different from those of girls. Boys are less inclined than girls to talk to their parents about sexual adventures with grown-ups (Landis 1956; Rennert 1965). Boys tend to take the initiative in such acts more often that girls (Churchill, 1967; Gebhard et al., 1965; Giese, 1964; Reiss, 1967; Wyss, 1967). They are less likely to reject advances by an adult and more likely to cooperate in any sexual acts which ensue (Gerbener, 1966). Boys are more receptive to advances made by strangers (Gebhard et al., 1965). They are more interested than girls in sexual activities and seem to be much more open to involving themselves sexually with an adult partner. Thus it is hardly coincidental that violence in sexual contacts between men and boys is quite exceptional, while it is a frequent occurence in sexual acts between men and girls (Gebhard et al., 1965; Jersild, 1964; Landis, 1956; Rennert, 1965).
This may largely explain the findings of Baurmann (1983) who studied al 8058 cases which came to the attention of the police in the German state of Lower Saxony during 1969-1972 in which females below the age of 20 and males below the age of 14 were sexual "victims." Six to ten years after the event he made an additional follow-up study of a random selection of these victims. He found that while a number of females has sustained a greater or lesser degree of injury, in not a single case injury could be detected in the males.
Conclusions based on studying sex between men and girls should never be applied to sex between men and boys. Research concerning pedophiles which mixes the two categories together is quite simply unacceptable.
We might just ask what is the reason for this absurd violation of one of the first principles of scientific investigation: to remain objective. Herek (1984, p.45) quotes Ferenczi, Marmor, Cory, MacDonald and Weinberg as authorities for "the often-advanced hypothesis that many people are hostile toward homosexuals because they fear their own unarticulated homoerotic impulses." The research of such sexologists as Stekel (1922), Gordon (1978), Geiser (1979), Schorsch (1973) and Freund (1981) led them to believe that sexual attraction to children is a universal phenomen, and - as we have already observed - the existense of cultures where every adult man is supposed to have sex with boys (Ancient Greece, Siwa, Keraki, Big Namba, New Guinea) suggests that sexual attraction to boys is more or less present in every human male. But as this tendency collides so strongly with the standards of sexual morality which for centuries have dominated Western culture, it is of course, in most males energetically suppressed and denied. Utilizing the above hypothesis concerning homophobia, we might suggest that many people - quite apart from their concern over boy's mental and moral health - exhibit such violently emotional hostility toward boy-lovers because they fear their own unarticulated pedophile impulses.
In a number of countries (including many states in the USA) every sexual activity with a minor under the age of consent is, in the language of the law, "rape" because the minor is considered unable to give legally valid consent. Blindly following such legal niceties of terminology hardly contributes to scientific knowlegde. Moreover, a number of very important questions are evaded:
This can clearly be seen in court statistics. One should always keep in mind when examining these figures that they apply to only a minuscule sample of adult-minor sexual acts which take place day in, day out in our society. Brongersma (1971 and 1975) and des Sables (1977), using quite different methods of calculation, independently arrived at an identical estimate: one unlawful sexual act with a minor in three thousend is discovered, tried and results in a sentence: the rest are "dark numbers." Since instances in which violence takes place are more likely to lead to a complaint being lodged with the police and to detection, there will always be more violence among reported cases than in these which go undetected.
Gebhard et al., studying 888 male sexual offenders sentenced to prison terms (including 232 imprisoned for sexual contacts with boys 0-15 years of age), drew a distinction among heterosexual between "aggressors" and non-violent men. Force and threat, however, proved to be "minimal in homosexual offenses and accordingly has not been made the basis for separate categories" (1976, p.45, p.272). Baurmann, studying cases of illegal sexual activities involving 8057 minors (including 877 boys under the age of 14), writes, "Boys rarely experience sexual violence" (1983, p.157, p.221). He suggests that the reason for this may be that boys approached sexually by a man tend to behave passively or even compliantly, while girls are much more inclined to reject such advance (1983, p.322, p.430). Wolters (1982) also stressed the fact that sexual aggression against boys is rare. The statistics upon which these conclusions are based do not differentiate between pseudo-pedophiles and pedophile actors, but on this point there is little need to differentiate, as it may be assumed that all sexual aggression is traumatizing and nefarious.
The argument put forward by some authors (for example Sonenschein, 1983) that a real pedophile never will use violence because he loves children is not valid. Individuals such as Haarmann (Lessing, 1925), Corrl (Gurwell, 1974; Olsen, 1974), Bartsch (Foester,1984) and other sadistic torturers and mass murderers of boys were certainly pedophiles according to the definition adopted here, since they preferred sexual contact with young males. The same can be said about some pedagogues advocating severe discipline in education: they are at least suspect.
The difference between pedophiles and pseudo-pedophiles becomes important when we consider their respective ways of approaching boys or reacting to sexual advances from boys. We have seen that it is impossible to claim that all cases of sexual violence and brutal treatment must be ascribed to pseudo-pedophiles, that pedophiles are always gentle and tactful. We can easily imagine instances of a boy being better off with a kind-hearted pseudo-pedophile who takes the boy only as a second-best solution for his satisfaction of sexual desires mainly directed toward women. Baurmann concluded from his research that "most pedophiles behave strikingly gently and tenderly with children: they try to establish a mutual relationship with them, to act like children when they are with them.." And he quotes Schorsch: "The pedophile wants to introduce himself to the boy's world as an equal, a participant, to be as a boy is, to feel as boys feel. Thus with these pedophiles we will almost never find them using aggression. Aggressive activities are much more frequent in substitutive sexual contacts with children. The group of sexual delinquents (...) who abuse children for sexually substitutive activities seems to have little in common with the group of pedophiles and more in common with rapists.
This stresses the importance of differentiating between casual meetings and longer lasting relationships. It may be supposed that the casual meeting will be sought more by the pseudo-pedophile with his lesser interest in the boy as such, while steady relationships will be more congenial to pedophile boy-lovers.
Rouweler-Wuts (1976), approaching the phenomenon from the standpoint of a social worker, questioned 60 pedophiles. She quotes Plaut to make the point that the majority of girl-lovers have casual, passing contacts whereas boy-lovers work harder to achieve long lasting relationahips. In a later investigation (N=148) Pieterse (1982) found that half of her respondents expressed the desire for extended friendships, and hwere they succeeded the average duration was as long as 33 months. There are two factors which tend to work against longevity, however:
[...]
Some boys emphatically do not want to move beyond the casual contact. An Austrian pedophile told me he once got to know a 14-year-old boy at a swimming pool in Vienna. They had sex on several occasions and slowly the man found himself falling in love with the boy. And so one day he invited him to the movies, to be followed by a good meal at a restaurant. But the boy flatly refused. "Oh, no. I don't want any of that. I come here to get fucked and nothing else!" Erskine Lane (1978) relates a most curious adventure in the same vein with a Guatemalan boy.
Where it is adapted to the boy's phase of development, the casual meeting may mostly pass by as an incident of little importance, a variation on the routine of masturbation. Thrusted without tact upon an unprepared boy, we might suppose it could shock him profoundly and permanently, but research concerning the lasting traumatic effects of sexual confrontations with adults does not support this hypothesis (Bender and Grugett, 1952 quoted by O'Carroll, 1980; Landis, 1956; Brunold, 1962; Lempp, 1968; Bernard, 1979; Corstjens, 1975; Ingram, 1977; Burton, 1968; Baurmann, 1983). On the other hand, in some cases the casual sexual meeting is remembered by the boy as a very positive experience, affirming his personal worth.
A Swedish man in his forties told me about an unforgettable incident which happened to him when he was eleven. One day during his summer holidays he met a man sunning himself on the side of a swimming pool. They began to play-wrestle with each other; both got erections which each could feel inside the other's trunks. "Wouldn't it be nice to do this completely naked" the man asked. The boy enthusiastically agreed and eagerly accompanied the man to his home, where they continued their wrestling games, this time on the man's bed and without their swimming suits. Suddenly the man hugged him very tightly in his arms, thrust with his hips, moaned with pleasure and sperm spurted out of his penis. "I can still remember," my informant told me thirty years later, "how I ran home skipping and singing, enormously proud and happy that my little body could elicit such a strong psiion in a grown-up."
In their book of sexual information for adolescents, the New Zealand authors Felicity Tuohy and Micahel Murphy (1976) quote the words of a boy who, at a birthday party for one of his teachers, got talking with a man who seemed to have an erotic interest in him. "He gave me his name and address and said, 'Ring me.' I rang him Sunday night and he told me to come in and meet him at his flat in town. I went in about eleven o'clock in the morning. We got into bed and he screwed me and then let me screw him. He was so good. He treated me so well and he was really good at screwing. It was an incredible thing for me because at home everyone was hostile to each otheer and at school I had no friends. Here was this guy showing me kindness and gentleness and it was an amazing experience. I went back Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and that was the last week of the school holidays. Then I went back to school and never saw him again" (p. 212).
Wilson (1982) talked with an adult Australian who, as a boy of fifteen, was taken for a drive by Clarence Osborne and masturbated by him. "I enjoyed talking to him and I enjoyed the sex as well. He's the only man I've ever had a relationship with before or since. As you know I am married now with two kids, but at times I still think back to when he did those things to me and get excited by the thought of it. All I know is that I wanted some sex then and I got it, even though before I could never have imagined myself having it off with another guy, let alone a man who was about thirty years older than myself" (pp.39-40).
An educator interviewed by Sandfort (1984) said that boys of fourteen and fifteen are preoccupied with sex the whole day through. [...]
The powerful influence which an adult may thus acquire is in itself neither good nor bad: it all depends upon what he does with it. Adults have a greater capacity than children for good as well as for evil (O'Carroll, 1980).
For evil: In the archives of the Brongersma Foundation there is a set of notebooks in which a 30-year-old man kept careful record of shoplifting committed by him and his 13-year-old friend. In the man's mind these thefts solidified and proved the boy's affection, their close alliance, their mutual love of adventure, their cleverness and courage. Thus he encouraged the boy in his share of the criminality. The total value of the goods stolen over the course of two years was substantial. When they were eventually caught the court, quite rightly, blamed the man for his role in recruiting the youngster into crime. Other instances of evil are men binding boys to them by providing them with drugs, spoiling them by excessive gifts or luxuries, keeping them from their work, isolating them from their peers.
For good: Rossman (1976) gives several examples of social workers achieving miracles with apparently incorrigible young delinquents - not by preaching to them but by sleeping with them. Affection demonstrated by sexual arousal upon contact with the boy's body, by obvious pleasure taken in giving pleasure to the boy, did far more good than years in reformatories. A French author with close contacts with gang adolescents in Paris, Jaques de Brethmas, wrote, "Show me the juvenile judges or pedagogues who have managed to disengage boys from criminal gangs, made them willingly throw away their stilettos, as have many men labelled 'molesters' and 'moral corruptors' by society!" (1980, p.42).
There are judges who admit the truth in such assertions. Amsterdam juvenile judge Cnoop Koopmans openly advocated this form of social therapy in a public speech (1982). I personally know of cases brought before this man. In one, a boy who had been arrested several times for shoplifting, who had been a terror at home and a failure in school, suddenly turned over a new leaf, gave up crime, started getting good marks at school and became a national champion in his favorite sport. All of this occured after a boy-lover had been asked officially to take care of him. Their friendship survived the termination of its erotic aspect and, with the boy now an adult, continues today.
Likewise, in Berlin a test program was instituted in which young delinquents were put under the supervision of boy-lovers. The results were totally successful, but unfortunately the fear of public reaction soon closed the program down (Schult, 1982).
[...]
One of my correspondents put it this way: "If I had to choose between a steady friendship without any sex and casual sex with a beautiful boy I would not hesitate a second before choosing the former." Rouweler-Wutz described the meaning of the relationship as "fostering the character development of the child, accompanying the child on his way to adulthood, improving his social skills, his financial conditions and his physical development" (1976, p.60).
In our culture the boy tries to lift the yoke of parental control and forge ahead with his own independence faster than his stage of maturation generally permits. He still needs protection and guidance but can no longer confortably accept them from his father. He becomes unsure of himself. As Schlegel (1966) observes, he needs the help of someone else. He is looking, then, for an authority he can trust, but his striving for independence will only permit him to tolerate an authority of his own choise, to whom he submits of his own free will - an authority, moreover, which he can shake off the moment it becomes too much of a burden. At this point the loving pedophile may for some years fit the description, giving the boy a kind of companionship, a security and a protection which his peers cannot provide.
A 28-year-old Italian announced his marriage in a letter to the man with whom, as a 14- to 18-year-old boy, he had carried on a sexually expressed friendship: "i'm working hard at my job, and I think you must take a lot of credit for this. If now things are going well for me it is because of everything you taught me with so much patience and love. I'm so grateful to you, all day and all night; I'll never forget you!" (Archives of the Brongersma Foundation).
The real risk in boy-love relationahips lies not in the sexual activities. From my own experience with boy-lovers and their young partners I would rather say that the greatest danger is of the man spoiling his friends with gifts (and later cigarettes, alsohol and other drugs) and being too permissive about the boy's aggressive and destructive impulses. An environment too permissive in this sense is pedagogically nefarious (Hart de Ruyter, 1976). The pedophile here can be compared with the over-generous uncle or the spoiling grandfather. Unwise indulgence can lead to character distortion, encouragement of the boy's greed, parental jealousy or the malevolent attention of the people surrounding him.
The picture which all carefull investigations has left us of man/boy relationships (Bernard, Ingram, Pieterse, Rouweler-Wuts, Sandfort, my own research) has little or nothing to do with the usual image the public had of it, and of the view of investigators approaching the phenomenon only from its criminal or psychopathic expressions. In their view the sexual element is not only over-stressed, it is the only aspect that is ever taken into account. One hardly need prove that society, as a result of its condemnation and punishment, renders the sexual element in man/boy relationships all the more problematic and the more obsessive for the boy-lover.
Gabriel Matzneff, a French author who openly confessed his attraction to boys and girls under sicteen, once wrote (1974, p.65, p.109), "I'm no pedagogue, but I do know that the youngsters with whom I had more lasting relationships came out of them happier, more free, more 'realized,' as the Indians say. To love a boy only makes sense if this love will help him develop himself, fulfill himself, realize himself completely, to burst the gates of the family cage, to easily reject the false obligations society tries to impose upon him. Our love must not be vampire-like, egoistic love, burdening him with a yoke, opressing, dominating, jealously controlling, suffocating - the love of the wolf for the lamb. No, this love should be fertilizing, liberating, life-bestowing, as the Byzantine liturgy affirms the Holy Spirit." (...) "What a pity it is that the boy-lover must mostly limit himself to secret, casual meetings which don't give him the opportunity to benefit a boy as much as he would like. To a boy growing up nothing is as beneficial and salutary as meeting an older person who loves him, who takes his hand and helps him to discover the beauty of Creation, to understand people and what they do, to acquire self-knowledge. If I wee a father I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to entrust my 13-year-old son to one of these 'wicked strangers.'"