[Download as ZIPdoc]
I p c e
Number E 6, July 1999
|Go to »||Introduction|
|Go to »||Repression of Eros and it's alternative|
|Go to »||Dialogue about Littleton|
|Go to »||Into the wilderness; homosexuality & the massacre|
|Go to »||Repression of Eros / Unterdrückung des Eros / Represión del Eros|
|Go to »||Boys' self-esteem depends on the 'Highly Involved Man'|
|Go to »||Manzie lover attempts suicide|
|Go to »||About Friendship|
|Go to »||Groups discuss|
|Go to »||DPA wrote to UNESCO|
|Go to »||The Leipzig Conference|
|Go to »||Ipce decided about Ipce again|
|Go to »||Research|
|Go to »||Most child sex attacks committed by relatives, family friends|
|Go to »||About recidivism|
|Go to »||Mister President..., The USA is shocked by the research of Rind, Bauserman & Tromovitch.|
|Go to »||Documentation Service
List July 1999
Here is Ipce Newsletter E6, the 6th electronic version. This is the first issue that you do not need to receive by E-mail, but that you can read and download from the web.
Yeah, it was quite a job to learn the Html language and to make and upload a web site, but here it is at last. I had promised it in May or June, but on June 2, my computer crashed and the work done was deleted. It required a lot of time and private money to repair and reinstall all the hardware, to reload and reinstall all the software and to make this Newsletter again but it's July now and here we are again.
Good old Eagle, co-secretary of Ipce, had a lot more problems. Again, all of his hardware and software has been raided. Clearly, his files have been read and some of them have been illegally leaked to the press. A UK Newspaper wrote an article about the case. This article is not published in this Newsletter because it was only lying from start to end. The article stated that the PIE members, now that they are free, had united themselves again in a new organization - 'clearly' an organization of very dangerous people. Eagle has brought a charge against The State because of this illegal leaking.
In the meantime, he has been charged for acts that he never did, after a youngster had be seen in his garden and - you guessed it - a 'social worker' had called the police. Eagle is at home on parole now, pending the case.
As you know, your secretary is also struggling with The State about acts from many years ago. The case is pending now in the High Court, which will take quite a while to resolve. Supposedly, I'll remain free until it is resolved.
Randy took over the job to change my Dunglish (Dutchy English) into real English.
By the way, Ipce is mentioned in a Dutch book. The book is only negative about what is called 'pedophilia'. It refers to the minutes of the Ipce meeting in Copenhagen in 1993. Remarkably, only the minutes about the problems in several countries are mentioned, but not the long discussion we had there about the ethics, discussing the 'Danish paper about Ethics'.
The content of this Newsletter leads us first to Littleton, the town in the USA where two teenage boys killed many of their schoolmates. What is the connection between murdering teenagers and mutual relationships? It's the oppression of Eros that awakes this kind of violence. The alternative is to be a highly involved man and to make friendships.
The next section is about the discussions that took place in Denmark, Paris, Leipzig, Germany, and on line between the Ipce members.
The third section is about research. You can read about 'Relatives' and about 'Recidivism rates'. At the end, you can read about the people in the USA that were shocked about the results of the research of Rind, Bauserman & Tromovitch. The article gives a chronological overview of the reactions.
The next Newsletter will give three longer articles about this kind of research. I will describe the arguments used against the Rind et al. research reports and the counter arguments given by several Ipce members and others. Two guest writers will give their view on the usual CSA research. That Newsletter, number E7, will appear in due time, yet hopefully during this summer holiday.
As usual, a documentation service list is at the end of this Newsletter.
I will advise the readers of the paper version of this Newsletter to go on line as soon as possible. At least you could go to the local library and learn to surf on the Internet. For the Newsletter and for Ipce, reader as well as writer, it's much cheaper and easier. You can visit the growing Ipce library and see most of the documents of the documentation list directly. Or at least you could buy a second hand computer and ask for the Newsletters and documents on diskette.
For me, for us, it is necessary to inform ourselves about what's happening in the world, especially to know the arguments and discussions about mutual relationships between children or adolescents and highly involved adults.
SECTION 1: Repression of Eros and it's alternative
Dialogue about Littleton
By Rod D
When the boy asked Red about Littleton [the suburb of Denver in Colorado where 13 adolescents were murdered last month in their school by two teens, who then committed suicide], Red said, "I think it's sexual repression. You've got all these thirteen and fourteen year old boys brimming with hormones, and everybody's telling 'em to keep it in their pants. They gotta do something, so they pick on each other until, sometimes, it gets outta hand. What do they expect? If we were all more open with our sexual expression, we'd be a lot less crazy. Especially boys your age. You don't get enough sex. But sadly, we, as a culture, are more comfortable with violence than sex. It's easier to express anger, and cry for justice, and hunt for the culprit than [to express] the intimate, the vulnerable, the Dionysic feelings of sex."
Red didn't just _say_ it. He _broadcast_ it in the crowded line at Six
Flags [a very large amusement park, often crowed with teens], so everyone could hear. It
was the [high school] graduation excursion day, mobbed with teen-agers. The girls in front
of us were all giggling. I couldn't
"What is Dionysic?" I [the boy] asked.
"It's blinding mad passion: the chaotic soul of creativity itself," Red answered.
What a trip! Red was great! [the boy thought] The boy grinned and flashed a thumbs up.
Tatta ta tum tum pow!
Red struck a pose, and the girls giggled again.
(c)1999 Rod D
Homosexuality & the massacre
By Bill Andriette
From The Guide, June 1999
By Angela Phillips in London
Manzie lover attempts suicide
2 May 1999
What is interesting, and slightly positive about this news report is UPI's use of "lover" in the Subject line... indications are fairly definite that the Subject line WAS assigned by UPI.. Even though the text of the article refers to 'molester' someone saw fit to use the much more appropriate term 'lover' in the subject line -- which would be seen by those scanning message subjects, even if they don't fetch and read the article.
N.J., May 2 (UPI) --
The man accused of molesting convicted child killer Sam Manzie is recovering from a suicide attempt. Authorities say Stephen Simmons swallowed 10 antidepressant pills yesterday and was rushed from jail to a hospital for treatment. Simmons, 45, of Holbrook, N.Y., is awaiting trial on charges of sexually assaulting Manzie, then 14, in 1996 after meeting the boy on the Internet. On Sept. 27, 1997, Manzie murdered 11-year-old Edward Werner after the younger boy knocked on the door of his Jackson Twsp. home selling items for a school fund-raiser. Manzie pleaded guilty to the murder in March and has been sentenced to 70 years in prison.
Open Letter to UNESCO
Danish Pedophile Association
Open letter to UNESCO
From: email@example.com (DPA)
Subject: Your declaration about child pornography, etc.
We have just read some of your documents at:
In one of the documents above, you quote a UNESCO Assistant in this way:
> Commenting on the meeting, Henrikas Yushkiavitshus, UNESCO Assistant Director-General for Communication, Information and Informatics, declared: "Paedophilia is the most dangerous virus on the information highway. It can kill human dignity. It can kill freedom. It can kill the Internet itself. The meeting and its outcome can be seen as a major step towards wiping out this virus."
Although we may agree on most of your assertions about child pornography, we would like to point out that "pedophilia" as such is not necessarily something dangerous, and is, for certain, no virus. Indeed, "pedophilia" means love for children involving erotic feelings. Pedophilia is thus a sexual orientation that, as many other kinds of sexual orientations, is normally connected with loving and caring feelings - in this case towards children. Pedophilia involves respect, and true child sexual abuse (i.e., involving physical and/or psychological violence) is seldom committed by pedophiles.
We would appreciate it if an organization such as UNESCO (which has a certain relevance on an international basis and should act in an unbiased way) would keep itself on a serious level, without contributing to the spreading of prejudices and apocalyptical claims when dealing with difficult and complex issues like this. We find it particularly regrettable - and discriminating - that a democratic organization such as UNESCO issues documents "against pedophilia" as a result of a meeting attended by a lot of organizations with little or no insight into pedophilia (as organizations against child prostitution, child welfare organizations, etc.) and without taking into account the points of view of the pedophiles themselves. Does UNESCO really mean that the presence at the meeting of an organization as ECPAT, which fights against child prostitution in Asia, is more relevant than what pedophiles would be able to tell about pedophilia?
If you are interested in factual and unbiased information about pedophilia and our organization, you can visit our site at: http://www.danpedo.to and the many links and literature references you'll find on the site above.
If you have any questions or remarks, you are welcome to contact us.
Danish Pedophile Association
Privately produced minutes of the
CONFERENCE OF THE GESELLSCHAFT FÜR SEXUALWISSENSCHAFT E.V. (SOCIETY FOR SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF SEXUALITY)
UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG, GERMANY
JANUARY 23rd, 1999
"PSYCHOSOCIAL ASPECTS OF PAEDOPHILIA"
The conference begins with a short introduction by Professor Dr. Kurt Starke, of Leipzig, chairperson of the Gesellschaft für Sexualwissenschaft (GSW). He recalls that, in the mid-1980's, the GSW [in the former German Democratic Republic] held a conference about "psychosocial aspects of homosexuality." At that time, the meeting was open to persons professionally involved in the theme and concerned homosexuals. This precedent is followed in this year's conference, "Psychosocial Aspects of Paedophilia."
As next speaker, university lecturer at Leipzig, Dr. Kurt Seikowski, a medical psychologist, defines the term paedophilia. He differentiates between persons for whom the child is only a substitute object [of desire], and the paedophile, for whom the child is the primary object of choice. Mr. Seikowski also reflects on the possible origins of paedophilia. He states that a growing number of researchers assume paedophilia to be a primary sexual inclination.
The sociologist, Dr. Rainer Hoffmann, of Bremen, delivers the next lecture about the way of life of the contemporary paedophile. He alludes to his doctoral dissertation: "Die Lebenswelt des Paedophilen" [The Life and the World of the Paedophile]," which was published in 1996 by the Westdeutscher Verlag. He limited that dissertation to the study of the homosexual paedophile. Hoffmann reports, from his sociological point of view, on the contemporary modus operandi of the man/boy paedophile [in Germany], how the paedophile becomes acquainted with the boy, and how daily contacts/interactions occur. He develops the finding, unearthed by his doctoral dissertation, that the framework, within which the paedophile relationship evolves, is often determined by the boy. Hoffmann explains that the paedophile relationship does not necessarily end from one day to the next when the boy becomes older, but that the separation can also evolve slowly over a longer period of time.
Next, social-educator Christian Spoden, of Bremen, talks about "Paedophilia and the Damage to the Child." In his lecture, he makes it clear that he considers the statements of paedophiles as distorted and false, that paedophiles not only search for their own sexual satisfaction but that they focus around the desires of the child. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to use the term paedosexuality. Furthermore, he reports on damage to individual "victims" of paedophilia: he reports general symptoms in the child like bedwetting, fecal incontinence and different forms of anxiety. Spoden asks sexual scientists to dissociate themselves from so called paedophile argumentation and to focus instead on the study of the damage to the individual victim. Furthermore, he recommends the scientific examination of children themselves.
Judge E. Drath, of the District Court in Leipzig, talks about legal aspects. He reported, in particular, the problems around the question of responsibility and guilt and makes clear that the judge depends heavily on professional psychiatric expertise in these matters. Drath, also explains that, in the courts, it is of advantage to the accused, if he contributes -- for instance, by confession -- to the determination of the facts so that the child does not again have to be deposed before the court in the trial. On the other hand, one has to take great care that this understanding does not lead to false confessions, even if the number of those falsely accused of sexual abuse of children is small.
The forensic psychiatrist, H. L. Kroeber, of Berlin, reports on his experiences gained while providing professional expertise to the courts. He maintains that paedophiles are homogeneous and highly verbal. In a missionary-like manner, he reports, paedophiles try to convince the forensic interviewer that reality, as they perceive it, truly corresponds to the truth. In this connection, Kroeber reports on how paedophiles try to deceive the court appointed forensic consultant.
Subsequently, Professor Dr. Gunter Schmidt, of Hamburg, talks about the tragedy of paedophile men. Schmidt contradicts Kroeber in his view that paedophiles represent a homogeneous category. Rather, the opposite is true: there are a variety of paedophile personalities. Furthermore, Schmidt explains that the old sexual morality has been replaced by a new ethic, according to which all sexual actions arranged and agreed upon between equal partners are considered moral. Since a child cannot be regarded as an equal sexual partner for the adult -- sufficient experience and expertise are missing in the [contemporary] child; it cannot consent to something that is not known to it -- a consenting, and thus morally acceptable, sexual relationship between a child and an adult is not possible. An exception may apply in individual cases in which the child has had prior sexual experience. This might be expected nearer to the [German] age of consent [which is 14]. Schmidt insists on differentiating between the moral [determination] and the psychiatric evaluation. In his judgment, every sexual contact between an adult and a child -- apart from the above mentioned exceptions -- violates the right of the child to sexual self-determination, but this does not mean, automatically in the psychiatric sense, that the child was psychologically harmed or traumatized.
University lecturer Dr. H. H. Fröhlich, of Berlin, reports on his psychotherapeutic work with fourteen paedophiles. He reported on the varieties in the living conditions of his clients and about the different behavior of the individual personalities.
Finally, representatives of paedophile self-help-groups spoke.
Dieter Mazurek, of Berlin, reports on the Berlin self-help-group, which consists exclusively of male/boy-lovers. Mazurek explains that the man/boy lover does not relate to his sexual partner as a child, but as a boy. Therefore, the role of the child in a paedophile friendship cannot be compared with the role of the child in the typical adult-child relationship with its potential problems, like the misuse of power.
The sociologist Paul Stacher, of Munich, speaks, in general, about paedophile self-help-groups. First he reports on his consensual sexual experience with an adult when he was a boy of 10. This sexual experience and his professional socio-psychological training are the background for his many years of engagement in paedophile self-help activities, even though he is not paedophile himself. He describes an evening with the Munich paedophile group, the meetings and activities of which he facilitates. The group includes, at present, up to 15 men, approximately half of them being girl-lovers and the other half, boy-lovers. He presents some accompanying papers, including the Coming Out Mirror and explains -- on the basis of a diagram, the Orientation Mirror - that one must question traditional exclusive categories such as heterosexuality, homosexuality or paedophilia. No person can assign themselves only to a certain absolute direction; on the contrary, everyone [potentially] is sensitive to all the sexual inclinations, in different degrees. He clarifies the consciousness-raising and personality-stabilizing effect of paedophile self-help activities and of emancipation work. He stresses the importance of the work of such groups for all, including, ultimately, for the protection of children from violence. The influence/direction of the group leader is crucial. He recommends that responsible groups of this type be internally strengthened, new groups founded, and advocates consideration that they be publicly funded.
Last Mrs. Renate Held, mother of a young boy lover, tells about the self-help group for parents and relatives of paedophiles, which she founded, and distributes an open letter.
After a short discussion in response to questions, like: "Is a paedophile able to live a balanced life without appropriate sex?" or "Is paedophilia a disease or a sexual orientation?", the director of the GSW, Prof. Kurt Starke, ends the conference, thanking all for their participation.
(C) 1999 SteveS
- This summary was privately written and translated, and was not authorized by the individual presenters. -
Ipce decided about Ipce again
By Frans, Ipce Secretary
Meeting on line
There was no Ipce Meeting this summer because our host, the Lambda Group in Barcelona, did not invite us. So we have met only on line. For those who only read the paper version of the Newsletter, I've made this overview of the discussion and the voting.
The discussion took place on the E-mail list, named "IMO" = Ipce Meets Online. Most of the messages are archived at the internal IMO web site, known by the IMO List members.
You will see that the mission statement (or the colophon at the first or second page of each newsletter) has been changed, but not yet the name. The discussion about another name and the mission statement is still ongoing. Readers of the paper version can send their opinion by post to the Ipce Secretary, Postbus 259, NL 7400, Deventer.
Start of the discussion by Ted & Frans.
Ted: The use of the word "pedophile" throughout the web site is disastrous from a public relations/communications point of view in *American* English. The word has a different, perhaps less offensive, connotation in Europe. For people who speak American English as their first language, the word "pedophile" is equivalent to "predator" and "child molester." Those who oppose pedophiles insist that they control, at least in America, what that word means, and it is no compliment and not constructive, generally speaking, to proudly identify as a child molester or predator.
Frans: This point is important: the mentioning of the word "pedophilia". This was and is and will be a discussion topic within Ipce. Every year, every meeting, I have proposed to stop the use of this word. Every year, every meeting, a part of the meeting agrees with me. Every year, every meeting, another part of the meeting insists on maintaining the word. Every year, every meeting, a majority decided to maintain the word. Last year, last meeting, the votes were just 50% - 50%, which means that the proposal (to remove the word) is rejected.
Ted has opened the discussion now again.
I strongly agree with his idea to remove the word "pedophilia", at least in the Mission Statement (which is on the home page on both sites) and to change it into "intergenerational love" or "intergenerational consensual love" or words like these.
This year, there will be no meeting, thus no vote. This year, we meet only on line. I have only a list of members or engaged persons. Please, react to this message and give your opinion.
Start of the discussion
I'll not cite every message, but rather give an overview.
"Perhaps a descriptive phrase could be used, such as "love between older and younger people" .... doesn't that exactly describe what we want to say, without ANY trick labels?"
"Contrary to what Ted and others suggest I think the word "pedophile" should remain. It's the word most people understand even if the media has distorted its original meaning.
I think of groups like Queer Nation in the United States that took the word "queer "and redefined it in more positive terms. I think it's our job as boy-lovers to do the same with the word "pedophile." We don't need a new term. We simply need to be re-educating people to view this word in more postive ways. I suggest you keep the word "pedophile" but give a short definition that reflects it's positive connotations."
Ted replied in a long message, of which I have selected the main phrases:
"Dennis: What do you think most people actually understand when they read the word pedophile in the newspapers of the USA? I do not want to be associated with, and have never wanted to be associated with, what the public already understands the word to mean: child molester, child rapist, predator, kidnapper, sociopath, child-murderer. The boy lovers I know have *never* identified with that "p" word and those kinds of connotations.
Do you feel good when the media announce that the Catholic Church has paid millions of dollars in damages because a pedophile priest headed some parish? Do people feel warm and accepting when a pedophile scoutmaster is sentenced to prison for 20 years? How do you feel when you learn that there are clinics and prisons that specialize in the treatment and punishment of pedophiles? Do you know anyone in the United States who *wants* their son "to become a pedophile when he grows up"?
[...] It's more than the media, Dennis. It's the psychologists, the incest survivors, the social workers, the law, the police, the courts, the church, the legislatures, the novelists, the movies, the jokes. Even the average child knows that s/he must be wary to avoid being kidnapped or killed by a pedophile.
The timing of your advise [to follow the Queer Nation that redefined the word 'queer'] is off. [...]
When Queer Nation appeared, you are talking about a time in the gay movement after it matured and grew proud. Where are the strong and public groups right now, like Queer Nation, who are taking the name "pedophile" and redefining it in more positive terms? [...]
Your advice is based on a misreading of gay liberation and how it progressed as it got many more members and sympathizers, after it diversified and matured. Boy Lovers and Girl lovers in the United States have not reached anywhere near that level of organizational maturity to support, in their rainbow of organizations, one that proudly announces their pedophilia, using that term. It's just linguistically anathema in American English! [...]
Bad advice, Dennis. We, the few of us that there are, are not masochists nor are we into magical thinking like some very little kids. What we need, IMHO, is to become more clever and develop an activism with more intelligence, pragmatism, creativity and surprise than that. We should also clearly define what our goals are and set a time frame within which the goal will be accomplished and by whom. [...]
Accepting your advice handicaps the Ipce effort in America and wastes precious resources. IMHO, accepting your advice is for the masochistic and self-destructive in the context of the USA. If I were an agent provocateur, hoping to handicap and neutralize and control the potential of the Ipce in the USA, I would encourage and strongly support the use of the word "Pedophile". [...]
I give this List my best advice: if the leadership of the Ipce wants support from American boy lovers and girl lovers, many of whom do not even know yet that you exist and want to reach out to them, avoid, as much as possible, the use of the word "pedophile" until we in the USA are much stronger and diverse as a movement."
Dennis replied - again, I have selected the main phrases:
"Changing the word we use to describe who we are is not going to change the underlying concerns. In fact, most psychologist are quick to acknowledge that most "pedophiles" do in fact "love" children. The fact that "love" is involved, however, does nothing to change the underlying belief that such activity is still harmful to children. [...]
My concerns about avoiding the term "pedophile" however, go much deeper. During the McCarthy era the word "Communist" was the worst of all possible words. The public was responding to "Communists" in the same way people now respond to the word pedophile. I didn't see the communists saying "Let's stop calling ourselves "Communists" so people will be more accepting of who we are. [...]
The main reason I think we should continue to use the term "pedophile" is because it's the term that currently being used by the psychiatric profession, and may be used to deny us our civil rights a "class" of people. How are we going to stand up for our rights if we say we're not part of the group that's being attacked?
I say keep the word "pedophile" and wear it proudly. [...]Our fight is going to be a long one. If we continue to attack those who attempt to defend their rights in a responsible way and loss, than we're our own worst enemy.
NJ reacted, in short:
"While I understand the logical reasoning which Dennis presented, I also think sometimes it is not politically wise to always insist on taking back what has been taken away. [...] When there is nothing left, yet he has not given in, will he have won? Will we have won when all of us are in prison because we insisted on spending our energy arguing about the 'true definition' of the terms used against us? Or would we be better off to use our own definitions, if they get more 'outsiders' to listen to our story instead of immediately 'turning off'? [...]
If we want to sell our ideas, we must present them in a way that outsiders will not take one look and click away.
Isabel wrote, in short:
"I can see that you guys do have a point, at least when it comes to the Anglo-Saxon and North-European parts of the world. In the rest of the world, like Southern Europe or Latin America, the word 'pedophile' can still be saved, since the damage isn't too big yet. So I might opt for a recess on my objection to stop using this word IN ENGLISH in official forums and papers. But when using other languages, I think we should stick to it. [...]
Anyway, the expression 'mutual loving relationship' is a good one, a better one than 'consensual relationship', but it doesn't include loveless relationships, which do exist and can be positive."
Mr. Tom reacted in a long message. I have summarized this post and Tom has corrected the summary that follows now.
1) Dennis has made a valuable contribution to the debate, but
2) his conclusion that the p-word should be maintained is not necessarily the correct conclusion.
3) Rind et al. have given a positive message without using the p-word, thus it is possible to do this.
3) Gays, Jews & others do not need the label "Gay", "Jew" etc. to defend their human rights and the rights of others; thus, we do not need this p-label to defend our human rights.
4) Changing the p-word into other words will not of itself lead to any positive result in the long term, because the same underlying struggle has to be fought.
5) Changing the word is a necessary expedient to enable the case for child loving to be listened to rather than dismissed out of hand.
Dennis reacted to Tom's words about the underlying struggle in a message, shortened by me:
"I would like to thank people for their polite and well thought out responses in our discussion. I think some of the confusion is that the original focus of the discussion was, "Should we use the word as a self-descriptive term for ourselves?" My focus was more general, and is the question of "when" and "where" should we use the word? And [Frans summarizes now:] should we write letters to the media that use the word incorrectly?
Tom made some observations that lead me to a new - but I think relevant area of discussion.
UNDERLYING STRUGGLES AND PRIORITIES
I would like to introduce this discussion by addressing two of Tom's statements:
1. "Gays, Jews & others do not need the label "Gay", "Jew" etc. to defend their human rights and the rights of others, thus we do not need this p-label to defend our human rights."
2. "Changing the p-word into other words will not OF ITSELF lead to any positive result in the long term, because the same UNDERLYING struggle has to be fought."
I would suggest that the issue is not "What is the underlying struggle? Rather, what are the underlying "struggles", and which should be our priority?
I believe that historically the underlying struggle has been to change people's attitudes about adult-child sex, and as a result, legalize adult/child sex and also the stigma attached to being attracted to boys. Twenty years ago this was an understandable priority but now I no longer believe it should be.
The second underlying struggle I suggest is the struggle that boy-lovers face because of their ATTRACTION to boys. In other words, discrimination based on sexual identity. Whether we call ourselves boy-lovers or pedophiles I believe this struggle is reflected in Tom's statement: "Gays, Jews & others do not need the label "Gay", "Jew" etc. to defend their human rights and the rights of others, thus we do not need this p-label to defend our human rights."
The human rights in question for Jews, however, have nothing to do with the "behavior" they may or may not engage in. The same is true for Gay people. The human right in question is: "Should gays be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation? This is more precisely exemplified in the United States militarys "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
In the media, for example, a person's ethnicity, race, religion, or sexual identity is no longer an issue. [...] When it comes to person accused of having sex with a child, however, there is a double standard that does not apply in the media. It is not seen as prejudicial to write, "Pedophile molests young child." In other words, it is not seen as prejudicial to associate the persons alleged sexual identity with their behavior.
I would argue that our emphasis on changing laws and people's beliefs about behavior involving adults and children has NOT been productive, and should be open to review. No one takes NAMBLA's request that all age-of-consent laws be abolished seriously, and it makes most BL's look like foolish.. [...]
I would argue that it would be more productive for the boy-love movement to now focus its energies on the POLITICS OF IDENTITY. In other words, changing people's perceptions about what it means to be a boy-lover or pedophile, so that the prejudice and false stereotypes that promote the discrimination we face can be eliminated. Once this is done our efforts to change people's beliefs about adult/child sex will be less controversial and more open to acceptance.
If the word "pedophile" is such a problem I would argue that it's because the boy-love movement has put little, if any, energy into combating the prejudice associated with the word, and this has resulted in incredible harm. [...] The "stigma" attached to being a boy-lover or pedophile still remains. Regardless of our behavior, we're still viewed as being a child-rapist and potential danger to children. [...]
I suggest we may want to make it a priority that we challenge the misuse of the word, which in turn promotes may of the false stereotypes and harmful prejudice we now face.
Isabel reacts to this post with:
I agree with Dennis that we should at least fight in order to educate the mass on the right meaning of the word 'pedophile'.
Martin took up the discussion with:
"Of course I think, we should find some way to communicate with the outsiders, but the question arises as to how far to go with accepting their code. But nevertheless I think, it would be better to find a new, better and all-inclusive word for our self - description, which is considerably different from the P word. This is just for practical reasons. As most of us might already know, the European Union plans to coordinate their net censorship and -- what weighs more -- the total surveillance of all electronic communication within the European Union and possibly to the U.S.A too. There are rumors, that e-mails will be scanned for a list of catchwords -- guess what word will be definitely on their list...
So, we might have to face facts, let us consider something new, which might not bring us so much into danger...
Frans' proposal for a new Mission Statement
"Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in the academic discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual loving intergenerational relationships. In this context, these relationships are intended to be viewed from an unbiased, non-judgemental perspective and in relation to the Human Rights of both the young and the adult partners.
Ipce searches for chances and for ethically responsible forms of these relationships.
Ipce meets once every one or two years in a different country, publishes a newsletter, co-ordinates the (electronic) exchange of texts and keeps an archive of specific written publications."
Frans wrote also:
Let's also discuss HOW to decide. Until now, the Ipce Meeting decided, following the 1998 decision "by normal majority of present votes". But now there is no meeting in any country, there is a Meeting Online. Can we say the 21 engaged persons who are on this "Ipce Meets Online" List are The Meeting? It's not practical to ask the about 25 'paper post' subscribers due to time & costs & risks. I'm sure, most of these subscribers agree with the removal of the word P. Year after year, they have asked for it.
Can we say that for a vote, 11 votes from these 21 Meeting Members are needed? Can we say that a normal majority, in that case a minimum of 6 votes, can take the decision? If the votes are equal... Remember that the public Ipceweb is on my private web domain. So I take the risk. In that case, may I have an extra vote to create a majority?
Frans' second propsal
To make a long story a bit shorter, I'll not repeat the messages that reacted to this proposal but I'll repeat my overview of the opinions and repeat here the second proposal.
"In the recent discussion about the Ipce Mission Statement, which are the first words of the Home Page of the Ipce public web site, ten members agreed to remove the word "pedophilia" from the mission statement. Because ten people reacted to my proposal, there is a majority at the meeting On Line to change the mission statement
To continue our Meeting On Line, I have made a second proposal from the several suggestions and ideas to change the mission statement. [...]
"Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in academic discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults. In this context, these relationships are intended to be viewed from an unbiased, non-judgmental perspective and in relation to the human rights of both the young and adult partners. Ipce searches for opportunities where ethically responsible forms of these relationships can occur. Ipce meets once every one or two years in a different country, publishes a newsletter and a web site, co-ordinates the (electronic) exchange of texts and keeps an archive of specific written publications."
Agreement for the time being
Again, several messages followed, which I'll not repeat. Again, I give my second overview of the opinions. In doing so, we open the next stage of the discussion.
"About our Mission Statement, we agree now except one sentence. This sentence is, in my proposal, "Ipce searches for opportunities where ethically responsible forms of these relationships can occur."
Of the nine persons said to agree, four of them disagreed with the sentence, "Ipce searches for opportunities where ethically responsible forms of these relationships can occur". Tom, Desire, Paul Mcl and Gerald proposed corrections and alternatives. For the time being, I will simply delete this sentence and then we have a Mission Statement about which we agree. We can say: Ipce has met On Line and 'The Meeting has decided' to change the Mission Statement into the next one:
"Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in academic discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults. In this context, these relationships are intended to be viewed from an unbiased, non-judgmental perspective and in relation to the human rights of both the young and adult partners. Ipce meets once every one or two years in a different country, publishes a newsletter and a web site, co-ordinates the (electronic) exchange of texts and keeps an archive of specific written publications."
This text will be put on the Ipceweb. [...]
It's this text you have seen on the first page of this Newsletter.
Next phase of the discussion
The deleted sentence can, in one form or another , be part of a Statement. Here I list the alternatives that are proposed for it:
> Tom: "Ipce seeks ways in which ethically responsible forms of these relationships can be expressed."
> Paul Mcl: "Ipce searches for situations where ethically responsible forms of these relationships can occur." (Marcos agrees with the word "situations" instead of "opportunities".)
> Desire: "Ipce explores the opportunities that are available to ethically responsible forms of such relationships, as well as ways to extend those possibilities, and the benefits and problems of such extensions, both for the partners involved and for society in general." Desire adds to this: I think the mentioning the disadvantages of such extensions would be a good thing - it preempts claims that we do not wish to see those.
> Gerald: "The IPCE wants to clarify [and educate about] the ethical and responsible consensual forms of intergenerational relationships." Gerald comments about the 'opportunity' sentence: If I read this correctly (native English speakers please correct me) it says that: "the IPCE is searching for opportunities for relationships". If I look through the eyes of people who have different views than ours, that is my first impression of that sentence. The word "opportunities" triggers off negative images of "opportunistic, predatory". "These relationships" means little. Instead of using the word "these" it is better to describe that relationship. Further nowhere in the statement is mentioned the word "consensual", which is the essence of the understanding of the ethicallity of such relationships. Otherwise "ethics" can mean anything to anybody. [Frans comments: the concept of 'consensuality' is not used because it is a tricky concept. We chose "mutual" instead of it.]
> Last but not least Ted's proposal: "Encouraged are discussions about how to overcome current limitations, how adult/nonadult relationships create better lives, how they are moral and responsible, and how they are culturally and societally integrated."
... And now the name...
"I can appreciate Frans' desire to get the mission statement up onto the public website [...]. I can also appreciate Frans' desire to have a vote of yes or no, with no chance for revision. But I find this too confining and limiting a way for such a small group of us to work.
And more important is the development of a name for the new forum and mission statement that is clear and easy for people on the web to understand. For this reason, I ask that the adoption of the mission statement be delayed another week or two to consider the following recommended changes.
I suggest, for discussion only, further revision of the mission statement to read something like as follows:
"The Ipce [or some new name for the group] provides a forum for people to come to understand, and to engaged in academic discussion about the emancipation of, mutual love relationships between young people and adults.
These adult/non-adult relationships are intended to be viewed from a warmly accepting, non-condemnatory perspective and with respect for the human rights of both the young and adult partners.
The Ipce [or some new name for the group] meets in a public space every one or two years, publishes a newsletter, hosts a web site, coordinates the electronic exchange of texts, and archives relevant publications."
Ted comments about the Ipce name.
Originally, Ipce meant "International Pedophile and Child Emancipation". When I used this phrase over the years, I always added something like "Annual Meeting" after the term "Ipce", as in: "Ipce Annual Meeting". So the "Ipce Conference" meant: the "International Pedophile and Child Emancipation Conference".
Originally, there was no fully functional Ipce organization during the time when there was no international gathering of people. The Ipce Annual Meeting's International Secretary's primary function, during the year, as I remember it, was to coordinate the planning for the next Ipce Annual Meeting.
This original concept for the Ipce (which first met in Copenhagen in 1986) has now evolved over the years and under Frans' leadership. I recommend reconsideration of the "Ipce" name again -- and before going public on the web. I recommend consideration of completely abandoning the acronym "Ipce" as meaningless for most people who will now get to know this newly evolved forum on the web. I ask that this mailing list brainstorm and hunt around for a less confusing alternative name for this "new" and evolved forum that does not include the confusing acronym/word "Ipce" at all.
1. Let's follow Teds proposal to take some more time and proceed the discussion. For me, a new name will be welcome; we never found another, so the meeting in October 1998 decided to use "Ipce" (NOT "IPCE") as a name and not as an abbreviation. We did this, because Ipce is reasonably well known in ped-workgroups, but not outside these groups. [...]
2. Let's at first discuss only about the Mission Statement, which has to be short and clear, and later on about a Statement about what Ipce wants and thinks.
Thus, the discussion is still going on now. For this newsletter, I chose to use my second proposal, which has had an accepted voting... for the time being...
Readers of the paper version of the Newsletter are invited to share the discussion by post. Maybe the next Newsletter will have a new name...
SECTION 3: Research
1999 by Agence France-Presse (via ClariNet)
A meta-analysis, reviewed by Dr Frans Gieles
Mister President ...
The USA is shocked by the research of Rind, Bauserman & Tromovich.
Dr Frans Gieles
DOCUMENTATION SERVICE List July 1999