Of Men And Boys

Please see our Project policy on censorship
Many conversations with “liberal” straight people on the subject of homosexuality follow a predictable format. After declaring that they don’t care what we do in bed as long as it doesn’t affect them, they express concern for the plight of children seduced and abused by a large and pathological segment of the homosexual population. Perhaps no other myth concerning homosexuals is so prevalent as this one, and though it has been laid to rest many times in the past, its persistence among otherwise enlightened folk decrees that it be interred once more.

The facts are:

  • Sexual relations between adults and young people seldom involve physical or mental coercion.
  • The incidence of violent seduction is higher among heterosexuals than among homosexuals.

When a child is violently forced into sexual compliance, the crime is one of assault and should be dealt with as such by the law. The sexual element is only of peripheral interest, and should be excluded from legal consideration.

All of this has been said many times, yet the myth persists, partly because most people are incapable of accepting the fact that children are sexual beings. For a variety of reasons, innocence is equated with purity in our culture, and purity with chastity, and it is unavoidable logically that if a child is to be innocent, he must also be chaste. In the world’s most erotophobic culture — ours — sex is still the most persistent example of adult depravity; a concommitant of the fall from innocence and Eden.

I have seen a Mexican peasant grandmother soothe a fretful two year old boy by cooing to him and gently kissing and licking his cock and balls. The room was full of people – there was nothing furtive about her actions, in fact they were scarcely noted by the others. I might add that the boy was soon peacefully asleep.

I ask you to try and imagine a North American mother or babysitter doing the same thing. It is impossible. The woman would be considered depraved beyond redemption.

That the topic of child sexuality arouses such a violent reaction in the straight world is understandable – it is less easy to countenance the attitudes of the gay community. In the pecking order, “chicken hawks” are well near the bottom. They are objects of amusement and contempt, and many more responsible members of the gay community feel the need to apologise for their presence, and to declare that they are an almost nonexistent minority. They fear that the whole movement may be discredited by the actions of these recalcitrant few.

The time has come to face the fact that there is a sizeable minority of gay men who are primarily interested in sexual relationships with adolescents, and that these people, by the mere fact of their sexual preference, are working – albeit often unwittingly – toward some of the ideals of the gay liberation front with regard to the family.

To illustrate my point, let us examine the child in relation to the family as it exists today. The familial power is oppressive and stultifying and based on mutual manipulation. The child is one of the possessions of the parents, a eunuchoid doll that is supposed to attain to sexual awareness at 18, gleefully enduring celibacy thereafter until an appropriate marriage has been consumated. Anything which would free the child from this environment is important. Sex is something that does. A child’s sexual life turns him outward from the family; by its very nature it is exploratory and community oriented, and once begun the child is in the process of leaving home, psychologically at least. The straight world considers us to be dangerous where children are concerned. The irony is that they are right – not to the physical well being of their offspring however, but to the family structure that imprisons them, a structure based in part on the concept of possession. “In some cultures children have only a very vague concept of family relationship, and the rearing of children is something of a communal effort . .. Often in these cultures the concept of motherhood and fatherhood is very vague. These cultures tend also to be very sex-positive in comparison with our culture.” (Wainwright Churchill – Homosexual Behaviour Among Males, Prentice Hall, Inc., Page 306. The italics are mine).

It is easy to see that this article could now move into the area of children’s rights generally, but I shall content myself with saying that if the child is to cease being property, if it is to attain to full civil liberties, if it is to achieve economic independence, if it is to relate meaningfully to society as a whole, then of necessity it must move away from the family unit of the Christian West. Anyone who leads the child into sexual awareness and exploration is helping to do just that.

We feel that one of the most positive aspects of the sexual drive is its variety and unpredictability, and from this point of view it is hypocritical to assume that pedophiles represent a group to which one either does or does not belong. All gay men should face the fact that at some point in their lives they may be captivated by some particularly luminous young man, and they should be prepared to embrace that experience joyfully, confident that the experience is potentially an enriching one for both parties and a step towards a sex-positive culture.

Loving a child and expressing it sexually is revolutionary activity. The activists of tomorrow are more than likely in someone’s arms today.

The above is re-printed from Canada’s ‘The Body Politic’. To them we send our love and thanks. Below follows an article written about the consequences of publishing ‘Of Men And Boys’.

The Body Politic Affair

Please see our Project policy on censorship
The July-August issue of the Body Politic featured an article under the headline “Of Men and Boys” written by Gerald Hannon, the publication of which caused an overnight sensation throughout the gay and straight population of Canada.

The storm started when a Toronto journalist bought a copy of the B.P. on the streets. He noticed the article and did a little checking. The Community Homophile Association of Toronto (CHAT) had received a grant from the Federal Government of Canada to run a drop-in and distress centre for homosexuals in Toronto. The award of this grant under the Opportunities for Youth (OFY) programme was a highly contentious issue. The taxpayer of Canada (excluding homosexual taxpayers, of course) was indignant that his tax dollars should be going to the support of a project for those “lousy fags and queers”.

So it was that a reporter phoned CHAT and asked what association they had with the B.P. He was truthfully informed that CHAT members worked in the editorial collective of the BP and that, since both were gay liberation organisations, they had the same goals. Our reporter friend then called the BP regarding CHAT. He was told much the same thing, that the two groups worked together for the same ends.

Our eager reporter returned to the office and told his editor. The next day subscribers to the Toronto Sun (and other Canadian papers which use the same wire service) were treated to a story of how Federal tax dollars were being used to seduce boys. The editorial quoted at length from the article; however only negative and “horrifying” (to the straight public which cannot fathom the idea of gay love) segments were quoted. I am enclosing the entire original article for you to read, rather than bore you with quotes.

The Canadian public was horrified, the Canadian Government and OFY were embarrassed and the gay community was left with another false blot on its record. The editorial had overlooked a simple journalistic fact. The opinions of a newspaper are traditionally presented on the editorial page with articles being the opinion of the people who write them. The editorial had also reached the totally false conclusion that, since CHAT members worked with the BP, CHAT was automatically funding the BP without determining where the funds for the BP actually came from. Since the Body Politic had stated that they were working toward the common goals of gay liberation along with other gay organisations, the editorial writer had also falsely assumed that seduction of boys must be one of these goals. The editorial and our reporter friend had not bothered checking further to find out whether this was indeed one of the aims of gay liberation.

The BP as a matter of interest has not received a penny, of the grant money as the newspaper is funded by subscriptions and advertising revenues. The people who work on the Body Politic are not paid out of the grant which was given to CHAT. The only things in common are that both are gay liberation organisations demanding equal rights for homosexuals (and thus a threat to the straight status-quo) and that both have some personnel in common.

Gay organisations, like those in the straight community, should not be above investigation. But this investigation must be unbiased, rational and thorough – all the facts must be brought to the surface before editorial comment takes place. We do not need another “Body Politic Affair” – reporting and editorial comment like that which was written harm both the gay scene and gay liberation organisations as well as blemish the reputation of straight journalism.

Gay TV In Canada

On Monday, September 11th at 6 p.m., Canada’s first regularly scheduled television programme produced by and for gay people was broadcast over Channel 10, Metro Cable’s Toronto outlet.

The series, entitled Coming Out, will run weekly for thirteen episodes. It is hosted by Paul Pearce and Sandra Dick, both staff members of the Community Homophile Association of Toronto, under whose aegis the programmes are being produced. The topics treated so far have been “Coming Out and the Family”, “Gay Liberation in Toronto”, “Myths”, “An Interview with Peter Maloney” and “Lesbianism”.

Paul, a 22 year old native of Stratford, Ontario, has stated: “This is a breakthrough in Canadian TV and will contribute a great deal to the education of the Toronto citizen on the topic of homosexuality.” Both he and Sandra – 25, originally of Winnipeg – lead their guests through an interesting and informative half hour of prime time television. Homosexuals discussing their life style in an atmosphere of pride and openness is an exhilerating sight – catch it on Channel 10, every Monday evening at 6 p.m.

ED. Reprinted from The Body Politic. Love and thanks.

The Gay Vote

19721001-04‘The Gay vote’ is not a factor which politicians include in their calculations in this country. But, nonetheless, if gays constitute (at a conservative estimate) one in twenty of the population, then we could wield considerable influence to better our position, especially in local elections.

This lesson does not seem to have got across to gay politicos in this country – they seem to prefer negative actions to combat prejudice rather than positive ones such as this.

In Canada, the Gay Alliance Towards Equality (GATE) has been active at all the meetings, rallies and so on in the provincial elections in Vancouver, British Columbia, with a considerable degree of success.

On the 9th August, seven candidates appeared to answer questions in front of an audience of 100 people, including members of GATE. Maurice Flood, GATE’s chairman, asked them: “In view of the fact that leaflets listing gay demands have been given to all the candidates, where do the candidates stand on granting full civil liberties to homosexuals?” The Liberal, Conservative and New Democratic Party candidates all said that they supported equality, whilst the Social credit candidates said: “I support the family; whether you fit into that picture or not is up to you.”

Roedy Green, of GATE, challenged the Social Credit candidate’s claim that his party stood for the protection of minority rights by pointing out that they had not extended the Human Rights legislation to apply to gays.

However the Socred candidate was much more outspoken a fortnight later when faced with further questioning on the subject of gay rights. He said that people who belong to such movements are in a dangerous situation because “one day society will want to castrate the lot of you to stop you reproducing your kind.” He was greeted by prolonged jeering and booing from the audience.

He had been asked if he would end “the involuntary hospitalisation of gays (supposedly) for their own good.” The other candidates had said that they would.

All this has made candidates of all parties aware of the injustices in society towards homosexuals, and has had the whole issue extensively reported in the Vancouver papers. There’s a lesson in that somewhere.

Cottaging in Br. Columbia

or The Mountie Always Gets His Man

(Being excerpts from a letter from Roedy Green, dated 16th April, ’72)

02-197206XX 8You wanted some information on Cottaging. First of all I should make it clear that there is a very strong prejudice in western Canada against this practice. On top of the status heap are those who meet through private “parties”. Next come the club people. Next come the steambath people. Next come the outdoor cruising people, and on the bottom of the heap come the cottagers.

I think that the disdain with which the practice is viewed has a lot to do with the wide variety of other methods available. People who meet in cans must do so because they like cans – perhaps it is the smell that rouses their lusty emotions.

Police cruising of cans (even in an official sense) is minimal. In all my time I have never heard of anyone being arrested or even harrassed by police in cans. The one exception happened about ten years ago (I remember being somewhat horrified as a child) when the police broke up a huge orgy in one of the washrooms in Stanley Park. About 30 people were arrested but there was no further mention of it.

The most active can is the Hudson’s Bay downtown store on the 2nd and 5th floors (two separate places actually). One old gentleman goes there with two shopping bags. His intended is invited to enter his stall and stand with one foot in each bag while he blows him. I have never personally witnessed this event.

The reason this can is popular is that underage boys go there quite innocently and of course meet some older man. They keep returning there as they feel that is the only place that homosexual satisfaction can be had, and of course the dear old lechers keep them in ignorance.

Pme ptjer sprt pf cp
One other sort of cottagley thing is the bathhouse a few blocks from my house on English Bay. It is a cement structure that used to be the public aquarium that overlooks the beach. It is built partly under the road that runs under the beach giving it the look of some oversized hobbit warren.

The beach area of course is Vancouver’s main outdoor cruising ground (save Wreck Beach in summer). But at about 3 in the morning the steps of the bathhouse become the scene of an outdoor orgy with perhaps 4 couple doing their assorted things in plain view to the gawking spectators.

That is all I know about cottaging – no, one more savory detail – and this one was even researched in person (though I maintained my detached observer status throughout). When the student union building was being designed at UBC, someone thought
student
that students needed a place to rest during the day to refresh themselves for the late night labs perhaps. At any rate they installed dark rooms off the cans filled with about 12 huge leather couch-like beds. For some reason most of the beds were removed until there were only 3 left. After hearing about a friend of mine who claims to have had sex in these rooms with 5 different people in one day (he went in for the ten minute break between classes), I decided in moral indignation to investigate. It is true.