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.

On The Telly

19720914-04On Monday evening, 4th September, I turned my television onto BBC2 in time to watch ‘Thirty-Minute Theatre’ at 10.25 p.m. But I was somewhat early, and caught the last 10 minutes of a programme I was later to learn was called Controversy.

The programme was concerned with the argument ‘A New Look at an Old Animal’ which was being defended by Professors Robin Fox and Lionel Tiger.

The theory they were putting forward was, briefly, that ‘modern man’s behaviour in all its apparent sophistication — including play as men or women – is actually governed by instincts acquired during the prehistoric struggle for survival.’

Many sociologists, anthropologists and zoologists disagree with this point of view, and some of them, along with members of the general public, took part in the Controversy discussion, which was televised from the Royal Institute.

How the earlier part of the programme went, I have no idea. So far I haven’t managed to find anyone else who watched it.

At the time I tuned in though Professors Fox and Tiger were deep in heated discussion with members of the audience. Then, while a sister was speaking, I saw the badge, a GLF badge. The next two women speakers also were wearing GLF badges. They seemingly had taken offence at the argument of the two Professors.

As one of them was answering the women’s questions, the whole batch of GLF members left the meeting, walking down the steps leading up to the audience’s seats, parading past the cameras, passing around the back of the table behind which Fox and Tiger were speaking, and finally out of a doorway to the side of the speakers’ platform.

Somewhat shaken, the Professors struggled on.

Well I suppose it’s nice to see other gays openly on the box, but I wish I had tuned in earlier to understand what had been going on to cause the GLF to walk out.

The ‘Thirty-Minute Theatre’ play that followed was ‘Thrills Galore’ by Rhys Adrian. Not much to say about this, apart from the appearance of what, I take, was meant to be a latent male homosexual. He was trendily overdressed, took his white poodle to the pub on Sunday lunchtimes to have a drink with the boys, and displayed the supposed stereotyped generosity of homosexuals by insisting all the time, that one and all had a drink with him.

In the end he went off for a last drink at another pub. Thrilling stuff. I got bored and switched off.