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.

Pederasty And You

[Model is over 21]
In GN No 8 we asked for your comments and opinions on Pederasty. We print below a selection of your letters, along with a few comments from us.

Dear Collective,

I read with interest Peter Kelsey’s article on pederasts, or in the language of the gay scene, chicken lovers. Although I don’t agree with his sentiments to quote ‘Pederasts must be reconciled on leaving their twenties to paying heavily for their sexual satisfaction for the rest of their lives.’ If he thinks that a change in the law will change this, then I’m afraid he’ll be sadly disappointed. Young chickens (boys of 15-20) will always prefer bedfellows of their own age ie other teenagers. Even people in their twenties like myself have difficulty in persuading chickens to bed. In Glasgow the majority of chickens I have had have been rent, in London without exception I have had to pay.

In fact I defy any stranger in his twenties or older to go into a London gay bar or club and get a one night stand with a chicken. I have tried and it’s impossible. Glasgow is the same, although I know a few chickens. One night stands with them are not on, they stick with their own age group.

In my opinion, whether or not the law changes, Peter Kelsey and the rest of us will have to pay for our pleasures.


ED: It seems that there is a wide usage for the term pederast – but not everyone means the same by it. As this extract from a letter from one of our Surrey readers shows.

The article on pederasty … was of interest and certainly touches on a very important problem. However, some clarification is needed: sex with a child of nine or ten is quite a different thing to a similar relationship with a young person of eighteen and I would like to ask Peter Kelsey if he would classify people in the 15-19 age group as children. If not, then pederasty is hardly the term applicable. I suppose that the vast majority of adult males, whether straight or gay, have experienced strong feelings of physical attraction towards youths of this age group, and it is fairly well accepted that a boy of this age has a more attractive body than at any other time. The problem is to establish the age to which consent, and consequently legal sex, should be reduced to. Whilst we would wish to disabuse people of the idea that sex is something evil from which children need to be ‘protected’, most of us, if not all, would agree that immature children do need to be protected from a relationship which in any way exploits them which seems to imply that pederasty (which means sexual relationship with a child of either sex) must remain illegal.


ED: That’s one definition of pederasty – but most people seem to mean that very 15-19 age group. The same points about paying for it, and its illegality came up more than once. And the consequences of breaking that law.

Dear Gay News,

Re the letter about pederasty in GN8 – all that is said is only too true.

In my own case, when much younger (I am now in my 40’s) I had many boyfriends from about 13 upwards. The ‘games’ with the boys consisted of nothing more than mutual wanking — never ‘going all the way’, till I got arrested and did a spell ‘inside’.

Since my release – many years ago now -though I like to see pretty boys and I like to see porn magazines with chickens in them, I have been too frightened to touch them, but have managed to overcome the problem somewhat by taking the (mainly) passive part in encounters, usually with men about my own age or older.

Nearly all of my former boyfriends are now married and have children, so I don’t think it can be said that they were corrupted in any way by me.

My own earliest experience was when a soldier played around with me during the war, when I was 14, but I’m sure that if I had not already been ‘that way’ I would have rejected his advances, so I doubt if I was corrupted either.

… Love and kisses,


ED: Finally, a letter from Cornwall – which makes certain points which we could not subscribe to, as we have pointed out at the end of the letter.

Dear Friends,

You have a brief mention of pederasty by Peter Kelsey in the latest GN and seek for more. In case these thoughts are any use to you, I am sending them in.

Pederasty is easily the most rewarding form of love that anyone can experience and generally does great good for the younger partner as well as the older. A boy’s love is the most tender and sincere thing possible to appreciate. What the older partner gives in return is not only love, which is for him too often transient, but also a wide education in the ways of the world, intellectual and sexual.

It needs to be emphasised that pederasty is by no means always sexual, though it is usually physical; and for the benefit of anti-gay prudes it needs to be emphasised that there are few, if any indications that the junior partner gets ‘fixated’ homosexually, let alone as a prostitute: indeed, properly understood, pederasty is not homosexual, insofar as sex comes into it at all, other than the mutual attraction of two people of the same sex but different ages – thus it does not lead to the junior partner being ‘corrupted’ sexually or in any other way. On the contrary, the junior partner usually leads a ‘normal’ heterosexual life after his early encounters, enriched indeed by those experiences. Nor is the senior partner necessarily homosexual either, for he too often leads a heterosexual existence, enlivened by his encounters with the young. It is rare for the older partner to, as it were, take advantage of the younger. Those interested would learn much from J.Z. Eglinton’s exhaustive study ‘Greek Love’ and T.C. Worsley’s ‘Flannelled Fools’ for interesting personal details.

There is no doubt that the public, and the gay public needs education on the subject, but whether it will ever be possible to get the public at large to tolerate pederasty with so many long-standing irrational and usually baseless phobias against it, is very doubtful. Is there one country in the world at present which does? It is no good citing Ancient Greece – that was another world, philosophically and socially, and it cannot be brought back.

No doubt the lot of would-be senior partners is difficult, but there is, maybe, a way out; they indeed may not advertise for those under 21, but the reverse is not true* and your columns this week carry an advertisement from one under 21; there would be nothing as I see it to stop others, not only from outside Britain, from advertising. Anyone replying would need to keep his eyes very wide open of course and his head firmly on his shoulders.

One wonders to what extent Gay News is sold to the under-21’s** and more especially, those at school still: one hopes it is, for it is a good sane soundly based paper, and if they see it, perhaps they may start advertising. You would have to be careful though!

“Zakhmi Dil”

*ED: Sorry to disappoint you – but we would be in breach of the law if we knowingly allowed boys under 21 to advertise in our personal columns, whether they were English or not. There is, so far as we are aware, however, no restriction placed on anyone, whatever their sexual orientation, under 21 seeking accomodation or a pen-pal ‘legitimately’, whatever that means.

**ED: We are not a porn mag by any means; therefore we are openly on sale like any other newspaper. Ergo it follows that our readership is probably as wide as any other paper. There is no reason to restrict its sale in any way.


It is accepted now in educated circles that the right to enjoy sex is a basic human liberty, not to be denied for example to homosexuals. Your paper again draws attention to the viciousness of the law in Scotland and Northern Ireland (fortunately rarely enforced) and to the remaining archaic restrictions on homosexual activity in all the United Kingdom.

May I mention the position of pederasts, people who seem to have been overlooked in the past?

Pederasts, who are attracted to boys aged from say 15 to 19, are little more attracted to men than they are to women, if at all. Sexual activity with boys is totally illegal, although they frequently have more experience than quieter men ten years older. Pederasts must be reconciled, on leaving their 20’s to paying heavily for their sexual satisfaction for the rest of their lives, something not easy for those on incomes of less than £2,000 p.a.

They have to face the neo-Puritan hostility to prostitution of GLF; and they cannot find sexual partners in CHE, all members of which have to be over 21.

They cannot advertise in your columns. The 1967 Act has increased the penalties they are liable to suffer. In effect, they have to choose between sexual starvation, furtive crime or exile abroad.

It may not be possible to offer paedophiles anything other than prison, electric ‘cures’ or prep-school teaching sublimation.

There is no reason why the fate of the pederast should be the same. Reform of the law, concerning pederasty must be one of the major priorities of the homophile movement.

ED. This is, we believe, the first time that pederasty has been written about in Gay News.

Perhaps it is time then that this paper ran some information on pederasts, paedophiles and their present plight. The gay world is made up of many different preferences, all of which have a right to understanding and tolerance.

It is up to you to send us information and articles on these subjects.