Love or Morality: Chapter Two
“The Tao of Love”
“Toward a Functional Understanding of Love”
“On the True Nature of Human Sexuality”
“The Demonization of Adult-Child Erotic Love
“The Commercial Exploitation of Abuse”
“The Patriarchal Love Bias”
“The Truncated Account of Adult-Child Erotic Attraction”
“Does Pedophile Love Equate Abuse?”
“Is Pedophilia a Sexual Perversion?
“The Legal Split in Child Protection”
“The Violence of Morality”
“The Roots of Violence”
“The 12 Angular Points of Social Justice and Peace”
Download PDF from Scribd
Download the Book (607 Pages)
Download PDF from Scribd
The Silent Taboo
The Myth of Pedophile Predator Sexuality
In this present chapter we are going to inquire what the true nature of human sexuality is, to see that it has very little to do with what official rhetoric claims to be true; more precisely, we are going to see that neither human sexuality in general, nor pedophile sexuality, in particular, is per se of a predator nature.
To begin with, I will make it clear in this chapter that I do not deny the existence of sexual predators, both in the field of general sexual behavior, and in the particular field of pedophile sexual behavior. But those cases, as I am going to demonstrate, are pathologies, not the regular case. The main pathology that brings about rape desires — which are what is at the basis of sexual predatorhood — is neurosis, a stuckness of the emotional flow that is brought about through fear, denial and large-scale moralism.
We have to see that the predator myth is something much more fundamental to postmodern industrial culture, and not only to be found in the discussion of abuse, and pedophile sexuality. It’s to be found in our daily TV channels, almost everywhere, it’s on children’s wear, it’s on fashion wear, it pervades the toy and video game industries, it’s a great part of cinema, with Steven Spielberg movies on top of the list that exploit this group fantasy.
Now, psychologically speaking, what is it that this myth originates in? Is it a breed of Darwinism? If yes, why is Darwinism so popular, while it’s scientifically outdated?
I argue that it’s a makeup myth born by the corporate world that is, psychologically speaking, a projection of the general aggressiveness of a society which could best be described with the slogan ‘eat others, or you are eaten by others’.
As a next step, I am arguing that the pedophile predator myth is a psychological projection of the fact that, what I call the silent taboo, sexuality is generally understood in our Western society as a ‘black-booted’ violent acting out of sexual lust, in a rape-like manner, which is seen by the culture as ‘normal male aggressiveness,’ but which in all non-Western cultures is considered as a pathological level of aggressiveness that is bordering criminal psychopathological behavior.
Hence, the cultural distortion that is at the basis of the very discussion of sexuality in our culture has as good as nothing to do with pedophilia; it’s a projection of the original heterosexual scheme that is taken as the ‘normality standard,’ and which is a paradigm where sexual sadism is as much part of the ‘game’ as going out for gambling once in a while is.
And when we look back in history, we see that the modern image of the ‘phallic dummy’ originates from the old model of the patriarchal male hunter, the outdoor guy, the cowboy, who considers the female as a child bearer and kiss-puppet that has to be conquered, and possessed. Hence, the typical sex position that signals to be ‘always on top,’ and the institution of marriage as ‘legalized rape.’
The sex laws, as I have shown in other publications, clearly show that this analysis is true, for they punish and demonize behavior with draconian punishments that otherwise, within a valid marriage, would be considered as ‘normal’ and socially adequate. The very institution of ‘statutory rape’ shows the utter perversity of this whole system that dates from the times of the Church’s Inquisition and has nothing ever to do with modern lawmaking.
When such a biased and violent sex paradigm looks at pedophilia as a variant of sexual behavior, then we may not wonder about the abstruse projections it creates and propagates by system-conform outlets as ‘scientific insights about sexual perversion’.
The truth is that this mainstream sexual paradigm is by itself justifying rape and abuse with the pretended ‘sexual nature of the male predator,’ that is perhaps a cultural perversion, but has nothing ever to do with the true nature of sexuality in human beings.
I am going to quote Wilhelm Reich often in this chapter for his insights into the functional nature of human sexuality, and its regulatory and health-preserving function are marking the sexological research standard until today; and with the smear politics about pedophilia since about the mid-1980s, there is anyway hardly any better research to expect in our present time, and the near future. In addition, it has to be seen that the myth of the pedophile predator has a political function in that it serves as a projection myth for discarding out a minority that serves as the scapegoat, as this was formerly done with the Jews, and ethnic minorities.
In a time where political corruption and a general decadence regarding our value system is on the rise about everywhere in the world, it is not a surprise for the political observer that new scapegoats are forged that serve for nurturing the wars and civil wars of the future.
The Silent Taboo
I call the true nature of human sexuality a silent taboo because all appears to be sane and safe here in the sense that our society today joyfully boasts with being rational-minded and open for scientific research and ‘clinical’ observation of human sexual behavior.
I question this assumption with the simple observation that if our society was matter-of-fact and knowledgeable about the true nature of human sexuality, it would never have come up with the predator myth in the first place. This myth really pervades our mass media to a point it trickles out of every major magazine almost every fortnight, to be endlessly and neurotically repeated as a new form of mass hypnotism that is based upon a pitiful ignorance of the real workings of human emotions and their sexual expression.
Let us ask the pertinent questions here and try to give honest answers instead of ideological answers, answers based upon the facts of nature, not the myths of nature that are the relict of the notorious patriarchal ignorance of all the basic life functions.
Is human sexuality of a predator nature? Let me first assert that I do know sexual predators, the real ones, men who conform with the profile of the sexual occasion-catcher, who use boys and girls and females of all ages as pleasure cuties, more or less regardless of their consent, shunning with a grin any kind of societal, cultural, legal and moral rules and prohibitions. To say, I am not denying the existing of sexual predators, but I am saying that this form of human sexual behavior is the result of emotional stuckness, not the natural way human sexuality unfolding and manifesting in human social interactions.
By the same token, looking at pedophilia, I am saying that the predator pedophile that is so often nowadays a favorite and sensational item in our media, is a pathological variant, while the majority of pedophiles are not sexual predators.
The negative image the media present on these matters is true in so far as, from a case-study point of view, and without generalizing the findings, predator pedophiles in some cases really create havoc in the lives of those they use for their ruthless and unhampered ego-satisfaction, thereby creating hurt and destruction also in their own lives as a result of the bad karmic response they trigger.
What I am saying is that these men are pathological cases and not natural lovers, nor natural childlovers, while the official rhetoric uses them as dummies for upholding and backing up the myth of all pedophile sexuality being of a coercive, violent, and predator nature.
These men, reported almost daily in mainstream journalism as ‘international pedophiles’ who prefer destinations like Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia or Cambodia as their erotic playground, are not, to repeat it, representatives of the psychoemotional particularity called pedophilia. These men are somehow targeting a mythic object for abreaction that could be called ‘the doll of all ages.’
For these men, not only girls, but also small boys, because of their softness and their female characteristics, are attractive as sexual playmates for a ‘sex vacation.’ But this does by no means imply that these men were homosexuals. In most cases they are not.
With this group, the macho-type of man is the most common to be found. In my observation, these men are often sworn against society for various reasons; some of them were themselves hurt and abused in childhood. As a result, they built a revenge pattern, and may once in a while act out against children as poison containers for their accumulated hate.
The revenge pattern psychologically is a psychic defense mechanism that veils the original wounding these men have suffered. They are most often scarce and harsh in their communications, rather mute and strong-willed, and they display many obsessional patterns in their overall behavior; in fact, they are not seldom paranoid. More often, I found that they are narcissistic in the sense to experience difficulty for ‘vulnerable’ communications that bear a chance for their true self to emerge.
The interesting fact is that the official image of the patriarchal male hunter type is exactly conforming with this kind of pathological sex robot who is actually an emotional torso and sexual Frankenstein. It’s after all the mainstream image of the ‘good old male’ who, to be true, is depicted as a predator animal in all respects, not just in his sexual communications. And the ‘modern’ American male, as the prototype of the body-built, doped huge phallic dummy in our emerging postmodern international consumer culture is but a vintage and more subtly spiced broth of the traditional mold. From there to the skinhead lust-murderer is but a step.
After this clarification, my answer to the initial question is that human sexuality originally is surely not of a predator nature. And it’s a sign of simple cultural perversion when a public morality, as it is the case today, signs up for declaring perversity to be the rule, and nature to be the ‘serpent seducer’ of humanity into sin.
We are facing the same dilemma here as during the Middle-Ages, the same mental and emotional darkness, the same misconceptions about ‘nature.’ To say sexuality is an urgent desire for uprooting another into a chaotic experience of piercing a yielding corpse with a stick is about as intelligent as saying that a baby is the inevitable outcome of mutually consented rape, or that the earth was created through a violent eruption called the ‘big bang’ as a cosmic rape of ‘matter’ by the divine phallus. While all these myths ghost in humanity’s collective unconscious, as part of our world religions’ erotic phantasmagory, they are what they are, myths, not reality. They are as much myths as Stalin’s vision of a world united by violent coercion and political rape in the Soviet empire.
We are still on the side of myths and mythology, still in the realm of political paranoia when considering such slogans, and far from nature’s wisdom. Nature is smooth, yielding and intelligent in coordinating desire, not harsh, brute, coercive and disruptive. As early as in 1949, Wilhelm Reich wrote in his book Ether, God and Devil:
— The unarmored organism does not know an impulse to rape and murder little girls, or to get pleasure through violence. It is therefore indifferent toward all moral rules that try to repress such impulses. It cannot comprehend that one has intercourse with another only because there is an opportunity for it, for example being in one and the same room with a person of the other sex. The armored character, by contrast, cannot envision an orderly life without strict moralistic rules against rape and lust murder. (Wilhelm Reich, Äther, Gott und Teufel (1983), 76, Translation mine).
Our society is turning life upside-down when affirming that man is a violent animal and needs to experience rape or child rape as a matter of ‘natural urges;’ no, natural sexuality is not violent, but consenting, not an urge to be acted out aggressively and to the detriment of the mate, whatever the age of that mate.
So, why have we got sex laws? It’s because we have strayed from the natural path long ago, as a society, not just certain individuals labeled pedophiles, predators, or otherwise.
In one of his latest books, Children of the Future (1950), Wilhelm Reich who long before Masters & Johnson researched on the human pleasure function, condenses many of his fundamental insights in the natural unbent and unarmored human nature. From this base paradigm of emotional sanity and sexual health, then, Reich formulated a sound catalog of ideas about how to set a future educational system that would insure that children’s emotions and sexuality are not thwarted into denial, violence, perversion and sadism.
— We are no more than transmission belts from an evil past to an eventually better future. We shall not be the ones to build this future. We have no right to tell our children how to build their future, since we have proved unfit to build our own present. (…) We cannot possibly preach cultural adaptation for our children when this very same culture has been disintegrating under our feet for more than thirty-five years. Should our children adapt to this age of war, mass killing, tyranny, and moral deterioration? (Wilhelm Reich, Children of the Future, On the Prevention of Sexual Pathology (1950/1983), 6).
In my whole life I rarely encountered such honest a statement on the state of the world and what we be done about it — facing the unfulfilled needs of our children.
When Reich wrote this, in the 1950s, the world was not yet as catastrophic, and ecologically devastated as it is by now, and the whole of the Western world was not as negative toward children’s erotic interests than this is the case today. Hence, the actuality of Reich’s book is even greater today.
Our pathologies, and here especially our sexual pathologies have not seen an end in these fifty years of ongoing madness, and our legislators have not done one single move in the right direction to end the sexual misery of the youth — in the contrary, all has only worsened.
Reich’s suggestions for avoiding sexual pathologies essentially claim parental and educational non-interference in children’s emotional and sexual life.
Fortunately today this view is shared by progressive child psychologists, psychoanalysts, and social workers, and yet it is not for this reason a mainstream view, and has not gained access to our government agencies that go on to mold children after certain standards, certain values, certain ideologies, certain religions, certain racial or otherwise partial views, certain fashions and traditions.
The view that children should be left to grow in basic freedom is today in 2015 as marginal as it was in the 1950s. Reich explains that there are essentially two fundamental wrongdoings in our child-rearing practices that contribute to thwart and distort the originally sane psychosomatic setup of the child. Here they are in his own words:
— (1) The natural bioenergetic principle in the newborn baby is systematically smothered and ruined by the armored parent and educator, who in turn are supported in their ignorance by powerful social institutions which thrive on the armoring of the human animal.
(2) A simple but tenacious misinterpretation of nature governs all education and cultural philosophy. It is the idea that nature and culture and incompatible. In accordance with this cultural ideology, psychoanalysts have failed to distinguish between primary natural and secondary perverse, cruel drives, and they are continuously killing nature in the newborn while they try to extinguish the brutish little animal. They are completely ignorant of the fact that it is exactly this killing of the natural principle which creates the secondary perverse and cruel nature, human nature so called, and that these artificial cultural creations / in turn make compulsive moralism and brutal laws necessary. (Id., 17–18)
Reich vehemently contradicted the mechanistic approach of most Western physicians and pediatricians, which was one of the reasons he did not gain social acceptance throughout his life. He writes:
— If no severe damage has already been inflicted on it in the womb, the newborn infant brings with it all the richness of natural plasticity and development. This infant is not, as so many erroneously believe, an empty sack or a chemical machine into which everybody and anybody can pour his or her special ideas of what a human being ought to be. It brings with it an enormously productive and adaptive energy system which, out of its own resources, will make contact with its environment and begin to shape that environment according to its needs. (Id., 20)
It is obvious for those informed about the way of living and the child-rearing practices of native cultures that natural sexual pleasure is soft and yielding, manifesting as hot and melting energy which streams through the organism, vitalizing all tissues, organs and fibers, rendering the skin smooth, the hair abundant and shining, the eyes pristine and vibrant and thoughts clear and focused. It is also obvious that sexual communication is essentially healthy and fosters natural growth and rejuvenation in people of all ages. Reich writes:
— Satisfying intercourse is also important for the body as a whole, because the vigorous circulation of blood through all the tissues promotes metabolic activity. This explains the fresh, robust appearance of the person who is sexually satisfied, compared with the usually pale, pasty appearance of the abstinent person. (Id., 178)
Most importantly, for assessing the nature of undistorted sexuality, we have to inquire into the sexual habits of natives who lead peaceful lives and foster monogamous marriage, maintain stable and nurturant relations with their young, and abstain from sexual mutilations, violent initiation rites, torture, and ritual pederasty. Reich found in accordance with reputed anthropologists Bronislaw Malinowski and Margaret Mead that those natives lead peaceful lives who respect and intuitively foster emotional flow and all the other natural life functions in which sexuality is integrated as a growth and rejuvenation factor. Wilhelm Reich observes:
— Among those primitive peoples who lead satisfactory, unimpaired sexual lives, there is no sexual crime, nor sexual perversion, no sexual brutality between man and woman; rape is unthinkable because it is unnecessary in their society. Their sexual activity flows in normal, well-ordered channels which would fill any cleric with indignation and fear, because the pale, ascetic youth and the gossiping, child-beating woman do not exist in these primitive societies. They love the human body and take pleasure in their sexuality. They do not understand why young men and women should not enjoy their sexuality. But when their lives are invaded by the ascetic, hypocritical morass and by the Church, which bring them ‘culture’ along with exploitation, alcohol, and syphilis, they begin to suffer the same wretchedness as ourselves. They begin to lead ‘moral’ lives, i.e., to suppress their sexuality, and from then on they decline more and more into a state of sexual distress, which is the result of sexual suppression. At the same time, they become sexually dangerous; murders of spouses, sexual diseases, and crimes all start to appear. (Id., 192–193)
The present mainstream value system reflects a real reversal of natural functions when taking into account these bioenergetic facts, which in the meantime have been corroborated by the sex research of Masters & Johnson, the Kinsey Report, the work of Alexander Lowen as well as by psychoanalysis and child psychology.
— See Alayne Yates, Sex Without Shame: Encouraging the Child’s Healthy Sexual Development (1978), Stevi Jackson, Childhood and Sexuality (1982) and Mary Fortune, Sexual Violence (1994).
It is exactly the repression of natural sexual gratification that leads to crime, and not, as it is believed by most of our governments, sexual freedom and permissive education.
Wilhelm Reich states this fact, referring to Malinowski’s field research as evidence to the bioenergetic truth of sexual nonviolence being the rule, and civilization’s exorbitant sexual crime rate as a result of straying away form natural sexual self-regulation.
The etiology of homosexuality finds its clear explanation here; however, the fact that homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction is of course not a reason to be prejudiced about it or to socially stigmatize it:
— It is a fact that only the person who is incapable of gratification, the person whose sexual life is impeded and disturbed and who is contaminated by moral inhibitions, becomes sexually dangerous, while the sexually gratified and healthy person, no matter how many and what relationships he has, poses no risk to social coexistence. (Id., 193)
According to the findings of Malinowski, an English ethnologist, homosexuality starts to appear among primitive peoples at the same rate that missionaries import Christian morality into these people’s natural sex lives and separate the sexes from each other. This is also confirmed by the fact, which we observe over and over again, that wherever normal sexual relations between men and women or girls and boys are prohibited or hampered (e.g. in boarding schools, in the army or navy, etc.), homosexuality develops in proportion to the degree of sexual suppression. (Id., 101)
It would be totally wrong, however, to conclude from these facts that homosexuals should be despised or made the object of anti-homosexual campaigns. (Id.)
The dualistic concept of love came over to us from Aristotle; the Church’s moral codex took it over. But this love concept is schizoid in that it splits the wholeness and unity of love off in dysfunctional ‘sex’ concepts that are not only meaningless but when taken as guide posts for behavior lead to social and individual schizophrenia. Reich comments:
— The splitting of sexuality into debased sensuality and transfigured love, which generates entire systems of philosophy on the problem of ‘sexuality’ and ‘eroticism’ is nothing more than an expression of the dominant position of the man and, in addition, a consequence of the efforts of distinguished hypocrites to set themselves apart from the masses by adopting a special morality. (Id., 204)
The often-voiced call for more sexual responsibility, as we know it for example from the feminism agenda, is a tautology because naturally, and as long as we let nature regulate our sex lives, we are sexually responsible, and this responsibility begins to be severely eroded exactly with allowing moralistic pseudo-responsibility to set in. Reich writes:
— Sexual responsibility is automatically present in a healthy, satisfying sexual life. (Id., 208)
The Myth of Pedophile Predator Sexuality
After this clarification on the nature of undistorted sexuality, which is the human expression of the pleasure function, let us now look at unrepressed and undistorted pedophile sexuality. In what does pedophile sexuality differ from the mainstream sexual behavior pattern?
To answer this question I must first clarify what, if ever, can be taken as the majoritarian rule of sexual attraction and conduct; it seems that when nature is not bent, we ‘grow up’ psychosexually in the sense that as children we are erotically attracted to children of about equal and slightly different age, when we grow into adolescence, we choose adolescent and adult partners, while some adolescents prefer children, and when we grow adult, we again change our sexual appetite in desiring, at least most of the time, adult sexual mates.
As you see, I drafted this statement rather carefully, for there are so many exceptions to the rule that the rule itself is difficult to define. In fact, as early as in the 1920s, sexologists such as Richard Krafft-Ebing, Wilhelm Stekel or Havelock Ellis affirmed as a general tenor of their research that in human sexual behavior a normalcy standard is difficult to make out as the variety of human sexual conduct tends to be greater than its uniformity. Current society, while it has come to be convinced that homosexuality does no harm per se, still remains widely — and wildly — hostile toward pedophilia. The monolithic myth that was built over the last years and decades against adult-child erotic relations can handily be coined the myth of ‘Pedophile Predator Sexuality.’
It is argued by circles of society that are in one way or the other involved with the worldwide mega-business of child protection, and also by many psychologists, that all pedophile sexuality was per se of a predator nature, the adult typically acting out an aggressive urge for sexual satisfaction by bullying the child into coercive and painful forms of oral, anal and vaginal intercourse, virtually mutilating the child’s spiritual integrity on all levels, physically, mentally and emotionally.
There is a whole web of myths woven in this media fabric, and those myths serve propagandistic purposes. To sort out the mess, I have to go step by step, carefully putting things straight that are distorted, and facts apart that are entangled in a mythic cinematographic picture of gigantic dimensions from which emerges the youth-focused lover as the proverbial sexual monster and predator animal.
What I am talking about when I say ‘mainstream’ sexual conduct is but a rule of thumb. Now, when the mainstream sexual conduct is that people are erotically interested more or less in mates of about same or slightly different age, with pedophile attraction, the only difference really is that here significantly younger partners are preferred. There is no other difference. As with all undistorted sexual attraction and mating, pedophile emotional attraction and sexuality is tender, harmless, loving, caring and nurturant, and as generally with sexuality, when it is repressed, it begins to exhibit violent and harmful traits.
The predator myth cheats about these facts, signing the mythic pedophile up as a scapegoat for acts that are for the most part perpetrated by heterosexual predators, and also for the minority of pedophile predators whose existence I do not deny, but who are, like heterosexual predators, sexual ‘pathologies’ because they have repressed their original longings, which is why they became sexual sadists.
Pedophile sadism is certainly an undesirable and socially harmful vintage of sexual pathology. The sad outcome of such violent urges make the headlines of our daily morning and evening papers. However, what the media do not tell is that these cases are but a tiny percentage of general violent crime, and an even tinier percentage of the total pedophilia related criminality.
All research on adult-child sexual attraction corroborated my early intuition that pedophile erotic attraction and behavior is as nonviolent and tender as mainstream sexual behavior, provided it is left unregulated and thus functions in a self-regulated manner.
Our international media distort these facts more or less deliberately because ‘fighting perversity’ is today used as a major Trojan horse for populating the neofascist agenda of total control and tight regulation of the citizen.
That most people are hardly if ever aware of this fact is deplorable enough, was it not just another piece of evidence for the distortion the consumerist worldview brings up with its general hostility to all sexuality; in fact, sexual citizens are bad consumers.
This is a simple psychological and economic fact that was mentioned in the works not only of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, but that was even more broadly elucidated in the 6-volume masterpiece The History of Sexuality, by the French philosopher Michel Foucault.
— See Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality Volume 1: The Will to Knowledge (1976/1998), Volume 2: The Use of Pleasure (1984/1998), Volume 3: The Care of Self (1984/1998). The theme was elaborated even more in detail by other French philosophers, among them Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. See L’Anti-Oedipe: Capitalisme et Schizophrénie (1973).