[Apologies for any confusion: this relates to the book mentioned in this post.   https://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/474128.htm  ]

Having read Sarah's book…

Firstly, the positives. She comes out strongly against the demonisation of peds, dealing with us as ordinary people. She emphasises clearly that peds should not be judged or condemned for being sexually attracted to children, and distinguishes clearly between the moral neutrality of sexual orientation and the moral responsibility that comes as a result of choices and actions. These points might seem blindingly obvious to us, but there are many people out there who still don't even realise that 'paedophile' doesn't mean child abuser or that there is even such a thing as a ped orientation.

She points out the absurdities inherent in the 'paedo-hysteria': how she faced hostility and suspicion for the mere fact of doing the research, ridiculous conflations of 'paedophile' with 'psychopathic sex fiend' who would be more than likely to assault her if she interviewed them on campus. And the difficulties and frustrations we have to face in dealing with this sort of nonsense ourselves.

She draws out from the research findings that there is little to support the "cycle of abuse" theory - peds 'becoming' peds because they were abused as kids - and tentatively refers to theories positing paedophilia as falling within a "normal distribution curve for human males".

Towards the end of the book there is also a welcome plea for adults and children who are in situations where they are working together, to be able and allowed to express physical affection in hugs etc.

But I think the most significant 'positive' in the book is the presentation of our own descriptions of what we find attractive in children, the kinds of relationships we desire with children/youths, the things which are most significant to us, fantasies and so forth. She draws positive conclusions from this:

"...the sense of children as whole people... [Respondents] do not, in general, seem to be focusing on or fetishising certain body parts, as many heterosexual men do with adult women's breasts, buttocks or legs..."

"...[the] often gentle, yearning nature [of the fantasies described]..."

"I notice the many references to cuddling, sharing and friendship..."

"If we compare these ...[with those of non-ped males in Nancy Friday's book Men in Love]... what sets the paedophile responses apart is often the greater emphasis on non-sexual friendship and doing 'everyday' things together..."

These features of gentle forms of relational, romantic and erotic desire and feeling complement what she presents of the research into respondents' early sexual experiences: exploratory, playful, etc. Sarah writes:

"What may distinguish this sample more clearly from the general population is perhaps that they may grow up to retain into their adulthood their continuing sexual curiosity..."

She quotes one respondent identifying as being "attuned to children" and "nostalgic for girls as equals".

On the question of sexual contact between children and adults Sarah takes a position with which I disagree strongly. And it seems to me to be at odds with what was presented concerning the sexuality and desires of child lovers in the earlier part of the book.

Sarah does acknowledge - citing Levine - that children and younger teens are often interested in sex (bit of a no-brainer, that one, I know, but she acknowledges it); and that they can have perfectly harmless sexual exploration with each other, and sex play, etc. Encouragingly, she then poses the obvious question: doesn't it therefore seem reasonable to suggest that they could engage in similar kinds of sexual interaction with adults too, equally harmlessly? She cites certain fields of opinion which is on the positive side with regard to this....

But then she closes it down, and turns back. She states that any and all child/adult sexual interaction is simply "inherently harmful" - consensual or not; regardless of the societal form in which it occurs (society's attitudes, laws, etc.) "The status of being a child" is, it is claimed, "a necessary and sufficient cause for harm to arise". And this is due to the fact that children are "developmentally immature", making any kind of sexual engagement with adults a "psychological intrusion" and a weight of "invasive and unbearable intimacy". Children are not "like adults".

What follows is my own personal view and reaction to this.

The research in the book indicates that peds don't want children to be 'little adults'; that they don't want heavily psychologically laden, intensely "serious", "driven" and goal-oriented sex on the model of adult/adult sexual relationships. That their sexuality is attuned to child sexuality; is gentler, not intrusive and burdensome but affectionate, cuddle and play oriented, relational in a much wider context than just erotic interaction (as Spike pointed out recently). I therefore don't understand why or how Sarah hasn't drawn what to me seemed the obvious conclusion: that this therefore argues powerfully against the very concerns she raises on the question of adult/child sexual interaction.

Sarah takes the view that children are just going to be inhibited at opposing an adult's will, and naturally eager to please, etc. I find this a very unrealistic picture - and I know it is! I work with kids most days of my working life, and have done so for many years.

She also argues that men are not encouraged to be "sensitive to emotional cues". And therefore we cannot easily "engage" with the emotions of a child. (Again, this conclusion despite the vast weight of suggestion in the cited research findings that MAA males are indeed generally highly sensitive people, moved and affected by gentleness and subtle beauty, desiring nothing more than to listen to and relate with the children they love).

I found this section of the book disheartening. But, a couple of points in conclusion:

Firstly, the presentation of the research findings will - or should - challenge many people who read this book to have their consciousness raised as to paedophilia and attraction to children. It has allowed us to 'speak' to an audience that would not otherwise have heard us. Disabusing people of false and ridiculous conceptions of paedophilia and ped sexuality can only be a good thing.

Secondly, for those of us who are disappointed by the stance taken in the book on the pro choice issue: if readers are open-minded enough, they may be encouraged - by the very fact **of** the 'absolute' stance that Sarah takes on the question of adult/child sexual interaction - to notice the paradox between that on the one hand and the descriptions of ped sexuality on the other, especially if they also look into some of the works Sarah references which are more positive on that question.