Oh what a surprise, government gives cash to pedos, what a twisted webb they weave
Andy
more on Peter Righton here from P.A.N Number 9 JULY 1981….and also Morris Fraser…
“Righton finds that boy-lovers, “in common with human-beings whose sexual preferences command social approval” are “motivated as much by love and affection as by lust.” Of the 14 boys (between 11 and 16 years of age) he had interviewed, nine told him “that this particular friendship was the first occasion on which the boy had felt himself to be fully accepted as a person in his own right.” Nearly all the boys told Righton that they “believed they had benefited and grown emotionally through their friendship, though some of the older ones felt they were now beginning to outgrow it. All, without exception, told me they had enjoyed the sexual aspects of the relationship, and confirmed that their friend was more concerned for the boy’s pleasure than his own.” The boys did admit to “a measure of guilt and confusion” over the sex despite their pleasure in it. Righton introduces a salutory note of caution, however: “The most serious faults displayed by paedophiles, in my view — a view that received ample confirmation in my counselling practice — are those of almost limitless over-indulgence of the child on the one hand, and of a hothouse possessiveness on the other.” These are faults, of course, which afflict many human pairings but are more characteristic, he feels, of “liasons which are both transitory and illicit”, and they can be “potentially devastating to the emotional health of children.” “If a child does develop a warm friendship with a paedophile which includes shared sexual pleasure,” he concludes, “the sex is unlikely to do the child harm, and the friendship may well be more beneficial than otherwise.” Some time ago we had occasion to praise a remarkable book by London Psychiatrist Morris Fraser called The Death of Narcissus (See PAN 5, page 20). It is suprising, then, to find him writing the most condemnatory, negative and stereotype-afflicted article in this whole volume. It is his thesis that sex between minors and adults often has horrendous consequences for the child, although this might not become apparent until years later. ‘Is there, Fraser asks, a natural victim, “a child who is particularly liable to fall prey to sexual encounters”? With his answer he gets off to a good clean start. “We can greatly improve the value of our conclusions by ignoring all studies by groups with a declared or self-evident interest. That is groups searching for evidence to bring about some change in public attitudes or even in the law.” (In the days of witch-burning would he have ignored studies by anti-witch-burners showing that squint-eyed old ladies really didn’t cause earth-quakes or church steeples to ==================================== Pan, Number 9, p.35 ———————————— be struck by lightning?) He prefers “the clinical impressions of experienced but uncommitted professionals to figures from spurious ‘surveys”‘. He now sets out to portray the kind of boy who is searching for love and sex with an adult so that this “natural victim” can be spotted, isolated and denied the affection and sexual attention he craves — for his own good, of course. Since Fraser cannot use the data gathered by people who want to change laws or social attitudes he has to rely on the work of people who find present day laws and social attitudes just fine. His “uncommitted professionals” are interesting. Most, of course, are of psychoanalytic persuasion, but he also cites Mary Whitehouse’s own Cyril Townsend, MP (See PAN 1, page 6). One of the most annoying habits of psychoanalysts is their tendency to ignore the work of psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists as being “superficial” and, instead, to cite a handful of supposedly typical clinical cases drawn from their own practice (in five or less paragraphs) from which they come to generalized conclusions by grinding their observations through the mesh of such Freudian premises as the Oedipus Complex, the Latency Phase and other “unquestionables” of Victorian-Edwardian psychology. Fraser cites the cases of two disturbed young men who had had sex experiences with adults in their youth. One was an active participant, yet, Fraser says, “he was nevertheless a victim throughout. . . . Here the willing catamite is in as unhappy a situation — more so indeed — than the child who is repelled or resists.” In other words, if a boy doesn’t like it, it’s bad; if he does, it’s even worse! When it comes to the “seduction into homosexuality” argument, Fraser is even more old-fashioned than Freud, who felt that the basic contours of one’s sexuality are pretty well established by around the age of five. “Paederastic reality”, we are told, is a pattern that often persists “and is replicated as the seduced becomes, years later, the seducer. Sexual behaviour is not just a matter of deep unconscious urges, but equally one of habit, of learning, of a need to recall first remembered attentions. So if we ask whether early homosexual experience can ‘make’ a boy homosexual, the answer is that it can, especially if repeated — in spite of received wisdom to the contrary.” This we are supposed to accept as Revealed Psychoanalytic Truth, and the growing evidence accumulated by psychologists that Fraser’s thesis simply doesn’t square with reality is, presumably, to be disregarded because the researchers may have disagreed with society’s stereotypes and laws. From here on howler tends to follow howler. Although Fraser won’t read the research of “committed” scientists, he has no objection, it seems, to scouring the popular press for exposes of paedophile “rings”: “Chicken-hawks” of Los Angeles seduce and export alienated youngeters (A Robin Lloyd/Densen-Gerber fantasy); Brazilian paedophiles rape, force into prostitution, then abandon their kids; their counterparts in the Eastern United States ten years ago had a “prostitution ring” of “generally fatherless youngsters” as “boy victims”.
here is a reference tot that document connected to home office that i came across…
Micky Burbidge – He supported P.I.E’s proposal to abolish the age of consent laws. Also wrote a book entitled “Evidence on the law relating to and penalties for certain sexual offences involving children for the Home Office Criminal Law Revision Committee” with Kieth Hose
my understanding was that Keith Hose produced this document (book?) after attending a coneference run by MIND (1975) the mental health organisation..which puzzled me but i think it was a fringe meeting about ‘sexual minorities’….
P.A.N number 15 march 1983…here it mentions ‘russian spy’ geoffrey prime who it says here wasnt a PIE member…but maybe an alias…
hmmmm…
“LONDON, ENGLAND Once again our face is red with respect to PIE. In P.A.N. 14 we reported that Russian spy Geoffrey Prime had been discovered to be a member of Paedophile Information Exchange (this we learned in a phone call from a PIE member). Now it turns out that both we and our informant had been taken in. The truth is Geoffrey Prime’s name never appeared on PIE’s membership list, nor do any PIE members remember his face. The allegation was just another gutter press charge based on nothing. Of course Prime could have used an alias and received mail at a temporary address. Nevertheless the police from the Scotland Yard based Obscene Publications Squad searched the homes of two PIE members on 16 November and took away PIE documents, manuscripts and copies of Contact, an internally circulated paper. They did not look for PIE membership lists, it seems, and are still obsessed with trying to hang PIE leaders with conspiracy to corrupt public morals and pornography charges. “
“They did not look for PIE membership lists,” why is that then?….all very odd…
Paidika
Number 12 (V.3 N.4), Winter 1995, pp.2-12
“Bara: Of Death, Desire and Drumsticks”, by Morris Fraser
look who shows up in PAIDIKA magazine…GRAHAM OVENDEN..
Number 10, Winter 1994
(NOTE: Both No.10 and No.11 are marked on the inside front cover as being issued in Winter 1994)
Contents of Number 10 (Vol.3 No.2, Winter 1994)
Cover, Publishing Information, Table of Contents (pp.cover-1)
Joseph Geraci: Interview: Gilbert Herdt (pp.2-17)
Lawrence A. Stanley Esq: *****Graham Ovenden (pp.18-29)
Introduction
Guest Editorial: Fall from Grace, by Graham Ovenden
Poems and Drawings, by Graham Ovenden*****
spotlight 
Pingback: Row over cash for paedophiles (16.12.77) » Alternative News Network
Reblogged this on Join The Dots Campaign.
Oh what a surprise, government gives cash to pedos, what a twisted webb they weave
Andy
more on Peter Righton here from P.A.N Number 9 JULY 1981….and also Morris Fraser…
“Righton finds that boy-lovers, “in common with human-beings whose sexual preferences command social approval” are “motivated as much by love and affection as by lust.” Of the 14 boys (between 11 and 16 years of age) he had interviewed, nine told him “that this particular friendship was the first occasion on which the boy had felt himself to be fully accepted as a person in his own right.” Nearly all the boys told Righton that they “believed they had benefited and grown emotionally through their friendship, though some of the older ones felt they were now beginning to outgrow it. All, without exception, told me they had enjoyed the sexual aspects of the relationship, and confirmed that their friend was more concerned for the boy’s pleasure than his own.” The boys did admit to “a measure of guilt and confusion” over the sex despite their pleasure in it. Righton introduces a salutory note of caution, however: “The most serious faults displayed by paedophiles, in my view — a view that received ample confirmation in my counselling practice — are those of almost limitless over-indulgence of the child on the one hand, and of a hothouse possessiveness on the other.” These are faults, of course, which afflict many human pairings but are more characteristic, he feels, of “liasons which are both transitory and illicit”, and they can be “potentially devastating to the emotional health of children.” “If a child does develop a warm friendship with a paedophile which includes shared sexual pleasure,” he concludes, “the sex is unlikely to do the child harm, and the friendship may well be more beneficial than otherwise.” Some time ago we had occasion to praise a remarkable book by London Psychiatrist Morris Fraser called The Death of Narcissus (See PAN 5, page 20). It is suprising, then, to find him writing the most condemnatory, negative and stereotype-afflicted article in this whole volume. It is his thesis that sex between minors and adults often has horrendous consequences for the child, although this might not become apparent until years later. ‘Is there, Fraser asks, a natural victim, “a child who is particularly liable to fall prey to sexual encounters”? With his answer he gets off to a good clean start. “We can greatly improve the value of our conclusions by ignoring all studies by groups with a declared or self-evident interest. That is groups searching for evidence to bring about some change in public attitudes or even in the law.” (In the days of witch-burning would he have ignored studies by anti-witch-burners showing that squint-eyed old ladies really didn’t cause earth-quakes or church steeples to ==================================== Pan, Number 9, p.35 ———————————— be struck by lightning?) He prefers “the clinical impressions of experienced but uncommitted professionals to figures from spurious ‘surveys”‘. He now sets out to portray the kind of boy who is searching for love and sex with an adult so that this “natural victim” can be spotted, isolated and denied the affection and sexual attention he craves — for his own good, of course. Since Fraser cannot use the data gathered by people who want to change laws or social attitudes he has to rely on the work of people who find present day laws and social attitudes just fine. His “uncommitted professionals” are interesting. Most, of course, are of psychoanalytic persuasion, but he also cites Mary Whitehouse’s own Cyril Townsend, MP (See PAN 1, page 6). One of the most annoying habits of psychoanalysts is their tendency to ignore the work of psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists as being “superficial” and, instead, to cite a handful of supposedly typical clinical cases drawn from their own practice (in five or less paragraphs) from which they come to generalized conclusions by grinding their observations through the mesh of such Freudian premises as the Oedipus Complex, the Latency Phase and other “unquestionables” of Victorian-Edwardian psychology. Fraser cites the cases of two disturbed young men who had had sex experiences with adults in their youth. One was an active participant, yet, Fraser says, “he was nevertheless a victim throughout. . . . Here the willing catamite is in as unhappy a situation — more so indeed — than the child who is repelled or resists.” In other words, if a boy doesn’t like it, it’s bad; if he does, it’s even worse! When it comes to the “seduction into homosexuality” argument, Fraser is even more old-fashioned than Freud, who felt that the basic contours of one’s sexuality are pretty well established by around the age of five. “Paederastic reality”, we are told, is a pattern that often persists “and is replicated as the seduced becomes, years later, the seducer. Sexual behaviour is not just a matter of deep unconscious urges, but equally one of habit, of learning, of a need to recall first remembered attentions. So if we ask whether early homosexual experience can ‘make’ a boy homosexual, the answer is that it can, especially if repeated — in spite of received wisdom to the contrary.” This we are supposed to accept as Revealed Psychoanalytic Truth, and the growing evidence accumulated by psychologists that Fraser’s thesis simply doesn’t square with reality is, presumably, to be disregarded because the researchers may have disagreed with society’s stereotypes and laws. From here on howler tends to follow howler. Although Fraser won’t read the research of “committed” scientists, he has no objection, it seems, to scouring the popular press for exposes of paedophile “rings”: “Chicken-hawks” of Los Angeles seduce and export alienated youngeters (A Robin Lloyd/Densen-Gerber fantasy); Brazilian paedophiles rape, force into prostitution, then abandon their kids; their counterparts in the Eastern United States ten years ago had a “prostitution ring” of “generally fatherless youngsters” as “boy victims”.
http://www.williamapercy.com/wiki/index.php?title=Magpie_issue_11_May_1978
Publication of P.I.E….
here is a reference tot that document connected to home office that i came across…
Micky Burbidge – He supported P.I.E’s proposal to abolish the age of consent laws. Also wrote a book entitled “Evidence on the law relating to and penalties for certain sexual offences involving children for the Home Office Criminal Law Revision Committee” with Kieth Hose
my understanding was that Keith Hose produced this document (book?) after attending a coneference run by MIND (1975) the mental health organisation..which puzzled me but i think it was a fringe meeting about ‘sexual minorities’….
P.A.N number 15 march 1983…here it mentions ‘russian spy’ geoffrey prime who it says here wasnt a PIE member…but maybe an alias…
hmmmm…
“LONDON, ENGLAND Once again our face is red with respect to PIE. In P.A.N. 14 we reported that Russian spy Geoffrey Prime had been discovered to be a member of Paedophile Information Exchange (this we learned in a phone call from a PIE member). Now it turns out that both we and our informant had been taken in. The truth is Geoffrey Prime’s name never appeared on PIE’s membership list, nor do any PIE members remember his face. The allegation was just another gutter press charge based on nothing. Of course Prime could have used an alias and received mail at a temporary address. Nevertheless the police from the Scotland Yard based Obscene Publications Squad searched the homes of two PIE members on 16 November and took away PIE documents, manuscripts and copies of Contact, an internally circulated paper. They did not look for PIE membership lists, it seems, and are still obsessed with trying to hang PIE leaders with conspiracy to corrupt public morals and pornography charges. “
“They did not look for PIE membership lists,” why is that then?….all very odd…
http://exitinterview.biz/rarities/paidika/n12/pdk12ill.htm
Paidika
Number 12 (V.3 N.4), Winter 1995, pp.2-12
“Bara: Of Death, Desire and Drumsticks”, by Morris Fraser
look who shows up in PAIDIKA magazine…GRAHAM OVENDEN..
Number 10, Winter 1994
(NOTE: Both No.10 and No.11 are marked on the inside front cover as being issued in Winter 1994)
Contents of Number 10 (Vol.3 No.2, Winter 1994)
Cover, Publishing Information, Table of Contents (pp.cover-1)
Joseph Geraci: Interview: Gilbert Herdt (pp.2-17)
Lawrence A. Stanley Esq: *****Graham Ovenden (pp.18-29)
Introduction
Guest Editorial: Fall from Grace, by Graham Ovenden
Poems and Drawings, by Graham Ovenden*****
Pingback: The Paedophile Information Exchange: Timeline of press cuttings 1975-2014 | spotlight