To the Reader:

This file was created with Optical Character
Recognition (OCR) software.  It has been 
edited to correct scanning errors, though
some may still remain.  We regret any 
inconvenience.

Errors in the original pages are marked inside
angle-brackets (<>).  Some corrections are
made (<ARCHIVIST'S CORRECTION: >), some
comments added (<ARCHIVIST'S NOTE: >), 
other errors, mostly typographical and spelling,
are marked <sic> to indicate that this
is how they appeared in the original, and a
few mysteries are marked <?>.
Researchers are encouraged to consult the 
originals or the full-page copies available
here when accuracy is needed for quotes or
other scholarly use.

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.1 (front cover)
------------------------------------

P.A.N.
Paedo Alert News
a magazine about boy-love

NEWS
Pagsanjan, Auckland, Geneva, Paris, 
Los Angeles, London

Boy-love as RELIGION 
by J. Darling

ERIC
a story by Henri Philippe
<ARCHIVIST'S NOTE: The byline on p.17 lists
this author as Philippe Henri.  It is
unclear which is correct.>


BOOKS
THE CHILD LOVERS, by Wilson & Cox; 
Two photo books

BOYCAUGHT 
Consent & Resistance 
by Edward Brongersma

number 16

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.2
------------------------------------

<photograph>

P.A.N.
Paedo Alert News 
a magazine about boy-love

Number 16

July, 1983

WHAT'S INSIDE

IN BRIEF
Pagsanjan, Auckland, Geneva, 
Paris, Los Angeles, London      3

Boy-love as RELIGION
by J. Darling                  11

ERIC - a story by
Henri Philippe                 17

BOOKS - THE CHILD LOVERS, 
by Wilson & Cox; 
Two photo books                24

BOYCAUGHT - Consent & 
Resistance
by Edward Brongersma           29

Front cover photo by Pierre Marin. All 
other photos by Alpha Bravo.

PAN is published five times a year by The 
Coltsfoot Press, a division of Spartacus, 
P.O. Box 3496, 1001 AG Amsterdam, 
The Netherlands. Editor in Chief, 
John D. Stamford; Executive Editor, 
Frank Torey.

ISSN 0167.4749

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.3
------------------------------------

IN BRIEF . . .

NEW YORK, NY USA   The NAMBLA 
JOURNAL No. 6 is out, and a very impressive 
publication it is: 28 pages, tabloid 
format, professionally designed and 
mounted, with attractive sketches and a 
few cogent photos. We are proud to see 
two of "our" authors contributing fine 
shorts stories: Kevin Esser and Louis 
Colantuono. There is an interesting article 
by "Camilla" dealing with feminism and 
boy-love; it's good to have this point of 
view in a boy-love journal even if it starts 
from premises which have more to do 
with female psychology than the reality 
of males of different ages interacting 
with each other. Roger Moody is incapable 
of writing a dull or shallow article: his 
comments on "sex tourism" in the 
poorer countries are based upon an enormous 
amount of reading and personal experience. 
Like most radicals, he has a 
kind of anti-hedonist list: sex can't just 
be, as a natural expression of good feelings 
two people might have about one 
another; it must be justified philosophically, 
culturally, serve a purpose. Thus he 
views inter-cultural man-boy friendship/love/sex 
in politico-economic terms 
and concludes that NAMBLA should take 
a stand against Westerners having sex 
with Third World kids unless it elevates 
the boy (preferably by helping him throw 
off his economic and governmental shackles). 
Probably the best article is Mark 
McHarry's trenchant discussion of the 
background to the New York v. Ferber 
("anti-kiddie-porn") US Supreme Court 
decision a year ago. If you're a NAMBLA 
member ($20 per year) NAMBLA Journal 
No. 6 comes, with the Bulletin as part of 
your membership. Otherwise $3: 
NAMBLA P.O. Box 174, Midtown Station, 
New York, NY 10018, USA.

GHENT, BELGIUM   The STIEKUM paedophile 
film festival went off as planned 
in mid-March -- with a little background 
music by the super-Christians and right-wing 
bigots, who not only tried to pressure 
the Ghentse Rijksuniversiteit into 
throwing the group out (with partial 
success) but also picketed and threatened 
violence against the participants. (Signboards 
included "Uw poten van onze 
kinderen!" (Your hands -- or queers, for 
the word has a double meaning -- off 
our kids!). The fesitval was co-sponsored 
by the Workgroup in Morals and Philosophy 
at the university. A number of films 
featuring children were shown. 400 
spectators were counted during the two 
days of the festival. Speakers included 
Dutch radio minister A. Klamer. Although 
the press covered the protesters' activities 
more thoroughly than the contents 
of the festival, it appeared not to be hostile.
SOURCES: De Morgen, 12 & 15 
March, 1983; De Gentenaar 16 March, 
1983; Metro, 24 March, 1983.

PAGSANJAN, PHILIPPINES   The meddlesome 
French exile of Pagsanjan has finally 
left this little tourist village. Recently 
Georges Veran (Pee PAN 9, page 4 & 
PAN 10, page 9) found himself persona 
non grata both to the town officials and 
the Philippine government. It seems that 
it was he who "fingered" for the Immigration 
Police the five visitors last 
November who were expelled from the 
country for having local boys as companions. 
His Vigil Bureau Against Child Prostitution, 
Council for the Protection of Children 
was unpopular with locals for generally 
stirring up trouble and bad publicity. 
Also he fed frequent articles to the

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.4
------------------------------------

Manila press about "child prostitution" 
which the government found increasingly 
embarrassing, especially since Veran was 
openly living with three young males himself 
(like many gays, Veran condemned 
sex with males younger than his own 
lower age preference threshold, which in 
his case seems to have been about 15 or 
16). Last March, after receiving threats 
from several foreign visitors, and seeing 
the tide of local feeling turn against him, 
he fled, leaving unpaid debts in his wake.

NEW YORK, USA   The Journal of Homosexuality 
carried in the autumn of 1982 (Vol. 8, No. 1, 
pp.61-95) an excellent piece by Gerald P. Jones 
entitled "The Social Study of Pederasty: in 
Search of a Literature Base: An 
Annoted <ARCHIVIST'S/AUTHOR'S CORRECTION: Annotated>
Bibliography of Sources in English."

RIO DE JANIERO,
<ARCHIVIST'S CORRECTION: RIO DE JANEIRO>
BRAZIL   Famous English 
train robber (and culture hero) Ronnie Briggs 
<ARCHIVIST'S CORRECTION: Ronnie Biggs>
has been able to stay safely in 
Brazil (except when the English try to 
kidnap him Eichman <sic>-style) because 
some 8 years ago he fathered a child by 
a Brazilian woman. Now that child has 
become a super-star on the international 
bubble-gum circuit. Mike Briggs 
<ARCHIVIST'S CORRECTION: Mike Biggs>
can sing, dance and hosts his own CBS kiddie 
show. His first LP record has been a 
smash hit. With a son like Mike, father 
Ronnie must be wondering why he didn't 
get into the parent game earlier rather 
than rob trains.
<ARCHIVIST'S NOTE: Ronnie Biggs was the father
of three by his first wife long before the train
robbery in 1963; I often wish the PAN writers had
been as interested in accuracy (including spelling!)
as they were in being clever>

SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA   A beautiful 
example of how "rape victim protection 
laws" can be extended to adult/child contacts 
was given last May when a California 
Court of Appeals ruled that when an 
adult is tried for "statutory rape" the 
"victim" cannot be asked about his or 
her previous sexual experience. Thus one 
Lloyd Allen Jordan now stands to be 
prosecuted on charges which had previously 
been dismissed because the court felt it 
unfair to procede <sic> without knowing 
the sexual background of the 14-year-old 
with whom he was accused of having been intimate.
SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle, 5 May, 1983.

LONDON, ENGLAND   When the wife of 
an ex-math and history teacher at 
Harrow, one of England's finest "public" 
schools, writes a book about what really 
goes on the boys' dormitories at night, 
well society can't be expected to take 
that lying down! Daphne Rae's A World 
Apart, (Lutterworth Press, London. 
£8.95) was attacked by, among others, 
Ian Beer, the present headmaster of 
Harrow, who said the book contained 
many errors of fact and had turned 
"dinner party gossip into reality." 
However, a certain Humphrey Barclay, former 
head boy at Harrow while the Raes were 
there, said, "I found the book highly 
evocative and an excellent portrait of 
Daphne herself. There was nothing in the 
book that I found inaccurate."
SOURCE: Telegraph, 6 May, 1983. 

NEW YORK, NY, USA   The New York 
Mayor's Office of Midtown Enforcement 
released a report in May which ran 
counter to current myths promulgated by 
police and clergy about the Times 
Square area teeming with innocent 
young runaway boys prostituting themselves 
out of desperation. 69% of the 39 
boys interviewed in the study (average 
age: 15) lived at home. 72% on a 
particular night were Hispanic and about half 
had had encounters with the police. 
Parents knew where they were but not what 
they were up to. Many of the boys didn't 
view themselves as prostitutes; they 
were simply doing something to earn extra money.
SOURCE: New York Post, 2 May, 1983.

HOUSTON, TX, USA   A possible new entrapment 
scheme has surfaced recently 
here. One of our correspondents received 
a letter and questionnaire from something 
called "B.L. Ltd." It sounds as though 
they are offering kiddie-porn -- and 
trying to find out if you have any to offer. 
You are asked your "age range in sexual 
preference", whether you purchase, 
trade or sell "young material". Supposedly 
your name was obtained "when B.S.J. 
discontinued operations" and B.L. Ltd, 
is "a group of individuals that were in the

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.5
------------------------------------

past closely associated with B.S.J." 
However, the letter is suspiciously like 
those used by the Illinois Investigating 
Commission (See PAN 9, page 44) and 
U.S. Postal Agent Martin Locker's 
"Cumkid" come-ons. We have written to 
B.L. Ltd. and to some of our correspondents 
trying to determine the legitimacy 
of these people but feel it imperative to 
warn our readers that as of now we 
know nothing about them and until we 
do it is best simply not to respond to any 
feelers they put out.

MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA   We have 
always doubted that the idealistic Left is 
any less paedophobic than the Extreme 
Right (Christian or otherwise). At an 
Easter Karl Marx Centenary here one 
national committee member of the Socialist 
Worker's Party said if he had his way 
he would line up all the members of 
NAMBLA and shoot the lot of them. Incredible 
as this will seem to English and 
American boy-lovers, members of Gay 
Solidarity holding a workshop here the 
following day were outraged. Later the 
Communist paed-basher claimed he had been drunk.
SOURCE: GCN (Boston), 23 April, 1983.

CONCORD, CA, USA   Sometimes it 
seems a boy-lover behaves as though his 
deepest desire is to get nabbed by the 
police. A top administrator of the California 
College of Arts and Crafts in Oakland 
by the name of Robert J. Lawson had 
business cards printed advertising "free 
X-rated video movies for horny males 
and females" -- and gave his home telephone 
number! The cards started turning 
up all over town, in parks, schools, tennis 
courts -- and the police did the (for 
them) inevitable: they got a 15-year-old 
boy stooge to go to the home and view 
the porn -- and then arrested Lawson.
SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle, 29 & 30 April, 1983.

LONDON, ENGLAND   A new paedophile 
magazine has started in England, trying 
to fill some of the needs left by the 
recent dormancy of PIE's Magpie. Issue 
No.1 of Minor Problems was out on 15 
April. Its approach is very militant, 
extremely left wing, quite non-erotic. There 
is a listing of past and present events of 
interest to paedophiles in Europe, a 
review of the film Abuse, a prison letter 
from Claude Sigala, director of "Coral" 
before he became one of jude d'instruction 
<ARCHIVIST'S CORRECTION: juge d'instruction>
Michel Salzmann's victims (See

<photograph>

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.6
------------------------------------

<photograph>

P.A.N. 15, page 19 ff), the beginning of 
what seems to be a series of articles 
called Free Childhood -- Free Sexuality: 
A Marxist Analysis, a centre-spread interview 
translated from the German with 
Ulli Reschke of the Indiannerkommune
<ARCHIVIST'S CORRECTION: Indianer-Kommune>
in Nurnberg, a perceptive review of Tsang's 
The Age Taboo by Tom O'Carroll. There 
is also an excellent three-page run-down 
on articles bearing on paedophilia in the 
various gay and alternative periodicals in 
the UK, USA, Canada and France. You 
don't have to be a convinced Marxist or 
even socialist to enjoy and profit from 
Minor Problems. Cost (in the UK) is £5 for 
a 1-year, 6-issue subscription, £7 
abroad. The address is BM Minor Problems, 
GB-LONDON WC1 3XX, England.

AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND   A resident 
of this lovely but very conservative 
country ordered a copy of Theo Sandfort's 
The Sexual Aspect of Paedophile Relations 
and Paul Wilson's The Man They 
Called a Monster -- only to have both 
books seized by one N.T. Taylor of the 
New Zealand customs, who added, in his
letter to the customer informing him of 
the confiscation, "I would warn you that 
any further importations of this nature 
could render you liable to prosecution."

The recipient, however, wrote to Dr. 
Wilson at Queensland University in 
Australia, who, in turn, fired back an 
indignant letter: "I am appalled at this 
action. The book was a serious academic 
study of a social issue and in line with 
work I have been doing for years on 
criminal and social problems." Theo 
Sandfort also wrote a letter to the New 
Zealand Customs -- and the chairman of 
his department at the State University, 
Utrecht, Dr. Rob Tielman, wrote a strong 
letter of protest to the New Zealand 
embassy in The Netherlands asking how a 
country which considered itself civilized 
could censor scientific reports backed 
financially by the government of a 
friendly nation. (Dr. Tielman also sent a letter of 
protest to the American embassy 
protesting the supposed surveillance by the 
American secret police (FBI) of people receiving books
from us as reported recently in Advocate.
SOURCE: Advocate, 26 May, 1983.

COPENHAGEN, DENMARK   The most 
recent issue of of the Danish gay organization 
FORBUNDET's excellent publication 
PAN (no connection with P.A.N.!) carries 
an interesting interview with a 14-year-old 
boy Peter, who perceives himself gay. 
Although age of consent in Denmark 
is 15, it is fine to see that 
FORBUNDET addresses the problem of 
adolescent sexuality rather than taking 
the position that "it isn't a gay issue".
SOURCE: PAN (Copenhagen), June-July, 1983.

HOLLYWOOD, USA   Arthur Bressan's 
feature film Abuse is getting serious 
reactions in almost all the published media -- 
including the gay press. Unlike the trash 
aired by American TV networks, Abuse 
attempts to make the distinction between 
real child abuse (in this case a 14-year-old 
boy who was being regularly tortured 
in his home) and consensual sex relations 
with a man who loved him. It was 
touch and go whether Abuse would ever

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.7
------------------------------------

be shown; 35 distribution companies 
turned it down, and it was only after it 
made a success in international film 
festivals that Promovision International 
(distributor of such gay films as Taxi zum 
Klo) was able to get bookings for it in 
independent theatres. Abuse has started a 
great many gays asking questions about 
man/boy affairs, questions they often 
avoided by pretending this "wasn't a gay 
issue". While the gay publications were 
on the whole lauditory, <sic> the film 
made less of an impression on reviewers for 
the straight media. "If Abuse were a 
better film one might be able to call it 
sordid;" said Vincent Canby for the New 
York Times. "It's only tacky." The San 
Franisco <sic> Chronicle was more lenient: 
"The film is infuriating because it should 
be so much better than it is. . . . And yet, 
even with all the film's amateurisms, it 
carries the viewer along, sometimes 
most compellingly. What Bressan was 
able to do on a shoestring $27,000 
budget is something to be admired. . . .
SOURCES: Advocate, 26 May, 1983; 
New York Times, 15 April, 1983; San 
Francisco Chronicle, 20 April, 1983.

SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA   Recently two paedophile 
ex-prisoners were interviewed in 
an alternative gay newsletter which is so 
underground we can't even mention its 
name. One extract is interesting in light 
of these older psychological reports on 
the "true sexual desires" of men in US 
prisons for contacts with minors (such as 
the study by Gebhard, P. et al: Sex 
Offenders: Analysis of Types, 
<ARCHIVIST'S CORRECTION: An Analysis of Types>
New York, 1965): "When you're getting a report for 
rehabilitation -- from a parole officer or 
a psychiatrist -- you have to lie. You 
can't say you are in love with a child and 
there's nothing wrong with that in your 
view, or you'll be inside for the maximum 
time. You have to say you're ashamed of 
yourself and you really have the desire to 
reform." We have always maintained 
that prison research interviews with 
"child molesters" are utterly worthless, 
even where confidentiality is supposedly 
guaranteed. No boy-lover in his right 
mind is going to put at risk years of 
potential freedom, not to mention his
physical safety against violent attack in 
prison, by telling the truth to some naive 
establishment investigator. If American 
or Australian researchers really want to 
know about the sexual longings of such 
people they should interview them after 
they are out of jail and their period of 
parole is up -- or, better yet, before!

STANFORD, CA, USA   Last February 
President Donald Kennedy of Stanford 
University turned down funding for gay 
scholarships because this was "a proposal 
to restrict those funds to a student 
who announces a sexual orientation publicly." 
A lovely example of how academics 
discriminate by claiming if they don't 
they will be accused of discrimination! 
Now we understand that a "task force" 
at Stanford is doing a minute "textural
<ARCHIVIST'S CORRECTION: they probably mean
"textual">
analysis" of P.A.N. magazine for the Feds 
-- not, of course, to learn anything about 
man/boy relationships (they've all read 
their Finkelhor and Densen-Gerber) but 
to come up with some sort of recommendations 
which would make it easier for the FBI 
and local minions to catch boy-lovers 
and put them away. Needless to 
say, the Stanford University task force 
has never bothered to contact us.
SOURCE: Las Vegas Sun, 15 Feb., 1983.

GENEVA, SWITZERLAND   The United Nations 
has at last come out with its official 
report on child prostitution and 
pornography in the world. Author was one Jean 
Fernand-Laurent, one-time French ambassador. 
As expected it follows the 
Densen-Gerber line right down to the 
finish. 8,000 youngsters pound the pavements 
of Pigalle and other areas of 
prostitution in Paris peddling their 
innocent young bodies; 20,000 children are 
sold (presumably for prostitution) in 
Bangkok every year; 2,000 little children 
are "offered" in Colombo, Sri Lanka; 
$500,000,000 is spent on kiddie porn 
per year in the USA . . . The "solution" to 
the "problem" is, of course, vastly 
stepped up police action locally, intervention 
of INTERPOL -- and lots more "education" 
of parents and children through 
media-created "awareness". One

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.8
------------------------------------

doesn't expect balance from a body like 
the UN, but quite such an assemblage of 
phoney figures and outright lies is, well, shocking.
SOURCE: L'Autre Media, 5 May, 1983.

LONDON, ENGLAND   The Inner London 
Education Authority has determined to 
root out discrimination in the city's Boy 
Scout troops: they must open their ranks 
to homosexual boys who wish to join -- 
otherwise the scouts will never get the 
£62,000 grant it has now frozen pending 
an investigation of the movement's recruiting 
methods. "Marxist!" grumbled 
the gutter Daily Express, "Promoting 
sexual deviation was never in'the mind of 
their founder, the tough old general, Lord 
Baden-Powell." The gutter conservatives 
don't seem to be having much of an 
impact on the ILEA, which is determined 
to withold <sic> the funds if the "militant 
recruiting practices" of the scouts aren't 
abandoned.
SOURCES: Daily Express, 5 May, 
1982; The Sun, 5 May, 1982.

SACRAMENTO, CA, USA   A California 
Highway Patrol Officer's suicide after his 
arrest last April for sex contacts with 
three 6- and 7-year-old boys might have 
been just another dreary cipher in the 
current American witch-hunt victim score 
had it not been for a perceptive and 
sympathetic article by Ann Japenga in The 
Los Angeles Times. CHP Paul Garret 
seems to have been the kind of cop there 
should be more of in the world: he was 
liked by his fellow officers, the public -- 
and the neighbourhood kids who didn't 
seem to be able to get enough of being 
around him. Yet, had he gone to prison, 
as Japenga points out, he would have 
been a double target for officially 
tolerated inmate sadism: he was not just a 
"child molester", he was a cop, too. 
Journalist Japenga discoverd <sic> that 
not all police officers were as hard-nosed 
and unforgiving of paedophilia as one often 
assumes. She spoke with one Lt. John 
O'Donnell of the CHP, who recognized 
that most paedophiles don't want to hurt 
a child. It's a loving, caring, lustful 
relationship. One of Garrett's "victims" told 
a cop, "He was my best friend." Another 
interesting fact emerged after the suicide 
was that the families of both the "boy-victims" 
and Garrett himself were very 
unhappy about the affair being brought 
out of the area of private handling and 
before the police and courts. The article 
was a far cry from the usual knee-jerk 
support The Los Angeles Times has traditionally 
given to the extreme sexual conservative crowd, 
and perhaps it means a maturing of perception 
on the part of one of our most 
influencial <sic> media adversaries.
SOURCE: The Los Angeles Times, 18 May, 1983.

NEW YORK, USA   On a recent NBC network 
special one Los Angeles attorney 
Jacqueline O'Connor came up with some 
wonderful quotes: "Child porn is worse 
than alcoholism in the United States." 
"Recently a child care center owner took 
pictures of nude boys and girls together. 
The children were between the ages of 
two and four years." "A child molested is 
alright except that they have scars left 
inside them for the rest of their lives." 
(Sorry about the grammar -- it's hers, 
not ours.) "Very few molesters are in jail 
and the ones that are there are in jail for a 
short time." "Molesters are usually child 
care center operators, teachers, coaches, 
bicycle shop owners, uncles and baby-sitters." 
"Child molesters will always 
seek occupations involving children." 
"People and juries don't believe it is 
happening or can happen." "Children should 
tell their parents if they have even been 
touched by a person. And parents should 
report that person to the police."
SOURCE: NBC Gary Collins' Hour 
Magazine Show, 25 April, 1983.

LONDON, ENGLAND   We have long held 
that homophobic James Miskin, QC of 
the Old Bailey should be regarded as a 
sort of national treasure in reverse and be 
disposed of in whatever way negative 
treasures are disposed of the the UK 
(See PAN 8, page 8; PAN 9, page 10; 
P.A.N. 13, page 7; P.A.N. 15, page 11). It

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.9
------------------------------------

would seem that the Thatcher government 
has other ideas, and in mid-June he 
was knighted. So now it's Sir James!

WASHINGTON, DC, USA   The Sixth 
World Congress of Sexology, held here 
in late May, lamented the fact that the 
severe conservative backlash in America 
was making life difficult for its members 
and their research. Neither President 
Reagan nor the mayor of the nation's 
capital city would oblige with the routine 
courtesy of a welcome message, fearing 
that a dangerously large proportion of 
voters might consider sex research and 
education little more than pornography 
land sex therapy downright illicit). 
Nevertheless the congress went on -- 
with the assistance of porn stars, exhibits 
of sex video-cassettes, etc! Serious 
papers were also given. Dr. John Money 
of Johns Hopkins told of his success in 
"treating" boy-lovers by giving them 
injections of Depo-Provera (to "turn off 
sex desire"). More constructive, Dr. Mary 
S. Calderone told of sonograms of male 
foetuses showing that even before birth 
boys get erections. Sexual response is "a 
birthright" Dr. Calderone stated. "You 
can't say it's something that happens 
much later in life so we won't teach you 
about sex until you're eighteen . . . If you 
stop a child from talking it starts 
stuttering. The same holds true for sexuality. If 
you stop a child from expressing it, he 
will stumble. Much of the sexual 
'stuttering' . . . probably began with early 
suppression." Dr. Wardell Pomeroy was 
optimistic in the long run about sexual 
enlightenment. The march toward greater freedom 
and openness in dealing with sexual matters 
was "so inexorable" that the views 
of his audience would ultimately prevail, 
if not in two years, surely in 20.
SOURCES: The New York Times, 21 
May, 1983; San Francisco Chronicle, 26 May, 1983.

PARIS, FRANCE   First round on the legal 
counterattack against infamous juge d'instruction 
Michel Salzmann begins on 29 
June when Parisian author Gabriel Matzneff 
brings to court Jean-Claude Krief for

<photograph>

personal slander. Krief has been revealed 
as Judge Salzmann's tool, and the only 
source of evidence Salzmann had before 
when he started the Coral scandal last winter.
SOURCE: Gai Pied, 4 June, 1983.

WASHINGTON, DC, USA   The "Adolescent 
Family Life Program" was conceived 
a couple of years ago by an Alabama 
Republican Senator with the appropriate 
name of Jeremiah Denton. Its aim is the 
suppression of all teenage sexual outlets 
and expressions. Last year it received 
$13.5 million from the American taxpayer; 
it is one of the very few Federal public 
health programs for which President 
Reagan is requesting increased funding: 
$16.3 million next year. Thus far it has 
given money to some 62 stop-the-sex 
drives and "research" projects. Fortunately 
one of the program's top priority 
items, the "squeal rule", was temporarily 
thwarted last March 2nd by U.S. District 
Court Judge Thomas Flannery in New 
York; should his decision be overturned 
(as President Reagan advises), all federally 
financed health clinics which dispense

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.10
------------------------------------

contraceptives to teenagers would have 
to inform the kids' parents. Last February 
the San Francisco Chronicle polled 
15,000 northern California citizens, 
asking, "Should parents be told when 
minors seek birth control devices?" 84% 
said no -- and we just hope these 84% 
remember what Reagan and company 
are trying to put over on them when the 
next elections come round.
SOURCES: New York Times, 10 May, 
1983; San Francisco Chronicle, 17 Feb, 
3 March & 8 May, 1983; USA Today, 10 May, 1983.

GRIMSBY, ENGLAND   One John Edward 
Sunley, a 46-year-old bachelor mathematics 
teacher here, was fined but not 
sent to prison for having taken naked 
pictures of a number of local boys in the 
12-14 age group. And the reason for 
such uncharacteristic English clemency 
in the face of a sexual non-crime was 
that Sunley's attorney was able to 
convince Judge Geoffrey Jones that the 
photos were not taken for erotic pleasure 
- but to capture on film the "aura" of 
the boys as part of his "psychic research"!
SOURCE: Grimsby Evening Telegraph, 26 April, 1983.

LOS ANGELES, CA, USA   Lloyd Martin is 
slowly emerging from the doldrums after 
being pushed out of the Los Angeles 
Police. Recently he has been touring 
California promoting on behalf of his 
Foundation for America's Sexually Exploited 
Children his own We have a Secret (See 
P.A.N. 12, page 12) and a new children's 
book called What if I Say No? Co-author 
Jill Haddad describes this as a soft-cover 
"activities book for children" in which 
we reinforce that they have the right to 
say no." (Nothing, of course, is said 
about their right to say yes, for they 
don't have that right in the USA.) Martin 
still, apparently, hauls down $18,000 per 
year as "disability pension" (he suffered 
psychic damage from being fired from 
the police force, he claims). Money is 
definitely on his mind, and he is convinced 
that NAMBLA "raises a lot more money than we 
do." For once we wish he were right.
SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, 6 May, 1983.

NEW HAMPSHIRE, USA   Judianne 
Densen-Gerber has been brought before 
the New York Attorney General again -- 
this time for disregarding the terms of 
last year' <sic> order that she stop running 
Odyssey House and pay back a tiny part 
of the money she converted to her own 
use from public funds. Now she is 
moving the centre of her activities out of 
New York (while attendance at one of her 
Detroit meetings was 700, it was only 
8-12 in New York). She is also busy with 
her new anti-child-sex PACT pressure 
group, giving lectures throughout New 
England. One of our correspondents was 
present at a rally and (of course) fund-raising 
meeting in New Hampshire in mid-April, 
at which Jingle-Bells got off some 
new ones. She came out for "orifice 
protection legislation to protect all of 
children's orifices, not just some of them." 
She called upon gays to denounce 
paedophilia -- and threatened that they 
would never get any rights for themselves 
until they did. She is sponsoring 
New York state legislation to outlaw 
NAMBLA: "While no sexual activity has 
apparently taken place at their public 
meetings;" she said, "the real question is 
what do they do when the meeting is 
over?" (Her legislation would somehow 
make NAMBLA meetings a conspiracy.) 
She said 24 school teachers were arrested 
in the Boston/Revere scandal. 
NAMBLA is like Jim Jones and Jonestown -- 
because there was sexual abuse 
of children there. Washington DC has no 
age of consent laws; in New York and 
Arkansas it is 11, in Maine 13. She said Sri 
Lanka, Thailand and Brazil supplied 
children for "snuff" movies -- real-life cinema 
records of children being raped and then 
tortured to death as the camera grinds 
away. Finally, according to her, Childhood 
Sensuality Circle of San Diego was founded and 
is currently run by . . . (British 
novelist) Iris Murdoch!

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.11
------------------------------------

BOY-LOVE AS RELIGION

by J. Darling

Recently an English judge, presiding 
over the trial of a paedophile, declared 
that P.I.E. was "evil" because it attempted 
to give a moral justification to the "perverted 
lusts" of the child-lover. One's immediate 
reaction to such a charge is, 
'How irrational! What a ridiculous, 
ignorant remark; and this from a supposedly 
intelligent and civilized man!' One asks, 
'Why is it evil to involve natural behaviour 
in a code of ethics?' One ends up feeling 
hot under the collar, indignant, aware of 
the hopelessness of trying to plead one's 
case by appealing to the reasonableness of humanity.

Again, if one were to take any psychiatrist 
and debate with him on the beneficence of 
paedophilia, one would find it easy to 
demolish any reasoned, opposed 
arguement <sic> he cared to make. 
Pressed, the psychiatrist would either 
admit to you that, in fact, paedophilia 
had no harmful effects on either party, 
but that nevertheless society refused to 
tolerate it, or he would drop all pretence 
of scientific objectivity and flatly declare 
paedophilia to be unnatural, wrong, deviant, 
or evil, and that all paedophiles, if 
they did not respond to treatment, 
should be locked up for life. Nothing 
more enrages supposedly reasonable 
people than the reasonableness of paedophilia.

The boy-lover soon realizes that the 
opposition to the natural expression of 
his sexuality is based on a set, obsessive 
concept. The boy-lover notices the 
power of this concept, which appears, 
like the monster in the film Alien, to burst 
voracious from the very heart of an otherwise 
ordinary, decent human being. 
What the boy-lover is up against is the
primitive, but potent, force of Taboo. 
Taboo is a negative aspect of Religion. Its 
lack of response to Reason is due to its 
primitive origins in the human mind, a 
relic from that period of human savagery 
when Reason and Logic had not yet 
become prominent in the conduct of affairs. 
The mistake of today's Western 
paedophiles is to answer this terrible 
hatred with the voice of Reason alone. It 
is as if a Jew in Nazi Germany, in order to 
save himself from the gas-chambers, 
had engaged Herr Hitler in debate upon 
the illogicality of anti-Semitism. What 
the paedophile should realize is that boy-love 
is attacked by Taboo because it, 
too, is a religious force. The paedophile's 
rational understanding of his sexuality 
should be backed by a faith in the absolute 
rightness of his love, and by a sense 
of awe, akin to worship, of the source of 
its power over him. With such a fundament 
of belief, amounting to religious 
conviction, he will have the inner 
strength to combat and survive the 
persecution against him.

Many paedophiles are anti-religious 
because their most vocal antagonists 
have often been people who have invoked 
Christianity in their condemnation. 
One should not confuse, however, the 
concept of Religion only with such 
evolved religions. Much of the intolerance 
of boy-love, I believe, stems from the 
recognition by the great monotheistic 
religions, and by the modern monopolistic 
State, of its essentially religious nature. It 
is seen as a rival. In a work which I shall 
use as a guide to definition and 
terminology (Religion Without Revelation, New 
York, 1957), the late Sir Julian Huxley, 
the biologist and naturalist, wrote:

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.12
------------------------------------

Every advanced religion must experience 
some hostility towards religions at lower 
levels of development, whether intellectual, 
moral, or emotional; it is impossible for 
it to remain neutral. The ideal of religious 
tolerance is probably the best which the 
State can adopt, but even where it has 
been adopted it has only been between 
certain limits. . . . So long as States exist, it 
is clear that religious toleration cannot, or 
at least will not, be permitted in cases 
where religious belief aims at or tends 
toward the overthrow of the State or the 
principles on which its existence is grounded.

It is in the context of the above quotation 
that one can best understand the extraordinary 
statement at the end of last

<photograph>

January's Time Magazine article on 
NAMBLA, to whit that no State can allow 
such an organization to flourish if it cares 
about its survival. It is my contention that 
boy-love is one of the world's less-developed 
religions, and therefore extremely 
vulnerable to the hostility of 
organized socially-reinforced monotheism, 
just as the animism of primitive 
Pacific peoples was crushed by the activities 
of nineteenth-century American missionaries.

What do we mean by Religion? Are 
we talking about belief in boy-gods? Are 
we elevating our young friends into godlings 
to whom we administer their due 
rites? That is a charming idea, a fancy to 
be indulged in, but it is not a belief to be 
held to literally. Belief in gods, however, 
is not necessarily what religion is about. 
Sir Julian Huxley regarded religious 
experience as a necessary function of the 
human brain. Many people today declare 
that they are not religious. This arises 
from the misapprehension that religious 
experience assumes a belief in supernatural 
beings or in God. This need not be the 
case. In our secular world many feelings, 
associated, for example, with music or 
the adoration of a political figure, are 
religious in nature. It is well known that early 
Buddhism did not accept the existence 
of a supernatural being. What religion 
does do is subjectively to invest things or 
ideas with an immanent power to which 
the person reacts with feelings of awe 
and reverence, feelings powerful enough 
profoundly to alter his behaviour and to 
forge the destiny of his inner life. As 
Huxley pointed out, students of primitive 
religions testify that

feelings essentially and obviously religious 
may be evoked in reference to an undefined 
sense of spiritual power or sanctity 
inhering in objects . . . or events . . . without 
linking them up with belief in any spiritual being.

Huxley went on,

What, then, is religion? It is a way of life. It 
is a way of life which follows necessarily 
from a man's holding certain things in 
reverence, from his feeling and believing 
them to be sacred. And those things

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.13
------------------------------------

which are held sacred by religion primarily 
concern human destiny and the forces 
with which it comes into contact. . . . I 
believe, then, that religion arose as a feeling 
of the sacred. The capacity for expressing 
this feeling in relation to various objects 
and events seems to be a fundamental 
capacity of man, something given in and 
by the construction of the normal human mind . . .

Huxley indicated how religions, like 
social organization and ideas, have 
evolved: monotheism and organized 
dogma backed by philosophical argument 
being an extremely late development in 
religious history. In no way, of 
course, can this historical evolution be 
regarded as an evolution towards Truth. 
Scientifically, there is no evidence at all 
for the actual existence of either 
transcendent deities or immanent spiritual 
powers. These must be considered as 
constructions of the human mind. What 
is true, what is evident, is that man is a 
religious animal.

How is boy-love a religion? Just because 
we like boys does not make us cultists, 
in the same way that our appreciation 
of a rose does not transform us into 
high priests of horticulture. The 
distinction between a religious experience and a 
passing aesthetic fancy is that the one 
has become the centre of our life, its 
events central to our destiny as men, 
while the other is tangential to our 
conception of ourselves and how our loves 
should be conducted. Then should not a 
loving parent, as much as a paedophile, 
be a devotee of our religion? Parents, 
however, adore (or not, as the case may 
be) only their own genetic excrescences. 
They are usually indifferent or hostile to 
other people's children. Their affection is 
nothing more than a tribal attachment, or 
a form of narcissism. The boy-lover 
recognizes the universality of the idea of 
the boy, and sees its beauty in greater or 
lesser degree within all boys. The boy-lover 
is so devoted to the image, concept 
and the body of the boy that he will 
make the boy the centre of his spiritual, 
and subsequently active, life.

In looking at boy-love as a religion one 
should not presume that the boy-lover

<photograph>

must perceive any particular young friend 
of his as instilled with numinous power in 
the manner of a primitive totem. Certainly, 
however, the boy has served in history 
as a symbol of certain basic religious ideas.

Most often in the past, religious feelings 
associated with the love of boys 
have been disguised, for they have been 
grafted onto existing religious traditions. 
In his contribution (in collaboration with 
C.G. Jung) to a study of the myth of the 
divine child (Essays on a Science of 
Mythology, Princeton, 1963) Carlo Kerenyi 
indicated how such divinities as Apollo, 
Dionysus and Hermes were transformed 
in the evolution of Greek art from being 
rendered as bearded, mature -- men to 
being depicted as supple, adolescent 
boys. Kerenyi went on to argue that 
these boy-gods are symbols of the fructifying 
source of all things. They are the 
seeds and origins of men. They are thus 
associated with water, the primordial 
home of life. Many are the images in 
Greek art, for example, of young boys 
riding on the backs of dolphins. In one

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.14
------------------------------------

myth a certain Enalus jumps into the sea 
to be united with his beloved boy, 
Phineis, who has been cast into the waves 
as a sacrifice; dolphins appear and 
rescue the lovers. In another, Apollo 
brings the first priests to his shrine at 
Delphi by appearing upon a Cretan ship 
in the form of a dolphin. He leads the 
ship to Krisa, the port of Delphi, and then 
transforms himself into a beautiful, 
golden-haired boy. So enchanted are the 
sailors that they vow to remain at Delphi 
the rest of their days, that they might 
serve the god. In the Ancient World 
Apollo was to become a divinity particularly 
associated with the wooing of 
boys. Crete, the great island-nation of 
seafarers, was traditionally connected 
with the love of boys (even down, according 
to Hans Licht, to a form of ritualized 
rape). Another legend holds that as 
well as being taken by Zeus to be the 
wine-pourer of the gods, Ganymede was 
the concubine of Minos, King of Crete. 
The association of Ganymede with the 
source-concept, with the outpouring of 
life-giving substances, is strong. For the 
gods the boy dispensed wine and nectar. 
It was also said that, in order to protect 
his beloved from the jealousy of Hera, 
whose daughter Hebe had been supplanted 
as cup-bearer, Zeus set Ganymede 
permanently among the stars as the 
constellation Aquarius, whose water-jar was 
the source of the ever-flowing Nile. Any 
man who reached the Source, and drank 
from the jar held out to him by the hand 
of the beloved of Zeus, would be blessed 
with eternal youth.

A well-known example of the deification 
of a boy, on account of his beauty 
and of his having been loved, is that of 
Antinous by the Emperor Hadrian. More 
statues of Antinous exist than any other 
mortal who ever lived in the Ancient 
World, including those of any particular 
emperor. Many of these images put Antinous 
in the guise of a pre-existent divinity, 
such as Silvanus, the Italic spirit of the 
woods, or of Dionysus. The hieroglyphics 
of an obelisk, now mounted on the Pincio 
Hill in Rome, describe the details of 
Antinous' own cult. As Marguerite Yourcenar 
has shown in her novel, Memoirs of Hadrian, 
there may well have been religious 
significance in the historical fact of the 
youth's being drowned in the Nile.

Medieval Persian poems of the Sufi 
school associate, although the meaning 
is often veiled by several layers of 
allegory, the love of boys with the mystic 
understanding of God. The 'sarghi' of Old

<photograph>

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.15
------------------------------------

Persia, the wine-pourer, is represented in 
poetry and paintings as a beardless adolescent boy.

J.Z. Eglinton, in his pioneering work 
on Greek Love, claims that in Europe 
during the Middle Ages angels were not 
thought of as sexually neutral, but as 
beautiful boys. In baroque Rome the 
painter Caravaggio was to have his first 
altar picture for the Chapel of Saint 
Matthew, in the church of San Luigi dei 
Francesi, rejected because it showed the 
boy-angel bodily embracing the Saint as he 
wrote his gospel. Another painting of 
Caravaggio's, the 'Amor Victorinus' 
<ARCHIVIST'S CORRECTION: Amor Victorious, or,
originally, Amor Vincit Omnia>
(Staatliche Museum, Berlin), blatantly 
combines the sexual sauciness of a 
young boy with the symbolic attributes 
of Eros. When the picture was first hung 
in the palazzo of Vincenzo Giustiniani it 
was covered by a curtain of green velvet, 
which the prospective viewer would pull 
aside by means of a cord.

Neo-classical nostalgia for Ancient 
Greece and Neo-Gothic for the Middle 
Ages sometimes represented themselves 
in an investiture of sacredness in the 
figure of the boy. Wincklemann 
<ARCHIVIST'S CORRECTION: Winckelmann>
developed his theory of beauty from the proportions 
of Greek statues of youths. Frederick 
Rolfe's attachment to Roman Catholicism 
was in part due to his worship of certain of 
the boy-saints venerated by the Church.

The religious emotions connected 
with beautiful boys which reappear in 
mythology, literature and art link the boy 
with the source of life, and through it 
with redemption and salvation. The boy 
is also associated with immortality. It 
would appear that three central ideas -- 
Beauty, Salvation and Immortality -- 
transform boy-love into a religion. The 
boy's evident power over us, and his 
gifts to us, as much spiritual as physical, 
make him central to our destiny, to the 
integration of our personalities and sense 
of self. By saying this, I am not suggesting 
that this numinous power, which appears 
to us as invested in boys, actually exists 
as an independent force: it is a natural, 
religious conception in the mind of the 
lover. This is made apparent in Visconti's 
famous film version of Mann's Death in
Venice. There, the ethereal, all but 
unearthly beauty of the boy is recognized 
and duly worshipped by none save von 
Aschenbach. Von Aschenbach's adoration 
of the boy is never physical; the man 
is involved in a long mystical meditation 
upon that beauty which can only be described 
as celestial, yet which, to his surprise, 
is rendered in the flesh.

Why is boy-love a central religious experience? 
Why is it so prominent, so universal 
in human psychology? What is it 
that the lover is seeking? It will be 
recalled that Sir Julian Huxley stated his 
belief that religious conceptions were 
natural, not inspired, products of the 
human brain. In his contribution to 
Kerenyi's study of the myth of the divine 
child, which was referred to above, Carl 
Jung emphasized the importance of the 
child in our psychological structure. He 
described the idea of the child-god as an 
'archetype' in the human collective unconscious, 
one of the ingrained primordial 
nuclei upon which our minds are built. 
The essential core-meaning of the 
archetype can never be fully grasped by 
the conscious mind:

It was, and still is, only interpreted, and 
every interpretation that comes anywhere 
near the hidden sense . . . has always, right 
from the beginning, laid claim not only to 
absolute truth and validity but to instant 
reverence and religious devotion. Archetypes 
were, and still are, living psychic 
forces that demand to be taken seriously, 
and they have a strange way of making 
sure of their effect.

Jung went on to state that the Christian 
destruction of both the religion of 
Classical Antiquity and that of early 
Germanic Europe has done serious harm 
to the acceptance of the child archetype 
by both the conscious and unconscious 
sections of the modern mind. The 'puer 
aeternus' has become a demonic figure. 
In dealing with neuroses, Jung tried to 
persuade the patient to accept the child 
archetype, to meditate upon its images 
(according to him the child was often 
grafted with the form of a jewel, pearl, 
flower or chalice). Jung regarded the 
image of the child in dream or fantasy as

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.16
------------------------------------

the projection of the ideally synthesized 
self, a self which had been repressed by 
the artificial ego of the adult. Jung saw a 
real danger in this repression, while a 
religions conception of the child might 
ensure once again a healthy balance between 
the conscious and the unconscious:

Religious observances . . . consequently 
serve the purpose of bringing the image of 
childhood, and everything connected with 
it, again and again before the eyes of the 
conscious mind so that the link with the 
original condition may not be broken.

I hold that paedophilia is such a religious 
observance, a celebration of the 
idea of childhood which is basic to our 
mental health and stability. Their very 
fury, the insane hatred, evident in those 
who attack paedophiles, is a result of 
their having sundered themselves from 
the child archetype, and in consequence they suffer.

As Jung stated, the religious conception 
of the child is a symbol of the potential 
synthesis of conscious and unconscious 
elements in the personality: "It is 
therefore not surprising that so many of 
the mythological saviours are child 
gods." The child functions as a uniter of 
opposites: Jung alluded to the hermaphroditic 
nature of young boys, where 
opposite qualities are, for a brief but 
crucial space in the lifespan of the male, 
harmoniously united. Jung rightly pointed to 
the modern mania for mass, compulsory 
education as a sub-conscious attempt to 
destroy the specific qualities of 
childhood, since the child as such is now 
feared, a primordial threat to the illusion 
of omnipotence built up by the conscious 
minds of twentieth-century adults. To 
sum up, Jung saw the child as the ultimate 
symbol of man's sense of wholeness 
and the relation of his individual life 
to universal time:

The 'child' is all that is abandoned and 
exposed and at the same time divinely 
powerful; the insignificant, dubious 
beginning and the triumphal end. The 'eternal 
child' in man is an indescribable 
experience, an incongruity, a handicap, and a
divine prerogative; an imponderable that 
determines the ultimate worth or worthlessness 
of a personality.

It is the central place which the idea 
of the child has in the human mind which 
forces boy-love to be a religion. The 
celebration of the boy plays too important a 
role at the very core of human personality 
to be regarded as a "perverted lust", or a 
mere fetish, or a sign of immature 
emotional development. It is the boy-lover's 
detractors who are the immature ones, 
the psychically underdeveloped, the 
schizophrenics. Boy-love must be accepted 
as one of the world's sincerest religions, 
genuinely reflecting a natural process of 
the human psyche. Its lack of organized 
myth and dogma, its non-integration 
with the State, make it very vulnerable to 
the wrath of the great developed religions 
of the world, and of the communities 
they influence or control, hence the 
horrible, incredible punishments meted out to 
boy-lovers. Yet that very lack of 
theological consistency allows boy-love to adapt 
to changing historical and social 
environments, prevents it from becoming 
ossified and limited, to which fate the high 
religions are always prone. To quote 
once more Sir Julian Huxley:

But it should always be remembered that 
any particular religion will always be 
incomplete and that many potential religion-arousing
objects will not be utilized in it. 
They may be forced into opposition, so to 
speak, and acquire negative sacredness, 
become taboo or sinful, as with sex in 
Christianity, in striking contradiction to 
many religions like Hinduism, in which sex 
and its emblems are part of worship.

What is required is for boy-lovers to 
recognize that they are indeed undergoing 
a religious experience when they 
minister to a young boy's happiness. In 
this experience, most paedophiles would 
admit, sex plays only one part in a much 
broader scheme. Boy-love is ecumenical, 
undivided by sects or schism, drawing its 
devotees from all nations and classes. 
Therefore it should not be categorized as 
a sex-offense, but as one of the world's 
great, enduring religions.

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.17
------------------------------------

ERIC

by Philippe Henri
<ARCHIVIST'S NOTE: The cover and table of
contents list this author as Henri Philippe.
It is unclear which is correct>

The movement hadn't been quick 
enough: I was certain he had just stuffed 
a book into his jacket and was now sliding 
up the zip upon it.

As always this early on a Monday afternoon 
the huge supermarket was 
nearly deserted. Nearly everything on my 
shopping list was in my cart. I was just 
wandering about, returning, curiously 
enough, again and again to the book and 
record display. This time, coming around 
the electronics counter, I had surprised him.

Our eyes met. He looked about thirteen. 
He had straight long blond hair, was 
dressed in the uniform of his age: jeans, 
old white tennis shoes, shabby leather 
jacket. An intelligent, expressive face. A 
slight movement of the head liberated 
his left ear; I saw a tiny gold ring in its lobe.

Now, what was I going to do? I 
searched my mind for some experience I 
could draw upon. I have never really had 
much to do with the delinquents who 
haunt this suburb northeast of Paris, yet 
every so often I have had confrontations 
with young mischief-makers. For two 
years, before going into aviation, I had 
taught English to boys his age; I had also 
worked at several summer camps, as 
director at the last two. But most incidents 
I could recall involved boys or girls 
who were more or less my reponsibility. 
This lad I had never set eyes on before.

It was against my deepest impulses to 
call in the authorities. Lecturing him was 
absurd and useless. The idea of forcefully 
removing the plunder from his jacket 
didn't appeal to me either. My indecision 
didn't go unnoticed.

At first he had looked like a trapped
animal. Now he was regaining his confidence, 
becoming cocky, even arrogant. 
In his world you didn't admit to weakness; 
sheep were devoured without pity.

He passed me slowly, the shape of 
the stolen book clearly visible inside his 
jacket; he tapped it with his fingers and 
continued on his way, favouring me over 
his shoulder with one long look eloquent 
of what he thought of me.

I had witnessed a theft and done nothing 
about it. Moreover, I had allowed a 
young boy to make a fool of me. I quickly 
finished my shopping and fell into the 
check-out queue.

I was turning this all over in my mind 
when I saw him approach. One of the 
disadvantages of slack times is that most of

<photograph>

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.18
------------------------------------

the check-out counters are closed; today 
only one was in operation. The boy acted 
as though he had no choice but to take 
his place in my queue, and so put himself 
at risk, which rather surprised me. I 
would soon learn that if you were going 
to commit a theft you shouldn't leave 
through the "No Purchases" exit, which 
was right under the noses of the store 
detectives watching the crowd -- one 
had only to pick up some small item (in 
this case a pack of chewing gum) and 
then pay for it like any other honest young client.

He watched me, his face maintaining 
the same cocky smile. Without lowering 
his eyes he broke into the queue in front 
of me, much to the displeasure of the woman behind:

"Now, just what do you think you are doing?"

The boy looked her up and down. 
"What's wrong? We're together. Do you mind?"

The woman turned to me, comparing 
the energetic young office worker (me) 
with the little suburban street Arab -- 
and having a hard time seeing the connection.

<photograph>

To me the boy said, "We are together -- aren't we?"

Now I was becoming his accomplice! 
Torn between anger and reluctance to 
cause a scene, I simply muttered something 
under my breath. The boy beamed. 

"There . . . you see?"

The good woman kept further 
thoughts to herself, but judging by her 
expression they were not very flattering. 
The boy, on the other hand, began to 
revel in this little comedy:

"Now, what have you got that's 
good?" he asked me. "Is that fish?"

I didn't want to continue playing the 
role of a fool: "Yes. It's excellent for 
developing one's intellectual faculties -- I 
don't believe you really need any."

He wrinkled his nose, visibly surprised 
at my change in attitude but still unwilling 
to back down.

"And what's that?"

"Corn Flakes. You know what Corn Flakes are?"

"No"

"Very well, you shall have the pleasure 
of tasting them -- since we are together today."

I put a little more harshness in my 
voice than was necessary, but I wanted 
revenge for my humiliation.

It was then that I saw the man bearing 
down upon us. It happens that the supermarket 
is close to the airport where I 
work and I patronize it frequently enough 
to know a number of employees by sight. 
Thus I immediately realized that this was 
one of the surveillance inspectors. The 
boy hadn't yet seen him but he did notice 
the change on my face. I spoke to him rapidly:

"Whatever happens, don't move! Just trust me."

Talking all the while, and not giving 
him time to react, I quickly opened the 
boy's jacket and let the stolen book fall 
into my shopping cart. Even now I'm not 
really sure what made me do it -- it was 
more like a reflex.

The boy was cunning enough to catch 
on immediately. He followed my eyes, 
and met those of a type of man he'd 
probably run into many times before, but 
under far different circumstances than I

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.19
------------------------------------

ever had. I grabbed the sleeve of his 
jacket and kept him from carrying out his 
first impulse, which was to flee.

"I said don't move."

We locked eyes. He was reappraising 
me, surprised to find such authority in a 
man he had just judged a weakling. The 
look only lasted a few seconds, but I then 
could see, by a kind of softening in him, 
that he had placed his fate in my hands.

Now the inspector was upon us. He 
grabbed my young companion roughly by the arm.

"You! Open your jacket!" 

"It's already open."

"What kind of manners are these?" 

This last response was mine. If it 
didn't surprise the boy it earned me, on 
the other hand, a scowl from the inspector. 
I continued: "What do you want with this boy?"

"That's not your concern."

"It most certainly is. He's with me, so 
it seems I have every right to an 
explanation."

"With you . . . him?"

The inspector made the same comparison 
of the two of us that the lady 
behind me had. The little thief was elated 
by my support:

"Of course he is with me. Why not? 
Does that bother you?"

The inspector turned back to the boy: 
"All right, first of all, where is the 
book you stole?"

"I haven't stolen anything."

"And the surveillance cameras? What 
are you going to say about that? We're 
beginning to get very familiar with your 
thieving little face around here. This isn't 
the first time, is it?"

Meanwhile, I had stepped in front of 
my shopping cart to face the inspector, 
who had instinctively moved back a bit. I 
said angrily, "Now, that's enough! This, I 
suppose, is the book you're talking 
about. He chose it by himself at the book 
counter and now he has put it in our cart. 
So, either leave us alone and return to 
your job or I propose to finish this affair 
in the office of Monsieur Meignard."

The inspector looked surprised. 

"You . . . you know him?"

"It would appear . . ."

He hesitated, frowned, grumbled, 
"Very well . . . this time. But in the future
you'd better keep an eye on your little . . . pet!"

He left us, a bit stooped-shouldered 
under the amused or intrigued observation 
of the other shoppers.

"Who is this Monsieur . . . Machin?" the 
boy asked me.

"Monsieur Meignard is the big boss of 
the shopping complex."

"You know him?"

"Is that any of your business?"

Our turn came before the cashier and, 
as we continued to talk, the boy helped 
me put my purchases on the rolling 
counter. When he came to the book -- it 
was a beautiful edition about the great 
cats -- he hesitated for a moment.

"Wake up! We can't stand here all day."

I took the "object of the crime" and 
placed it with the other articles, paid the 
bill, put all of my own things in several 
plastic bags flying the colours of the 
establishment, the book and the chewing 
gum together in another, and held it out 
to the boy.

"Here you are;" I said.

He didn't take it. Instead he said, 
"Why did you do that?"

"Would you rather I hadn't?"

<photograph>

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.20
------------------------------------

"It's not that, but . . ."

"All's well that ends well. Here are 
your things. You can go home with your 
head held high -- and not between two policemen."

He still didn't take the bag.


"Come on -- make up your mind. I'm getting cramps."

He hesitated, then asked, "I can come 
with you to your car?"

I put the plastic bags back in the cart. "If you wish."

Just for the sake of memory, I wanted 
to know how to tag that little face. 

"What's your name?"

"Eric Mortier."

"And how old are you?" 

"Fourteen and a half."

I had guessed less. My mother would 
undoubtedly have expounded on the 
unbalanced diet which he ate at home. 

"And you live . . .?"

"At La Rose des Vents."

A complex with one of the worst reputations 
in all of Aulnay-Sous-Bois. We walked on in silence.

"And you?" he asked. 

"Me . . . what?"

"What is your name?"

In the shopping centre he had been 
addressing me (in conformity with our
little charade) by the informal "tu" form 
of the word "you". Now he had used the 
respectful "vous", and I commented on this.

He looked amused; he had totally lost 
his air of the arrogant little thief.

"I'll use whichever you prefer, he said."

"I really don't care."

And that was perfectly true. Since our 
relationship would terminate in a few 
minutes it was a matter of complete 
indifference to me whether he called me "tu", 
"vous" or addressed me in the third 
person. He continued to extract little bits 
of information: my first name, my age, 
the identity of the airlines where I was 
operations chief.

"You're married?"
 
"Why do you ask?" 

"Just to know."

We had finished loading the back of 
my car and I slammed the hatch. He 
stood on one foot and then the other 
holding his gaudy little sack.

"Look . . ." 

"Now what?"

"I mean . . . why haven't you told me off 
yet? You never said what I did was wrong."

"You know that as well as I do; you're

<photograph>

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.21
------------------------------------

the one that's bringing it up. So what 
good would it be for me to repeat it?"

I had opened the door and sat down 
behind the wheel.

"What's it's name? Your airlines -- I forgot"

I told him again. Now he started firing 
questions at me, in a sort of uninterrupted 
rhythm, about my exact professional 
functions and the general life of the 
airport. He was trying to postpone the 
moment when, once again, I would close 
the door on our short friendship. I smiled.

"Now, I am afraid I'm going to have to 
leave you, otherwise I'll be late . . ."

Late for what? No one was expecting 
me; in fact there was nothing I really had 
to do, yet I seemed compelled to shake 
off my encumbering companion.

"See you soon, perhaps!" 

"You think we'll meet again?"
 
"Who knows?"

There was a last exchange of looks; I 
started the car. As long as I had him in 
sight in my rear-view mirror he stayed 
where he was, the little advertising sack 
dangling, inert, from his hand.

That evening I was surprised to catch 
myself several times reliving our strange 
encounter, with reactions oscillating 
between amusement, curiosity (how little I 
knew about the boy!) -- and also, I had 
to admit, a degree of regret that our 
short affair had run its course to the end. 
Two days later, however, he was far 
from my thoughts when one of the reception 
hostesses came into my office.

"Someone wants 'Monsieur Jacques' at the counter."

"Who does?"

"A very proper little person."

That description seemed so incongruous 
that I was quite surprised to find a 
rather shy Eric standing on the other side 
of the counter. True, he was quite 
properly attired: his hair had been washed 
and carefully combed; he wore a blue 
linen coat nicely pressed, impeccable 
navy-blue velvet jeans, even polished 
mocassins <sic> on his feet. (I later 
learned that part of these luxurious 
accoutrements were borrowed from his more 
affluent friends.)

"Well . . . what brings you here?" 

"Nothing. I was walking around the
airport . . . just walking . . . and I just decided 
to come by . . . to see if you were in . . ."

He was using the formal "vous" again. 
And he was a poor liar.

"You never go to school, then, Monsieur?"

He made a little movement of surprise:
 
"Why are you calling me 'vous'?" 

"Because you are, my friend." I went 
back to using "tu". "You still haven't answered 
my question about school." 

"Yes. It's Wednesday. There isn't any school."

"And the other day?" 

"The teacher was sick."

During this short exchange I had had 
time to examine my feelings a bit, ask 
myself whether I really wanted him just 
to turn around and walk away. Really I 
was rather glad he had come. The affair 
was taking a distinctly pleasant turn.

"So, what are you going to do now?" 

"Nothing. I just thought I'd say hello 
to you, that's all."

Was that all? The expression on his 
face contradicted his words. As for me, I 
had made my decision:

"Eric, I believe that the elegance you 
have assumed today calls for me to invite 
you out to lunch."

It had been a long time since I had had 
the feeling I'd made another person quite 
so happy. I introduced Eric to my colleagues 
rather vaguely as the son of one 
of my neighbours, and then I took him to 
a restaurant which my fellow-workers 
and acquaintances generally didn't frequent.

The meal was most agreeable. We 
talked about animals, which seemed to 
be his great passion in life -- a passion 
which led him to steal the books poverty 
prevented his parents from buying for 
him. And it just happens that this is a 
subject which interests me just as profoundly: 
before acquiring my certificate in English, 
I had toyed with the idea of becoming 
a veterinarian. And I had used my airline 
travelling priviledges <sic> to make 
a number of wild animal tours, taking 
countless photos and, more recently, video tapes.

"You'll show me your films?" 

"Of course, if you wish." 

"When?"

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.22
------------------------------------

"I don't know. Some time . . ."

"I'm free today, I can stay out late . . . if 
you want."

"But . . . your parents?"

"I sort of warned them that I might be 
coming home very late. Besides, the less 
they see of me in general the better they 
like it."

I didn't say anything for a moment; he 
misinterpreted my silence. His face stiffened 
and he blurted out, "You don't 
want to bring a thief into your home, is that it?"

The raw feelings of the poor! I deserved 
the slap in the face. I smiled at him:

"Come on, now, stupid, what have 
you been imagining? I was just trying to 
figure out how I could get off from work 
a bit early."

"You mean it?" 

"Of course."

He beamed again. But there was a 
problem: now that everyone knew he 
was in my charge, more or less, I didn't 
want to see him wandering around the 
airport with all its temptations, from 
shop windows to the video games -- 
and with the rounds of our plain-clothes 
police. Since I still had a few urgent tasks

<photograph>

to complete I took him into my office. 
And there, I had to admit, he was very 
good; he immersed himself in some tourist 
literature I put at his disposal, then 
studied, with one of my hostesses, the 
way in which reservations and registrations 
were handled. As we were about to 
leave he even said, "Just a moment; 
she's got one more thing to show me!"

He couldn't have been more enthusiastic 
over my home had it been a 
palace out of the Thousand and One 
Nights. Reality, however, was a simple 
apartment on the top floor of a modern 
building overlooking the Chaumont Hills. 
"We're going to eat on the terrace?" he asked.

He was inviting himself to dinner -- 
and the day was exceptionally mild for 
that time of year! Well, I had already 
decided to intervene as little as possible 
in the way in which this odd adventure 
was evolving. So I took a look in the 
refrigerator and freezer to see what I could 
throw together to eat.

Then I lowered the blinds and put on 
the video-tape I had told him about and 
gave a running commentary, stopping, 
sometimes, reversing, re-playing. He sat 
next to me on the couch; little by little he 
drew closer, until he was nestling cozily 
against my side. And I realized, with a bit 
of worry, that I was becoming aroused.

Memories of childhood and adolescence 
flooded back into my mind, recollections 
of things which for years I had 
dismissed as "what you do when you're 
a kid". But in my case "being a kid" had 
gone on a bit long: there were certain 
"improper acts" with the boys at the 
summer camps -- very insignificant 
ones, to be sure, but all the same . . . Was 
that why I had worked so hard, gone to 
the trouble of acquiring a diploma: to be 
camp director where I wouldn't be quite 
so physically close to the kids?

My reverie exploded as I felt Eric's 
soft, warm lips lock onto mine.

"My God, what are you doing?" I exclaimed.

"Don't you like it?"

His sweet, seductive smile did nothing 
to calm my feelings. "Well;" I stammered, 
"'people just don't do things like that!"

He lowered his eyes mercilessly to-

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.23
------------------------------------

wards my fly.

"Don't tell me it didn't turn you on." 

I sprang to my feet.

"Watch the film by yourself. I have to 
see about dinner."

He wasn't about to be put off; he came after me.

"You know, you're a very strange guy"

"Where am I strange?"

Bang! Half of the bag of potatoes fell 
on the tile floor.

"You do things for me nobody's ever 
done. You bring me to your home, you 
start making out a little, and just when it 
starts getting nice you run off to the kitchen."

"Me? I started to make out?"

"Well, you had your hand on my neck, 
and then in my hair . . ."

He was probably right: lost in my own 
thoughts, I really hadn't been keeping 
track of what I was doing.

"I just . . . did it without thinking . . ."

He planted himself in front of me, 
blocking the way to the refrigerator. 
"Okay, go ahead: tell me I don't turn you 
on!" His eyes were becoming hard and 
arrogant again, as on our first encounter.

"Good God, do you know what you're saying?"

"Listen, Jacques, I'll put it to you plain 
and simple. I was broken in at age twelve 
by an eighteen-year-old guy: I swapped 
it for rides on his motor-bike. I got to like 
it. Then one day another boy took me to 
Pigalle, and I twiged <?> to the fact 
that there were these old men who were ready 
to pay a lot of money to do that with you. I 
started to cruise like my mates, but that 
was no big deal. I've never been to bed 
with a girl. What I really want is to find a 
guy like you, a fine man who would be 
my friend -- my friend and nobody 
else's. I thought I'd found him. I was 
wrong. So, good-bye."

He turned and ran away. Happily, he 
had to stop to put on his jacket, which 
gave me time to come back down to 
earth before he made it out the door. His 
hand was already on the handle when I 
grabbed his arm. "Wait!" I said.

He tried to break away: 

"Leave me alone!"

"Eric, I don't want you to leave."

He stopped at once: 

"Then kiss me!" 

"But . . ."

"Kiss me or I'm off!"

It's midnight. I've just returned from 
delivering the boy back to Aulnay-Sous-Bois. 
How strange that I should 
have had to wait until I was 26 before 
discovering the pleasure, the naturalness 
of using your whole body to conjugate 
with another body! Until a few hours ago 
I had always made love by rote, hygienically, 
conformably. Tonight I lived my 
love; or we lived our love, Eric and I.

Of course, we also have developed a 
sheaf of projects. He had already told his 
parents a somewhat expurgated version 
of the incident at the super-market; in 
order for me to spend as much time with 
him, officially, as I want, I will certainly 
have to meet them. And afterwards . . . afterwards? 
I don't know.

I have the feeling that I have just been 
reborn in a new skin, one that is really my 
own. Until now I have been living by mistake 
in the skin of another man, one 
which doesn't fit. So, as with all newborn, 
give me a little time to take the first steps.

<photograph>

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.24
------------------------------------

BOOKS

The Child Lovers, Glenn D. Wilson and 
David N. Cox. Peter Owen, London & Boston, 1983.

It is always questionable whether it is 
wise to do scientific work in a country 
which will restrict, either legally or 
socially, the free publication of your results or 
honest conclusions drawn therefrom. In 
Russia you don't study free market flow 
of money and goods. Likewise, in England 
and America most scientists opt for 
examining career-safe phenomena 
(cancer, space, bigger bombs); if they 
study socially "sensitive" subjects they 
must somehow introduce, perhaps in the 
very structure of the research project 
itself, a bias which their colleagues will 
either not spot or forgive, and which at
the same time guarantees conclusions 
which don't ruffle the feathers of the 
power structure. A very tricky business.

Thus one has to give credit to Glenn 
D. Wilson and David N. Cox for invading 
an area where most psychological angels 
would fear to tread: a study of 77 
self-designated paedophiles who were not in 
prison (practically a first in the 
English-speaking world), members, in the 
early-witch hunt days, of P.I.E. It is doubly to 
the authors' credit that they used, among 
other things, the Eysenck Personality 
Questionnaire (EPQ), a standard psychological 
test, upon their subjects, and 
that they dared to publish the results. To 
the surprise of the medical-mind industry 
these 77 men nave little indication of

<photograph>

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.25
------------------------------------

<coloured box (sidebar):>

We receive many touching letters of 
appreciation for our little magazine from 
readers all over the world. The following 
came to us recently from one of the 
German-speaking lands:

Spartacus:

I have for my 50 DM 6 PAN to receive 
but I am sour and squarelly. You have me 
on my ask answered, that 'PAN' is the 
best magazin with youngest boys for my 
interest, but only any pictures and only in 
trunks and shorts and trousers and 
much, many heads and much, many text. 
Word print stories and in English. I can 
bad to see and bad English. Boys all ages
here in shorts and trunks on the all 
streets and in free bath, parks, bath 
lakes, camping forest also fully naked. Is 
in sun and water, beach, all green places 
permet but not photographes under 14 
years. And in youth -- "schoul" -- boy-scouts 
magazines and illustrated newspapers 
much many pictures from boys in 
trunks and also fully naked in nature by 
play, sports.

For your "PAN" not money and what 
will boys over with heads???  Sucking, 
licking, rubbie the nose? Fucking in the 
ear? Only kissing? From portraits I 
nothing have, nothing for money become. 

Boyheads on post cards only 0.25 DM. 

I send not again money.

<end of coloured box (sidebar)>

<the following text is continued from p.24>

being sick or the "monsters" the media 
and shrinks have described.

Wilson and Cox also taylor-made for 
their study (subject to the approval of the 
P.I.E. people) something called the 
Paedophile Questionnaire, which could have 
offered unlimited opportunity to construct 
a no-win instrument should they 
have so desired. To a certain extent they 
did yield to this temptation. One wonders 
how commonly a probe into the personalities 
of heterosexuals who weren't 
viewed as having "problems" with their 
sexuality are asked "What were your 
parents like and how did you get on with 
them? What was their attitude toward 
sex?" Here, quite obviously the researchers 
were attempting to test hoary old 
theories about non-monogamous/heterophile 
sex orientation being rooted in over-protective 
mothers, distant or hostile fathers, both 
being sexophobes. Not surprisingly, 
they had no control data with 
which to compare the results of these 
questions (with the exception, amazingly 
enough, of a survey conducted by the 
English gutter newspaper Sun into the 
percentage of fatherless families!). However, 
this does not prevent Wilson and Cox 
from saying that the 77 respondents 
came from very restricted, puritanical 
backgrounds and that they had generally 
negative feelings about their parents. But 
compared with whom: the average Englishman 
or some man with an ideal up-bringing? 
The authors are to be credited 
with stating that the reported parental 
friction may have been a result of the 
son's sexual orientation rather than a 
cause of it (anticipated, in the case of 
androphile homosexuals, in the much more 
important Sexual Preference of the 
Kinsey Institute).

One very peculiar finding was that for 
just under half of the respondents their 
first remembered sexual experience was 
homosexual mutual masturbation with 
an approximate age peer, with only one 
out of seven having experienced solo 
masturbation first! Surely one would 
have expected private masturbation to 
have preceded sex contacts in more 
cases than that, yet the authors don't 
even comment on this anomaly. It would 
seem that most respondents interpreted 
"earliest sexual experience" to mean 
"earliest sexual contact", thus excluding 
solitary acts. If so, there were really 
major problems of definition and precision 
in the "Paedophile Questionnaire" 
which were neither resolved with the 
respondents nor are discussed in the book. 
The unfortunate result is that this 
particular "finding" can be used to bolster the 
theory of Groth and others that the 
"abused" child (i.e. one who has experienced 
shared sexual acts) grows up to be a "child-abuser".

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.26
------------------------------------

<photograph>

Most of the 77 respondents were 
sexually indifferent to adults as possible 
sexual partners, although 18% felt disgust 
or revulsion at the thought of sex 
with a grown-up, just as heterosexual 
men often do at the prospect of sex with 
another man. There was no evidence that 
the respondents' lack of sexual enthusiasm 
for adults was rooted in fear.

It will come as no surprise to P.A.N. 
readers that most of the respondents 
characterized their paedophile relationships 
predominantly as affectionate, 
loving, gentle; they were about equally 
divided between declaring them platonic 
or sexually expressed.

Sexual fantasies, except for the fact 
that the "sex-targets" were children, 
were not unlike those of males in other 
groups, according to the authors, although 
loving and caring fantasies 
(thought to resemble those of the typical 
woman) were a very common theme. 
There was little to support the theory 
that the secret sex desires of the 
respondents were especially violent. A very few 
of the men fantasized spanking boys
lightly. (Spanking would seem to be a 
rather common fantasy in all groups of 
older English males and is often attributed 
to the formerly almost universal practice 
of spanking and caning in British schools.)

About a third of the respondents were 
happy and proud of their paedophile 
orientation, the rest being disturbed, 
frustrated, puzzled, sad or depressed about it.

21 of the 77 had had some sort of 
brush with psychiatrists or psychologists; 
13 said the "treatment" had been 
of no help at all and none reported any 
beneficial effects.

As for the data from the EPQ, they 
lend themselves, as with all standard 
psychological tests, to statistical 
manipulations to yield indices of mental health. 
We are not shown the scores or even the 
formulae by means of which the indices 
of "psychoticism", "extraversion", "neuroticism", 
etc. were derived, but, presumably, 
standard procedures were followed. 
The paedophiles are shown to be 
distinctly more introverted than the 
control group of "normal" Englishmen, and 
the authors rightly comment that this 
may be caused by the social effects of 
their paedophile orientation rather than 
being an indissoluble aspect of it. The 77 
are only slightly more psychotic than 
normal -- on par, strangely enough, with 
doctors, architects, students and welfare 
officers! As for neuroticism, they are also 
a bit worse off than average -- about the 
same as actors, apprentices, machinists, 
students and members of many female 
groups. The EPQ would appear to be self-testing, 
for it is stated that the 77 subjects 
were no more often caught out 
lying than their controls.

Some 55 pages of the book are given 
over to "case studies" which attempt to 
flesh out the attitudes and careers of 10 
different boy-lovers among the 77. Despite 
numerous quotes from these men 
there is a clinical air about this chapter 
which is a bit off-putting. Not everyone, 
of course, is articulate, but one keeps 
wishing the authors had given these 
pages over to pure interview material, 
however shortened it might have had to 
have been, and left out the commentary.

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.27
------------------------------------

Well, so far so good. Only a few other 
minor quibbles, such as the frequent 
interruptions to discuss data-results in 
light of psychological and psychiatric 
theories concerning the etiology of 
paedophilia or some standard clinical picture 
of "the paedophile" -- most of which 
theories hardly merit serious consideration. 
The picture emerges of 77 paedophiles 
who are really rather nice, rather 
normal people, if somewhat drawn into 
themselves. On May 17 the New York 
Post ran an article by "America's 
foremost psychologist", Dr. Joyce Brothers, 
who gave as her professional opinion, 
"Child molesters [i.e., paedophiles] are 
emotionally disturbed, sometimes even 
psychotic, and they act out their sexual 
impulses with children, usually because 
they can't do so successfully with adults. 
They also need to feel the sense of 
dominance and power that they can feel only 
when they know the other person is 
weaker . . . Like other sex offenders, they 
tend to view their victims as objects 
rather than as individuals with needs and 
desires of their own." Wilson and Cox, if 
they have done nothing else, show that 
at least this sample of paedophiles is 
about as different from Dr. Brothers' 
generalized conception as you can get.

So, these men, at any rate, are not 
monsters; these men are not cruel, don't 
wish to harm kids but wish to love them 
and form long-term relationships. Also, 
according to the authors, "numerous empirical 
attempts to demonstrate that lasting 
psychological harm is done to a child 
through sexual contact with adults (e.g. 
changing his sex orientation, or making 
him impotent) have generally failed to 
adduce any such evidence. . . . Most 
researchers seem to be agreed that, except 
in the case of physical assault against an 
unwilling child (tantamount to rape), no 
lasting harm to the sexual or social 
development of the child 'victim' can be 
detected." Furthermore, the authors 
agree that "heavy-handed intervention 
by police and legal authorities can result 
in great trauma and lasting emotional 
harm to the child involved (when, for 
example, a favourite uncle is sent to 
prison and the child feels responsible for this)."

Well, one now expects recommendations 
to be made -- recommendations for 
changes in the law, in education, in penal 
practices. Boy-lovers are pretty nice 
people, right? Mutually consensual sex 
with an adult does a child no harm, right? 
And intervention by the Authorities does, 
right? Ergo . . .

Ah, there's the rub. You just can't take 
the next step, not in England in 1983. 
Not if you want to retain your professorship, 
get grant money, avoid being 
drummed out of the professional associations. 
It's also dangerous just to leave the 
data to speak for themselves. You must 
make your recommendations -- safe ones.

The way out Wilson and Cox have 
found is to suddenly invoke "moral 
considerations". The issue of "empirical 
harm needs to be separated from the 
more directly moral question of whether 
meaningful consent can ever be obtained 
from a child . . . we still regard sex as 
immoral if there is any suggestion that 
social power has been abused in obtaining 
it . . . Adult-child relationships in general 
fall into this category. Children are 
trained to respect and obey all adults, not 
just their parents, and this results in such 
an imbalance of social power that 
legalizing sex between adults and children 
could quite easily result in exploitation."

What a gargantuan jump the authors 
now have made! They have gone from 
an honest examination of perhaps imperfect 
research questionnaires dealing with 
the personalities and conduct of adult 
boy-lovers to speculation about factors 
not even touched on in their study: 
points raised by clerics, feminists, 
criminologists, politicians but which have 
received precious little scientific 
investigation by anyone, points about the 
supposed imbalance and abuse of power in a 
man/boy relationship, about boys 
automatically obeying adults. There is not one 
piece of data in the research of Wilson and 
Cox which sheads <sic> light on any of 
these questions, yet populist answers to 
them are used exclusively to shore up 
their recommendation that the legal 
status quo be maintained (but that

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.28
------------------------------------

"some discretion and compassion" be 
shown paedophiles who have collisions 
with the law -- the wardens and turnkeys 
will have a good laugh over that one)! 
Coming on the last page of the last chapter 
entitled "Conclusions", the casual 
reader, skipping all the facts and figures, 
the nuts and bolts of the research, will 
read this and say, "Aha, just as I thought, 
these expert scientists, after all this 
interviewing and testing and working up of 
data, have come to the conclusion that, 
when you get to the bottom line, man-boy 
sex is wrong and must remain punishable."

But it is the nuts and bolts which are 
important. Two competant <sic> scientists 
have dispassionately examined some 
facts about adult/minor sex and the only 
arguments against it they can come up 
with are moral rather than clinical or 
psychological. And that is quite an advance 
for a pair of presumably straight researchers. 
This book, which should be 
on every boy-lover's shelf, has a lot of 
ammunition with which to combat the hysterics.

<advertisement:>

<illustration>

EPHEBO
video products

FILMS
PHOTO'S
SLIDES

ON 
VIDEO

information:

p.o. box 22529
1100 DA
AMSTERDAM
HOLLAND

<end of advertisement>

Two recent boy photo books are 
worthy of mention. One is Gerard 
Marot's amusing Collages, published by 
Editions Imagine, 20 Ile de Migneaux, 
F-78300 POISSY, France. Like most 
French publications, the details of the 
production leave much to be desired, but 
the concepts and designing are very nice 
indeed. Bodies of naked boys are imposed, 
usually brashly, upon landscapes 
and urban scenes with sublime insoucience. 
One moment a naked 12-year-old 
is stretched out on the collective laps of 
four old ladies on folding chairs, the next 
he is being seduced by a classic marble 
statue. One especially funny photo-collage 
shows him falling naked but for 
his roller skates down a sidewalk trap 
entitled "Entree Gerard Philippe". Cost is 
160 French francs, plus 40 francs for 
foreign registered post.

The other book comes from Germany 
and its title in English is Costa in the 
Magic Forest (DM 29.80 from Werner 
Jake, Kathe-Kollwitz-Strasse 4B, 
D-6710 FRANKENTHAL, West Germany). 
Costa, a handsome blond boy who looks 
about 15, goes camping with a few 
friends in a forest which turns out to be 
the magical domain of an old magician 
who wants to turn him into stone for 
trespassing. Costa can only save himself by 
going on an epic series of adventures, all 
of which he performs naked and which 
are depicted in the black and white 
photos. Text is in German but the pictures 
are universal; they will appeal especially 
to lovers of boys in their mid-teens.

Also from France is a new book by the 
former director of "Coral", Claude Sigala 
- reflections on the work which was 
being done in his home for disturbed 
children, the impulse behind "alternative 
education", the meaning of love, sexuality, 
his arrest and battle with the infamous 
Michel Salzmann (See P.A.N. 15, page 
19). It is called Multiciplicites, ou des 
lieux de vie par miliers, Editions Vrac, 15 
rue Saint-Sebastien, F-75011 Paris, 
France. 59 French francs (foreign orders 
should add an extra 15 francs for postage).

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.29
------------------------------------

BOYCAUGHT

by Dr. Edward Brongersma

Only in a society with institutionalized 
slavery, and in certain initiation rituals of 
primitive peoples, is it legally permitted 
to use another's body for sexual purposes 
against his will. In the Ancient 
World -- in our culture, in fact, up until 
the abolition of servitude -- the sexual 
capacies of slave boys and young men 
were used and abused by their masters in 
the most arbitrary manner. In a well-to-do 
Roman household the handsome, long-haired 
favourite of the master may have 
had to satisfy his owner's every salacious 
whim; some slave boys or youths might 
be put at the disposal of guests, others 
made to serve as companions of the 
sons of the family, or for their sexual 
training. Less fortunate boys were 
castrated as soon as their organs had 
grown to full size so that they could 
service the ladies without risk of pregnancy. 
Boys were bought by brothel owners 
and, of course, had to comply with the 
wishes of the customers. Where sexual 
activities were considered undesirable 
(as in the case of singers and acrobats), 
the foreskin was pierced in two places 
and a metal ring inserted through the 
holes, thus making any sexual use of the 
organ impossible. Some boys were publically 
raped, assaulted by men and animals 
or subjected to genital torture so that 
their contortions and cries of pain could 
amuse the onlookers. In later times, when 
the abolition movement made it increasingly 
difficult to abduct and transport 
blacks from Africa to the American sugar 
and cotton fields, some plantation 
owners started systematically breeding 
their slaves: strong, healthy adolescents 
were used as "studs" to generate black 
babies -- and it was the master who 
decided when and with what woman the
youth would copulate.

To us, living at a time when "human 
rights" has become a cult, all of this 
seems like horrible, incredible abuse. We 
insist upon freedom and consent. Let us 
not forget, however, that for young 
people sexual freedom is far from 
complete -- and in many respects they are 
even less free now than they were two 
centuries ago. In modern society a boy is 
well protected on the negative side, but 
positive freedom is only granted him 
after he reaches a rather high (and very 
arbitrarily chosen) age. Until then he is 
considered unable to give a valid consent 
to a sexual act, and is thus put on par 
with people who are physically helpless, 
unconscious, dim-witted or insane. Any 
friend with whom he may seek the natural 
pleasures of the body will be judged 
to have raped him, and will be prosecuted accordingly.

This is, of course, blatantly stupid. 
Even the smallest boy is quite capable of 
deciding whether or not he enjoys being 
touched by a particular person in a particular 
way, just as he can decide whether 
he likes candy or not. Admittedly, pre-pubertal 
boys cannot, in general, experience a 
sexual relationship in quite the 
same way as a mature individual does, 
just as a boy's experience of art or 
religion will probably be different and won't 
reach maturity until a little later, for 
richness and subtlety of feeling develop only 
gradually. But this is no reason to forbid 
him to have pleasurable physical contacts 
with a person he likes, any more than it is 
to forbid him to listen to music, visit a 
museum or go to church. Nature makes a 
boy's body susceptible to the joys of skin 
contact and to sexual excitement right 
from the start. Such feelings are not only

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.30
------------------------------------

harmless, they are necessary for the 
healthy development of body and soul, while 
their frustration is actually dangerous. 
Nobel prize winner Andre Gide asserted 
quite rightly that to provoke sexual 
excitement in a boy, to teach him how to 
experience the utmost physical pleasure 
and how to give this to a partner, is to 
render him a very important service.

Nevertheless it will always remain an 
essential condition that we have to 
respect the boy's own sexual decisions, 
whatever his age. Nothing is allowed 
unless he is willing to take his part in 
such activities. Overpowering a younger 
partner with moral or physical pressure 
(not rare in certain groups of older boys 
where virility has to be proved), like rape 
and assault, must be rejected just as 
strongly as legal or parental prohibitions 
against sexual activity.

Now, if boys were simple, uncomplicated 
beings it would be easy to know 
when one of them really wants to engage 
in a certain sexual act or not. But human 
beings are not simple and uncomplicated, 
least of all boys. By the time their sexual 
impulses start imposing themselves 
upon them most strongly they have already 
been indoctrinated for years about 
the immorality and perils of sex. Nature 
has to break through this artificial crust, 
and this is often a very difficult process 
involving strong and contradicting emotions. 
When it comes to the question of 
having sex with a male friend there are, 
moreover, anxieties about being "sissy" 
or "turning queer" for the rest of one's 
life. These fears are as groundless as the 
supposed dangers of masturbation, but 
this doesn't prevent them from appearing 
in the boy's mind as grave problems.

In naive, uninformed youngsters 
desire may be strong but incomprehensible; 
mysterious, even embarrassing. A 
boy may imagine himself to be the only 
one in the whole world who wants to do 
such crazy, dirty things; thus he may go 
to great lengths to hide his secret. What 
a healthy liberation it is for him, then, 
when someone shows him the way, or 
when he sees in pictures or movies how 
boys and men can use their bodies in the 
old, old play of pleasure and tenderness!

Less naive, more sophisticated boys 
may know exactly what they want and 
how to do it, yet at the same time remain 
mortally afraid of the consequences 
upon their reputation and personal development.

A minor American poet, Bayard Taylor 
(1825-1878) put it admirably:

He was a boy when first we met,
  His eyes were mixed of dew and fire, 
And on his candid brow was set
  The sweetness of a chaste desire: 
But in his veins the pulses beat
  Of passion waiting for its wing, 
As ardent veins of summer heat 
  Throb through the innocense <sic> of spring.

A man may be terribly excited by this 
mixture of wanting and refusing when it 
manifests itself in an attractive boy. In 
smaller boys it is often quite obvious that 
their "no!" is really meant as an inviting "yes!".

Ten-year-old David was playing with 
two of his friends in the livingroom. As 
soon as I sat down he presented himself 
provokingly in front of me and said, "I'd 
like to wrestle with you but you don't 
play fair: you always start tickling me and 
I can't stand tickling." Hearing this, his 
two friends jumped up, came over and 
both declared firmly, "I can't stand tickling, 
either!" This was, of course, a quite 
obvious invitation, and when I accepted 
they all three filled the house with 
delighted screams.

A first sexual encounter with an inexperienced 
boy may pose problems. The 
Belgian correspondent quoted in my 
column for P.A.N. 15 on the Thera 
inscriptions invented a play that leaves the 
boy quite free to refuse at any moment 
any activity which he feels is "going too 
far" while at the same time affording the 
man a good opportunity to probe the boy 
without shocking him. In his play the boy 
must imagine himself to be the son of a 
rich father who has hidden a treasure 
somewhere in the house. The man plays 
the part of a pirate who has captured the 
son and wants to steal the treasure. The 
boy lays down, pretending he is fettered 
and blindfolded (in reality, of course, he 
is quite free to see and move his arms

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.31
------------------------------------

and legs). The man says, "If you don't tell 
me where your father has hidden the 
treasure I'll torture you. Every time I'll tell 
you exactly how I'm going to torture you 
and I'll do just that unless you say no. 
When you say no I'll stop immediately 
and we'll change roles: you'll play the 
torturing pirate and I'll play the son. But 
when you don't say no I'll proceed, then 
announce the next torture. Now the first 
torture is: I'll touch your nose with my 
finger. Second torture: I'll touch your 
mouth with my finger . . ." And so on. The 
moment the man suggests anything his 
"victim" doesn't want to accept, the boy 
says no, and they change roles. Nearly 
always the boy, when he takes the part 
of the torturing pirate, suggests more 
daring and intimate things than the man 
has so far performed on him, according 
to my correspondent. It is an easy and 
safe way to ascertain how far the boy 
really wants to go without forcing him in the least.

Older boys may ask for sex quite 
bluntly and their behaviour, devoid of any 
false shame, may be pleasantly provoking. 
But many are quite well aware that a 
show of sham resistance will excite the 
partner. When the French author Jean 
Genet (Pompes funebres) invites his 
young friend Jean to stay over night the 
boy says, smiling,

"But you won't let me alone if I do." 

"No, I won't bother you. But if you 
want, you can go home."

"You'll leave me alone? Then I'll stay."

Jean very slowly undresses and when, 
at last, the boy lies naked in his friend's 
bed, the man takes him in his arms and, 
doing so, feels he already has an erection.

"This isn't fair: you promised to leave me alone!"

"I'm just hugging you -- I'm not hurting you.

"Well, all right. But suppose I want to do it now?"

"What?"

Impatiently: "You know what I mean. If 
I just let you to make love to me right off 
the bat . . ."

This play of no and yes (in the original 
text the scene is longer) is old as the 
world. Straton one of the best known 
poets of boy-love in ancient Greece, 
warns that such acting should not be overdone:

When I want to make love I don't like an obstinate
struggling, nor wild cries nor scuffling.

Nor am I pleased by he who, when I 
take him in my arms,

Immediately is willing and abandons 
himself without resisting.

I prefer the boy who carefully combines 
these two attitudes

And who knows how to say no and yes 
at the same time.

The ideal boy, according to Straton, is the one

Who kisses me when I show no desire, 

And who's not willing when I want to kiss.

He's not ready for it when there's no desire in me

And when I want to do it, he struggles and resists.

<photograph>

====================================
Pan, Number 16, p.32 (back cover)
------------------------------------

<full-page photograph>