We Need to talk about your accidental paedophilia...

Thank heavens I'm not a parent.  The world seems an increasingly dangerous place and like those packets of peanuts with the notice: 'Warning, May Contain Nuts', parents perhaps feel increasingly obliged to warn their children of the perils they might face.  We live, or so it seems, in the age of warnings.

Technology is probably on that list, but what of mobile devices and their cameras?  This little story reports on a recent incident in the US suggests that despite the permeation of warnings about the use of technology, young people act in such a way as to seemingly ignore such caution.

A 21 year old male is accused of distributing paedophile images via Facebook.  The photos were taken at a rave and feature a 16 year old girl having sex with a 'young' man.  According to the story, 'the young man and young women were having sex in a field in open view of the crowd at the rave. Multiple bystanders, upon seeing them in flagrante delicto, rushed over to take pictures, as one witness testified, with such frequency that camera flashes were popping “like lightning.”

The images were arguably not intended to sexually arouse, but rather were part of a joke, but the ease with which child pornography can today be produced is astonishing, and transforms young people - and unwitting viewers (such as this guys friends on Facebook) into paedophiles as far as the law is concerned.

In doing so, this also serves to deconstruct our collective concept of what a paedophile is - and should legally, culturally, politically - be.  Instead, this seems to feed into what seems to be a growing moral panic surrounding the sexting phenomenon (although, see some interesting socio-legal news coming out of Australia today on this).

The Sex(y) Boy and Treasure Island Media

The controversial TIM poster

If you consider yourself the most controversial bareback porn company in the world, how to stay in the news?  How do you remain 'controversial'?  In practical terms this arguably means being ever more outrageous, more shocking and more scandalous.  A remorseless engine of filth and depravity.  Yet, rather like Jaws: The Revenge, there comes a point when things just don't work anymore.  It's a sequel too far.

I'm not sure we're there with Treasure Island Media (TIM) yet - they are a loved brand which continues to operate in the counter-cultural space of bareback sex - but the pressure is undoubtedly there to keep being controversial.

Yet, any such pressure could be ephemeral or indeed, misguided.  As long as legislators and judges keep seeking to use law as a tool to limit, and potentially criminalise bareback sex, TIM will be able to claim the role as counter-cultural icons.  Given the widespread practising of bareback sex within same-sex encounters, they are also able to be 'popular' counter-cultural icons.  A double win.

Moreover, simply being there and being the celebrated stuff of masturbatory sessions across the globe is not, and has never been enough for TIM (NSFW).  I was therefore fascinated to see them seek to associate themselves with another taboo act in recent weeks.  The taboo of taboos.  The big daddy of controversy.  Yes, inter-generation sex.

Legally defined typically as paedophilia when involving children, inter-generational sex remains the social horror of our time.  To label someone as a paedophile is to pronounce them socially and potentially physically dead.  They are transformed into the ultimate evil within society.  Our understanding of paedophilia is increasingly nebulous, encompassing someone who accidentally downloads a paedophile image alongside another who rapes a child.  Whilst we can accept that someone might want to watch The Sopranos and not seek to become a mob boss, Weeds and become a (fairly useless) drug dealer with cute kids or Hung and seek to become a wooden (in every sense) male escort, or indeed, even if we aspire to any of these things, we won't actually do it; we can not contemplate even curiosity around the image of someone under 18 years old.  This is is despite English law finding is acceptable to sleep with someone aged above 16 (shag 'em, just don't take a picture).  It is indeed a curious socio-legal landscape.

The original Edelfelt painting

Yet, despite this, I've been struck by the way in which social media - notable Twitter most recently - has enabled those aged below 18 and indeed, below 16 to express their sexual desires, arrange hook-ups and document their sexual encounters.  Similarly, uncertainty and fears are sometimes expressed.  In short, human beings and their complex sexual awakenings are laid bare.

Into this fascinating cultural maelstrom enters TIM, apparently deliberately seeking to play with the issue of age.

At the start of the month, TIM uploaded a poster on their social media sites promoting a new film release entitled Return to Meat Rack (it's a sequel but hopefully better than Jaws IV).  It depicted two boys playing with boats on a lake or by the sea.  The young boys and the composition evokes innocence, a deliberate counter-point to the function of the poster - promoting a film about men fucking.  To date, the postings on Facebook have resulted in 76 comments from TIM followers and fans with a mix of reactions but many are negative, suggesting that TIM have gone 'too far'.

It's through these comments however that we learn (thanks to one culture vulture fan) that the picture is in fact from Albert Edelfelt and a quick Googling reveals the picture to be dated from around 1885, an oil on canvas production and entitled 'Boys playing on the beach' (Leikkiviä poikia rannalla).  Interestingly, there is a third boy in the original picture (see above) who is edited out of the TIM composition.

An earlier TIM poster depicting a 'child'

None of this is entirely new however. TIM previously published rejected posters from years gone by including one allegedly of a young (rather affluent looking) Paul Morris, aged 8 on a scooter (pictured right).  The slogan - which apparently deliberately evokes inter-generational behaviour - states 'A Better World One Boy at a Time'.  Boy is one of those words that can be taken to mean a male child but which is also used extensively - especially in 'gay' circles - to denote a young male - typically twinkish looking which is to say slim, smooth, well errr, boyish.  A twinkly boy is OK to lust after, whilst a real one isn't.

All of which are broad points I've made before but it is TIM utilising the idea of age and hidden desire as a marketing tool which is fascinating and new.

They apparently believe - and I think they are right - that just as homosexuality, then bareback sex were desires which have had complex social and legal relationships, so too is inter-generational sex.  Put simply, they think that gay men probably quite like boys more than we'd care to admit.  Such is the history of claims that homosexuals were out to 'take your children' that once again a silence is imposed for social and political reasons within the gay community - and the point I accept at the start of this paragraph will be toxic for many.

Jackson Taylor

Yet, leaving that aside, there is the less radical, but perhaps no less controversial idea that children can be sexual beings.  This is the revelation that social media already offers to anyone willing to see it, and raising difficult social and legal questions about consent and contemporary domesticity.

Morris has a Flickr page (NSFW) where he uploads some wonderful images freely available to all those who pass through an age barrier.  What always makes these photos so engaging - at least for me - is the use of captioning.  This allow the viewer to be located in the moment and somehow lends greater power to the image.  Much as when we look at a photo we have taken or were present for, we add an inward dimension to the image - context and emotion  - so too, do these captions add something.  His latest model obsession  -and potentially hit - for the studio is a twenty year old man/boy called Jackson Taylor (pictured left).  Morris has uploaded several pictures of Jackson and he comments under one image: 'I said "I'm thinking of signing you on. What do you think?" He responded "If you get me fucked all the time, I'll sign the contract in blood." If you saw him at the next table in a restaurant you'd think he was the picture of innocence and naivete. But this boy is one of the most voracious sexual predators I've ever met. We signed the contract before he'd even put his clothes back on.'

In this and a number of other comments, Jackson is anchored as a sexual being of today. Seeing Jackson getting fucked in Manfuck Manifesto (see more here, possibly NSFW) viewers of TIM pornography are left in no doubt about that sexual status.  Yet, we also have Morris posting on his photos (under the Jackson image reproduced above) the following fascinating text: 'I asked "How old were you when you started fucking?" He said "I was four. I seduced the 12-year-old twins who lived next door." I responded "Precocious--if it's true." He looked at me like this and said "Believe it or not, but it's true." He's 19 and has an understanding of sex that's truly rare.'

So now Jackson is a sexual being since four, and moreover, a sexual predator since four.  There is no question that he is the abused, or the 'victim'.  Defining him as the predator, and Jackson using the term predator - to denote an encounter with older boys - locate him as the individual with power.

This photo on Morris' Flickr page was uploaded on February 12th but it wouldn't have been a total surprise to TIM fans who might have noticed this post (NSFW) on TIM's Island website (this evolved out of their blog) which appeared on February 8th.  It introduces us to Jackson and his story.  It states:

Born in rural Sicily a scant 19 years ago, JACKSON TAYLOR (born Giuseppe Bontade) began his career as a primo fuckisto at the tender age of four. “I knew what I wanted to do from very early on,” says Mr. TAYLOR. “Our neighbors in Sicily had a pair of twins—they were 12. They gave me my first experience, my prima apertura, my grand opening. The affair lasted nearly a year.” Forced to flee their native village by irate clergy and outraged villagers, Mr. TAYLOR’s family took their precocious son to America, land of the free and willing. “Once we reached the Land of Opportunity, it’s pretty much been a straight-up path to Treasure Island Media for me. Of course it’s been my lifelong dream.” When Mr. TAYLOR approached T.I.M., the welcome was warm. “I know genius when I fuck it,” quipped porn legend PAUL MORRIS. “This boy may be slight of stature, but his bunghole can take anything we give it.” When asked about future dreams, Mr. TAYLOR wrinkled his boyish nose, shrugged coquettishly and said, “I dunno… Donkeys and dogs, maybe! And I like cheerleading.” JACKSON seems to be on a mission to take every load in America. We’re not wasting any time helping him! Watch him getting plowed by Ethan Wolfe in his TIM premiere, MANFUCK MANIFESTO.

So, here we have the 12 year old twins again (yes, incest is subtly hinted at too) and then we move into a blurb that seems to have been written by someone who has spent too long watching bad daytime soaps.  It's hard not to raise an eyebrow or a chuckle at the 'forced to flee' section.  This does of course also serve to cast doubt over the whole story but true or otherwise, TIM are making use of it and as with so many things that TIM do, truth as a fixed permanent concept must be abandoned in favour of a postmodern framework.  In the final section of the Jackson blurb we move into the positioning of Jackson as boyish, with innocence deployed to denote youth.  A sex(y) boy clearly and, his media persona suggests, a slutty one at that.

TIM started 2011 with a determination to push HIV positive porn and that - to my surprise - didn't work out.  This year, they are not stating they re trying to push a new area of controversy but there can be little doubt that like the boys in the Edelfelt picture, they are dipping their toes in the water.  This is one to watch with implications well beyond the world of bareback porn.

Child-on-Child Sex Abuse

ABC News features a fascinating AP report on the subject of child-on-child sex abuse.  It's quite a detailed story with some fascinating academic and research insights, highlighting the complexities of this issue.  Whilst society arguably has a clear idea of the 'pedophile' and 'child abuser', cases of child-on-child abuse  disrupt these pre-conceptions, and challenge that totemic concept: childhood innocence.

Read the full story here.

Child Sex Offender Disclosure (CSOD) Scheme in Operation

It's easy to forget about a story once it's dropped out of the headlines.  The introduction of 'Sarah's Law' (like Megan's Law in the USA) enables parents to seek disclosures on whether their new partner has a record of sex offending.  The theory is to make homes safer for children.

One regional newspaper highlighted this week that 53 people in Lancashire made applications about someone their child has close contact with under the Child Sex Offender Disclosure (CSOD) scheme since it came into force on April 1.  The information was provided under the Freedom of Information Act and it will be interesting to see whether they are representative of the national uptake, and whether over say three years, the figures reflect an initial 'surge' of demand or an ongoing level of demand for information.

What it does show is that the scheme is up and running and potentially making an impact on hundreds of families around the country.

Read the full story here.

Truth, Crime and the Hunt for Paedophiles

The Times carries a fascinating piece today revealing that lie detector tests are being used to help to decide whether to charge suspected criminals for the first time in British policing history.  The Times makes clear elsewhere that whilst the tests are 'reliable', they are not 'perfect'.  Check out the Independent take on the story if you don't have access to The Times.

A pilot was conducted by Herefordshire Police who tested 25 'low level' sex offenders.  According to The Times, 'many were exposed as being a higher risk to children than originally thought. A further 12-month trial has been approved to begin in April.'

A separate piece provides detailed exploration of the pilot through a case analysis of 'Michael'.   He was arrested on suspicion of loitering outside a school and following pupils in his car.  Acts which - the Police would surely argue - suggest the intention to commit an offence with those children.  A predator stalking his prey.  Michael denied the allegations but he did admit that he had accessed indecent images over two years and had used search engines to look for young girls.  However, he insisted he had no physical sexual interest in children.

Michael was, it seems, making a distinction between 'desire' and action, between possessing a fantasy and acting upon it.  Law traditionally focuses upon action rather than desire in sexual offences but paedophilia is something of a peculiarity for English criminal law.  For example, the law accepts a sixteen year old can have sex with a forty-nine year old.  Socially, it might be looked upon with disdain but it is legally tolerated.  However, if that 49yo takes a photograph on his phone or a makes a video of the encounter for subsequent sexual succour he has (thanks to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009) become a paedophile.  Ta-dah!  In the curious scenario, the 'desire' is condemned more than the actual consensual act.  Go figure.

In the case of Michael, Detectives found 'low-level' images in his bedroom but a search of his computer and other storage media did not turn up anything on top of admissions that Michael, 56, had already made.  So, the Police strapped him to a polygraph in a bid to obtain further answers.  Arguably, the investigation would have ended there without the polygraph - although it's not entirely clear. Michael disclosed for the first time that he had communicated with children online for a sexual purpose. He said that he had seen young girls on webcam sites, and had asked them to perform sexual acts while he watched. Michael issued denials to a series of questions including whether he had engaged in physical sexual contact with children and whether he had tried to arrange a meeting with someone younger for a sexual purpose. He also denied taking any images of children for a sexual purpose or distributing indecent images of children. The polygraph detected strong deception in his answers to all of those questions. Consequently, Michael was deemed to be a higher risk than first thought and the investigation into his activities was prioritised. He was removed from the polygraph testing trial as it is for low-level offenders only.

What does this mean?  Michael's been deemed a higher risk in the absence of evidence and 'risk' is not an offence per se (although presumably from the material they found, they had enough to charge him anyway).  What subsequently happened to Michael is unknown insofar as it is not explained in the piece.

There is an assumption that having been regarded as a 'higher risk', he will - at the very least - be monitored more closely than he might otherwise be, but quite where that mandate comes from legally is questionable.  Even if one sets that aside, there is an assumption that resources for these support mechanisms are adequate when we know they're not.  Voluntary groups are few and far between as the general public are far more likely to dip their hand in their pocket to support another charity rescuing cuddly animals in a far away land than providing support mechanisms to support paedophiles in their community.  Vital groups such as Circles UK need more support, but volunteers are unlikely to be able to 'admit' to being involved to many employers for fear of raising eyebrows and questions about their own motivations.  It is impressive and encouraging that they do indeed attract volunteers enabling their vital work to continue.

So, we assume - wrongly - that Michael might now get further 'support' or 'monitoring' dependent upon your linguistic spin.

The broader point is, as I touched upon above, the issue of desire.  An attraction to children is a social and legal taboo.  Within gay culture, an attraction towards youth - and attributes we associate with it - smooth hairless bodies, androgynous bodies, smooth faces, boyish smiles, and 'fun' personalities come together in the twink identity.  A label celebrated within gay culture and pornography, and an identity to be found in many a gay club and bar this evening as towns and cities celebrate NYE.   Desiring these figures is acceptable.  Even the more muscular twink can be a symbol of acceptable attraction.  The diver Tom Daley is unusual in being a child that many gay men could openly admit to finding sexually arousing and not feel condemned as a paedophile.  A fascinating development in itself.

Upon turning 16, even more men appeared to admit to a 'long-standing' attraction - which suggests attraction whilst still a child.  At 17, those fantasying men -assuming Daley is mutually attracted - could now have legal sex with Daley.  However, should Daley be photographed in less than his famously figure hugging trunks, his photographer would be in a spot of bother.  Expect a greater outpouring of Daley adoration during the Olympics next year (Daley will have just turned 18 so nude shots will be OK should he have a trunk malfunction at the Olympics).

In the case of Michael, it is this reluctant admittance of desire that seems to have landed him deeper in the crapola than he might have otherwise found himself.   The argument about child pornography is that it is a 'record' of a child being abused and thus to share that image is to create a market and encourage further abuse of children.  Thus if you wish to stop the market, you should stop the images.  You are therefore vicariously abusing a child.

Yet what of pseudo-photographs or cartoons? Bits of multiple images joined together to create a new sexual image, or using a computer or animation technology to create a pornographic image? Legally, this too is treated in the same way as a photograph.  Why?  The market argument is phony in these circumstances.  It is instead about the policing of desire.  From mental desire, to looking at an image is a step, a step to re-enforcing a mental pathway of desire.  Neurons making the connection between images of youth and sexual arousal. The forging of these pathways of desire is of itself a social concern within our society.

However, our criminalisation of such desire - nobody is being harmed - is on the basis that desire is an indicator of potential future risk.  It's like suggesting that viewing a knife-block in Argos denotes you as a future knife armed murderer.

The continued introduction of these polygraphs therefore is about a significant extension in the policing of desire.  Our society can not regard paedophiles as anything other than universally bad - despite our occasional admittance of widespread youthful desire, as in the case of Tom Daley - and thus the criminalisation of this desire is a logical extension that can not be argued without raised eyebrows and agendas questioned.  If a government proposed the mandatory badge wearing by convicted paedophiles would it be opposed?  If gas chambers for paedophiles were advocated, would they be opposed?

These are of course emotive and extreme examples but they serve to highlight the dangers of the road we are on.  In criminalising desire we make black and white assumptions about our own desires; are we really that sure of our own purity?

Beware the Pedobear!

Pedobear, Pedobear, does whatever a Pedobear does...as Homer Simpson didn't quite sing.

Some of you might remember a Brass Eye Paedophile special from a few years back in which they satirised the way the media and politicians were treating the subject of paedophilia.  Readers in the UK can watch that episode via 4OD (check it out here).  Even Chris Morris and Brass Eye couldn't make up a story that appears on the Huffington Post today surrounding the latest twist in the 'Pedobear' saga.

This is a cartoon bear originally intended as a joke on paedophiles, acting as a (strangely cute) representation of a paedophile.  However, the image apparently then became re-owned by paedophiles as a symbol of pride.  However - and you couldn't make this up - the New Mexico Attorney General's Office is now investigating following a surge in sightings of bear depictions on vehicles.  They apparently fear - don't laugh at the back - that this may suggest an increase in sex offender behaviour in the Albuquerque area.  Fascinating and bonkers in equal measure.  Check out the full story here.  The HuffPo piece helpfully points out that 'It is not illegal for people to display the Pedobear image in public.'  Well if it was, there would be an amazing first amendment case to bring.  It could finish poor Justice Scalia off!

The piece also explains that 'Some people may be displaying them as a joke, but the attorney general's office said they are taking the bear images seriously and are trying to get the word out.'  Look out for them in Halfords!

Rebekah Brooks and Fitness to Lead

The phone hacking story is gathering momentum and events will no doubt have moved on in the brief time I sit and write this post. What's curious from the point of view of this blog is the way that Rebekah Brooks has sought to defend herself today. She's been silent (thus far) on the airwaves but did release a written statement which you can read in full here.

About three-quarters of the way through her statement, she seeks to define her tenure at News of the World in the following terms:

'I hope that you all realise it is inconceivable that I knew or worse, sanctioned these appalling allegations.

I am proud of the many successful newspaper campaigns at the Sun and the News of the World under my editorship.

In particular, the 10-year fight for Sarah's Law is especially personal to me.

The battle for better protection of children from paedophiles and better rights for the families and the victims of these crimes defined my editorships.'

I heard this with disbelief. During the period that Wade refers to, News of the World shamelessly fuelled a moral panic around paedophilia and inter-generational sex in the name of profits. Together with other tabloid papers (notably fellow Murdoch paper, The Sun - and which she also went on to edit) it sought to dominate the media with endless scare-mongering. It has been widely accepted to have linked to one incident in which vigilantes attacked the home of a hospital paediatrician after apparently confusing her professional title with the word 'paedophile'. Remind yourself of that story here.

That moral panic has continued to frame the debate around paedophilia, limiting policy development and hampering intellectual and academic exploration of the complex issues in this area. Few academics are brave to talk about this issue, and fewer still are willing to challenge accepted wisdom in the field thanks to campaigns such as the one run by Brooks and the News of the World. Such was the extreme nature of these fear feeding frenzies that Brass Eye satirised the media's treatment of this issue in 2001 - see that here.

That doesn't sound like something I'd want to highlight as my finest hour, or to define me as the sort of person I am. In fact, it seems to suggest someone who would exploit vulnerable people for their own profitable cause. Whether that applies explicitly to Brooks is for others to decide but her defence today, I would suggest, raises fresh questions about the ethics of media leaders.

What is clear however, is that it is a shameless mischaracterisation of history to now define that period of journalism as anything other than the shameless fuelling of a moral panic for commercial gain.

Sexting Youths

The New York Times carried a fascinating piece at the weekend exploring the challenge that 'sexting' is increasingly posing for US states. Sexting, is where a nude (pornographic) picture of oneself might be sent to someone else over a mobile network. Accoridng to the NY Times, some states have amended their statutes on child pornography, obscenity or Internet crimes. Many allow juvenile offenders to be charged with a misdemeanor or a lesser offense, so they can qualify for diversion programs and have their records expunged. A few states have tried to define a sexting offense. The NY Times also did some interviews with teenagers which you can read here.

It's a nightmare for English lawmakers too, challenging our simplistic notions of who is and who isn't a paedophile. It's perfectly legal for a 16 year old to consent to sexual activity under English law, but if they take a pornographic photograph of themselves, that amounts to child pornography - and such images can easily be circulated beyond their originally intended audience.

Although this story focuses upon 'sexting', it's worth also bearing in mind the growing role that Twitter can potentially have for the distribution of these images - encouraging as it does rapidly evolving networks. I don't have the solution but I do know it means the legal notion of what a paedophile is, and what wider society understands by that term, is increasingly disconnected.