Theory 

What conditions allow paedophiles to overcome their social
isolation? Tremblay states this as his “substantive goal”. This question
contains implicit assumptions which he does not deal with in his paper.
For example, it could be argued that social isolates are more dangerous
and unpredictable than those having the social and moral support of
similar minded people that they can discuss their interests. The great
crimes, the serial killers of children like Clifford Olson and John
Wayne Gacy, were all committed by isolates having nowhere to turn to for
support and counsel. 

Under the rubric of “Age of consent” offenders Tremblay
conveniently avoids having to deal with the differences between 

	pedophiles, attracted to prepubescent children and
	ephebephiles attracted to older children up to eighteen.

This lack of distinction muddies and compromises his
subsequent analysis. 

Until recent decades important distinctions were popularly
made between the two. 

	Have ephebephiles traditionally been social isolates in that men engaging in sex with adolescent boys were stigmatized or persecuted by their communities?
	Leaving aside the Middle East, Asia and Southern Europe, what about the lower and working classes in English speaking countries?

Just as they did not share the middle class concern over masturbation,
man/boy affairs as long as they were discrete and voluntary attracted
little outrage. Age of consent often applied only to girls. The question
of social isolation of ephebephiles did not arise. Men seeking out
small prepubertal children were condemned then as now. 

Any social isolation
experienced by ephebophiles is a fairly recent phenomena resulting from
the stigmatization and proactive persecution of all boylovers by moral
crusaders. This has put them in the same category as pedophiles, and has
strengthened the so-called pedophile movement. 

Seen in this context the
question of what conditions “allow” ephebephiles at least to overcome
their social isolation places them with other groups who have been
labeled deviates such as heretics and dissidents, which in many respects
they have recently become. Persecution and labeling them as deviates
has provided the motive for Age of consent offenders to seek each other
out, organize and engage in propaganda. Tremblay both acknowledges this
and then conveniently ignores this in the case of Nambla.  

Generally these efforts to
overcome social isolation have been confined to Western Europe and the
English speaking world because that is where the persecution has been
most organized and intense. The mere knowledge of the existence of
organizations such as Nambla and PIE, even if only through negative
messages, has informed those attracted to minors that they are not
alone. This, more than the content of their messages, has enabled
boylovers to see themselves more positively. The development of the
Internet a dozen or so years after the emergence of these organizations
enabled mass participation and self proselytization and learning in a
novel way.  

Tremblay raises the
question of whether the upsurge of “sensitivity” about Age of consent
offences could occur without an actual increase in their prevalence. One
should keep in mind that an actual increase, which is impossible to
prove, is critical for his theories. I assume he means an increase
beyond simple legal reclassification of acts. 

We might ask if the
heightened “sensitivity” about witchcraft in the Fifteenth Century and
masturbation in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries were a result of
an actual increase in witchcraft and masturbation. We have the recent
example in the U.S. and U.K. where concern about crime has been
increasing at a time of declining crime rates. 

We might also ask under
what conditions, and there are many possible reasons, can we be fairly
confident about a direct relationship between perception and reality.
For Tremblay to even raise the question in a supposedly scholarly
article without mentioning compounding issues, like for example child
pornography which can be argued both ways, weakens his case. For example
sexual permissiveness and pornography in particular have been blamed,
although child pornography has also been used to explain decreases in
child sexual assault. 

Has there been an increase
in Age of consent offences? Beyond the widely recognized problem of
reporting offences there is the question of recognizing offences.
Behaviour seen as harmless is unlikely to be considered an offence
regardless of how laws might be interpreted. The expectation that life
is `rough and tumble’ and involves `give and take’, and that `boys will
be boys’, and that you don’t go running to mummy or the cops at every
chance, was much more prevalent in the past. 

The trivial has become
magnified into the traumatic in a world where personal judgement defers
to self interested experts. Tremblay’s “increase” may be more a factor
of the growth of victimological theories than any actual change. 

There has almost certainly
been an increase in perceived Age of consent offences. However it is
much easier to argue that there has been an increase in suffering, of
both “victims” and “offenders”, due to Age of consent offences than
there has been an increase in their prevalence. 

Trivialization of non
coercive Age of consent offences is probably a more humane and civilized
way of dealing with them than present approaches, such as mandatory
reporting requirements. However given the growing limitations on freedom
of expression this view is unacceptable in most forums. 

Pool
of Motivated Adults 

Having established in his
own mind an increase in Age of consent offences Tremblay proceeds to
speculate how/why more men are acting out their illicit sexual
preferences and why more youngsters are willing or available to
participate. 

For adults he draws upon a
“motivational insight” that where individual (material) success is the
ultimate measure of self worth people will turn to crime to achieve it.
Calvinistic criminality? 

Modern culture, and this
is supposedly new, also emphasizes the moral ideal of being true to
oneself, to fulfill oneself. Presumably this includes a duty to act out
Age of consent offences, if so inclined, leading to an increase. 

This culture of
authenticity is also used to explain the current moral and legal crusade
against the sexual exploitation of youngsters as a violation of their
being able to be true to themselves. Stronger cultural emphasis on
authenticity and sincerity, he
claims, leads to a higher rate of Age of consent offenders in
affluent countries, and the more affluent social classes who are more
exposed to this self fulfillment ethic. To me this patently untrue. 

Poor countries and lower
socio/economic classes are more generationally integrated and thus more
pragmatic and tolerant despite official morality. The significance and
consequences of “deviance” for both boys and men are much less. 

Pool
of Suitable Targets 

Tremblay, obeisant to
legal/clinical pejorative terminology refers to the youngsters involved
as “targets”. Age of consent offences depend on the “opportunities” they
offer to potential predators. 

Opportunity is
quantitatively defined as the amount of time adults and juveniles are
free to interact intimately in the absence of appropriate supervision.
This might be termed the chaperone assumption. Because in traditional
societies kids start working at an earlier age he assumes that poor
societies should have higher rates of Age of consent offences. 

(I don’t know how relevant
early assumption of reproductive roles are as this is often a cultural
matter.) 

Given that most work done
by youngsters in poor countries involves family enterprises;
agriculture, small businesses and craft industries this seems
questionable. It could apply to street occupations such as vending but
these are often supervised by the street culture. It would seem more
likely that kids who are not working, such as street kids, and those
with no economic role in supporting their families may be involved in
Age of consent offences including prostitution. 

Tremblay claims that in
affluent countries the time spent by teenagers under no parental
supervision has increased dramatically. He sees this as creating
opportunities for Age of consent offences. 

However more and more of
the time of teens and boys is organized and formally supervised by other
adults. Informal sports and games have been replaced by practices and
leagues. Roaming and camping have given way to organized supervised
hikes. Kids are simply no longer trusted or felt safe on their own. Of
course this may be seen as creating opportunities for predatory coaches,
mentors and leaders. 

Opportunities for informal
intergenerational mingling have declined. There are now very few
neighbourhood garages and other small businesses and institutions where
casual intergenerational relationships can develop. In recent decades we
have seen a generation gap develop based on economic and social changes
and fueled by pedophobia. 

The “opportunity” approach
however ignores the bigger question of what influences kids in what
they do with whatever free unsupervised time they have. They are not
passive agents. Their likelihood and willingness to engage in Age of
consent offences will be far more affected by their peer’s values and
attitudes than any time or place based opportunity. Youth culture is not
immune to the influence of the present pedophobic panic and gender
politics, and is probably more adverse to Age of consent offence
activity than previously. 

While Tremblay can find
anecdotal statements to back up his contentions his supply side analysis
is based on very dubious assumptions, highly selective observations,
and questionable reasoning. 

Tremblay’s speculations are
hardly constructive research in that he failed to define some testable
hypotheses pertinent to his claims. Conclusions are contained in his
assumptions. It is a strained analysis where he claims an increase with
only a very abstract historical analysis when there is an abundance of
material he could have referred to respecting what are Age of consent
offences extant at the times. Even if an increase in Age of consent
offences could be shown there are many possible and plausible
explanations of why. 

Tremblay has been very
selective in the theories he has chosen. He is quite clever at times.
While Tremblay’s paper has little to offer beyond its descriptions it
does contain ideas which could be mined to rationalize oppressive
policies such as further criminalization of Internet culture. We know
laws are made in factual vacuums. 

The
Offenders 

Tremblay interviewed a
series of Age of consent offenders, mostly in prison, who appear to have
little in common beyond their offences. They do not constitute a
scientific or statistically representative sample and he does not make
that claim and admits that they are atypical. He uses his interviews
with his subjects to gain insights and provide anecdotal evidence to
support his conjectures. 

According to personal
contacts the reliability and motivations of some are questionable. One
of his subjects who I have met had a few inaccurate and unflattering
things to say about me. Tremblay is not unsympathetic to his subjects
and quotes several at length which provide some understanding of their
involvement, but he stays within conventional criminal justice system
assumptions. 

What may be disturbing to
some boylovers, and those who simply value freedom of expression and
association, is his contention that Internet forums increase Age of
consent offences. 

Pedophiles he suggests
“acquire the commitment to act out” as a result of “their exposure to
favourable definitions of paedophilia – advocacy.” (“Commitment to act
out” almost suggests an epiphany.) This conforms to and affirms one of
the definitions of child pornography in Canadian law which prohibits
material that “advocates or counsels”. It is also part of the theory of
cognitive distortions used by forensic psychiatrists. 

Tremblay goes on to refer
to a theory that “individuals acquire the motivation to ‘offend’ only
through personal contacts.” Tremblay claims , “Internet technology
currently provides the organized means for social isolates to overcome
natural, legal and social barriers.” 

If that is accepted and
the “protection of children” overrides all other considerations, which
seems to be the new wisdom, then it is simple common sense to prohibit
any means which allow actual and potential Age of consent offenders from
communicating with each other. This is what is frightening about
Tremblay’s article. 

Tremblay seems to strive to
produce arguments that would serve the police and prosecutors. I can
only speculate on what effect on policies, if any, his paper will have.
The fact that it is a tenuous and shoddy, if occasionally clever piece
of work, is irrelevant.