The Man They Called a Monster
<< Razorwire >>
by Geoffrey Leonard's Razorwire

Full Facts:
      On the 2 of March the victims, two young brothers X and Y 13 and 16 old made a statement of complaint to Police in which they both alleged that they had been sexually assaulted by the defendant on numerous occasions during last year involving masturbation, oral and anal intercourse. On the 7 of March the defendant was arrested and interviewed at the police office and two signed records of interviews obtained from him fully admitting the allegations. Subsequently charged with 12 counts of Homosexual Intercourse upon a male above 10 and under 18 years of age (eleven counts against victim X and one count against victim Y), one count of attempted Homosexual Intercourse upon a male above 10 and under 18 years of age (against victim X) and 2 counts of Sexual Assault Cat.4 (against victim X) and 3 counts of Sexual Assault Cat. 4 (against victim Y) upon child under 16 years of age.

Father's Evidence
      I am a married man residing with my wife and three natural sons, X, Y and Z.
      About 6pm on Sunday the lath of October last year I was at home talking with a friend of X. We were having a discussion about where they go when they go out on Thursday nights. He told me that he always plays monopoly. I thought that was unusual because my son had always told me that they ride around on their bikes. I became suspicious about where in fact my son was going and I called him into my study to speak to him.
      I demanded to know where he had been going on Thursday night. With extreme hesitation he said "out in the van with G. I knew when he said G that he was referring to G because I know of his character. My next question was "Has he sexually assaulted you in any way. He said "No, he was just a nuisance and I couldn't get rid of him." X was very tense and could hardly speak so I continued to question him. I said, "Has he ever sexually assaulted you?" X said, "Yes." I asked him how and; X didn't reply. I then said, "Has he put his penis in your bum?" X said, "No". I said, "Have you put your penis in his bum?". X said, "Yes". And then said, "G has sucked my penis". At this stage, he was very upset and crying. I hugged him and said, "It's OK, the family will stand by you." After that he relaxed slightly, and said, "I am not homosexual. I did it to try and shield Y."
      I then sent X to his room and called Y in. I said "What has been happening between you and G?" He was very upset and I understood from his reply that on the evening of his brother's birthday, he was asleep in the tent and G came in and "felt him". I said, "What else has been happening?" He said "G wanks in front of me and gives us money." He was extremely upset and could hardly speak about the matter. I told him everything would be O.K.
      The following Tuesday I spoke with our old friend in police who is semi retired and told him about the matter. On a later date the matter was reported to Family and Community Services and then the Police.

Y's Statement of Evidence
      I am a thirteen year old boy and I live at home with my mum and dad, and two brothers — Z who is about twenty and X who is sixteen.
      About a year ago I met G. He was friends with my brothers. He is about forty to fifty years old, fat man, tanned complexion, black to silver hair that is untidy and not combed.
      I think it was about April when G did something to me that I thought was wrong. It was the night that my oldest brother had his birthday party at a place, which is a camping site, about two kilometers from our house. We all camped overnight at the site.
      The actual party was at out house and continued at the campsite where we had tents and sleeping bags. In my tent there was myself, my brother, a friend and G. G was lying next to me and I was in my sleeping bag with the zipper undone as it was hot. Everybody was asleep and G reached over and started to feel me on the outside of my pants around my penis. He then undid my pants zipper and he started to masturbate my penis with his hand. I then moved away and did up my fly to stop hint doing it anymore. Nothing else happened that night.
      About a month to six weeks later on a Saturday in the afternoon I was at G's house with my friend in the lounge room. We had been to shopping centre and G had brought us some army models. We had also been to the video shop and G said that we could get a video and he would get a video. When we got home G wanted to watch his video first and it turned out to be a pornographic video. Then he said to us, "Do you know what boys do when they watch these movies?" We said, "No". He said, "They masturbate, do you want to masturbate?" We said, "No". He then took down his trousers and began to masturbate his penis in front of us. He was sitting on a chair and we were sitting two or three feet from him. He masturbated for ages till he ejaculated in front of us. After he was going to show the other video but we went home.
      G masturbated in front of us about three more times at his home but I can't remember the details.
      In August or September I owed one of my friends at school some money. One night about 9.30pm after I had gone to bed, I went over the G's place and asked him for some money so I could pay my friend back When I was over there I was sitting on his bed after I had asked him for some money and he began to feel me between the legs. I then took down my pants and he started to masturbate me with his hand. He then put my penis in his mouth and began to suck me. After he gave me some money and I went home.
      Last year in October I was in my bedroom when my dad called me into his study. He asked me some questions and I told him what G had done to me.

X's Statement of Evidence
      I am a sixteen year old boy and I live with my parents, and two brothers, Z who is nineteen and y who is thirteen.
      During last year my older brother Z became friendly with G. I didn't really associate with G until about February a year ago when he asked me if I could fix up his car. I am always fixing my dad's car and G just offered me $50.00 if I could do some panel beating on his car. From then on I became friendly with G.
      On occasions G would talk of masturbation and talk dirty to me. I didn't like these conversations but there wasn't much I could do about it. G wasn't one of those blokes you could tell to go away, he wouldn't take any notice of you. I would see G most days, either he would to my place or I would go to his. He would help me with my schoolwork and that.
      The first time I remember G doing something wrong to me was in August. I remember this date because I had just got my L-plates. One night about 9pm I left home after I was supposed to go to bed and went up to G's place. G had told me that he would take me for a drive in his car and that he would let me have a drive since I had my L-plates. We went for a drive with me behind the steering wheel and we went out highway. I am not sure where we were but it was an open area with very few houses and I pulled the car up, as I wanted to go to the toilet. When I came back to the car and sat down G said something to me like; "You've had your fun, now let me have mine. He then undid my trousers and began to fondle my penis. Then he masturbated me and undid his own trousers and began to masturbate himself. After a while he leant over and began to suck my penis with his mouth. He did this till I ejaculated. G tried to get me to play with his penis but I didn't want to. After this I started up the car and drove home.
      About four days later, I remember it was a Sunday because I supposed to be at evening church. It was about 6 .30pm and I went over to G's place instead. We went for a drive. G let me drive the car with my L-plates on. I remember we stopped at a secluded spot along a bush track or fire trail. This time G undid my pants and went straight into oral sex where he sucked my penis with his mouth. He did this to me for about half an hour until I ejaculated. Later we drove home.
      In middle to late September I was at G's house and he made me a proposition that he would pay me money if I would have sex with him and become like a wife to him. I turned him down but no more than a week later when I found out that he liked my younger brother, I agreed on the terms that he wouldn't touch my younger brother.
      G had brought some walkie-talkies and he gave me one which I kept in my bedroom. It was like having a private intercom. We could pick each other up on the walkie-talkies. I would often ask G on the walkie-talkie if I had a school problem. I would tell him if I was could go over to his place.
      Just after I had agreed to the proposition with G, I would speak to hint on the walkie-talkie and I would go over to his place. On three occasions I remember that I went to his place, he had oral sex with me when he sucked my penis. I remember once was on his couch, once was on his bed and the other time was on a single lounge chair. This all happened within about a week period. He would have liked me to do the same to him but I didn't want to.
      I remember around mid-October G had allowed me to drive his car again. It was about 1.30am in the morning and we ended up at park harbor far away from home. G owns a Ford blue Escort panel van and he has a mattress in the rear of the car. We both took our trousers off arid got into the back of the panel van on the mattress. G masturbated my penis and also sucked my penis. He then lubricated my penis with some stuff that was called KY jelly. He then showed me how to have anal sex with him. I did this and put my penis into his bum and ejaculated inside of him. I don't remember him doing anything to me. We lay there for a while and then went for a walk along the coast and later drove back home.
      Within the next three days after this I was at G's house, .it was dark and he referred to the park incident and said to me, "Lets do it again on the couch". He left the room and came back with no clothes on except his socks. He undid my jeans and pulled them down and then I was on my hands and knees on the couch. He put some of that KY jelly on his penis and tried to have anal intercourse with me. He just wouldn't fit in and it didn't work. He then got me to put some KY on my penis and ad anal intercourse with him. After that he had oral sex with me, he put his clothes back on and we talked for a while, I'm not sure about what. Later I went home.
      Another time in October I was at his house and the same thing happened on the couch except that he did not try to have anal sex with me. G had oral sex with me and then got me to have anal sex with him.
      There are other times when G gave me oral sex but I can't remember.
      Sometime in October dad found out that I had been to G's place when I had told him that I had been to another friend's home. He asked me some questions and I admitted to him just about everything that had happened between myself and G.
      Not long after the incident in the park I received a letter from G on a piece of lined foolscap and he refers in it about the sexual intercourse we had that night. That letter has been handed to Detective by myself and my father. Detective was also handed a number of other letters and papers that G had written.

The Letter
      The wallet is on the table. Please accept that you have the right to enter my house at any time & use it as your own. From our modern knowledge on these matters it is very probable that your genes have entered my bloodstream & become a part of me, so that I am now your flesh, which is okay what we did is considered to be the ultimate act of intimacy. God has joined us in an act which at the time seemed a little clumsy & painful but in retrospect was like entering the gates of heaven. Tomorrow I'm going to bible society so keep on beeping till I return — other nights I will be home about 7.00 — I long to hear your call.
      I love you
      G.
      I have not put the wallet in the letterbox in order to make my point. Let us keep Satan at bay. Satan does not like this affair at all & is busy producing 1,000 reasons why it should end if anybody is evil enough to listen.
      Well, Satan produced his 1,000 reasons, and he got plenty of listeners.

G's Statement of Evidence
      It is awful crap, and has little relationship to any realities at all. The debauched and degraded sexual activities referred actually involved a bit of anal intercourse — where I was the passive partner, a bit of oral sex — where I was the one who played the Monica Lewinsky part. And involved a bit of masturbation — also where I played the role of the lovely Monica. All in all, it was hardly mind-blowing stuff. But there is a story behind it.
      Recognition by authority is an important part of our property. It slots into our psyche as that personal property called identity. A person craves social recognition and being a part of the scheme of things. In a word, he craves to be important. The ideal child is brought up to identify itself with authority as loving, nurturing and caring; and obeys its rules, and fulfills its duties, out of love. Identity is that something which G spent most of his life looking for. G had fallen victim of another powerful influence in the human psyche, the need to have the approval of persons he perceives to be in authority. He kept his soul; that quality which tells the difference between right and wrong at their inner, most basic level. He kept his soul because he never found identity. His first love sacrificed his soul, with reference to G, for the sake of identity. Had G been received substantially into the legal profession as a practicing member, he would have ended his days as a moderately successful solicitor; forgetting his soul, and never thinking of putting into jeopardy his hard-earned and prized reputation. A person can hold an identity, but only at the expense of acting contrary to his soul. A person, who has a soul but does not act according to it, is really betraying it, even by doing nothing. But authority effectively treated G as it had always treated him, by ignoring him. G had gained little, and had lost a great deal, and had little further to lose. G was a very angry man, but he had kept his soul. Which he expressed in his thoughts and writing. That he failed to communicate to the outside world, and in other respects actually live his soul, was a drag on his self-esteem. The degree of supporting or betraying the soul, is the measure of personal self-esteem.
      G’s mother was, herself, an extremely socially isolated person, and lived for her work in the Commonwealth Public Service. G’s adolescence was, likewise, spent in social isolation, and his life contained no personal role models.
      Basically what made G a marginal person was his sexuality linked up with his total being. He passionately wanted love and acceptance, both for himself and his soul. He saw his emotional affection and his sexuality as being what he most had to offer; and he saw love and acceptance substantially in the form of emotional warmth and sexuality from another. He looked to finding his being in a warm, loving and good world.
      G's first love affair was with a boy at school. Even though it was unrequited and from afar, he felt it as a beautiful experience, and a glimpse of a wonderful inner meaning to life. But its legal meaning was an attempt to seduce a younger male person into performing an illegal and unnatural act. Had even G put his arm around the boy's shoulder, especially had the boy objected, he would have committed an act of indecent assault.
      G's actions never followed his guilty mind; but all the time, in his last couple of years at school, this shy, well-behaved, rather diffident and passive youth, stood uncomfortably close to being a serious criminal.
      The boy was more aware of the true position than G; and, a couple of years later, told him in a letter that he had been aware of G's feelings but had felt them to be unnatural. The boy had assumed that the law of the State is equivalent to the law of God and an act contrary to the law of God is unnatural.
      Most of G's contemporary gays assumed, and strongly accepted that the secular law was the natural law of God; and they simply felt themselves as possessed of that sinful nature so warned against in the Bible. Most of them rejected their unnatural impulses and married women; to spend the rest of their lives in loveless, joyless marriages begetting loveless, joyless children; and having their only pleasure in passing on their misery to others in the enforcement of the social and legal law. So, the real problem is homophobia. The choice is between a marriage which confers a degree of resemblance to normal life, and a degree of sexual satisfaction perhaps. And living a lonely existence as a social outcast, living the precarious existence of undetected criminals.
      It remained love from afar, with the boy concerned dismissing it as ’unnatural’. I should have done the same; but instead, I let the thing possess and obsess me to the point where it corroded and undermined my attitudes to the state and its law. I never actually broke the law, but my lack of discipline caused me a great deal of unhappiness and frustrated emotional dependency.
      When he was nearly 59, G had lost his mother, his last remaining close link with the world. He lost his dreams of identity. He had his soul; but souls are cold bedmates on the cold winter nights of life. The situation of his late boyhood was repeating itself. For most of his life, he had dealt with his sexuality by masturbation; basically, by opting out.
      Breaking the sexual law these days is rather like inviting one's friends into a petrol dump and offering around the cigarettes. Such an act would be one of criminal negligence, especially when taken in full knowledge of the probable consequences; and even more so when one is playing some kind of leadership role. The Bentham person weighed the gains against the pains, and acted in fear of the pains. In my own mind I always put love and affection above all else.
      At the very least, my crime was one of criminal negligence. I satisfied my lusts and selfish emotions regardless of the foreseeable outcomes of my actions. I may not have purposely meant that my victims are hurt, but I should have reflected that hurt was probable by virtue of the surrounding circumstances and context. There may not be a great deal wrong with having a smoke, but it is wrong to smoke in a petrol dump and especially to hand around the packet to others. Especially those whose youth and susceptibility renders them open to the suggestion that the situation is natural, safe and good; especially if you are a person in authority to them. At the very least, this is what I did; and the dump blew up and savagely injured us all. All of our actions have to be measured and judged in terms of their probable and foreseeable effects; and if those effects are injurious, we are responsible for them.
      It is remarkable how all of the psychologists and others in this case readily and immediately associate pain, injury and violence with sex. I can make this association only with great difficulty, and under duress. By the same taken, they seem to find it just as hard to associate sex with love and affection. Perhaps this is telling us something about them.
      As I recall it, violence, in the normal sense, was never alleged. I was a timid, frightened, lonely child; and I was a timid, frightened, lonely adult. I confined my rebelliousness to fantasy. The options I took in conduct were non-involvement, dropping-out, and running away. I suppose that, in a sense, my crime can be interpreted as 'testing the waters'. I only felt that I loved the boys, and was actually giving them a growth experience. At most, I felt that I was doing something a little naughty, but I put the individual on a pedestal above the state; and I saw love and affection as having the highest priority, and in warm personal emotional germs, rather than, as duties owed primarily to the state. In short, I thought of life in terms of pleasure rather than duty. I suppose that my ideal was something called the authentic man; and I did not realize that such a thing is incompatible with the existence and safety of a stable, ordered, disciplined society. I did not realize that these values are not compatible with survival in such a society; something which I know now very well. The worst that could be said was that there was some drug involvement. But drugs are a part of the culture from where the boys came. Drug taking is strongly associated with New Age attitudes and beliefs. We cannot escape from life, and we cannot defeat nature. All that we normally succeed in doing is replacing one addiction with one even more compelling. Drugs, I would imagine, are as normal a part of the northern beach scene as alcohol is of most others. And paeds in that scene would just have to fall into line if their welcome was to survive. True paediphiles are quite explicit in the role that they aim to play in the rebellion of youth. It is a thought that older people almost never were part of the drug scene. It was a youth thing.
      The real issue is the existence of youth and child sexuality, the so-called final taboo. Men have felt in their bones that these things are true. As soon as these things are talked about they lose their taboo status. The authorities cannot deny youth sex, and their attempts to do so will be even more futile than their attempts to contain the drug and homosexuality cultures. Vanity hides men from the truth.
      The longing for the absolute ideal goes to the heart of what it means to be conscious. But it is a longing that can never be fulfilled, and the human condition can never be finally happy and satisfied. But it can experience moments of happiness in the sexual orgasm. And it can obtain a kind of intellectual equivalent when it solves problems, but only in the achievement of the ultimate and final intellectual triumph of the unified field theory. This grand dream must always be frustrated but small partial experiences in art, science and mathematics give us some idea of what the ultimate experience would be like.
      During the sixties, when he was at sea, G made the connection between sexual and intellectual orgasm in his concept of resolution. There is an energy release when an intellectual problem is solved, or resolved the nature and pleasure of a sexual orgasm seems similarly to be an energy release. But it was not until the eighties, with its advances in cosmology, that G was able to glimpse at what might be basically involved. What is the physical problem that the sexual orgasm solves? Differences between a loving couple in a sexual union disappear at the moment of orgasm, if only for that moment. But the orgasms of masturbation are of the same nature; so the thing must go deeper.
      G spent many years, most of his life in fact, on his theory of knowledge, and was greatly pleased when, in the mid-eighties, he was able to come to an understanding of how energy would be released in his theory of the orgasm. G suggested that the nature of the sexual act is a resolution event; where the annihilation effect of the addition of the positive and negative radicals turned their mass into energy. Like a miniature nuclear explosion. In fact, every resolution event creates a whole string of mistakes; and G is creative if he accepts these mistakes with love. It is easy enough to accept a person who is perfect; but it is accepting one who is imperfect which is love, it is also not love to accept that person only on the condition that he reform himself. A state of being that was perfect and certain could only be attainable in one condition, zero. It is suggested that a person loves another person because of his faults, rather than in spite of them. If love has to be earned, it is not love. G loved his first love, not because he was an ideal person, but because he wasn't. G loved X because he is an fuck.
      Relationships are about sharing. Power and sharing are almost contradictory concepts. Sexual pleasure comes from personal release. It need not be shared. But sharing enhances and gives it meaning. That someone accepts and wants your sexuality enormously enhances the liberation aspect. Love is about sharing. Love is about liberty; for it is only with liberty that there is anything to share. Love is about acceptance; because it is only with acceptance that there can be anything to share. The element of power in a relationship is a great turn-off.
      G's academic successes gave him sufficient confidence to pursue the satisfaction of his erotic drives, rather than denying them. It was, therefore, G's adequacy that was the immediate cause of his crime. His boys were available. Had he been even more adequate, he might have been successful in winning over somebody else. Who was rather less available, but lawful. On the other hand, had he been more adequate, he might have been able to win sufficient love and respect from the boys for them to be determined not to testify against him. Normally, kids will not be induced to get into the witness box and testify against the person who has shown them love. Somewhere, somehow, there has had to be a weak spot in the relationship. Every man charged with a paedophile offense has to ask himself, as the central issue in his case, why was the kid prepared to go into the witness box against him? A jurist will notice the operation of an inbuilt mechanism to give a just result, even though the letter is denied. Adequacy is a legal two-sided sword. In fact, G's occasional temper tantrums gave them the impression of a person of insufficient control of himself, and a wimp; and a person not worth the cost of support. So, although it was adequacy that was the cause of the crime, it was inadequacy that led to him being charged and vulnerable to conviction. Indeed, so vulnerable, that he gave up the struggle (perhaps characteristically), and pleaded guilty.
      There was an interval of some months between the discovery of G's relationship with the boys and his charging. G did not know of the discovery, but the relationship had come to an end. G's self-esteem plummeted, and various manifestations of irrational violence, directed to himself but felt by others as directed to them, resulted in him being considered a nuisance. The sexual instinct is at the service of the good, the loving, the positive, and creative. When a person betrays himself, the drive will turn against him to destroy him. So, when a person's self-esteem is low, he tends to become possessed of urges of a destructive and ungovernable nature. This was G's breakdown under the second leg of criminal breakdown.
      G found his loved one; and, more or less, what happened at the beginning happened at the end. G's intense falling in love experience came of his desire to be needed and of value to someone — and to express his inner soul. To have someone actually want him would, for him, to have been a wonderful experience. Boy's youth brought him into G's own world; or at least G thought. In fact, the last thing the boy wanted was to enter G's world. All the signs are — at this date — that the kids have declared, not only paedophilia, but all homosexuality off limits; and have fallen for the official line like a succulent lollypop like a lead balloon. Minors may pretend to like it but their real motives are either fear or economic or other advantage. But it could also be that the kids now regard all adults as enemies, including myself; and that this is the impression I am meant to get.
      Effectively, on the 1st March 1990, when he was charged, G came face to face with authority for the first time in his life. The paradoxical result of his imprisonment was his gain of identity. For the first time in his life, G became a person of importance in the eyes of the State. For most of his life, G was a pitiable object of contempt. In the end, he became a criminal. An important factor in his crime was his loss of identity through the having to give up his professional aspirations. A person's maturity is his identity. The State prohibits boys having sex because of the immaturity of their identity. It was the identification of G with the boys who caused them to be so attractive to him, and it was the mutual identification that enabled that degree of physical and emotional closeness that provided the occasion for the crime.
      On the 31st January 1999, on the ABC, was broadcast what I consider a milestone TV program. It was a Compass panel discussion on the age-of-consent. So important do I consider it, that I would bracket it with the series of programs on Channel 10 in 1987, which began this whole child sexual abuse obsession. It is important, because it was a genuine discussion, and the first I have ever heard on this subject.
      Child sexual abuse was erected on the foundation of the concept of private space. Private space is the mental equivalent of the real estate in which we live. It is ours. It is we. And its sanctity and inviolability is a fundamental human right. It is seen as rooms within rooms. In the outermost room, we interface with our social reality. In the innermost room, the holy of holies, is where we find our sexuality. It is the place where we are the most intimate; and it is the place where we are most vulnerable. We only allow another person into it whom we love and trust. And when somebody comes into it unbidden, he is considered as having violated us at the deepest level, and this is called rape. Any further violence is an aggravation of that rape. Women and children are vulnerable to men, and children, being the most vulnerable; this is the most serious crime. To enter a child’s holy of holies, a man has, not only to have permission from the child, he must also have permission from God, the law, and the community; and, for a child, this will be forever withheld. The injury to the child comes from the destruction of his private space at its deepest level, and is virtually the destruction of the child.
      The child may well have readily participated in the crime, but when he realized the social and religious implications of what he had done, he felt terrible guilt. If the first model was rape by force, the second model was rape by fraud. The child had not had a sufficiently formed mind to know what he was doing, and the adult, who was abusing his trust for carnal purposes, had misled him. The injury was derivative from the guilt. The emphasis upon sexual guilt made this model vulnerable to charges that it was really about the notorious Catholic guilt. Sex at too earlier an age is simply to great a burden for the immature mind and emotions, which suffer injury as a result of the intolerable strain.
      Modern law and psychology are greatly concerned with protection. These beliefs are characteristic of authoritarian people. A child is seen as a delicate plant at risk from the winds and hazards of life. The law and modern psychology see sex as appetite. Modern psychology especially dislikes it as being violent, primitive, and sub-human, and conducive to the depraving of the free violation and cognitive, which are the marks of a mature person. It is something which the strong satisfy at the expense of the weak; and in the same category as the craving of a carnivore for meat. Sexual activity is not a sharing of pleasure by equals, it is the taking by the powerful from the weak. Sex is a form of torture. Women and children are attractive to depraved men because they are weak and defenseless at their hands. Children especially need protection as their fundamental human right; and, as regards them, the law sees all sexual activity as acts of violence which cannot be mitigated by any plea whatsoever; and to be visited with punishment of the uttermost severity, and uncontaminated with compassion. Paedophilia is about the torture of children, satanic ritual torture and murder. An element in G’s case was the belief that he is demonically possessed. Bad faith is suspected; it all makes for such a good excuse. The law, and modern psychology, will accept no excuses for the sexual abuse of children. Any taking advantage of the weakness of children for the satisfaction of an adult's violent lusts is a terrible thing; and adult male sexuality is always a violent lust. An adult with a child has a duty of protection to the state for that child who is almost sacred in its intensity; and for him to abuse that trust for the satisfaction of his violent lusts is a corruption of the worst kind.   
      There can be no doubt that the paedophile is the bogeyman of the nineties, just as the red was the bogeyman of the fifties. Kids are terrified into doing what they don’t want to do by the threat that otherwise paedophiles will find them and do unspeakable things to them. They are kept at home by it being pointed out them that the places they want to go to are infested with paedophiles.
      So, we come to the emotional injury model, which was the one discussed in the Compass program. A film clip of a young man who had been seduced by an older woman when he was twelve prefaced the program. His state was terrible. But was he genuine, or was he from Central Casting? Were they his own words, or were they written by the scriptwriters who generally write such things? The programs ask us to take a terrible lot on trust. But I remember a few years ago being taken in until I realized that the abused lady in question always looked exactly the same. In whatever series were being run about abused ladies (and they were popular), the same actress had the role. She was good. I give her that much. But the blurring between fact and fiction is deception, let’s face it.
      The principle advocate for strict age-of-consent law was a stern faced lady, whom I would not have liked to have met in a dark ally; or at least in a psychology consulting room. But the panel included Germane Greer. Who came up with the obvious fact that children are not the innocent angels that they are purported to be; and that, at twelve, not only do they think about sex, they think of hardly anything but. Another panel member who instanced examples from her own childhood echoed this. Germane Greer made another very important point - which I am always making — that sex need not be about insertion, and that we seem to have a hang-up about this. When I was young, the kids used to wank, and mutually wank, and with girls they would "pet" and "heavily pet". Sex was fun. Which would have outraged the stern faced lady. How dare sex be fun! I might say that it is likely that very little paedophile sex is about insertion, or maybe orally. The gay community is hung-up about "real" sex, and this is the real problem about AIDS. But safe sex is never about mutually wanking. It is always about using a condom. This hang-up is really at the basis of the problems that the gay community has about paedophilia. The sex that the stern faced lady was talking about was sex in marriage. Nobody is suggesting that twelve-year-olds should be allowed to marry. In my church circles, boys and girls of sixteen are expected to be "steady". I don’t believe this is right. But it is the church community that is the problem. But nobody ever sits down to talk these things out, and this is where the program was such a trailblazer. There was talk from the stern-faced lady about children being deprived of their childhood. But this was the old innocence of childhood myth coming out, which the other speakers (speaking from experience) scotched.
      The argument was that children should not be exposed to sexuality until they were emotionally mature enough to stand the pressure. That it is considered desirable that children should be forced to get their orgiastic pleasures from sources other than the senses in order to prepare them to meet the demands of adult life, is possibly the reason why the sovereign is so adamant that they should not be allowed access to those sensory sexual pleasures. Sporting and skill activities could also be added to the list; anything which it is considered healthy for youngsters to do. Freud called it sublimating the sexual instinct.
      The origin of this ideal is possibly the old belief that savages indulged in sensory pleasure but higher civilized people were above such things; and, instead, sought the satisfactions of the spirit. In fact, there is no reason to believe that there is any conflict between non-sexual and sexual pleasures at all. Perhaps the contrary is true and sensory deprived children tend to lack motivation in all departments of life. Is celibacy necessary for achievement on the sporting field? It is the opposite impression that sexually virile men do better at sport and through the whole range of human endeavor. Is it possible that society's culturally transmitted belief that there is an incompatibility between intellectual attainments and sensory indulgences comes from as far back as medieval times when literacy was confined to the ranks of clerics. Hence, our word "clerk". These clerics were, or were supposed to be, celibate. Because psychs take the attitudes and beliefs of the community as foundational to their craft, they are greatly influenced, albeit unconsciously, by culturally transmitted ideas, beliefs, and mistakes. Carl Jung called this thing the collective unconscious.
      But what is emotional maturity? I suggest that it is something like the length of a piece of string, or the substance of a puff of smoke. Whatever it is it something which could only develop with exercise and practice. You can’t put a child in a space suit, and taking it off on his eighteenth birthday, expect a fully developed and mature adult. In fact the best possible argument for an active sex life during childhood and adolescence is the expectation that, when he reaches eighteen, he will know himself sufficiently, and is emotionally mature enough, to think of a long-term relationship. The old prescription of no sex until the marriage bed, is, in this day and age, a recipe for disaster. And what is wrong with a few emotional falls during childhood and adolescence? You don’t stop a child from playing football because he might take a tumble. Or you shouldn’t. When you learn any skill, you have to be prepared to take a tumble. I took many a fall when I was learning to use this damned computer. On the other hand, I was always a timid motorcyclist, and I never really learned how to ride.
      No knowledge is perfect, and nobody can have such control that he can eliminate the possibility of mistakes. Yet, this is what psychologists try to-do. It is probable that modern psychs are concerned, not so much with eliminating sexual activity, as with eliminating the emotional and relationship hurt and mistakes associated with that activity. In other words, what they are seeking is the perfect relationship. That most of the injury and hurt comes normally from the operation of the law is something they do not want to know about; and is perhaps something that should not be mentioned.
      The psychs view the offences as pernicious because they are emotional hurtful and injurious to the victims. A sexual offence involving a minor is especially heinous because it induces illusionary appetites and bad habits at an age when he is most eager to learn and has the least resistance. Such sensory stimulation is therefore a serious injury; and pleasure at the experience, and eagerness to repeat it, are merely symptoms of the resultant injury and desire. Immature sexual experience and relationships are extremely injurious and destructive because they become the masters, and short-circuit the possibility of maturity and enlightenment. A sexually abused child is, for the rest of its life, is a prey to its lusts and desires, and is an unhappy, immature and inadequate human being. Lusts bind us to this and future lives, so that the injury penetrates to the ultimate depths of our being. The continuing injury that I have inflicted upon X and Y is the erosion of their character, begun at a susceptible and vulnerable age. The psychs like to postpone sexual and relationship activity to as far as possible into adulthood in orders to minimalise the possibility of mistakes and failures.
      G believes that precisely the opposite. G thinks that the psychs are seriously wrong in their view of sexuality and childhood and adolescence. Good paedophile relationships are a part of normal reality. He suggests that our development is made up of stages each of which is marked by the development of some skill or characteristic. A child learns to walk. He learns to talk. He learns to read and write. If he misses learning the appropriate skill and developing the appropriate instinct at the appropriate stage, his later stages of development are retarded and distorted; because one builds on the one before it. Also, once the appropriate stage for learning something passes, it becomes much harder later. We all know how difficult it is to learn a second language later in life; and how much less mastery we achieve over it than over the one we learnt as an infant. Some of us have experienced how difficult it is to learn to drive a car late in life. Motor skills are most easily developed before we become adult. It is suggested that this also applies to sexual and relationship skills. And, moreover, a level of mistake making is tolerated in adolescence that would not be tolerated in adults.
      G's lack of sexual and relationship experience during his childhood and adolescence seriously handicapped him for the rest of his life. Of all this is true and that a denied, deprived child becomes condemned to immaturity and inadequacy because he remains "hung-up" at the emotional growth stage of his denial; and just spends the rest of his life endlessly repeating himself, like a cracked record. G thinks that a sexually abused child is one whose experience is denied beyond masturbation. In other words, the psychs' prescription for ideal child rearing is really a prescription for disaster. The psychs are mistaken about child sexual abuse. If a person can clearly recall only one or two sexual incidents during the course of his childhood and adolescence, he did not have enough experience to develop him; and it is not so much the sexual experience that is his problem as its denial. This was definitely G's problem. But modern psychology thinks differently; and the force of law backs it.
      Psychs should also be aware of the mistakes that can come from consulting-room and prison experience. Most homosexuals who ended up in gaol in the old days were problem people. Most (but not all) sexual offenders today are problem people; and, if they are not problem people in the beginning, they are by the time their sentences are finished. There was also a deliberate effort to label homosexuals as sick and inadequate people in order to destroy them. This is still very much a part of the Cooma scene, a correctional centre and protective custody for a sexual offense, where I served most of my time.
      The extent of child abuse is believed to be enormous. One in four girls are said to be in incestuous relationships with their fathers. And when one considers the number of boys who have had paedophile experiences, we might be considering at least a quarter of the population of adult males. The cost of imprisoning these forever would be astronomical, even though strenuous efforts would be made to make them "pay their way". All child abusers and potential child abusers would have to be pulled in, because what is at issue is a contagious disease; rather as G had to get at every tiny piece of "wandering jew", to master his garden's infestation with this weed.
      When the human spirit is turned from growth, it will regress and serve the ends of violence and destruction. This is particularly so in the sexual drive, which, prevented by punishment and threats from serving the ends of love and affection, will regress and serve the ends of violence and fear. Society, in punishing simple homosexuality, paedophilia, incest and carnal knowledge, is in danger of creating precisely the monsters which it so much fears. Most people, in our society, have had experience, during their period of growth of having their sexuality dwarfed and punished. Thus, most people have had at least part of their sexuality — usually the homosexual part — sent into the underworld of the personality. In denying part of itself, the ego is weakened, and made subject to attack by that very same part which it denies, and experiences as evil.
      Sex problems are rooted in the belief that it is wrong. When sex is labeled as evil, it takes on this characteristic and is irrational, violent and compulsively destructive. When drugs are similarly labeled, they take on this similar characteristic, and become destructive addictions. It is suggested that the one thing that rapists and alcoholics have in common is an upbringing that condemns sensorial pleasure. Punishing a child with pain and punishment for its simply wanting to be loved would have the same effect as explicit stern religious teaching. Punishing a child for masturbating is a terrible thing to do.
      G's problem, in common with most men convicted of paedophile offenses, is that he sees sex as a fun thing, that feels good; and, at its deepest level, is the ultimate celebration of love, affection, and personal intimacy and acceptance between human beings. I used to think that sexual activity was a pleasurable and deep expression of love. But this essentially childish and immature view is that which tends to be held by children, and constitutes a part of that innocence which paedophiles are seen as so shamelessly taking advantage of. Children do not know what it is all about. G, in his immaturity, did not know what it is all about. Now he does. I think I can say that my attitudes on sexuality have now completely changed. I now realize that it is about power and property. He now knows and understands the correct and accepted sexual attitudes of the ordinary lawful community. He may, inwardly, still prefer his childish attitudes as being closer to true morality. But he knows the will of the sovereign is not about morals; and, if it is, his views and beliefs in these matters prevail over those of the individual in a law-abiding society. Certainty, I now accept that sexual activity is a lot less pleasant than I thought it was. In fact, I now have to accept that life itself is a lot nastier, and has a lot less to it, than I thought it had. G has to obey in order to survive. This is the bottom line. Self-esteem is one's own appreciation on one's property value. A girl with a high self-esteem does not sell herself short.
      Let us look at the property angle, and the nature of the pain and injury that I caused X and Y. We are all owned by the State. We owe an allegiance, which involves the giving of our lives if called upon to do so. A minor is owned by the State but the legal ownership is entrusted to his parents; his parents make all decisions about him, as a piece of property, and its his property. The trusteeship is for the benefit of the state. Certain duties are imposed upon the parents, and all of age persons (especially males) having dealings with the minors. Being an older male, I had a trustee relationship to X and Y. But subordinate to their father.
      Pain is seen as being good in its own right, even as being the essence of the good. Pain means the paying of debts and the discharging of liabilities. It means the giving of the fruits of property, as against the taking of the fruits of property that is the nature of pleasure. All citizens are expected to give the fruits of himself or herself to the sovereign, i.e., to render pain. The sovereign owns all capital property, including us. This is the origin of the duty to nurture oneself in the spirit of "self-esteem". Pleasure detracts from the total value of the pain rendered to the sovereign; and, basically, is only allowed, as a concession, in the capital generating function of the production of children in legal marriage. The ultimate titular sovereign is acknowledging God as its head.
      The state imposes upon everybody the duty of the giving of pain. Pain is giving. Pleasure is taking. We have the same relation to the pain that we give as a sum of money has to the interest that it yields. When we talk about pain, we are referring to the interest. When we refer to injury, we are talking about the sum of money capital. The state imposes a duty of pain upon all persons until they are of age, with the pain going towards the growth and maturity of the person; rather as we add interest to the initial sum of money. It is the duty of their trustees to impose pain upon the minors. Pain adds to the minors' value. All value is sourced in the state, so one's value is really a recognition of the pain which is suffered in the name of the state for its benefit. Pain goes towards personal identity and self-appreciation of value — self-esteem. The general name given to the value and identity obtained by the giving of pain to the sovereign is "self-esteem".
      A normal element in this infliction of pain is the forbidding of sexual activity. Human existence is pain, caused by desire, which may be overcome by contemplation and the right way of life. Love and affection are no more than lusts that bind the human condition to the illusionary world of the senses. But sanitized, abstracted love and affection are parts of higher conscious states. If you want power over the young, you stop them having sex. If you want power over men, you prevent them having sex. If you can exert power of a person when he is young, you will probably have power over him for all of his life. So paedophiles, who sabotage this effort, are seen as serious threats to society.
      Basically, sexual pleasure is for God alone. God, the ultimate sovereign, prohibits incest, fornication and adultery, and homosexuality. God, as the supreme sovereign, is a jealous ruler, and lays down the law. A rapist extracts pain from his prey but such pain, because it is not inflicted in the name of the state, and does not go to the satisfaction of the state, the source of all value, consumes , reduces, and destroys the value of the victim. Rape renders its victim an utterly worthless human being. And, in so doing, directly affronts the state, and deprives it of its property. That is why rape is punished as murder.
      Where a boy is able to relate sexually to a person in authority, and "person" includes all adult persons, there is a strong suspicion on the part of modern psychologists that he has been subject to prior abuse by his parents. If his parents have stopped short of their duty of putting a limit on his being able to express his love, both in giving and receiving it, by denying him his sexuality, he will not be regarding their authority with its proper and natural fear. And he would not have the perception that it and sexual activity do not, and should not, mix. A child’s base experience should be to associate his parents’ love and his sexuality with punishment and rejection. A boy who is able to relate sexually to adult males seems, therefore, not to have had this experience.
      On the coming of age, a boy becomes a man and takes over responsibility for managing himself and his affairs. Sexual desire is seeing as exclusively an expression of adult male power. If he has attained sufficient value to have his pleasure in the name of sovereign, he is granted the privilege of marriage, wherein, he obtains the trusteeship of a woman. Basically, the position is that a man owns his wife in the name of the state. A women only willingly indulges in activity as a wife in pursuance of her duty to the state. During sexual intercourse, he obtains pleasure from her in the name of the state. During the act, she gives pain in the name of the state. Basically, marriage is a duty, which sooner or later involves the trusteeship of children. The nature of marriage is a trust arrangement between state and man about the property of the wife and children. The marriage certificate is really a deed of trust between the state and the husband. Statute has enlarged a woman's rights, but the underlying common-law position remains unchanged. A woman has the duty of obeying her husband. Generally, there is no place in the law for women and children to experience pleasure. They are little and inferiors, and their place is to suffer. Any self-indulgent pleasure during our lives will diminish our value; and make us more open to temptation. Because the less we are, the less we have to defend. A pleasure seeking woman and children sink further and further into the mire of degradation.
      G committed a serious crime, he gave Y and X pleasure. It was G's boys who had the pleasure, whilst G played a role similar to that of a prostitute. He gave, and suffered pain (in a situation similar to that of a prostitute); but he gave it in a spirit of malicious intend to the sovereign. The sovereign imposed pain upon the boys to strengthen their worth and character (pain includes training, denial and frustration). The sovereign demands that minors give, and that they give to him; and, in return he grants them a value and identity. Pain was imposed upon them to give them an appreciation of his power and superiority. When any of us forces another person to suffer pain, we are showing them who is boss. We are programmed by our social instincts to accord our superiors respect and humility, but giving the boys pleasure, G subverted the power of the state; and in various ways caused the boys injury. G tempted them with the apple of immediate pleasure, and seriously damaged their chances of obtaining that mature value necessary for them to be able to act in the sovereign’s name. Geoffrey seriously injured and diminished the boy's self-esteem. Had Geoffrey taken his pleasure from the boys, he would have been taking something that belongs to the sovereign.
      G, in giving his boys sexual stimulation and experience, short-circuited their maturation process, and fixated it at the pleasure principle. G has caused the boys harm because he has damaged their chances of survival in the world in which they live. To awaken sexual desire in a child is to expose it to the risk of it being destroyed by its own drives and desires. The law and modern psychology assume that children instinctively know the terrible risks and consequences to which sexual activity exposes them. They will always refuse such activity unless they are either persuaded by threats of physical or mental violence by adults, or seduced and misled by the adults in whom they put their trust.
      When I did my crime, I was aware of its criminal nature but was inclined to dismiss it as 'technical', and felt that all I was having was a bit of harmless fun, albeit, a trifle naughty. I broke my duty to respect and obey the law — there is no such thing as a technical offence. G deceives himself when he believes that his victims obtained any kind of pleasure from the crimes. My closeness to the boys put me in a position of having, regarding them, a duty of trust to the state. The state put him into a position of trust. The psychs believe that X and Y yielded to me only because they perceived me as a higher status male, as their lord and master. And it was my duty to encourage and guide the boys in the way of love, loyalty and obedience to the state and its law. Instead, I breached my trust and took advantage of the situation for my personal gain. And he abused and betrayed that trust by taking the property, which was entrusted to him, and subjecting it to injury. In my breach of trust, I also interfered in the lawful exercise of the trust given to the parents. It was in defense of this trust that the father supplied information to the police, which laid the ground for the charges, made against me. When the boys’ father wanted to kill G, G felt an almost irresistible urge to oblige. On this more severe view, G is a straight out predator devouring what is not his.
      I am seen as having corrupted the boys because I have exposed them, at an impressionable age, and when they were learning their duty of correct conduct and attitudes from the adults in their social environment, to corrupt and disgraceful conduct. This corruption of the boys is seen as an injury to them. I have induced in them traumatic levels of guilt. I have destroyed that innocence, which is the birthright of all children in our state; and which, is destroyed, even on the attainment of adulthood, at the cost of some guilt and self-esteem. I acquainted and introduced the boys to drives and desires which perhaps they would have been better off never knowing, but certainly not till they reached an age and strength of maturity such as would have enabled them to keep the drives and desires in their proper and controlled place. As it is, I have exposed the boys to the probability that they will forever be subject to that degree of immaturity whereby they will be at the mercy of their lusts, self-indulgences and emotions. As a consequence, they will always be in danger of forgetting their duties of loyalty and obedience to the State. Thus, have I caused both injuries to the boys and to the state, which, if I were to continue in this behavior, would constitute me as a continual danger to the community. I subjected the boys to depravity, degradation, and vice to satisfy my selfish lusts and emotions, and this is my worst injury.
      The boys will no longer love the state as they should but will be rebellious in spirit. The pleasure, that they have experienced, has eroded their value as human beings, and has damaged their chances and inclination to make a successful marriage. In other words, their worth in the eyes of the state, and their worth in their own eyes, their self-esteem, has suffered erosion; basically, their property value has been diminished. G had a position of trust, and he abused it in furtherance of his own ends. G may not have perceived his motives to be malicious at the time, but the law imputes consequences as being what is intended. So, G was punished because he deliberately destroyed the property of the state whilst in a position of trust over it. At bottom, all crime is about violence to property rights.
      A man/boy paedophile relationship violates property rights in a number of ways. Boys, like women, are sexually attractive to men because of their weakness and fragility. But, unlike with an adult woman, the boy’s welfare cannot be protected by the man’s duties implicit in marriage. He cannot marry because he is a male. He cannot marry because he is below the age of discretion. Bereft of the benefits and protections of marriage, a boy is used up and destroyed by his lover. And note that this destruction is implicit in the nature of the relationship. Elements of actual violence and duress are aggravations of the basic situation.
      The second heading of the injuries of abuse, is moral decay. A boy, used and abused by a man, develops a taste for behaving as a woman, and is ruined for life as a man. The seeds of destruction sown in boyhood develop their fruits in inevitable total destruction, which is the fate of the passive homosexual. Adult males have a duty to the sovereign to marry, beget, and nurture the children in the interest of the sovereign. To destroy a young male's capacity to develop into a mature, and adequate adult male able to fulfill his duties, is to destroy a precious property belonging directly to the sovereign, and to merit that person's most savage wrath.
      The third heading covers the same ground as incest. Adult males have a parentus locus relationship to boys, and this applies wherever there is a relationship between any boy and any male. Either the man uses his power and authority over the boy to force him to give his body to satisfy the man’s lusts; and this is a situation of aggravated sexual assault, or rape; and aggravated breach of trust. Or, there can be a situation of ordinary breach of trust where the males take advantage of the boy’s natural admiration and trust to induce him to "have a bit of fun". The breach of trust is to the sovereign, to who is owed the duty to respect, obey and fear authority. There is a duty to bring the boy up to fulfill his proper male role. And his breach of trust is to the boy, the helpless victim of his greedy lusts and selfish emotions.
      There is also the matter of the homosexual nature of my contact being seen as eroding and interfering with the boys' growth of male sex identity, with the possible future effect of perverting sexual preference, and adversely effecting capacity for normal married life.
      The cure for G is to cut the chain of his illusions, stemming from faulty training and injurious experiences, abuses, during his formative years. New Age does not see pain as an end in itself, but as a necessary obstacle to surmount and over come on the path to enlightenment. An enlightened G, cut free from his illusions, and no longer a plaything of sensory lusts and desires, and whose eyes have been opened to behold the blinding light of wondrous reality, is no longer a danger to society. More to the point, neither is G, on the path; provided he does not deviate, and entrusts himself to the guiding hands of his counselors and teachers. G will be guided along the path through instruction in relaxation and meditation techniques; through which he will learn to distance and deny his senses and ascend to higher states of consciousness and power. It is a thought that drugs help progress along the path all the way from Depro Provero, which dulls the sexual drive, to heroin which does the same in a more dramatic manner. Disembodied power is the pot at the end of the rainbow that is where we came in. Sex, more than other crime, is a direct violation of the rights of the sovereign. The law is not about consent at all, but the rights of the sovereign.
      Sexual drive powers whatever the person, and society, thinks is good. If they think that pain is good, then it powers pain. Pain is a clean sensation, like the spray from an icy cold mountain stream. Pleasure is dirty and decaying like stinking feces. It gives a feeling of dirt and decay; my victims, in so far as they felt pleasure, would have felt dirtied and defiled. If you get your feeling of goodness from your own pain, and the pain that you inflict upon others, you are into sado/masochism. The power relationships, which the psychs say are what sexual attraction is about, lie at the heart of sado/masochism. Ordinary people would say that this is precisely what sexual love is not about. But it is what the law is about. And it is what politics is about; and it is what the media is about — the media is not interested in loving relationships. Modern psychologists see romantic love as a cloak for undesirable "co-dependency" relationships; relationships to which the parties have a self-indulgent addiction.
      Pain inflicted in the name of the sovereign by a trustee, goes to the credit of that trustee. The Sovereign commands that only in marriage can sexual defilement be done in his name. Both partners must come to the marriage bed intact and pure. Basically, sexual pleasure is for God alone. God, the ultimate sovereign, prohibits incest, fornication and adultery, and homosexuality. God, as the supreme sovereign, is a jealous ruler, and lays down the law.
      Prison, being a violent and hurtful place at the instigation of the state is a cleansing and strengthening experience. But most of the pain, goes not to the credit of the assailant, who otherwise would be benefiting from his crime, but to the satisfaction and value of the victims. My victims, from my paying the price of my crime, gained greatly in personal value and self-esteem; that not perhaps to the extent that the injury has been completely healed.
      To most people, the ideas at the basis of sexual law; that pleasures always involve pains, and that pain is good, and the source of all value, and that pain, being taking reduces value, and pain being giving increases value, are repugnant in the extreme. Most people would say that, if life is about credits and debits, it is not about love. Most people would winch at the thought that the source of all pleasure is other persons' pain. Most people would say that if pleasure is not mutual, it is not at all. Most people would deny the moral validity of a marriage contracted for money. Life is not a bookkeeping exercise where a business entity is reduced to nothingness. And such a philosophy, when applied to life, must be destructive and evil in the extreme.
      It is a case that I have to understand and appreciate; yet, I am greatly troubled. Is God a lawyer? Did he create the world in the image of a sole trader? Is Christ his chief accountant, and his angels bookkeepers? Or is it that the lawyers have tried to create God, but have ended up with Satan, who they worship with a zeal worthy of a better cause. True, the law is not about morality; yet it is something that cannot be altogether ignored.

>>