Introduction

Many of us amarsi continually complain about the lack of progress we are making in winning acceptance for our orientation. Indeed, we are quick to point out how resistance to amaros is in many places actually increasing rather than the reverse. At the same time, however, the methods we are employing are inadequate and must be augmented by other types of activities if we are ever to have a chance of winning acceptance from the wider public.

Unfortunately, the reason that our methodology is inadequate is often because there is actually no methodology at all as we are doing little or nothing to promote our cause. Instead, we often rely on the work of those who do not share our orientation at all to demonstrate its validity. What methodology we do have is too heavily reliant on facts and generally deficient in emotional and aesthetic content.

The Childlover ‘Militia’

Niccolo Machiavelli quite strongly discouraged the use of mercenaries in his primer for pragmatic dictators The Prince. The reasons he gives for his distaste for hired help is their unreliability and the fact that they can just as easily turn against you as fight for you. Yet too much of our apologetics today relies on the work of researchers whose support for our cause is, at best, neutral.

Many of us spent much time during 2002 rejoicing the publication of Judith Levine’s book Harmful to Minors. Yet, while the cause of a less restrictive approach to adolescent sexual experimentation is indeed related to our own, Ms. Levine has quite clearly stated that she did not argue in favor of adult-child relations at all. The only indication whatsoever that she might be sympathetic towards our cause is her article Summer of Love, where she discusses the feelings she felt towards an adult photographer when she was a teenager at a summer camp.

Many of us also applauded Professor Harris Mirkin for his article The Pattern of Sexual Politics, when the furore over it erupted last summer. Yet once again, although we may consider Mirkin’s thesis to be positive for us, he gives absolutely no indication that he supports our cause. As a political scientist, he has merely pointed out the parallels in various sexual movements and the public reactions to them over the years. While he does point out the inefficacy and irrationality of the public debate over these movements he does not endorse them at all.

Perhaps a more dangerous tactic is the tendency of a few people to point to the 1998 Rind report to prove that child-adult sexual contact is not necessarily harmful. Firstly, since the study is a meta-analysis of several other studies conducted over a wide period of time, other researchers have challenged the veracity of its conclusions. More importantly, however, the report is an examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse. In spite of the fact that the United States Congress denounced the report as pro-pedophilia, we ought to be careful how closely we ally ourselves with it, as it may cause many to believe that we support child sexual abuse (e.g. If it doesn't cause long-term damage, then there is no harm in doing it.).

In all three of these cases, our adoption of these researchers and their works is foolish. While we can and should use their results to augment our arguments for our cause, we should cease to use them as the centerpiece of our arguments. To do so could cause resentment from the researchers themselves, causing them to publicly distance themselves from us, which would do more damage than their results do us good. They could also in future papers make statements or arguments that argued against our cause as well. Since they are not open supporters of amaros, we cannot assume that they support us or that we know their motives or agendas. Therefore, we need to concentrate our efforts towards generating data in support of our cause from the academics in our own midst or from those who, although not amarsi themselves, are willing to publicly speak out in support of our cause. Only then can we ensure that what we perceive as a boon now does not later turn out to be a bane.

Truth and Beauty

It seems that many of us have an Apollonian conviction that if we can just show the world the truth we will be accepted. We argue ad infinitum that there is ample evidence that children are sexual beings and that they begin sexual experimentation at an early age. We argue that age of consent laws are a modern convention and that historically, children often became sexually active at puberty. We point to statistics indicating that the majority of child abuse occurs in the home rather than at the hands of strangers. While these facts are very useful, they will achieve absolutely nothing in convincing society to accept us. In order to do that, we must appeal to it on an emotional level as well.

If rational argumentation were truly effective at swaying public opinion, there would be no debate about the placement of telephone towers. Companies would need only to explain that the towers are erected to provide a higher level of service to subscribers. We all know, however, that public acceptance of such towers is generally quite low, and that many communities are even willing to undertake legal action to prevent their construction. Why then, if people have such a visceral opposition to steel towers, are they willing to travel thousands of miles in order to see one in Paris? Are not telephone towers infinitely more useful than the Eiffel Tower? Do they not demonstrably raise the quality of life of their users? Yes they do, but people hate them because they are perceived to be ugly.

As amarsi, we are also perceived as being ugly or distasteful. In fact, most people probably can be convinced without too much effort that amaros is an orientation, that children are sexual and that they do engage in sex play. Many already fully understand that most child sexual abuse is not at the hands of strangers. Yet we could also argue that recidivism is caused by a number of social factors or is even genetically inherited. Yet this does not soften the hearts of the population towards criminals. By the same token, we cannot assume that facts will cause people to warm up to our cause either.

While logic and reason can be used quite effectively to combat ignorance, they are wholly ineffectual in allaying fear and loathing. While these two things themselves are caused in part by ignorance, they are also perpetuated through our culture. Therefore, in order to combat them effectively, we must appeal not only to people’s minds but to their hearts as well. Logic and reason will never provide us with more than the foundation and frame for our cause. To make our building beautiful and appealing, we must begin to employ our creative talents more effectively to demonstrate that child love is beautiful, non-threatening and edifying. Only this way can we convince people that we do not require rehabilitation but acceptance.

Conclusion

If we are to believe estimates as to what percentage of the population shares our pedosexual orientation, then there are ample numbers of people to provide us with all of the talent required to effectively make both the logical and emotional cases for our cause to the public. Even amongst the few of us who are already fully cognizant and accepting of ourselves there is considerable talent. Therefore, we need to turn our attentions not to re-processing the works of those outside of our community, but marshalling the forces we already possess within our own ranks to bring our message to bear.

We also need to redouble our efforts to ensure that our offering is not only factually correct, but aesthetically pleasing. Facts on a plain page, no matter how convincingly presented, have a much lower impact than a graphic image. The two together are yet more effective still. Packaging is of vital importance; there is little mystery in why the peccadilloes of JFK are looked upon with a much more forgiving eye than those of Bill Clinton.