Philosophy should not be open to everything, there are some absolute
and eternal moral codes that no philosopher should be able to discuss:

http://www.thebirdman.org/

Sex and Kids: A Libertarian View
By John "Birdman" Bryant
Note that a second essay on this subject has been added at the end

As The World's Most Controversial Author, I spend most of my time
contemplating questions of race and ethnicity, primarily those about
Jews. I rarely touch the subject of sex, and then usually only in
conjunction with my main subject; and even more rarely do I touch the
subject of kiddie sex. In fact, except for one article entitled
"Adult-Child Sex: What's Wrong With It?" which appears in my book
Bryant's Law and Other Broadsides, I have not written on kiddie sex at
all. In the online catalog of my books, however, I list a number of
articles from Bryant's Law including the one on adult-child sex, and
this has apparently served as grist for a rumor mill that has produced
some remarkable public statements from the Chattering Classes -- the
gnomes of the Net's forums, bulletin boards and other back alleys --
including the following:

* "Birdman's not too popular here because of his amoral posture on
other issues, such as advocating - or at least condoning - child sex."
(Quoted by Ellen, secretary to Jeff Rense of rense.com, from an
unstated source, probably Stormfront)

* John Bryant is a member of Tampa Bay Mensa and American Mensa, Ltd.
However, TBM wishes the casual web-surfer to understand that neither
TBM nor AML in any way condones Mr. Bryant's long-standing and
frequently bruited opinions favoring (for example) adult sex with
children, the separation of the races, and rape, or against (for
example) Judaism, liberalism, tolerance, or the imaginary "Illuminati
conspiracy." (From the 'Warning' page of the Tampa Bay Mensa website
that intervenes between the Member Sites page and my own.)

Needless to say, there is no citation in any of these squibs of my
actual views -- no citation, because I have not placed my views on this
subject on the Net, as far as I can recall. But NOT posting my views
seems to be a hot-rod engine for GENERATING statements of my views --
an amazing feature of human communication which is no doubt the subject
of exhaustive psychological analysis in some hefty academic tome.

But because the subject of kiddie sex keeps popping up -- indeed, I was
asked about it by a TV reporter several years ago when I was being
interviewed during one of the several public flaps that has occurred
over my practice of feeding pigeons -- and because it seems to be one
surrounded by considerable emotionalism, I have decided to actually
give a statement of my views and place it permanently on the Net. I
realize, of course, that it is far too late to stop the
negatively-charged axe-grinders, the turkey gobblers and the other
Creatures of the Blog Lagoon, but at least it will give me the
satisfaction of seeing my views stated correctly, with the hope that
they may sometimes be quoted, and occasonally used as a hammer to pound
down the Mindless Munchkins that keep the rumor mills agrind.

To begin, let me first say what I am NOT going to say, namely, repeat
the article on adult-child sex which appears in Bryant's Law. If the
reader wants to know what I said there, he is free to obtain the book
and read it. (FYI, Mike Gunderloy, founder and editor of the popular
perodical Factsheet Five, called this article the fairest and best
treatment of the subject he had ever seen.) You can also read my book
Mortal Words, which has a number of quotations from this article in the
chapter on sex.

So with the above preliminaries out of the way, here are my real, valid
and officially-certified views on kiddie sex:

As I characterized it several years ago in a contribution to an article
in the official publication of the Libertarian Party, LP News,
libertarianism is the view that the government should stay the hell out
of our bedrooms, our medicine cabinets and our pocketbooks. As a
libertarian, my basic view on adult-child sex is the libertarian one:
The question of what a child does sexually or with whom he does it
should be a matter for the parents to decide, and not the State. From
this, of course, the Creatures from the Blog Lagoon have lept to the
conclusion that I 'endorse' it or at least 'condone' it, but this of
course is a non-sequitur. What I am speaking of in characterizing my
view as libertarian is not about my personal likes or dislikes for
adult-child sex, but rather about the question of HOW THE MATTER IS TO
BE DECIDED. (Yes, Vagina, there is a difference!) And in their
conclusion-jumping, the Creatures have ignored the other side of the
coin altogether, namely, that to have the government regulating the
activities of one's bedroom is fascism of the worst sort -- a Big
Brotherism that perfectly matches the Telescreen nightmare of Orwell's
1984. This, of course, would enable me -- should I desire it -- to jump
to the conclusion that my critics are fascists -- and indeed, many of
them are -- but I rather suspect that the real problem is that they
just haven't thought the matter thru, and that, because they don't like
adult-child sex (or say they don't, anyway -- tho a surprising number
of hakenkreutzers have been homosexuals, who have somewhat of a
reputation for liking kiddie sex), they immediately draw the conclusion
that the State should make it illegal.

But if it is up to the parents to decide, then what decision do I think
they ought to make? Obviously this is completely a matter of personal
taste, but let me just state the obvious: Nature has arranged things so
that people are sexually attracted to others only at the 'proper time'
(after puberty), which means that nature pretty well takes care of
things, and we really don't need to worry much about it.

This, however, runs up against some pretty hefty opinions from both
liberal and conservative sides. The conservatives, for example, demand
that kids remain virgins till marriage -- generally thought to be some
time after the man has set up a thriving career -- and until that time,
parents should bind the hands of their kids to the bedposts so they
will not be in danger of 'touching themselves'. In my view, however,
that is pure BS -- when kids achieve puberty, that may be just the time
to let them set up households or other sexual relations, since it would
go far in alleviating the mind-bending difficulties of teenagehood (and
the existence of teenage hoods), and would reduce the stress of the
generation gap by getting Junior and Missy the hell out of the house.
As for keeping the brats in school, most education is redundant and
constitutes wasted effort; and as for the kids who can use it, let them
have scholarships, or simply give them a library card and some free
time.

As for the liberals, we have the Talmudists, who think that adult-child
sex is just fine as long as the kid is at least 3 years of age, and we
have the better-known but more conservative Rene Guyon society, whose
motto is 'Sex before 8 or else it's too late.' Now we have to admit
that these sexual prescriptions sound pretty bizarre in terms of what
we are accustomed to, and indeed to what even most LIBERALS are
accustomed to; but we also have to admit that nothing is really known
about early-age sex, because not many do it, and those who do it don't
usually talk about it because of the penalties involved. If we follow
the libertarian directive, however, there would undoubtedly be some
parents who would permit adult-child sex, and this, then, might
eventually permit some informed conclusions about the good or evil of
this practice. My guess is that we would discover that Nature was
wisest after all, but it is nonetheless possible that we would discover
some things that just might knock conventional opinions for a loop.

Which brings us to the matter of kid-kid sex, a phenomenon which has
always been around in one form or another, but is now starting to draw
attention as a result of highly-sexualized negroes in a
highly-sexualized and racially-integrated society showing their true
colors among their white comrades. But there is no need to blame
everything on diversity, since all kids whose growth is not excessively
stunted by four-fucks-a-year mothers and maiden-aunt teachers engage in
sex play with their comrades when they can find a free moment behind
the barn. And while I cannot say that I know much about kid-kid sex, I
do find it interesting that the one major contribution by negroes to
the English vocabulary is 'mother-fucker', since this may be an
indicator not only of what kids can do, but of what mothers are WILLING
to do. And if mothers do it, you can be pretty sure that the fathers do
too; and if the mothers and fathers are doing it with the kids, it is
not far to find that the kids are doing it with each other.

In reflecting on the matter of kiddie sex, it seems clear that much of
the problem, so called, is that our society suffers -- like all
societies -- from being culture-bound, so that anything which is beyond
the pale of cultural normality is seen as obscene. I say this because
there have been other cultures in which kiddie sex has been part of the
norm -- in ancient Greece, and in present-day India, to name just two.
In addition, there seems to be a worldwide subculture of kiddie sexers,
if the regular trickle of porn busts, priestly pokery, and reports from
such investigators as John DeCamp and Jon Rappoport, and victims such
as Cathy O'Brien, are to be believed. Even Nabokov's Lolita must have
appealed to a segment of the American heartland, if its popularity is
any measure of its genuine audience. For myself, I am a preservationist
as well as a libertarian, because I think that important lessons may be
learned from persons and cultures which differ significantly from the
norm; and this is why -- purely aside from libertarian considerations
-- I am willing to let people follow the Crowleyian commandment of 'Do
as thou wilt', because either they will end up in life's dumpster as a
result -- thereby solving the problem of what to do about their
behavior -- or else they will create something wild and wonderful that
we may at least be entertained by, even if we do not care to join in.
And while I would not stop great land or water projects just to
preserve such evolutionary losers as the spotted owl or the snail
darter, I would be quite satisfied to leave undisturbed the
head-hunters of Papua New Guinea, the blustery Yanomamo of the South
American rainforests, the property-destroying conspicuous consumer
Kwakiutl of North America, the bovine-menstrual-blood-eating savages of
Africa, and the wife-swapping and amanita muscaria-eating Siberian
Esquimaux, subject only to observation by properly-qualified academics.

Now that an establishment professor -- Peter Singer of Princeton -- has
made it into respectable print by waxing eloquent over the virtues of
human-animal sex, it appears that the last sexual frontier to be
explored is kiddie sex, and especially adult-child sex. While I
consider myself basically negative on adult-child sex, we are faced
with a world increasingly characterized by leisure time and a search
for entertainment, coupled with worldwide cross-culturalism,
high-status for minorities, a highly sexualized society, a burgeoning
population of randy negroes and other darklings, enforced race-mixing,
immigration by the tankerload, and Jews eager to scatter the last
vestiges of gentile and Christian morality to the winds; so that with
all these converging circumstances, it is difficult for me to see how
the world is going to escape the kiddie sexual revolution. So maybe we
should learn to 'stop worrying and love the bomb', even if we don't
quite, really. After all, isn't death a lot easier if you're relaxed?

Kids and Animals: The Last Frontiers of Sexuality

Birdman expands and elaborates his views on kiddie sex

Having now overcome most of the social and legal barriers to sexual
'deviance' -- masturbation, adultery, divorce, cohabitation,
prostitution, pornography, anal and oral sex, sadism and masochism,
nudism, wife-swapping, group sex, homosexuality, birth control,
abortion, STD prophylaxis, interracial sex, and perhaps a few other
things -- there now remain only the taboos and laws against animal and
kiddie sex as barriers to achieving the Everest of more-or-less
complete sexual freedom -- or complete sexual dissipation and social
ruin, if you believe the opposition. Personally I believe that both
animal and kiddie sex will eventually become socially respectable, not
because they are 'right', but simply because there is no practical
limit or barrier to their performance, and because there are a
significant number of people who very much want these kinds of sexual
experiences.

In the matter of deviant sex, and particularly kiddie and animal sex,
there is a nexus of moral issues which are interesting in their own
right, but which I doubt anyone will pay much attention to because of
the emotions involved -- either that of sexual attraction or that of
repugnance. One key issue, however, is whether the government should
attempt to regulate such behavior -- a question which I have always
answered in the negative because I believe the government has no
business attempting to regulate the private affairs of its citizens,
and because, in the case of kiddie sex, the parents are more motivated
to understand and make decisions in their children's interest than is
the government.

While most people recognize that those of a puritanical mindset are the
ones who are going to be most vociferous in opposing sexual 'deviance',
the ironic thing about this situation is that sexual repression, which
the Puritans advocate so eagerly, is the very thing which is most
likely to bring on sexual deviance. This is not really surprising, of
course; for it is just another case of pushing something down in one
place only to have it pop up in another, as in detritus under a rug.
The general rule is that -- to paraphrase Shakespeare, 'Sex will out',
so that if normal sexual relations are stymied, either because of a
puritanical outlook, or by a physical impossibility, as men going off
to war, then sexuality is likely to manifest itself in an abnormal
form, whether in homosexuality or in something even more beyond the
norm. In recent years we have had some very public examples of this in
the behavior of fundamentalist preachers who rant about sexual deviance
but are found to be deviants themselves: Billie Sol Estes, Jim Bakker
and Jimmy Swaggart, to name only the best-known; and this is to say
nothing of the many Catholic pedophile padres whose scandalous behavior
decorates the front pages of newspapers on a regular basis.

I stated above that I did not believe in government regulation of
private sexual behavior because it is not the business of government to
manage the personal affairs of its citizens. But there is an even more
important reason for government to follow a hands-off policy, and that
is that repression of not-clearly-harmful sexual behaviors by the
government -- just as history has demonstrated in every other instance
of the repression of 'vice' -- does not end the targeted behavior, but
only makes it go underground, with the unintended consequence that the
judicial system is corrupted while the victims -- if that is what you
want to call them -- are made worse-off. Pedophilia is a prime example
of this: Investigations from the 1980s to the present have made clear
that this practice is widespread, but because its practitioners are
often men of wealth and power, the pimps and other providers in this
business receive protection at the highest levels of government -- so
much, in fact, that a recent series of articles strongly suggest that
the Western world is actually ruled by a group of pedophiles (See the
series by David McGowan on the7thfire.com website). And the victims --
the children, and their parents -- are worse off as a result of the
laws against pedophilia because the children are often kidnapped and
killed, something that would not happen if pedophilia were in the open
and involved only voluntary transactions among adults.

But if pedophilia and other forms of kiddie sex are to be legalized,
there are several stumbling-blocks that must be overcome. One of the
greatest of these is the notion that kids' 'innocence' must be
protected. In my view, however, this is a complete myth. For one thing,
kids are in fact sexual beings -- boys have erections on a regular
basis while still in the womb, and -- as I know from my own experience
-- kids are eager for sexual interaction with the opposite sex at a
very early age. This is reflected in the fact that black children are
known for their pre-pubertal sexuality, and there have been many
reports of full sexual intercourse among these children. Indeed, the
principal term that blacks have added to the English vocabulary is
'mother-fucker', and there is some reason to believe that this phrase
has its roots in the notorious libertinage of black behavior (Hey,
what's a welfare mother to do when her man is off drinking, pimping or
in jail?) Sex theorist Rene Guyon was one of the first to acknowledge
early sexuality, as reflected in the motto of the pedophiliac Rene
Guyon Society which paraphrased his beliefs: "Sex before eight or else
it's too late." We may, I think, safely assume that Dr Guyon was not
referring here to the dinner hour.

While parents may protest that they want to protect childhood
'innocence', the more likely motive is that they want to protect
themselves from having to deal with their children's sexuality. I can
appreciate this problem -- it seems unnatural to talk with someone
about sex unless you are planning to have sex with them -- but it is
really not that difficult to solve: Just provide the brats with some
instructional books or videos. Back in the Bad Old Days when most
people lived on farms, the same problem was solved by kids' familiarity
with the barnyard, or even with their own parents when they were forced
by poverty to sleep in the same room or even the same bed. Now that the
housing situation has improved and sex books are widely available, it
behooves parents to see that their kids get good instruction before
they get an off-color version from the gutter.

Another important stumbling-block to the legalization of pedophilia and
other forms of kiddie sex is the belief that pre-pubertal sex is
harmful. In a sense this is true: Kids are less sophisticated than
adults, and may well pick up STDs, suffer injury from sex with adults,
and -- most importantly -- suffer emotional harm from behavior which is
supposed to act as a bonding mechanism, but which is pursued only as
recreation. These are important objections, and indeed are my reasons
for regarding kiddie sex -- or at least adult-child sex -- as
undesirable; but on the other hand, serious as they are, I do not
believe these objections are sufficient reason to impose government
restrictions on private sexual behavior for reasons already given. I
will confess, however, that our state of knowledge about the effect of
sex on kids is deficient at best, so that passing judgment on such
matters in a state of ignorance is less than ideal.

But if we are profoundly ignorant about kiddie sex, it is possible that
this ignorance could be reduced significantly by studying other
cultures where kiddie sex has been allowed. This includes several
Southeast Asian countries -- Thailand and the Philippines, for example,
which serve as the destinations of sexual 'tours' for rich Westerners
-- and also India, where some investigation has already been
undertaken. What we cannot learn from, unfortunately, is the Western
world's experience, whose victims have been far too devastated by the
brutal consequences of suppression to allow any reasonable conclusions
to be drawn.

Freedom isn't free! To insure the continuation of this website and the
survival of its creator in these financially-troubled times, please
send donations directly to the Birdman at
PO Box 66683, St Pete Beach FL 33736-6683

"The smallest good deed is worth the grandest intention."

Please contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all
your friends!
Remember: Your donation = our survival!

* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most
Controversial Author * * *
http://www.thebirdman.org/