Troubador Withdraw Matador’s ‘Michael Jackson’s Dangerous Liaisons’ Book

dangerous-liaisons
June 7th should have marked the official release of Michael Jackson’s Dangerous Liaisons, written by Carl Toms, and published by Matador (256.20), a self-publishing imprint of Troubador Publishing UK. However, on May 27th, Troubador Publishing announced the following:

“Troubador has ceased distribution of a self-published book written about Michael Jackson. Following new information that came to light on 18th May, the book’s distribution was immediately halted. The company has taken legal advice on its position, and may take further action.


There had been an ongoing, concerted campaign by some Michael Jackson “fans” against the book’s release, but the company stresses that this ‘campaign’ is not the reason why distribution was halted.”

There are a myriad of Michael Jackson books on the market, and no doubt, Dangerous Liaisons would have jostled for marketing position with several more books published on the musical idol later this month on the anniversary of his death last year. Whatever about the growing discussion on the publication of this book online ( 1, 2 , 3 , 4 ) since it first appeared on the Troubador website back in March, it was always going to be a controversial book.

From one of its forward recommendations by Richard Green, Emeritus, Professor of Psychiatry, University of California:

“Read here the unthinkable. Carefully documenting the many relationships of a celebrated entertainer, the writer promotes an alternative view of boy-man sexuality. It can be, he contends, mutually positive. It can be more than sexual – caring, bonding, loving.


This very readable book is packed with extensive research on Michael Jackson’s ‘dangerous liaisons’. It portrays his sex partner preference, without doubt, as males – those recently or nearly pubertal. And, the author argues, such pairing need not be condemned.”

The contents of this book and its advocates have been extensively analysed by those with professional credentials and those who are simply ordinary folk and fans of Michael Jackson. I am not going to attempt to critique a book I have not read, though, a final section of qualifications and references are available as part of the Amazon read inside preview (still available). In fact, the book is still listed on the Matador non-fiction catalogue listing here.
I remember Carl Toms, the author of Dangerous Liaisons from his appearance on one of my favourite programmes of the 1980’s, Channel 4’s, After Dark, an intense and often controversial TV round-table discussion on topics of the day which would run for several hours and into the early hours of a Sunday morning from late Saturday night. Back then, Toms appeared on the programme by his real name, Thomas O’Carroll, an Anglo Irish-Englishman who had a few years before come to prominence after writing ‘Paedophilia: The Radical Case’, published by respected independent publisher, Peter Owen Ltd, in 1980. I remember how BBC TV presenter, later activist for consumers and children’s rights, Esther Rantzen, became, at first, bemused, then outraged, and finally incensed by O’Carroll’s views on so-called ‘boy-man sexuality’.
So, yes, Thomas O’Carroll had a publishing record by a reputed publisher, despite his controversial views, and an academic career to go with it. Again, I would suggest to readers of this article to pursue the links and sub-links above. I have no intension of turning this into a debate on paedophilia, sexuality, or pop celebrity status in the modern world. I am no more skilled or knowledgeable on these subjects than most ordinary folk reading them. However, I do know a little bit about the publishing industry, self-publishing, and more to the point, common sense.
How Troubador Publishing allowed a person convicted of paedophilia in 2006 to use, and abuse, their self-publishing imprint, Matador, is frankly, beyond me. I consider Matador an exemplary self-publishing service for authors, but this has nothing to do with free voice, opinion or argument, no matter how extreme—this was a serious error of judgement and lack of a rudimentary check on the basic background and credentials of an author. I would be more disturbed if they were aware of all the facts and felt they were making some declaration going ahead and publishing this book. Somehow, I don’t think in light of all the facts, Peter Owen Ltd, in today’s world would not have gone with this book had it have been submitted to them.
Much as Michael Jackson fans might wish to make hay on a victory of protecting a celebrity they respect, revere and love—for me—this was about highlighting how those unscrupulous about their beliefs can use self-publishing services to propagate ideas, beliefs and practices, they have been criminally convicted of. Troubador maintain in their brief statement that other matters had to do with the halt of distribution. I would feel better if they had said; Matador are not publishing this book – rather than ‘we are withdrawing distribution’ as if it were just a product, ready to be repackaged. But then, that may very well be the only deal Matador had in place with Thomas O’Carroll and his book (Matador offer bespoke services as required).
O’Carroll was convicted to a two and a half year sentence in 2006—I suspect few publishers outside of Troubador saw the manuscript he was working on since 2002, and if they did, they passed on it pretty quickly. On at least two occasions at the end of the final proof presented to the publishing trade of Dangerous Liaisons, Toms admits he is using a pseudonym, and his real name cited in published and academic works is ‘O’Carroll’.
In respect to Troubador Publishing, for their as yet undisclosed reasons, they withdrew the book ten days before yesterday’s publication date. They should be commended for making the right choice and not indulging in what many mainstream publishers are happy to indulge in—pushing a book out for profit in place of quality, decency and common sense. They ultimately score highly there, but, as with many self-publishing services, the true integrity of a publisher (mainstream or solutions service) lies with the screening and appraisal of a manuscript. If a publisher wants to be proud of its brand—whether paid for or not—it must be fully aware, involved and a part of that brand in every aspect of its background and author and what that means. If your name is on it—it’s yours—whether by right or by association, print, production or publication.
Authors

14 Comments

  1. Anonymous said:

    Troubador was dead wrong for failing to live up to its contractual obligations.

    And you, sir, are dead wrong for coming down on the side of censorship. Any number of authors have written books upon their release from prison or, indeed, while incarcerated. What, does that make one lose a voice?

    And who better than to proclaim upon the issue of pedophilia than an admitted one himself?

  2. Editor said:

    Anonymous,

    Please don’t use the issue of censorship in this debate, as you know very well it is a complete red herring and simple does not stack up as a reasoned argument.

    The publishers entered into a contractual agreement to publish this book, as you rightly point out. I think we can deduce from this that they believed the book to have merit and value and deserved to be published, regardless of the negative reception it might receive from Michael Jackson fans.

    If you still believe this was to do with censorship, then frankly, you are being very naive.

    What is clear here is that the publisher was aware of what they were publishing and believed in the book, but not who they were publishing it on behalf of.

    You see, censorship actually works both ways. The more an author knows about a publisher, the better the relationship works, and likewise, the more a publisher knows about an author, the better they can market and sell a book.

    I think you will find that books written by those incarcerated or released from incarceration and are often marketed deliberately by the publisher for the very reason of the author’s notoriety.

    Books by known gangland criminals were extremely popular in the 1970’s and 1980’s – no one censored those books. They did not have to be, because their authors were entirely brazen and bullish about the fact that they had served time in prison.

    You see, Mr Anonymous, authors also have obligations in a publishing contract. If you can lay your hands on a publishing contract, you might want to go over some of the finer terms and conditions. Obligations like making it known to a publisher details which may hinder or adversely affect the success of a book, or bring into question the reputability of the author or publisher.

    Should the publisher in this case have known about the author’s background and incarceration – of course they should have. This was always going to be a controversial book, but I do not believe the controversy of itself resulted in the withdrawal of the book.

    I spend much of my time advising authors and helping them navigate their way pass the gatekeepers of the publishing world. I am very much an advocate of free voice and the wrongly demonised, but only when those voices sing with fairness and transparency themselves.

    Oh, I might add, you are welcome here and thank you for sharing your thoughts.

    Perhaps you might choose on your next visit not to arrive under a cloak of anonymity.

  3. Jack Michaelson said:

    Editor,

    Sorry, but you will have to explain how not allowing someone to distribute his words does not amount to censorship.

    You wrote: “How Troubador Publishing allowed a person convicted of paedophilia in 2006 to use, and abuse, their self-publishing imprint, Matador, is frankly, beyond me.”

    So let us be clear about your position: someone “convicted of paedophilia” does not deserve the ability, like anyone else, of having his literary work distributed. Even if the premise made sense (O’Carrol was not convicted of “paedophilia” [which is not itself even a crime] but of possessing indecent images). Or are you saying that he has the right to publish, but only if he himself imprints and distributes his work? I mean, it was “self”-published after all.

    But I could understand why you prefer not to discuss censorship in this case: there is no way to successfully argue that it is not happening here.

    Troubador had all the information about Toms/O’Carroll from the beginning. Even if they didn’t, Google was certainly available to them. They most certainly were aware of all the facts, expected controversy, and decided to proceed in the face of it, although requiring Toms to sign a waiver of indemnity.

    And just what information did Toms keep from them? He admits himself, as you pointed out, that he is O’Carroll. His only “flaw” is his prior conviction which all parties fully knew about beforehand. That should not be an impediment to getting published, and is certainly no excuse to dishonor a contract. Or do you only support the right to publish for those with whom you agree?

    Jack

  4. Anonymous said:

    Dear Editor,

    After reading your comments on the new book authored by Tom O’Carroll, a book you have not read, and also reading the comments by the poster identifying himself as “Jack”, I place myself alongside Jack.

    I have purchased a copy of this book. To date I havs read only part of it (the first 120 pages, a book that is 542 pages in length, with a further 48 pages of footnotes). As a reader I can see why the list of academic reviewers wrote highly of the standard of work found in this text.

    OK, lets abandon reference to its content, as you have done, and only focus on the sexual ‘identity’ of the author and the supposted promotion of paedophilia you ascribe to the text. You are basicly doing for publishing and writers what Guantanamo Bay detention camp does for politics and human rights. For you Tom O’Carroll is not an author with publishing rights, he is a man punished by a court in relation to images, a decision which you see as permission to take away this man’s ability to form a legal contract with a publisher such as Troubador.

    You go beyond censorship, you sir promote human errasure.

    I believe Troubador knew exactly who the author of the text was, as well as his history. What they feared is what they claimed to be free from – the power of FLOONS, a name used to denote the fans of Michael Jackson, who if he were still alive, he would denounce as against everything he did as a song writer, a performer, and a human being.

    It concerns me, if you have not read it in my text by now, that the construction of the modern paedophile involves social and political processes that scare me seriously. The Jewish deathcamps, the terminus for so many men women and child, including gays and others, is a process going on before our very eyes under a new form.

    Jack, my name is Peter, and I am with you all the way!

    Signed: Peter Hooper

  5. Editor said:

    “Jack Michaelson”

    “Sorry, but you will have to explain how not allowing someone to distribute his words does not amount to censorship.”

    I assume by what you have said above; you mean the decision by Matador to withdraw the book from distribution—and by default—publication. You see, once again, you are attempting to make this an issue of censorship when it is not.

    Publication for an author is not an absolute entitlement as you seem to imply. If we are to take your argument to its inevitable conclusion, then any author who submits their manuscript to a publisher is entitled to be published and have their book distributed. If that is the case, then every single publisher from HarperCollins, Penguin, Macmillan, Random House to Faber are all guilty of censorship. Yes? Why?—because they choose only to publish, maybe, two per cent of manuscripts submitted to them? Thereby, from your standpoint, all these publishers are guilty of silencing voices we should hear.

    “Or are you saying that he has the right to publish, but only if he himself imprints and distributes his work? I mean, it was “self”-published after all.”

    Actually, technically, O’Carroll did not self-publish his book. To properly self-publish your own book you must purchase your own ISBN and be the registered publisher of origin, in your own name or a chosen imprint name owned by the author. Matador offers a number of different publishing services. My understanding is that O’Carroll’s book was published through Matador with an ISBN registered with them.

    Everyone has the right to self-publish their own work—only restricted and impinged by any law of the land not adhered to.

    “His only “flaw” is his prior conviction which all parties fully knew about beforehand.”

    “They most certainly were aware of all the facts, expected controversy, and decided to proceed in the face of it, although requiring Toms to sign a waiver of indemnity.”

    And presumably you have first-hand knowledge or proof of your above assertion and also access to this ‘waiver of indemnity’?

    Now, let us focus on why Matador withdrew this book. It had nothing to do with the content from page 1 to 600. It had to do with the publisher’s own failure to accredit an author they had entered into a contractual agreement with. When they discovered O’Carroll had a previous conviction for possession of indecent images—they consider that this would have an adverse effect on the promotion of the book, particularly as it was information in the public domain. But more to the point, it was information, O’Carroll as the book’s author—in light of the relevance of the conviction to the subject matter of the book—should have disclosed to his publisher. Ultimately, it is the publisher who takes the hit here, financially and by reputation, because they have not followed through with a contract they signed with the author.

    O’Carroll, of course, can happily go on his way believing himself to be on the moral ground and the victim in all this.

    Should someone be punished, and continue to be punished, even after they have served their time and dues. No, again, I don’t believe they should. But I don’t believe it excuses someone for living up to their own responsibilities morally or contractually.

  6. Editor said:

    Peter,

    “I have purchased a copy of this book. To date I havs read only part of it (the first 120 pages, a book that is 542 pages in length, with a further 48 pages of footnotes). As a reader I can see why the list of academic reviewers wrote highly of the standard of work found in this text.”

    Intriguing—you have managed to ‘purchase a copy of this book’—a book that the publisher has stated it withdrew from distribution prior to its publication date?

    I have already stated that I believe the publisher by accepting this book for publication recognised its qualities and the academic work O’Carroll put into it.

    “You go beyond censorship, you sir promote human errasure.”

    It concerns me, if you have not read it in my text by now, that the construction of the modern paedophile involves social and political processes that scare me seriously. The Jewish deathcamps, the terminus for so many men women and child, including gays and others, is a process going on before our very eyes under a new form.”

    I don’t think any decent human being—man, woman or child—would engage in any way, shape or form to the ‘construction of the modern paedophile’. The abuse and manipulation of the young has been with us sadly for thousands of years—long before the ‘social and political processes’ you seem so in fear of.

    I will remind you and others who are reading these comments; we started out discussing a publisher’s decision to withdraw a book about pop idol Michael Jackson because of the author’s background. A little bit of balance and perspective here, Peter, might be useful.

    Accusing me of ‘human errasure’ and introducing your own comparisons to ‘Jewish deathcamps’ regarding this discussion is somewhat dramatic and colourful.

  7. Anonymous said:

    Dear Editor,

    I went back over your initial piece of writing to check if I had misread you and my conclusions are your fail to see the significance of your own statements and the position you adopt.

    To answer some simple questions, I purchased the book at a university bookshop, through which I had placed an order for the book.

    Second the issue I raise is not the abuse of children, although my concern for child abuse is as genuine as yours and no doubt equaled by the concern of those who read this blog. The abuse I am concerned with is the way Tom O’Carroll and others like him are being constructed socially as a subject of a particular gaze. The social construction of identities is an established notion in a variety of academic disciplines, sociology, history, philosphy, crimnology, so I am not going to dwell on whether it is a legitimate item inside my argument. What I repeat here is the position you place Tom O’Carroll in as a subject of your gaze is dehumanizing and worth focusing on.

    Here I come back to my openning remark. You seem to fail to recognize the significance of your own arguments. You wrote above in your intial text:

    “In respect to Troubador Publishing, for their as yet undisclosed reasons, they withdrew the book ten days before yesterday’s publication date. They should be commended for making the right choice and not indulging in what many mainstream publishers are happy to indulge in—pushing a book out for profit in place of quality, decency and common sense.”

    Two things I comment on are first your imply here O’Carroll’s book lacks quality, that to publish it would be for profit, and you are glad Troubador have not gone down this road. And yet you admit you have not read the text, and that there are people who have and speak highly of it. To date my own reading suggests the content of O’Carroll’s text is at least up to standard if not higher.

    Also you refer to common sense. This is the area where I think you show a lack of reflection. It was the common sense notions promoted by the Nazi leadership of Germany during the second World War that allowed millions to be killed. It the common sense notions of some in America that inspired them to build thier detention camp in Cuba. I don’t think the common sense you refer to is wisdom, rather it is uncritical thought, a dangerous kind of thinking that says a man who has convictions for child pornography, a person who hold views that are clearly unauthordox relative to current notions of sexuality regarding sexually expressed friendships accross generatoins, should not be able to write and publish a book on Michael Jackson. What else can Tom O’Carroll not be allowed to write about I wonder? This is what I take issue with. This strategy you employ as common sense is dangerous.

    My suggestion regarding your position has two parts. First a text should be assessed by its content, something you are not doing. In this case the author is qualified to write on the way society views paedophilia better than most, so in my opinion Tom O’Carroll’s history as an author of other texts, plus his involvement in the debate of sex gives what is written more weight than most.

    Second I think you should be more aware of how what you write is part of how social attitudes which promote stigma and hate are now making those accused of being paedophiles more likely to have no place to live, no have no job with which they can live by and make a contribution, and finally a reduced ability to participate as citizens inside societies.

    You know of Tom O’Carroll’s past publications as an author, you know of the kind of text he has generated in the past (I refer to here the issue of standards of writing). I think on this book you have made the wrong call.

    Regards,
    Peter Hooper

  8. Editor said:

    The abuse I am concerned with is the way Tom O’Carroll and others like him are being constructed socially as a subject of a particular gaze. The social construction of identities is an established notion in a variety of academic disciplines, sociology, history, philosphy, crimnology, so I am not going to dwell on whether it is a legitimate item inside my argument. What I repeat here is the position you place Tom O’Carroll in as a subject of your gaze is dehumanizing and worth focusing on.

    Two things I comment on are first your imply here O’Carroll’s book lacks quality, that to publish it would be for profit, and you are glad Troubador have not gone down this road. And yet you admit you have not read the text, and that there are people who have and speak highly of it. To date my own reading suggests the content of O’Carroll’s text is at least up to standard if not higher.”

    Peter,

    You know very well what I implied was how publishers can become fixated on publishing books for profit, and often profit alone, to the determent of quality. My perspective here and in general on this site is to look at things from the aspect of publishing and authors. I have stated here in these comments, more than once, that the publishers would not have taken this book on if it was not of quality and had something worthy to say. Though, once again, for the umpteenth time, I acknowledge I have not read the book and my arguments about the publishers withdrawing the book have actually anything to do with the books subject matter.

    But I have actually listened to people who have read the book, readers and reviewers, and I am entirely happy to accept O’Carroll has written a reasoned, academic book of quality. The publisher would not have accepted the book for publication if that was not the case. But none of this is about the content or quality of the book—something you deliberately keep ignoring in the previous comments.

    “I don’t think the common sense you refer to is wisdom, rather it is uncritical thought, a dangerous kind of thinking that says a man who has convictions for child pornography, a person who hold views that are clearly unauthordox relative to current notions of sexuality regarding sexually expressed friendships accross generatoins, should not be able to write and publish a book on Michael Jackson. What else can Tom O’Carroll not be allowed to write about I wonder? This is what I take issue with. This strategy you employ as common sense is dangerous.”

    Dear, oh dear, Peter, as an academically minded man—surely you accept wisdom is borne of experience and uncritical thought. No?

    What lacks real common sense here is that you seem to believe it is dangerous for people to think it unusual that ‘a man who has convictions for child pornography, a person who hold views that are clearly unauthordox relative to current notions of sexuality regarding sexually expressed friendships accross generatoins, should not be able to write and publish a book on Michael Jackson.’

    Yes, how terribly unusual people are who don’t consider breaking the law and having a conviction for child pornography anything but holding views that are clearly unorthodox? I must pull that one when I rob the local bank in the morning. I’m sure the judge will look favourably on me when I proclaim—‘I wasn’t breaking the law your honour, I was just being unorthodox. I’m really the victim here.’

    continued next comment….

  9. Editor said:

    “Also you refer to common sense.
    ….continued from previous comment

    This is the area where I think you show a lack of reflection. It was the common sense notions promoted by the Nazi leadership of Germany during the second World War that allowed millions to be killed. It the common sense notions of some in America that inspired them to build thier detention camp in Cuba.”

    No, Peter. ‘Common sense notions’ by those who knew and stood idly by or perpetrated appalling acts during the Second World War played no part in the extermination of more than six million people on our planet. Common sense and humanity is actually what so many of the victims of the holocaust tried desperately to hang on to when there seemed no hope. Systematic fear, control and indoctrination are what brought the Nazi leadership to power.

    “My suggestion regarding your position has two parts. First a text should be assessed by its content, something you are not doing. In this case the author is qualified to write on the way society views paedophilia better than most, so in my opinion Tom O’Carroll’s history as an author of other texts, plus his involvement in the debate of sex gives what is written more weight than most.”

    Peter, at the risk of repeating myself, it is not my role here to ‘assess the text’ and neither did the publisher withdraw the book because of its content. Equally, no one here, or anywhere else I am aware of, has questioned O’Carroll’s academic record or qualifications for writing the book. What is in question is his transparency with the publisher he signed a contract with and the responsibility he had to disclose information which may or may not have been detrimental to the promotion and success of the book.

    “Second I think you should be more aware of how what you write is part of how social attitudes which promote stigma and hate are now making those accused of being paedophiles more likely to have no place to live, no have no job with which they can live by and make a contribution, and finally a reduced ability to participate as citizens inside societies.”

    I don’t write social commentaries. Daytime TV and the tabloid newspapers do a poor enough job of that. I do not condone or support the persecution of those accused or convicted of being paedophiles. But I also do not believe those convicted of any criminal act, particularly those pertaining to the abuse of children, should be presented as the ‘alternative victims’ – that in itself removes the one fundamental human attribute which may result in a reformed criminal being allowed to constructively, live and contribute to society—and that is taking responsibility for ones actions.

    I respect your right to disagree with me, Peter, but I think the distance you perceive or believe exists in our viewpoints is because we are approaching what actually sparked this whole discussion with very different motivations. I no more what to get into a moral discussion about censorship, paedophilia, the rise of the Nazis, or how fear, suspicion and loathing has created dreadful injustices in the world—no more than you probably want to get into a discussion about publishing contracts and their legal terms and conditions.

    Best,

    Mick.

  10. Anonymous said:

    Dear Editor,

    A shared position we appear to hold is the text O’Carroll offers is worth publishing. The point we disagree on is the ability to publish at all.

    You present yourself as a person skilled in the area of self publishing, which I perceive as tailored to those who author a text which may be outside what can be called mainstream publishing. That is where I would locate a person like Tom O’Carroll. For this reason I spend the time exploring why you hold the views you have. For you O’Carroll’s legal conviction for child porn means a text he generates should not be accepted by a publisher, even a text that you acknowledge is well written.

    Tom O’Carroll’s profile was international in character before Troubador agreed to accept a contract to publish his book. A teenager with Google could have achieved an understand of this in about 10 minutes. Troubador claims the FLOON community had nothing to do with the decision to break that contract 12 days before the book was due to be published. An Amazon discussion thread for that Michael Jackson fan community confirms a letter from them, along with what could be called an attack on the company, was key to the decision Troubador made 12 day before the publication date – do not publish. That Music Community has taught me just what bigotry means in 2010. They are the fundamentalist of the music world.

    Finally the notion common sense is something you and I see differently. I get the impression for you common sense is a timeless set of absolutes that can rescue us from our greatest evils – our bad choices. Sadly this is not the case. Hannah Arendt has written a rather challenging book called The Origins of Totalitarianism, in which she shows the common sense notions regarding ‘the Jew’ made the death camps possible. Here analysis spans a long period of time and she is an author I have some respect for.

    It is my belief common sense is not some timeless set of basic ideas that can save us, rather common sense all too often is simply uncritical thought – a rather hit and miss affair as far as wisdom goes. German popular culture said the Jew deserved to get what they lived though in 1930s and 1940s Europe. (Note, Germany did not hold these views on its own, others were of a similar mind.) Our current cultures tell us the paedophile deserves their lot in our time. I don’t share that view, nor do I think an opposition of child abuse is aided by the creation of what I have referred to in an earlier post and the construction of the modern paedophile.

    For you decency and common sense are the basis for your view that O’Carroll got what was coming to him when Troubador broke its contract with him. I think is was plain error, driven by fears and prejudice.

    Regards,
    Peter Hooper

  11. Editor said:

    Peter,

    I’m not going to write any more than the several thousand words I have already written on this here and elsewhere.

    I actually believe we share more common ground than you appear to accept or appreciate. I even think you greatly underestimate my own standpoint and knowledge of the areas we have touched upon. I am also not sure there is anything more I can say that will enhance or add to where I am coming from.

    Totalitarianism, the Holocaust, exile and isolation, the extremes of sexuality, and the cruelty and beauty of the human condition are themes in much of my work. Areas I have researched and studied over the past twenty-seven years.

    Perhaps by reading them you may actually judge me less harshly and so dismissively.

    Best,

    Mick

  12. Anonymous said:

    Dear Editor,

    I’ll give your response careful thought. You are right, long texts don’t always move a dialogue forward.

    We may indeed agree on much.

    Kindest regards,
    Peter Hooper

  13. Anonymous said:

    Oh for cryin’ out loud. Peter Hooper is a pedophile, representing a community of pedophiles in the UK (Hooper lives in Thailand, a haven for pedophiles) who hope to lower the age of consent so that sex between men and boys becomes acceptable in society. Hooper can frame his views with all manner of semantical gibberish. The practical reality is that Hooper and his ilk love to have sex with boys. They’re annoyed that society makes it damn difficult for them to do so out in the open. Everything that can be done to make it difficult for pedophiles to advance their cause can and should be done–over and over again.

*

Top