Menu
 |
 |
|
|
| Log In
|
|
|
|
|
| Search Web Pages
|
|
|
|
|
| Calendar
|
|
|
< September, 2010 >
| S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
| 29 |
30 |
31 |
01 |
02 |
03 |
04 |
| 05 |
06 |
07 |
08 |
09 |
10 |
11 |
| 12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
| 19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
| 26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
01 |
02 |
|
|
|
| chapter 8
|
|
|
Chapter 8. Vile Bodies and Enigmatic Signifiers: The Sexuality of Gods with Arseholes
“… it is possible to become human without having a family; it is not possible to do so without encountering an adult world.”
Jean Laplanche (1989) (1)
“Either we are suffering from whatever it is that sabotages our intimacies, or we are suffering from the notions of intimacy which we have inherited. It is not clear whether better relationships are the solution to our suffering, or whether it is that very aspiration that we suffer from.”
Adam Phillips (2000), (2)
“Interesting philosophy is rarely an examination of the pros and cons of a thesis. Usually it is, implicitly or explicitly, a contest between an entrenched vocabulary which has become a nuisance and a half formed new vocabulary which vaguely promises great things.”
Richard Rorty (1989), (3)
Part I: Freedom of thought and moral orderliness
Before considering a non-normotic, sane notion of sexual intimacy any further, we might productively review some of the compulsorily proscribed arguments we have been exploring so far. We begin from a specific premise: if the obligatory hysteria and orchestrated revulsion accompanying any public mention of young sexualities and pornography in the same breath could be toned down, a saner perspective might emerge from which to think more cogently about both.
We appear to be light years away from such a position presently: visceral disgust, vomit-hurling revulsion, and spittle-flecked outrage appear to be the only terms in which any kind of public debate can be held. And any ‘debate’ or research infused with these primitive emotions will be mortally hobbled before it can begin: reasoned discussion is impossible in an atmosphere of murderous hostility, an atmosphere which police officers and victimologists seem to conflate with moral rectitude. Only docile submission or silence can be permitted under these conditions.
I.i) In Defence of Neutrality
There is, however, a pragmatic and humane alternative, although it cannot possibly be achieved within the ideological coordinates insisted upon by normotic moralism. These must be abandoned; they have caused far too much misery and death for any sane individual to consider them legitimate points on any kind of ethical compass. And ethical sanity can only be enabled by a rational and free elaboration of alternative sexualities, something our crazily normotic culture seeks to prohibit at all costs.
Freud famously insisted that psychoanalysts should always meet every patient from a position of calm, scientific neutrality, whatever symptomatology they might present with: disgust and outrage were, for the father of psychoanalysis, wholly incompatible with analytic work. If verbalised or even indirectly insinuated, such sentiments would inevitably harm the patient and destroy the analysis.
Outbursts of moral condemnation or expressions of sexual revulsion on the part of the analyst during professional work were regarded by Freud not as valuable emblems of ethical integrity but as manifestations of destructive psychopathology. He recommended that any practitioner experiencing such emotional intensities should urgently undergo further personal analysis in order to safeguard their patients’ wellbeing. You cannot be an effective analyst if you believe too strongly in your own moral assumptions.
Far from implying that analysts adopt an impossible, all-knowing God’s eye view, as some of his critics have suggested his notion of neutrality amounts to, Freud was all too aware of the human tendency to hubris and moral arrogance. The neutrality he advocated is not a divine position, but a cautiously pragmatic one, crafted precisely in order to avoid pretensions of divinity. The analyst is as fallible as his patient, even though his particular fallacies may be different; censoriousness of all kinds sabotages free association, the patient’s only route to greater integration, spontaneity and emancipation.
Freud knew that people do not come to psychoanalysis to receive corrective censure or moral guidance: they’re after something else. The ‘cure’ arising from an authentic analysis will not take the form of moral conformity or ‘getting back on track’ but, on the contrary, of enlightenment, an outcome which is inherently subversive to all coercive moral norms. Enlightenment, as opposed to compliance, cannot be achieved through admonishment, disapproval or punishment: it can only arise, as Buddhists have known for centuries, by an active suspension of all one’s preferred certainties and moral prejudices.
I.ii) Commanded Disgust and Sexual Stupidity: Policing Pleasure
It is the inability or refusal to achieve this suspension which is the true meaning of stupidity. The stupid individual is not an empty-headed numbskull, but a person crammed with unquestioned certainties, unchallenged obediences and obediently memorised formulae. The mind is poisoned by unintegrated knowledge like this, a form of knowing which perishes and shrivels fellow feeling and human kindness. This is stupid knowledge, or knowledge as stupidity. And the most toxic and lethal strain of stupidity in our midst, as Freud’s courageous dissent testifies, is sexual stupidity, so full of outrage, violent revulsion and murder that it makes racism today seem like a pale imitation.
What for Freud was a dangerous intrusion of personal neurosis into the field of enquiry is, for the defenders of a fictional moral consensus, a compulsory pre-requisite. From a radically Freudian position, the inability or refusal of militant salvationists and careerist police officers to think about young sexualities in any terms other than abuse, victimisation and exploitation is a dangerous symptom of sexual authoritarianism (sexual stupidity) which can only distort and misrepresent the phenomena under consideration. In just about any other field of social and psychological analysis, the rigid stranglehold the militant vanguards of victimology have maintained on debate, research and analysis would be regarded as an intolerable constraint on academic freedom and the growth of enlightenment. They are not only the ‘language police’, to use Diana Ravitch’s term for victimology’s insidious contamination of educational and academic independence (4); since thinking takes place in language, they are also our unelected thought police, attempting no less than to set limits on what it is possible to think about and write about.
Individuals who are drawn to policing as a career are, one might reasonably speculate, more prone to desire authoritarian control than others may be. Police officers do not operate within a line of management but within a line of command, an institutional feature which inevitably engenders an intrinsically (and perhaps necessarily) authoritarian ethos. Wherever there are commanding authorities, there must also be obedient subordinates, or the system just won’t work. There are important implications for the quality, nature and range of thought permissible in such an institutional context.
To take what might be considered an opposite extreme, dissension is positively encouraged in, say, a seminar discussion, because innovative interpretation and fresh thought depend upon free debate. Shifting to a more intermediate scenario, one may discuss, argue and even disagree to varying extents with a line manager. But with a commander, one is required to obey. ‘Freedom’, ‘authority’, ‘deference’ and ‘obedience’ are not simply personal states of mind but practises which exist in organisational contexts. How much of each is permitted depends very much on the institution one inhabits.
Intelligent thought requires freedom to roam, to be disobedient, to explore new perspectives and generate new hypotheses and models. It is inclined to be untidy, a little wild and always potentially subversive. Commanded thought must remain on the straight and narrow; it must maintain the violent hierarchies, the lines of domination and subordination, organising the moral categories it has embraced. It is always compulsorily conservative and, to use a popularised Freudian term, a little on the ‘anal’ side (one reason why, perhaps, its petty officials are vernacularly referred to as ‘sh*ts’). (Editor. Please forgive this and subsequent editing. A censor somewhere in the system is replacing some words with 'bleeps'.)
I.iii) Licensing thuggery
Anyone judicially branded as a ‘paedo’ for looking at the wrong sort of pictures on the net will experience a form of personal and social dissolution which defies description. In addition to losing their employment, probably being imprisoned, certainly being stigmatized (possibly for life) on the Sex Offenders Register (which effectively blocks re-employment without even minimally protecting a single child), in all probability losing their homes, their families and friends, they will also be subject to intrusive and degrading ‘home visits’ by ignorant and scornful police officers on an at least annual basis, quite possibly for the rest of their lives.
The more zealously ‘nonce-hating’ of these officers, contra-Freudian neutrality and civility, will routinely subject the ‘offenders’ they are ‘managing’ to abusive, sordid and deliberately humiliating interrogations, demanding answers to questions like how often they have sex, who they have sex with, what pornographic material they masturbate to (all nonces jerk, of course, unlike the morally upright, who never experience unbidden or unexpected erotic fantasies and only masturbated once, by accident, when they were thirteen), how often they do it, who they imagine when they’re having sex or masturbating and how old their imaginary erotic objects are. The porn police are actually only required in law to inquire about a very limited number of points, such as name, address and date of birth, any aliases used, national insurance number, and plans for foreign travel. But when an authority-craving bully is given carte blanche, without witnesses, to do as he pleases, humiliating rituals are likely to occur.
The porn police, of course, are far too stupid and cognitively straight-jacketed, in precisely the sense outlined earlier, to make any real sense of the ‘data’ they elicit through such degrading rituals: frequently struggling with elementary literacy, they most certainly do not have lengthy trainings in psychoanalysis, political history, anthropology or even psychology to assist them, although they do go on regular victimology courses to keep their prejudices up to date and their heads saturated with unintegrated knowledge. Stupidity is a practise, an effect of what one does, rather than a ‘thing’ as such; and clogging the mind with memorised typologies and punishment programmes is an extraordinarily stupid thing to do. Far more powerful in maintaining this bullying thuggery than the all-too-evident intellectual limitations of individual officers, though, is the authoritarian institutional context in which police ‘thinking’ about sexuality is forged.
These intrusive and belittling routines have nothing to do in reality with keeping ‘dangerous’ offenders in check, or with protecting children, no matter how fervently the officers who practise them believe they are disciplining villainous perverts or saving innocent kiddies (as we have seen previously, believing in one’s own unimpeachable virtue is more likely to lead to cruel abuses of power than to fellow feeling). It does, however, appear to have everything to do with rigidly maintaining at least two impossible splits which our dominant moral culture insists upon – childhood ‘sexual innocence’ over there, adult sexuality over here. The latter must then be further split – ‘good’ adult sexuality which respects all the boundaries and hierarchies of the moral order, and ‘bad’, promiscuous, boundary-transgressing adult sexuality.
Those found to exhibit any trace of this ‘bad’ sexuality must be mercilessly isolated and repressed: the purpose of the porn police’s visits into the homes of those they hound is purely to intimidate and debase. The men they browbeat and persecute (‘supervise’), often vastly more educated and intelligent than themselves, frequently decide to end their lives, as I have mentioned: Operation Ore alone led ‘officially’ to at least 39 suicides amongst those who were accused, before they set foot in court. The actual death toll is likely to be much higher, especially when one considers the numerous subsequent ‘child porn’ witch hunts that have taken place in Ore’s murderous wake.
In authoritarian fields of speech and thought, the world is not so much explored as squeezed into pre-conceived casts. Once this cognitive imprisonment is underway, it is debatable whether one could consider what results as ‘thought’ at all. In the context of the great child porn witch hunt, however, the police have deployed this rigid categorisation process to truly terrible effect; and they were assisted in what has effectively become an exercise in mass murder by the UK’s Sentencing Advisory Panel (SAP).
Part II: From ‘This-Causes-That’ to ‘This-IS-That’
“The notion that you can be imprisoned for thought crimes strikes most of us as something out of Orwell or a sc-fi dystopia, but this turns out to be the world we now inhabit. If public policy and policing procedures are enacted on the basis of the most simplistic assumptions about the role of fantasy in the human psyche (that fantasy is synonymous with intent, for instance), this imperils a basic form of freedom, as well as the available modes of political expression.”
Laura Kipnis (1996), p. x (5)
II.i) A populist category error
The UK’s Sentencing Advisory Panel (SAP) is an ‘independent’ body, originally set up to advise the Court of Appeal on sentencing policy (6). Made up of practising judges, QCs, legal and other academics and senior officers in the police, probation and victim support services, it is required to consult widely before issuing advice (7). Whilst the kind of ‘independence’ a body made up of elite establishment figures could be capable of may be open to question, the SAP’s publicly recorded advice is not.
In 2002, the Court of Appeal asked the Panel to advise on proper sentencing for indecent photograph offenses, implementing its guidelines in the case of R. v. Oliver (8). In formulating the sentencing advice, the SAP examined material from the COPINE project (Combating Paedophile Information Networks in Europe) which had been set up in 1997 at the Department of Applied Psychology, University College Cork. COPINE, which since its inception has worked closely with law enforcement agencies and latterly with Interpol, compellingly inviting a Foucaultian interpretation: Foucault persuasively showed that once university departments and new expert disciplines are set up to ‘study’ a moral or sexual problem, especially when they ally themselves with State apparatuses of discipline and punishment, they inevitably produce and proliferate the ‘deviance’ under consideration. (9). Description always involves construction.
COPINE, as you may suspect, is an organisation of avowedly victimologist academics who see no conceivable distortion or ethical conflict in working hand in glove with ‘paedo-hunting’ zealots in police forces, and its work is littered with wholly unsubstantiated phrases like:
“Whether a picture is accidental or deliberate, each time a picture is accessed for sexual purposes it victimises the individual concerned. In a sense, the function of picture collections for the offender is to repeatedly victimise the child concerned, and the victim status is exaggerated by continuing use.”
Taylor, Holland and Quayle (2001) (10)
Repeating swivel-eyed victimological mantras in piously sentimental tones may well result in widely believed conventional wisdom eventually, but it hardly constitutes either science or truth. Personally, if an ancient image of my twelve year old willie, taken many moons ago, was to find itself being viewed by some sad old men on the internet, I’d be rather pleased that a simple snapshot of an effortless stiffie could yield such harmless pleasure to a few lonely souls. To the staff at COPINE, however, whether I shared their presumptions or not, I would not only be a ‘victim’ of ‘historic abuse’ , but be ‘re-victimised’ every time my image was viewed, whether I was aware of such viewing or not. Counselling (or, as I prefer to call it, professional grooming) would begin immediately to establish my victimhood, a status I may need expert persuasion in order to accept. From a COPINE perspective, what was at the time of its occurrence simply enjoyable fun is actually soul-murdering torture; and where the breathy tones of earnest counsellors fail to convince, the prospect of enormous financial compensation may, of course, succeed.
II.ii) State Approved Decency (SAD) and Levels of Deviancy
Studying images from the internet as well as those found in the possession of individuals criminally branded as ‘paedophiles’, COPINE devised a 10-point scale, with Level 1 images being merely indicative (e.g., fully clothed minors, images taken from adverts, catalogues and magazines) and other levels rising progressively to more sexually explicit scenarios, culminating in Level 10, which depicted scenes of ‘sadism and bestiality’ – children being tied up, beaten or whipped, or depicted in such a way as to suggest the infliction of pain, or images where an animal was involved in some form of sexual behaviour with a child.
COPINE precisely fits Tana Dineen’s critique of contemporary victim psychology: it has become an entrepreneurial, self-promoting discipline, unmoored from its scientific foundations, and channelling its resources into manufacturing victims for business purposes rather than studying the human mind from a truly Enlightenment perspective (11).
The project’s aim, at the time this scale was devised, was principally to understand the ‘collecting behaviour’ of anyone who had been officially branded a ‘paedophile’. Neither of these terms were explored or critiqued by COPINE; they were simply assumed as unquestionable fact (a business, of course, capitalises on market trends rather than baggy abstractions like ‘truth’ or ‘ethics’). The constructs ‘collecting behaviour’ (keeping pictures) and ‘paedophile’ (someone who finds youthful beauty erotically enchanting) are today the exclusive products and key terms of the victimology industry. And they are kept beyond any form of intellectual challenge or scepticism through howls of execration and insinuations of sinister motivation.
If sanity could prevail for a moment, should I claim to feel victimised by an unknown person, accessing an image of me at an unknown location at an unknown time, in unknown privacy, I would have to be either clairvoyant or seriously nuts to feel assaulted by such a practise. The assumption being tested by COPINE, of course, was that hoary old chestnut that one thing leads to another (moral reactionaries always imagine that society is precariously balanced on a slippery slope to debauchery – one wrong move and you’ll be down the shute and in the moral toilet in an instant). Specifically, they were seeking to collect evidence in support of the this-causes-that assumption, that looking at erotic images of ‘underage’ sexuality means you intend to f*ck a kid (if children naturally have sexual feelings and inclinations, it makes as little sense to refer to these phenomena as ‘underage’ as it does to refer to bowel movements or nose-picking as such). It never occurs to victimologists that imagery of youthful erotic beauty may function simply as a mnemonic, a slightly sadness-tinged revisiting of a long lost experience of youth, a purely imaginative attempt to recover exhausted joie de vivre.
II.iii) Spiteful vocabularies and their alternatives
Analytic psychologists often make use of Jung’s archetypal figure ‘puer aeternus’ or ‘eternal child’ in clinical work. For Jung, puer aeternus symbolised a Dionysian force within the psyche, constantly subverting and destabilising the rigidity and orderliness of our more Apollonian internal authorities. The eternal youth of Jungian psychology is an indolent and beautiful pleasure seeker, brimful of playful sexuality and idle experimentalism, a piece of the soul that has refused to succumb to convention and conformity. Whilst living entirely according to puer aeternus’ whims would result in chaos and mindlessness, the need to make contact with his symbolic energy from time to time becomes very pressing. Breaking out of a deadening life pattern, for example, might require the virile power and prodigal adventurism of the eternal youth. For Jungians, puer “suggests the possibility of a new beginning, revolution, renewal, and creativity generally.” (12)
Whilst sexual pleasure may be involved in viewing images of beautiful youths, the desire to invoke the energetic power of a symbolic force such as this in oneself may be the paramount aim, with erotic imagery augmenting this psychic quest. As Samuels puts it a little later on the same page, ‘puer is sexy,’ symbolising an irreverent, exuberant eroticism untrammelled with life’s burdens and responsibilities, a playful sexual vitality which promises to undo depression and inertia. Even when material change appears impossible, an internal visit to the place in one’s mind where puer is partying may provide temporary respite from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or simply from the intractable tedium and unhappiness of a life which stopped flourishing too many years ago.
For victimologists, concepts like these are as incomprehensible as they irrelevant: there are only good guys who never have unexpected erotic responses and bad guys who want to molest kids. It is the limited vocabulary of victimology, with its crude, comic-book dramatis personae of good cops and nasty villains, its preposterous formulae and tables, which causes such conceptual impoverishment and primitively inadequate models of causality. The language of victimology has become, as Richard Rorty puts it in one of the epigraphs to this chapter, ‘an entrenched vocabulary which has become a nuisance.’ (We are attempting here to articulate that half formed new vocabulary Rorty mentions, which vaguely promises great things; or at least a kinder moral universe).
In the same essay, Rorty sums up what the revolutionaries and poets of two centuries ago were getting at:
“What was glimpsed at the end of the eighteenth century was that anything could be made to look good or bad, important or unimportant, useful or useless, by being redescribed.” (13)
Victimology, which always tends toward a somewhat theatrical militancy, endeavours to ensure that even the most fleeting glimpse of any new, alternative descriptions should be vigorously suppressed (‘for the good of the children’, of course – the tyrant’s path to despotism). In Victimland, the meagre vocabulary of its inhabitants dictates that looking at pictures of youthful beauty can only mean one thing: the viewer harbours plans to sexually assault a minor.
By this means, the State will not only destroy one’s name, one’s social standing, one’s life’s achievements, one’s past. It will also destroy the future: ‘offenders’, no matter how gentle and intelligent they have been in their actual conduct throughout their lives, will be designated as posing a ‘risk to children’, placed on a register, and effectively barred from any form of worthwhile employment. Even a police-state psychology project such as COPINE, however, had sufficient shreds of intellectual honesty to acknowledge that it simply couldn’t establish the connection it nonetheless believed to exist between viewing erotic images and actual sexual conduct.
The SAP, by contrast, wholly ignored such contemptible dithering, oblivious to the striking fact that continuing to believe in a proposition in the face of overwhelming contradictory or disconfirmatory evidence owes more to a form of fundamentalist faith than to scientific rationality. A picture is what it is; if you look at a proscribed picture, you’re doing the picture. If the picture’s ‘bad’, you’re doing bad. And the more ‘bad’ you ‘do’, the more the ‘market’ in bad grows.
II.iv) The Idiot’s Guide to Simplicity: SAP and Levels of Indecency
Whilst generic scales such as COPINE’s are ineluctably crude and misleading instruments (how could anyone possibly discern the fine-grain detail of a subject’s erotic co-ordinates and behavioural motivations without painstakingly eliciting his or her individual, specific associations?), the SAP managed to simplify an already crudely oversimplified concept even further. The Panel telescoped the scale, reducing the number of categories from 10 to 5, with Level 5 images retaining the ‘sadism and bestiality’ title (the most ‘extreme’ end of the spectrum) and, brushing aside even COPINE’s feeble acknowledgment that any relationship between looking at pictures and enacting them was impossible to establish, making all levels effectively equivalent to degrees of actual sexual assault.
In previous chapters, we have endeavoured to lay bare the violent simplifications and rigid categorisations governing what I have been calling ‘cartoon’ or ‘this-causes-that’ psychology (looking at an image of an erotic scene means you are about to enact an identical erotic scene). Perhaps we might now consider the dominant ideological fiction currently gluing together the conglomeration of religious fanatics, vindictive victimologists and authoritarian police forces who consider themselves (with no democratic endorsement, of course) to be the moral guardians of the people: ‘this-IS-that’ psychology.
This represents a shift in emphasis in the principal argument concerning the ‘harmfulness’ of pornography. It runs like this: people who access ‘child abuse images’ (by which salvationist-authoritarians appear to mean, for the most part, harmless, youthful erotica) are creating a ‘demand’ in a ‘market’ for evil. If the ‘demand’ wasn’t there, ‘children’ would not be ‘abused’ to satisfy the ‘deviant desires’ of ‘paedophiles’ and the ‘market in child abuse’ would cease. I have sprinkled the foregoing sentences liberally with scare quotes largely because each of the claims and assertions highlighted are, despite being highly questionable and often frankly deceitful, virtually never examined or critiqued in the mainstream media, or even, for that matter in academic circles. ‘This causes that’ presumptions are still actively embraced; it’s just that they currently play second fiddle to ‘this is that’ propaganda.
When big commercial companies like Sainsbury’s or Tesco’s evaluate the market success of various lines, they meticulously calculate exactly how many commodities of each type leave their shelves for consumer baskets. Is there a paedo-enterprise equivalent, monitoring and managing the supply of its products to meet the latest trends in demand? A CEO of Paedo Supplies, PLC, keeping an eye on how much stock is moving? Level 5 images up 20% on sales during the equivalent period last year, Level 2 down 4%.
When the SAP formulated its scale of severity, it used the same fiction that the police were falsely insisting upon: anyone who accessed anything that could be deemed as ‘child pornography’ did so deliberately and knowingly, and with malice aforethought chose to select specific categories of image. As opposed to: sad, slightly depressed individuals getting into something of a delirium viewing internet porn , mindlessly and stupidly clicking on any porn link (more often than not a line of letters and numbers, not images of tits and c*cks) that appeared in front of them. Trying to reach puer aeternus, it would seem, is now illegal.
II.v) Beast-making and fantasy markets
When I approached the editor of the brilliant website ‘Indecent Acts’ to comment on this ‘viewing-creates-demand’ assertion, especially as it relates to the ‘levels of severity’ the Sentencing Advisory Panel has successfully coerced British law courts into compliance with, he replied:
“As if there could be ANY intellectually honest way of justifying such a thing! Person A downloads a photograph merely of a naked child, Person B downloads a photograph of a child tied up and suspended from a roof with some variety of strut holding her legs apart. Has Person A done ANYTHING different from Person B? No, they have done precisely the same things; but then I suppose the SAP say that Person B has enhanced the demand for child BDSM images and hence caused MORE children to be involved in such practices (this despite the fact that both A and B downloaded the images from an NNTP newsserver where no logs were recorded, without having requested such images or commented on them once they had been downloaded; i.e. no-one else in the world would have even known that the images had been downloaded, never mind altered their behaviour to ‘meet a demand’; we can ignore inconveniences like facts...). “
(Editor, ‘Indecent Acts’ website, 2009) (14)
‘The Editor’, as I’ll call him (I don’t know his real name) insisted that he was not making a general counterargument – in order for law to function in the service of justice rather than dogma or ephemeral crazes, it must make limited and precise arguments, privileging the specific facts relevant to a particular case over general arguments.
The ‘creating demand’ thesis is, of course, a general argument which attempts to explain everything that is designated as ‘internet child pornography’ without permitting any questioning of the designation process itself. It seeks immunity from empirical testing in a court of law on the grounds that it is above dispute. Leo Bersani’s comment from Chapter 7 constitutes the principal reason why such assumptions should be resisted with great vigilance: the constant repetition of lies by our moral rulers is the best defence against truth. A lie which is repetitively endorsed and uncritically represented by mainstream media becomes one of the most important ways in which the powerful create the ‘normal’.
The ‘NTTP’ (‘Network News Transfer Protocol’) server referred to by the ‘Indecent Acts’ editor was effectively a virtual bulletin board. Originally known as ‘Usenet’, these bulletin boards were eventually taken over by the internet giant, Google, becoming ‘Google Groups’. People may well have requested certain types of underage erotic image, but the data sent out and then stored in Google’s logs would be so obscure as to be meaningless. As the Indecent Acts Editor explained, people simply had to know what general topic to search for, what terms yielded what genres of images, and then a Google system itself would provide data that could be converted into an image – an image which, according to the police, could very well be ‘child pornography:’
“Any access to this would, of course, be recorded, but the information stored (in the log) would be abstruse and meaningful only with a great deal of analysis that would reveal information that was utterly useless to Google. They probably discarded this data as soon as they could, and certainly never examined it to work out who was looking at what (as would be the case in a forensic examination).”
Unless we are to believe that Google was a deliberate and knowing purveyor of ‘child abuse imagery’, tabulating the demand for various kinds of image, the demand and supply argument is fatally flawed. No one, absolutely no one, is or was monitoring ‘illegal images’ apart from the police. No ‘victims’, no viewers, no members of that constantly shifting entity, the ‘general public’.
II.vi) Imaginary enjoyments
What both COPINE and the SAP appear to have ignored (or psychodynamically repressed), however, is that an image is irreducibly ambiguous, no matter how ‘full’ and ‘explicit’ it appears to be. What you see depends profoundly upon the ideological lenses you are peering through. A sexually sane lens, for example, might see an image of a nude twelve year boy, smiling and sporting an erection, as an image of innocent sensuality. A victimologist lens would interpret it as child abuse.
Images just like this littered the award-winning photographic sex education book Show Me! in the late 1970s – perhaps a less uptight and sexually paranoid time than our own. The authors had dared to imagine that children might not have to be terrified of the joys of commensal sexual pleasure in order to live happy and productive lives. Such apostasy, however, violently contravened the tenets of a more ancient puritanical aversion to pleasure, which society’s moral authorities were still determined to instil in the young. Children who were acquainted with the deep fellowship of safe, non-coercive, mutually pleasurable sexual fun were less likely to grow into adults who murderously despised and envied anyone who seemed to be having more pleasure than themselves, or so the authors reasoned.
This is a rather more pressing issue than it may at first glance appear. Elaine Scarry, an academic who wrote a masterpiece about the capacity of human beings to torture other human beings (15), makes a revealing point when she suggests: “our injuring of others … results from our failure to know them (16).” Scarry is arguing that we are capable of greatly injuring other people when our capacity to imagine them as sentient human beings like ourselves is at its lowest. She suggests that where there are deficits in this imaginative capability, torture and violence are likely to ensue.
Picking up on Scarry’s important ideas, Tim Dean brings out a dimension to hate and violence which Scarry doesn’t acknowledge. An exception to Scarry’s rule lies, Dean insists, ‘in our virtually limitless capacity to imagine other people enjoying. ’ (17) He writes:
“This imaginative capacity readily produces the conviction that others are enjoying themselves at our expense, and it is this conviction that sparks the desire to injure others. For example, gay men are often pictured as having access to forms of jouissance – more sex, more disposable income, freedom from the ties of family and tradition, et cetera – that responsible, law-abiding citizens are denied. From this perspective, it is not the failure to imagine others, but, on the contrary, the avid willingness to do so that leads to violence against them.” (18)
If this is true of how gay men are frequently perceived, it is infinitely truer of the way anyone branded as a ‘paedophile’ is perceived. If we imagine a human being filled with projections of this sort – orgiastically convulsing with all the unspeakable and ruthless enjoyments we have sacrificed – our envy is liable to become homicidal.
II.vii) The Fear of Freedom in the Age of Commanded Enjoyment
Regimes of Actually Existing Normalcy, which generate the simmering resentment and discontent of the ‘law-abiding citizens’ Dean refers to, need to deflect these dangerous energies onto sacrificial scapegoats in order to maintain the ruling order of things. And the drive to do this has become ever more pressing, largely because the capitalist economic foundation upon which our view of normalcy has been fashioned has shifted gear; in an earlier era, it required abstinence and deferral.
Once, the ‘Protestant work ethic’ ruled behind the scenes: work and invest today, save, live thriftily, amass as much wealth as you can for later. This is ‘Thou shalt not’ capitalism, which required the sacrifice of immediate pleasure in order to get any work done (or wealth accrued). But contemporary monopoly turbo-capitalism is driven by an entirely different underlying imperative. It is “You must!” capitalism. You must enjoy, and let everyone see that you are enjoying. Spend, buy, consume now! Commanded enjoyment of this sort, however, generates far more resentment and suspicion than spontaneous pleasure (19).
As Dean implicitly notes in the sequence I’ve quoted, being obliged to enjoy generates the suspicion that others are enjoying more than oneself. And this makes for a great deal of angry, paranoid subjects, who somehow have to be appeased and subdued, at least sufficiently to keep turning up for work. An authorised scapegoat symbolising irremediable evil (i.e., unbridled enjoyment of the worst sort) is a very useful social solution under these conditions, uniting the law-abiding in disgust and outrage sufficiently to keep the system running.
It seems to me that these socio-economic conditions have provided fertile ground for victim feminism to join forces with semi-fascist religious fundamentalists and political authoritarians. The imaginary fiend of the child-raping, predatory paedophile was the ideal figure to unite them in moral outrage, as he symbolises the practise of obscene and cruel enjoyment - the enjoyment we always attribute to ‘others’ - perfectly.
Victim feminism was poised to step into a new political vacuum: an earlier, libertarian left tradition was disintegrating. Victimology began to fill the space where liberty and dissent once stood. This new movement, however, seemed to have absolutely no concept of sensual pleasure; it only had a sour and joyless theory of exploitation, abuse and victimisation. This it shared with puritanical Christian fundamentalism, which had long ago regarded sexual pleasure as demonic sin (in the UK, the supposedly ‘Left’ inclined New Labour Party has always owed more to austere Methodism than to libertarian socialism – the only form of Marxism that Marx himself would sign up to).
Victimology was from its inception deeply suspicious of liberty. Freedom, from the petit bourgeois perspective of its adherents, was simply a license for bad behaviour and immoral conduct. From a victimological perspective, liberty was dangerous. Far from being the goal of struggle, it became the enemy of safety. And public safety, of course, requires limitless policing.
To be fair, the early Puritans in the revolutionary context of the seventeenth century English Civil War deliberately adopted an ascetic attitude in order to demonstrate to Catholic authoritarianism that they did not need an ‘external’ power – they could govern themselves with great discipline. But old habits persist when historical contexts fade; modern day puritanism is simply sexually constipated, joyless anhedonia, suffused with a secret, obscene enjoyment. Those who slip up, who get caught having unregulated pleasure, can be watched as they burn in social hell with horrifically pious enjoyment.
II.viii) Prohibition in the age of compulsory enjoyment
The puritanism of contemporary victimology is at least in part the aftermath of the collapse of a more radical leftist critique of capitalism. The leftism I have in mind is not the monstrosity of Stalinism, but the libertarian struggle of ordinary people to secure freedom from the arbitrary power of the State, to improve their lives with less work, better pay and more leisure, and to forge international solidarity with other struggling people across the world. It owes more to Watt Tyler, John Wilkes, William Blake, Tom Paine and William Morris than to Mao or Stalin, whom it sees as tragically grotesque betrayers of humane social progress.
But a movement aimed at securing the material well-being of the economically exploited required a radical assault on the logic of capitalism, which, from its inception, systematically privileged the material well-being of entrepreneurs over those who produced their wealth. With the rise of Clintonite and Blairite ‘Third Way’ politics, however, the political towel was thrown in. Capitalism was embraced as the only game in town; no measure which threatened its dynamics could be contemplated. Moralising and frenetic tinkering with showy initiatives replaced the real struggle for a new political and economic order.
Instead of a struggle to reform the economy so that its spoils may be more evenly distributed, instead of building better housing and health care facilities for ordinary people, the comparatively cheap alternative of venting sexual disgust has replaced the struggle for greater socioeconomic equality:
“After the disintegration of the grand, all-encompassing, leftist narratives of progress, when political activity devolved into a multitude of identity issues, the excess over these particular struggles can only find an outlet in impotent moralistic outrage.”
Slavoj Zizek (2008), p. 102
‘Protecting children’ has replaced a more inclusive and far more radical political engagement to improve the material conditions of ordinary people’s lives. Instead of living as agents acting together against the crazy, manic-depressive logic of a now wholly unchallenged economic system, we live instead in a world of passive victims, predatory perpetrators and pious benefactors.
Sensing the underlying recklessness of this economic system’s new imperative – the command to enjoy – the heirs to left libertarianism have adopted an angrily censorious moralism, as Zizek suggests, which has come to be known as ‘political correctness.’ Massively retreating from anything which would address the causes of the greatest suffering of the greatest numbers of people, young and old, on the planet – the brutish poverty which ‘let it rip’ monopoly capitalism inevitably engenders across the globe so that a few can live in surreal wealth – they spend their time banning ‘disrespect’ and sex instead. And we have seen that, in the last two to three decades in particular, perhaps especially in the UK since New Labour acceded to power, the moralising has intensified in proportion to capitalism’s new underlying command: Enjoy! The dishonesty lies in the attempt to attribute to moral turpitude what is actually a product of ‘Enjoy now’ capitalism.
The perverse development is, however, that moral prohibition has profoundly different consequences in today’s age of commanded enjoyment than it did in the era of ‘protestant work ethic’ capitalism. Back then, it functioned reasonably successfully to block access to too much enjoyment (if you are enjoying, you are not producing or contributing). Commanded enjoyment, however, produces restless frustration and resentment, not contented satisfaction. The enjoyment on offer for most people is purely imaginary – that latest commodity might help you imagine what it would be like to be a millionaire; the porn you look at might help you imagine what a more vibrant, dynamic and free sexual life might feel like. But none of it’s real.
It is the disappearance of real enjoyment produced by the obligation to enjoy which helps cultivate the paranoid resentment Tim Dean referred to earlier. And as soon as someone says ‘Don’t!’ in this context, they are merely pointing to a possible source of vanishing real enjoyment. The enjoyment may take two forms, and the same person may adopt both: deliberately seeking the secret source of prohibited enjoyment, like a junkie desperately in need of a fix, and/or watching with fascination the social torture inflicted on those publicly branded as illicit enjoyers.
Moralistic prohibition is over; its time has passed. In the new age, it is as tyrannical, obscene and perverted as the Freudian super-ego – chasing you into every corner, every recess, every sanctuary and punishing you, tormenting you, crushing you without mercy or measure. We have to find more enlightened ways of dealing with the problem of enjoyment.
II.ix) Paranoid Morality and Enjoyment: redescribing pleasure as abuse
By redescribing the images of innocent sexual fun between minors depicted in the Show Me! book as wicked paedophilic abuse, puritans were able to crush an embryonic gesture of sexual sanity beneath a stampede of hysterically manipulated public outrage. Knee-jerk legislation, drafted as we saw in Chapter 3 by opportunist politicians whoring after momentary advantage in the heat of an insanely hysterical crusade against a fictional multi-billion dollar child pornography industry, transformed harmless and beautiful erotic imagery into ‘indecent’ and violent pornography. The boy with a hard-on, laughing with innocent pleasure at the boy beside him sporting a complementary stiffie, was now a ‘victim’ of ‘abuse’, who would be tormented forever by anyone who looked at the ‘indecent’ image he was ‘forced’ to pose for. Child pleasure became child porn and child abuse overnight. Predictably, unable to find many examples of real child abuse imagery, law enforcement agencies eagerly grabbed the opportunity afforded them by sweeping new child porn laws to seize as many copies of Show Me! that they could lay their hands on and pulp them.
The extremes of revulsion and terror that have been orchestrated by police officers and child salvationists to further their careers and prevent exploration and insight around this subject have, predictably, culminated in a lethal cultural atmosphere. For many who found themselves plunged into such a toxic environment of violent hysteria, with its murderous shaming and mendacious demonization of all who are merely accused, suicide became an entirely sane option. Being alive to one’s own social death is a torture of truly medieval proportions. We are the only creatures who find it impossible to live when our name has been destroyed.
This particular social boundary, aimed at separating childhood sexual innocence from adult sexual sin, is never as final and indisputable as the moralists would like it to be. But the results for all accused of blurring it are inevitably terrible. Here is one example.
Part III: A Boy, a Computer and an Inquisition: Child Protection in the Twenty-first Century
III.i) An endangered child
A ten year old boy sits in front of his PC, as he has done countless times before, and begins a little idle net surfing; raised in the age of information technology, the son of highly educated and enlightened parents, his already formidable computer skills began at the age of three. Precociously bright, sensitive and gentle-natured, he shares with vast numbers of children of his age and time an awareness of the internet’s limitless potential for learning as well as for distraction and entertainment. On this occasion, he feels like a little distraction – a familiar childlike interplay of threatened boredom and indefinable, unfocussed curiosity are at work.
As he developmentally tip-toes up to the onset of early adolescence, like most ‘betweenagers’ (no longer small children but not yet the admired and esteemed teenagers they long to become), he is also aware of cumulatively insistent sensations in his body, sensations that seek amplification and release. Unbeknown to him, he is straddling an exceptionally dangerous and potentially lethal intersection: the convergence of incipient boredom, curiosity, sexual awakening, child-like absorption in the immediate moment and an all to-easily ‘monitored’ computer screen.
The danger, of course, is not that he will fall off his computer chair and sustain a head-injury, or electrocute himself as a result of a wiring defect in the equipment, or that he will become so absorbed in his on-screen activity that he will fail to notice a gang of armed intruders intent on ransacking his home and leaving irreparable wreckage in their wake. These are all too remote and fanciful to be given much credence, although the last one is closer to the mark. The danger this child is so terrifyingly and naively courting is that posed by child protection law enforcement agents and the judicial system of his country.
At eighteen, and by now an intelligent and gifted young man, this same boy graduates with outstanding honours from his school in the USA, despite his dyslexia, and is set to embark on a degree at a prestigious university. He is regarded by all who know him as kind-hearted and open-minded, sharing with his parents a passion for travelling. By 17, he has not only visited over twenty nations on six continents but cultivated a deep social conscience, a passionate commitment to a fairer, more just world. A few years hence, as a graduate from his chosen university, he could look forward to a bright and productive future, making his full contribution to bringing this kinder, saner world into being.
One might think that an extraordinarily talented and resourceful young man like this would be highly valued by his society. But instead, his society has destroyed him – and as I hinted a moment ago, it has done so in the name of Child Protection. Just days after his remarkable graduation, to the shock and disbelief of his parents, a posse of Federal and State Police Officers arrived at his home with a search warrant. During his childhood internet exploration, he had discovered the world of internet pornography and, as a young adolescent, he had sought erotic images of his own age group - images which were found on his computer hard drive after the police had seized it and examined it. It is as if law enforcement agents deliberately waited until he had reached the age of majority before pouncing on him, even though his ‘crimes’ were committed as a minor.
He and his family were kept waiting in purgatory, in unremitting anguish and terror, for a full eighteen months whilst the authorities deliberated over whether prosecution was warranted. Eventually, the US Department of Justice decided that he should indeed face the full force of the criminal law: the cause of that supreme good, Child Protection, demanded it.
III.ii) Righteous ruthlessness
The waiting, however, continued; he was not to appear in court until a further two years had passed. Despite doing everything in his power to show regret for his childhood erotic experimentation, despite entering an internationally acclaimed centre treating so-called ‘sex addictions’ (what society other than one in ferocious denial of its obsession with sex could produce sex addictions?), despite having a diagnosis of ‘paedophilia’ unambiguously excluded there, despite continuing voluntarily in personal therapy for a further three-and-a-half years after the programme had concluded, despite diligently pursuing his university studies in the midst of such terrifying uncertainty, despite countless character references from civic and community leaders who knew him well, and from his psychologist, the cause of child protection was not to be appeased.
The prosecuting Assistant US Attorney, apparently so compassionately devoted to protecting children that she relentlessly pursued this boy without a flicker of mercy or concern for his welfare, recommended to the Federal Judge presiding in court that he be sentenced to no less than ten years in custody. She had steadfastly refused to meet with either the boy or his family and stonily ignored the numerous character references and pleas for mercy she was sent. Protecting children, it would appear, requires iron resolve and ruthless determination, even when the ‘perpetrator’ is little more than a child himself. Standards must be set and messages sent out. And, of course, prosecution careers and professional reputations must be promoted – one can’t afford to look soft if one wants to make a name for oneself in prosecution.
In court, his parents made an impassioned plea for leniency (or, as I would prefer to call it, sanity), describing the beautiful soul of their gentle boy as eloquently and movingly as any mother or father possibly could. A world-renowned forensic paediatrician (a faculty member at a leading medical school who also had associations with the US National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children) gave scholarly and erudite testimony to the court, noting the increasing incidence of children and adolescents viewing internet pornography and insisting that such juvenile behaviour should be seen as misguided exploration and most certainly not exploitation. She strongly urged the court to avoid making a custodial sentence. Whilst the Assistant US Attorney belatedly appears to have been moved by testimony such as this, reducing her recommendation from a ten year period of incarceration to a mere two years, the Judge was altogether less willing to dilute the fight against Evil with misplaced kindness.
This is the story of Joshua Shields (21), an idealistic, sparklingly bright and nonviolent boy, who now sits in what Oscar Wilde termed a ‘tomb for the living’, surrounded by murderers, rapists, burglars and violent gangsters of all descriptions, serving out his eight year custodial sentence. This is child protection today.
Part IV: An Anti-Fascist Ethic: Against ‘Morality’ (or, In Defence of Lost Causes, with apologies to Slavoj Zizek)
IV.i) Policing impossible boundaries
Whilst it would be a crude oversimplification to reduce this story to a fable of vicious judges and unconscionably ambitious attorneys, it might even so be worth speculating about how such appalling atrocities can so easily arise in advanced, mature western democracies. Beyond the personal motivations of the various actors involved, we might credibly sense the workings of a powerful ideological discourse, transcending individuals and directing their perceptions, interpretations and judgements. Just as the Holocaust cannot be adequately explained simply by reference to a nasty man called Adolf Hitler, the senseless destructiveness of punishments like that inflicted on Joshua Shields cannot simply be attributed to an amorally careerist attorney and an obscenely over-zealous judge, although it seems clear to me that both are guilty of these charges. The sentence only makes sense in its wider context: the culture of hysterical paranoia which our times have so willingly embraced in connection with children and sexuality.
Anyone whose beliefs have been shaped by the dynamics of this ideology will find what follows either incomprehensible or evil, perhaps both. In the face of such normative moral outrage, we might in this chapter draw together some of the arguments we have explored so far. The thesis I am advancing has a number of components that can only acquire intelligibility by wholly refusing the appalling sexual moralism that has suffused and governed child protection since its inception. In the UK, this moralism has been frenetically and relentlessly transformed into legislation by the ‘New Labour’ administration, which came to power in 1997. Even if some good and well-meaning people have become infected with it, my suggestion is that this is terrain which cannot be bargained over: it has to be abandoned. All who attempt to negotiate on ground determined by fascism will end up being gunned down on it or terrorised into submission. No anti-fascist argument can develop within the moral co-ordinates laid down by the enemy.
This is the chief reason why I have not made statements in this work like ‘Of course, none of this is to condone the sexual abuse of children’ or ‘No one should underestimate the unspeakable suffering of sexually abused children.’ At the risk of sounding heartless, to be lured here is to enter fascist terrain, to concede to the supposition that such ‘abuse’ is and must be happening pervasively and routinely, and is the source of all or most of our ills. Quite apart from the fact that misery porn of this nature need not be repeated here when can it be read anywhere at any time (the biography shelves in bookstores are groaning with it and mainstream media outlets regurgitate it perennially and daily), it is a disastrous mistake to believe that paranoid fantasies can be dispelled by treating them as legitimate points of view. They can only be indulged and strengthened that way, which of course happens every day in newspapers, TV and radio bulletins and commentaries.
The components of the anti-fascist argument I have in mind can be stated rather bluntly. They are that so-called ‘child’ and ‘adult’ sexualities are spuriously constructed as mutually exclusive binary opposites and might more truthfully be interpreted as gradations along a continuum, that chronological age is a crude and most unreliable indicator of sexual capacity or curiosity, and that the radical split between child and adult sexuality our culture has contrived is a malignant lie which constantly threatens to collapse in on itself. A perpetually disintegrating boundary such as this, if it is to be shored up, will inevitably demand more and more ferocious policing and punishment: maintaining an impossible cultural division always requires tyranny. Might it not be the case that the brute refusal to consider depictions of young sexuality, especially images of young sexuality and sensuality, as anything other than abuse and exploitation is part and parcel of this obsessive border policing?
IV.ii) Normal and libertarian ‘realities’: sexual autonomy revisited
Given that this fraught state of affairs is what passes for reality - ‘the way things are’ - today, we risk being accused of denial or delusion if we fail to accept it. But critically exploring regimes of normalcy is not the same as denying reality. It is merely asking how and why so many of us believe, or at least acquiesce, in the spiteful moral order which governs us, when alternative, far kinder and more generous moralities are possible. That these are usually denounced as ‘immoral’ by the advocates of the status quo (who, despite propagating a priggish and merciless puritanism, tend to see themselves as saviours and radical reformers) should not deter us: I can think of few people less qualified than police officers and victimologists to lecture anyone on ethics and liberty.
Unlike neurotic moralism, a humane sexual ethic does not amount to the enforcement of dominant social prejudices and can more fruitfully be seen as wholly at odds with such a coercive project. From the vantage point of the ethic of sexual autonomy I outlined in Chapter 5, controlling the sexual behaviour of other people is more often than not profoundly immoral, even though the present sexual order sees it as the point at which morality begins.
The principal criterion for determining the ‘immorality‘ of forms of sexual desire or practise currently in use in our law courts and police forces, once all the hot air and paranoid piety about child protection is put to one side, is the degree of ‘deviation’ from dominant sexual norms they superficially manifest. ‘Deviance’ is, I would argue, a political term with political effects: if we’re told that certain behaviour is deviant, we all know what the authorities think we ought to be doing. Like the word ‘sin’, it removes the behaviour so labelled from the field of psycho-social analysis and understanding and places it in a more ancient category of wickedness. Once there, we don’t have to think about it anymore; we can just condemn it and try to wipe it out.
An ethic of sexual autonomy would radically refuse this threadbare cover for cruelty and scapegoating. The criterion here is simple but effective: to repeat the argument of Chapter 5 briefly, in practising an ethic of sexual autonomy I have one ethical obligation – to practise my sexual autonomy in a way which is compatible with everyone else’s sexual autonomy. That’s it. The rigidly hierarchical relation between the key terms of the sexual morality we are governed by presently – male/female, hetero/homo, over/under the ‘age of sexual consent’ – would become far less meaningful and far less important than whether we are living according to the ethic of sexual autonomy. If my neighbour is homosexual or heterosexual, into cross-dressing or rubber underwear, adolescent boys or a touch of slap and tickle, it is no concern of mine provided he or she does not coerce anyone into any unwanted sexual activity.
This autonomy would extend to the great over/under age divide: so long as no coercion is involved, so long as simple mutual pleasure is the aim, no harm is being committed (harming barbaric and ancient moral norms like ‘public decency’ would no longer be an offence per se). Of course, contrary to the compulsory theology of the Sexual Order, the forms which human sexual pleasure may take are not predestined by either God or Biology: we humans are perhaps the only animals who cannot know in advance exactly what we desire or enjoy until we have tried it (and pornography, contrary to the constipated preconceptions our official sexual culture designates as ‘morality’, can be exceptionally enlightening here). But intimidation and coercion, nonetheless, are intrinsically unethical, a judgement which applies with equal veracity to those who would seek to intimidate and coerce the young out of any form of sexual experimentation or expression.
Rape and molestation, up to and including unwanted sexual advances and harassment, whatever the age of the victim, are, needless to say, breaches of the ethic of sexual autonomy and would remain criminal acts, but consensual S&M would not be. Even here, however, the line may not be so neatly drawn: erotic attraction frequently simply happens spontaneously. It may not be planned or anticipated by any of the parties it arises between, and it often begins unevenly, with person A being attracted to person B without the latter’s awareness. It is the waywardness, the intrinsic unpredictability and ungovernability of desire, which vitiates tyrannical measures like Sex Offender Registries, which owe more to Nazi taxonomies of human and sub-human species than to any rational form of public protection or moral enlightenment.
IV.iii) Collapsing sublimations and protective ‘prevention’
Those who want everyone who has been branded as a sex offender to be permanently socially quarantined (which the sex offender register effectively does, certainly as far as future employment is concerned) are unlikely to be protecting a single child. I know from personal experience that many socially valuable and sexually harmless men are being permanently branded as sex offenders simply for being sexual creatures with private erotic fantasies. That’s pretty well everybody, actually.
Go to Chapter 8. Part 2.
Copyright © Inquisition 21st century
Created on 01/16/2010 05:05 PM by Editor
Updated on 02/14/2010 09:44 AM by Editor
|
|
|
|
|
