SEX WITH MEN: THE PARENTS
BY EDWARD BRONGERSMA

“Sex With Men: The Parents” is part of “The Outlets”, the final section of “Boys and their Sexuality”, the third chapter of Loving Boys, the encyclopaedic study of Greek love by the eminent Dutch lawyer, Edward Brongersma, of which the first volume (including this) was published by Global Academic Publishers in New York in 1986.

Most parents react violently when they discover that their son is being intimate with a boy-lover. Often they have equally well-developed incestuous desires for their son (desires which they abhor and don’t wish to acknowledge to themselves and therefore suppress) which now, filled with hate, they project onto the individual “child molester” who “abused” their son.^[1] They thus act as if the child were their property, something belonging to them, which a stranger is now trying to entice away. Times may have changed since Aristotle wrote that “a son or a slave is property, and there can be no injustice to one’s own property”, or since the Romans granted fathers the right to kill their offspring,^[2] but there is still a strong residue of these sentiments lurking in contemporary society. Moreover, during the last hundred years the position of the child in the family has changed. In former times families were larger, and thus parental ties with each individual child more superficial, a tendency reenforced by the high child mortality rate of the times. Today the tie between parent and child is a lot stronger and this makes for much greater resistance to intimate friendships with other persons.^[3]

Every individual’s sexuality lies somewhere on the scale between pure heterophilia and pure homophilia. That is to say, it integrates a certain percentage of homophile tendencies. It is a great help, then, to his self-awareness if the boy who is evolving into a predominantly heterophile man discovers and investigates this other side of his sexuality. If, by so doing, he reaches the conclusion that homosexual activities give him less pleasure than he feels with a girl, he will thenceforth have nothing to repress and suppress when he begins going around exclusively with women. It will only make him a better balanced, more liberated heterophile than the man in whom the latent desire for homosexual activities was never satisfied or was repressed into the unconscious.

Predicting the final orientation of a boy is impossible. One has to shake one’s head in wonder at the easy assurance of some people who believe they can see the “unmistakable signs” of homophilia in a ten-, twelve- or fifteen-year-old boy.

And then, too, many parents experience this as a challenge to their authority. They usually feel, with keen parental intuition, that a change has taken place in their son’s relationship with them the moment sexual intimacies with a boy-lover begin.^[4]

They are indeed right: a change has occurred, but this doesn’t mean that they should react defensively in response to slighted pride and ego. For no child is ever the property of its parents; it is, rather, a person entrusted to their care on his way to independence – that is, to its own personally stamped destiny. Possessive love is, in the final analysis, no love at all.^[5] Such a reaction is also short-sighted, for it violates an old biblical truth which applies not only to one’s own soul but to the soul of another as well: he who wants to possess it will lose it; he who frees it will keep it.

Parents who look upon the man who loves their son, and is loved by their son, not as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a collaborator in his upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home, will soon see that the ties which bind parent and child become stronger. This is only to be expected, for the inhibitions and prohibitions which frustrated the boy have now vanished and he can relax without ambivalence in his affection for a father and mother who understand and approve of his most profound feelings and desires. Parents who realise that their authority over the child is not granted to them as a self-interested, unlimited, everlasting right, but is a power to be used only for the child’s own well-being, gradually to be reduced as he matures, will have fewer worries about this increment in the boy’s independence. Actually they retain much more influence over their son if they are involved in this relationship with his adult lover. If they take their share of responsibility for what happens within it and so can exercise some control over it and, when necessary, help or advise the boy, or even interfere.^[6] Parents who react with hostility, forcing the boy to keep everything secret from them, lose control completely. To positive-minded parents, the friendship and sexual activities which unite their son to a person outside the family are not disasters to be postponed as long as possible; they are simply milestones on the road of his evolution to the point where his own knowledge and experience can guide him. They are, thus, a cause for rejoicing. The kind of authority which sets itself up in opposition to human nature will gradually be eroded by repeated, miserable quarrels, leaving behind a wasteland of hatred and despair. Authority which gradually reduces itself, acknowledging the natural development of an independent personality, will retain continuity as a loving and recognised source of wisdom and greater experience.

Mothers, it seems, are the more easily reconciled with the idea of their sons having relationships with men, where the erotic bond is temporary and passing, than with girls, which suggests a lifelong union.^[7]

132 “The mother of a (…) fifteen-year-old boy raised no serious objections when a physician approached her and explained that he and the youngster were lovers. She consented without argument when the doctor said that he was going to keep the boy.”^[8] A Canadian mother, who allowed her 13-year-old son to sleep with a man with whom he was very evidently in love, went farther and put forward sound arguments for her decision: “If I say no, he will obey, but at his sixteenth birthday, when the law permits him to fix his own residence, he’ll leave me and I’ll never see him back. Now, when he reaches that age, he may go to live with his friend, but he’ll continue to see me from time to time and I’m sure of his love.” (personal communication) Hetty (40 years) declared, “Yes, in the eyes of a lot of people I may look like a degenerate mother, but I don’t care, I’ll do it just the same. Look, I don’t suggest anything and I don’t forbid anything. I leave it up to the boy. This man, Kees, whom my son Menno (12 years) has his relationship with, was in prison once, but I just simply trust this friendship. So why should I try to break it up? I’ve known Kees for two years, now. After my divorce I had the feeling I was losing contact with my Menno. He had become completely estranged from me. One day I talked this over with Kees, and he said, ‘Send the boy to me and I’ll talk with him – he can spend the weekend with me.’ I thought, well, this will be good for Menno, to have a change of scene. I hoped Kees would have some influence over him. First he went for the day, then for a weekend, and the next weekend, too. Then I thought, poor Kees, he has his own work to do, and now he has the care of somebody else’s child, and that’s too much, so I told Menno, ‘Don’t go to him this week.’ As soon as Kees heard Menno wouldn’t be coming he appeared on my doorstep. He got quite aggressive and said to me, ‘Why won’t you let him go? It can only be because someone told you I’m a paedophile – child molester, if you don’t know what that means.’ Now, in grammar school I’d once heard this word, but, it’s true, I didn’t really know what it meant. Well, since that day Menno has gone off nearly every weekend to Kees. I saw that such great affection had grown up between them that it seemed quite normal that they spend a lot of time together. And I found that Menno was becoming more open towards me. He started to tell me things again. It was amazing how he changed. My oldest boy noticed this, too. Menno had lost his trust in people and he regained it through Kees. I haven’t the faintest idea what goes on between them sexually. I’ve never asked questions about it – quite frankly, I don’t need to know. But if something is happening, then I believe it is a great advantage for a boy to have a man like Kees to guide him. It seems to me like a sort of natural evolution. If it’s based on tenderness and friendship, it can’t be wrong, can it? I think it can be a great protection for the child. A security. It certainly is in this case, because I think it’s kind of a substitute for the father he doesn’t have any more. But Kees isn’t a real father figure. He doesn’t like to exercise authority; he’s not at all dominating. I believe that later, when Menno starts to go out with girls, he will find sex easier, because he’ll be more advanced in this area already; he won’t be bungling any more. Inexperience can cause of a lot of bitter grief, can’t it? Terrible frustrations which stick with you if things at the beginning go badly.”^[9]  

The Ancients knew about the fully consenting parent. At a banquet of Kallias described by Xenophon a father gives his beautiful son Autolykus, who is about fifteen, and his adult lover the opportunity for an intimate meeting.^[10]

Sandfort investigated 25 cases of man/boy paedophile relationships. (In evaluating the results below, however, one must keep in mind that he was dealing with an especially favourable selection.) In 16 of them the parents of the boys were not explicitly informed about the sexual aspect of the relationship:

In 3 of these cases they weren’t even aware of the relationship;

in 6 cases, the adult partner thought that the parents assumed there was a sexual aspect;

in 2 of these cases both boy and older partner thought the parents assumed there was a sexual aspect;

and in 2 cases the parents knew their son’s friend was a boy-lover.

In 8 cases the parents knew about and consented to the sexual aspect: the boys said the parents thought it “good”, “normal”, or “fine”.

In 1 case the parents’ state of knowledge was unknown.

Where the parents were hostile to the relationships, their sons disagreed with their parents’ feelings very strongly. In 5 cases the boys said they could understand them but thought their views “old-fashioned”, “out-dated” or “stupid.^[11]

The overall attitude of his parents toward sexuality largely determines whether the boy will discuss with them his friendship, with its sexual aspect, or keep silent. In Pieterse’s investigation, 47.2% of the adult paedophiles interviewed said the children would not speak about it, 17.5% thought the children would speak about it, while the rest were undecided.^[12]

Indignation is most characteristic of those very parents who have been unable to establish the right kind of relationship with their sons. The revelation that their boy has been searching for love and understanding in someone outside of the family comes as an accusation that they have been unable to provide adequately for his needs. In their fury they try to deny this; they want to prove to the world at large (the police, the judge, their neighbours) just how much they take to heart the fate of their child.

Sensitive parents, on the other hand, those with deeper insight into the mind of their son, who have good relations with him, will react more calmly and with better judgement. One father put it well, speaking of his son’s adult friend, “You can tell immediately the difference between someone who gives and someone who takes. You just have to look at the boy, because he is your child. You’ll be immediately aware of whether he’s feeling happy or tense. What’s shocking is not the fact that boys have sex with adults, but that afterwards they may feel guilty. And that proves that this particular adult is instilling in him a feeling of guilt.”^[13]

Parents such as this father will interfere when protection is required. Parents who lack this kind of intuition, and don’t have a close bond with their son, would do better to leave the decision with the boy.

Continue to Sex With Men: Adult Lovers Versus Peers

^[1] Krist, G., Pedofilie. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit, 1976, 66. [Author’s reference]

^[2] Linedecker, C. L., Children in Chains. New York: Everest House, 1981, 155. [Author’s reference]
     As usual with Roman history, Brongersma is purveying from a dubious modern writer a grossly exaggerated and sensationalised view of the truth. Roman fathers may have had the right to kill their sons in the semi-mythical days of the earliest republic (though the only known cases were for reasons considered moral), but in historical times exercising this right was heavily conditional and increasingly curtailed. [Website note]

^[3] Lochtenberg, H., Pedofilie. Manuscript, 1981, 31. [Author’s reference]

^[4] Lotringer 1980, 4 [Author’s reference, but it is not clear which book listed in his bibliography is meant].

^[5] Plack, A., Die Gesellschaft und das Böse. München: List, 1967, 52.[Author’s reference].

^[6] Möller, M., Pedoflele relaties. Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus, 1983, 81, 85. [Author’s reference]

^[7] Matzneff, G., Les moins de seize ans. Paris: Julliard, 1974, 108. [Author’s reference]

^[8] Linedecker, C. L., Children in Chains. New York: Everest House, 1981,  290-291 [Author’s reference]

^[9] Berkel, M., De pedofielen. Haagse Post 65, 11: 26-32, 1978, [Author’s reference]

^[10] Buffière, F., Eros adolescent–La pédérastie dans la Grèce antique. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1980, 575-577 [Author’s reference]. The real source for this is Xenophon, Symposium I [Website footnote].

^[11] Th. Sandfort, 1981, 81-83 [Author’s reference, but it is not clear which book in his bibliography he means].

^[12] Pieterse, M., Pedofielen over pedofilie, Zeist: NISSO, 1982, II 21-2 [Author’s reference].

^[13] Hennig, J.-L., Thomas, 30 ans: Bruno, 15 ans: le nouveau couple zig-zag. Recherches 37: 137-166, 1979, 159. [Author’s reference]