statenamn

Sex Between Men and Boys

The stereotypical picture of man-boy relations is that of an older man exploiting and seducing a naive, innocent boy. This stereotype is, as we have seen, clearly a simplification of the dynamics involved in relationships between the two. Similarly the stereotype about the actual sexual practices that occur between men and boys is also a misleading picture of what actually happens.

For if the public mythology is to be believed, we are presented with a picture of a boy passively lying or sitting down, being physically exploited by a man who is either manipulating the boy’s genitals or alternatively committing sodomy with him. These images help to reinforce a common stereotype of paedophile relationships which assumes that an active, dominant older man oppresses an inactive, passive young boy.

Charles (Ed’s note: the sicko’s name was Clarence) Osborne in his own writing often simplifies the physical dimension of the relationships that he had with younger males. In reading his manuscripts we are often presented with the picture of a boy beguiled into showing his penis in order for Osborne to measure and to masturbate it.

This was, however, only part of story and in the conversations I had with Osborne, as well as in so of the tape-recordings and dossiers that he gave to me, it is quite clear that the sexual practices between Osborne and his boys were often varied and diverse as the sexual practices between heterosexual man and women. And saliently perhaps, Osborne was not the only active participant in such relationships as in some cases the boys themselves played an active role in the sex that occurred.

The terms ‘active’ and ‘passive’ in this context are probably inappropriate ones because they imply one person dominating the other. In adult-boy relationships as in adult-homosexual relationships this is not the situation at all: both people take turns in playing an active or passive role, The public conception of sexual techniques between boys and men rests on the assumption that all the man wishes is to obtain anal intercourse, forcibly if necessary, with a helpless, agonised and struggling boy — a boy who is merely a substitute for a girl.

The sterility of this view can be seen in the physical activities that occurred between Clarence Osborne and his partners. For a start, Osborne was reluctant to engage in anal intercourse. He did, however, admit to having intercourse with a boy when the boy asked for penetration to occur— and this did occur on a few occasions.

Osborne also records in his manuscript that he was asked by a particular boy to lie down so that the boy could play the part of the active partner. These were, however, rare experiences and are in no way typical of the sexual activity that occurred between Osborne and his youths.

Obsessed as he was with the penile characteristics of his partners, a Osborne would often spend hours stimulating a boy’s genitalia either to bring him to orgasm or, alternately, to bring the boy’s penis to the longest possible length. This would occur while sitting or lying side by side with the youth. Generally Osborne would use a lubricant such as petroleum jelly or soap in order to increase the sensitivity of the act.

In a sizeable number of these cases mutual masturbation would occur with the boy actively stimulating Osborne to the point of ejaculation. Osborne was also an exponent of what is popularly called ‘French kissing’, otherwise known as ‘deep’ or ‘tongue kissing’, where the it tongue explores the partner’s mucus membranes to the stage where the partner reaches a high state of arousal. Osborne would concentrate on kissing or tonguing the genitals and nipples which he considered erogenous zones of high sensitivity.

He also engaged in what has been called a ‘tongue bath’ where most parts of the boy’s body are systematically explored by one’s tongue. There is no indication that boys would reciprocate this type of behaviour, although it is clear from Osborne’s writings that some of them would engage in mutual kissing with the older man.

Often Osborne would attempt to teach the boy what to expect in heterosexual contacts by initiating oral intercourse. As heterosexuals who have engaged in oral intercourse will know, the sensations experienced by the person inserting his penis into the partner’s mouth are approximately the same as those experienced by the same person performing vaginal intercourse minus of course, the face contact.

Osborne firmly believed that he was furthering a boy’s education in anticipating heterosexual experiences and would often talk about what the boy should be doing when he was having intercourse with a girl or a woman.

Osborne went to extraordinary lengths to make sure that his boys attained the maximum amount of sexual enjoyment and would stimulate his partners for hours in order to make them satisfied. He did not insist on a boy fellating because, as he put it, ‘My greater penis size would create a gag reflex in the boy.’

One of the most common ways he used to relate physically to his partners was by engaging them in whole body contact techniques. This would take a variety of different forms. At its simplest it would involve wrestling or romping with a boy and embracing him in the process. In these situations he would rub his genitals against the other’s body or alternatively make sure that the boy’s genitals were rubbed against his own body. A quieter version of this full body technique was simply to lie with the boy and caress him and to have, in many cases, these caresses reciprocated. During these embraces mutual masturbation and ‘tonguing’ would often occur increasing the sexual excitement that both persons felt.

Although Osborne rarely engaged in anal intercourse, he often initiated a variation of this technique. Commonly referred to as the ‘English method’ this variation obtained its name from its occurrence among boys in British public boarding schools. In this method the social and physical taboos attached to anal intercourse are avoided as full penetration of the anus does not take place. Instead copulation between a partner’s thighs, either belly to back, face to face, or back to back occurs, generally to the point of ejaculation.

Osborne would often use this method with his partners. Typically, he would suggest to the boy that the boy lie on his back and hold his thighs tightly together. Then Osborne would lie on top of the youth and with a lubricated penis, would insert it between the boy’s legs just below his crotch. He would thrust his penis in and out of the boy’s legs emulating sexual intercourse. Often too, Osborne would suggest that the boy lie on his stomach and would thrust between the boy’s buttocks without entering his anus. He records that boys would often ask to be stimulated by this form of interfemoral intercourse and would obtain great delight from it.

Osborne’s techniques of sexual stimulation were not particularly different from those of other men who practised Greek love. His preferences were idiosyncratic, to some extent, in that he obsessively measured and recorded penis sizes and was stimulated by doing just that. The fact, however, that many of the boys whom he partner played an active part in the sexual activity is again not very different from what the literature suggests occurs in relationships between adult males and adolescent boys.

In Osborne’s case, as I suspect in the case of other boy-men relations, the degree of reciprocity heightened according to the degree of intimacy in the relationship. In other words, it is clear from Osborne’s own notes that the longer the period of contact with a boy and the more fondly Osborne felt about him, the more the boy was likely to be an initiator in any particular sexual act. Of course, as with heterosexual relationships, it is very difficult to ascertain from Osborne’s writings whether the intimacy led to more reciprocal sex or whether reciprocal sex led to greater intimacy.

The longer the relationships between a particular boy and Osborne lasted however, the more responsibility Osborne felt toward teaching the boy new sexual techniques and guiding him on matters relating to the opposite sex. In his dossiers there are many cases where Osborne deliberately acted as sex counsellor in allaying any fears that the boy might have about his sexual performance with actual or potential female partners. In many of these cases it is apparent that Osborne was not discussing the relationships between the boy and his girlfriend just to get physically or emotionally closer to the boy. These discussions would often take place some years after Osborne had first established contact with a boy and had established firm sexual relationship with him.

Osborne expressed to me a genuine concern and interest in particular boys’ future sexual development and a desire to ensure that they would be compatible in heterosexual relationships. One former partner of Osborne illustrated this point well when he told me:

He always wanted to know how I got on with my girlfriend and if we had any sort of hassles, physical or emotional. He would seem to be as concerned about them as I would and try and help me sort it out. It was almost as though he really wanted me to work it out with my girl.

In his files Osborne records the case of a sixteen-year-old youth who was Osborne’s close neighbour and who confided to the older man the fact that he could not have intercourse with a girl once he had already engaged in intercourse with her.

All the thrill is in winning on. It’s only the winning on that interests me. I’d feel guilty if I rooted a girl more than the first time. I drop every girl as soon as I’ve rooted her, even if I’ve had to spend months working up to it.

Osborne’s reply recorded in his files simply says:

I told him that he had to change or he’d never have a satisfactory permanent relationship.