Clarification, re: NAMBLA
choms...@juno.com
A number of things have been said in these two groups about NAMBLA, some
interesting, some quite preposterous. (don't ask why I stopped everything
to write this long respone -- I guess I haven't posted anywhere in a
while).
At least one tale was obviously not credible, but there were responses
which were less obviously false. NAMBLA has no president, nor does ILGA
-- the story about their supposed TV appearance is patently absurd. ILGA
does, however, have a "secretariat" group of administrators (actually, now
the *past* administrators, since there has been a turnover) who have made
a number of false statements in the last two years about both ILGA and
NAMBLA, to the dismay of many of its member organizations. Here's the
story:
In 1983, ILGA's membership passed a resolution calling for support of
those groups which seek to end arbitrary age-based discrimination in
sexual matters. After this vote, in 1983, NAMBLA joined ILGA. For the
next ten years, NAMBLA was the only U.S. based group to join ILGA,
although they had a couple of hundred member organizations from Europe,
Latin America, and elsewhere. NAMBLA was very supportive of the idea of
international cooperation to end oppression, and even sponsored the
membership of a Mexican gay group, despite the miniscule size of their own
budget. In the 1980's NAMBLA's delegates to ILGA conferences authored and
successfully sponsored resolutions supporting the rights of children and
youth, and opposing age-based oppression, especially opposing corporal
punishment. Those resolutions have never been rescinded by ILGA. They
are similar to resolutions passed by NAMBLA's own membership.
After ILGA began making progress toward recognition by the U.N., Jesse
Helms and his reactionary buddies (who have always opposed U.N. operations
for international relief and cooperation) discovered NAMBLA was a member,
and had a field day. They threatened to withhold funding if the U.N.
recognized ILGA, which Helms would surely have tried to do anyway, even if
he hadn't been aware of NAMBLA's membership. Worst of all, the U.S. had
already been withholding U.N. dues for over ten years, and still, to this
day, has not caught up (owing a *very* large amount, sufficient to feed
millions of hungry people), irrespective of the fact that ILGA was never
approved as a recognized NGO.
After Helms pressured the Clinton administration, which pressured the
U.N., which pressured ILGA, a few ILGA administrators (failing to
understand Helms' game) rallied support (within ILGA) for a purging of
NAMBLA and two similarly vulnerable groups, with the aid of some false
statements. NAMBLA did not respond quickly enough, and was voted out of
ILGA in 1994. Some key ILGA members resigned from the group in response
to the actions of the secretariat and their supporters. ILGA is now
dealing with the aftermath of that debacle, in which Helms succeeded in
splitting the group, and keeping it out of the U.N., and giving the U.N. a
black eye with its supporters and its opponents, all at the same time.
Documents and articles on all this can be found on the web, and in some
newspapers, as well as the NAMBLA Bulletin.
On other myths: NAMBLA never met "in" a library as such. The SF chapter
used to hold monthly meetings in public meeting rooms owned and operated
by the SF Public Library, which did not share the same entrance as the
library branch. On the other hand, the formerly radical group Gay Youth
New York used to hold joint meetings with NAMBLA's NY chapter, several
years ago. Police pressure eventually stopped it, despite some creative
resistance by the youth.
NAMBLA doesn't have a motto. The thing about "eight..." etc. (for those
who have heard this "professional legend," repeated by certain authors)
comes from some guy who had a group of indeterminate membership which was
organized very differently, and didn't last long.
Here are two items published in the _NAMBLA Bulletin_, June 1994, which
may help shed some light.
Note that the June '94 issue was intended primarily for a lesbian and gay
audience, but it seems broadly applicable.
Note also that the expression "man/boy love" is not synonymous with "sex
between men and boys," as it specifically excludes contacts which are
unwanted by either partner.
Copies of the Bulletin are available for $3.95 from: NAMBLA P.O. Box 174,
Midtown Station, New York, NY 10018
=======================================================
An Introduction to
The North American Man/Boy Love Association
WHAT IS NAMBLA?
The North American Man/Boy Love Association was founded in 1978,
within Boston's gay community, in response to a political witch-hunt of
men and boys in that city.
NAMBLA is a political, civil rights, and educational organization.
Through our publications and conferences, we strive to educate society
about the positive and beneficial nature of man/boy love. We appear on
television and in academic and community forums. With other progressive
and lesbian and gay groups, we seek to build a community of support for
men and boys who have or desire consensual sexual and emotional
relationships and call attention to the way our society treats young
people and those who love them.
NAMBLA does not provide referrals for people seeking sexual contacts,
nor do we engage in, encourage, or assist any activities that violate the
law. Despite many investigations by law enforcement agencies, none has
ever found any basis for prosecution.
There is no identified youth rights movement in America today. Many
groups have claimed to speak for gay youth, but most are not based on
youth initiative. We recognize the need for an independent youth rights
movement, and support any group calling for the social empowerment of
young people.
ABUSE AND EMPOWERMENT: RHETORIC VERSUS REALITY
Everyone in America is familiar with right-wing rhetoric about
"abuse" and "protection." Hyperbole about "sexual abuse" abounds in the
mass media. But sensationalism does not help young people. Any serious
effort to end abuse must begin with a clear look at the facts, including
many which are ignored by the mass media.
Age-of-consent laws do not protect young people. They criminalize
consensual sex. Most gays know that, in practice, these laws are used to
target gay men and youth. Arrests, prosecutions, and sentencing are all
directed disproportionately against gay men, thousands of whom are in U.S.
prisons for consenting sex with youths. Meanwhile, in middle America, in
skyrocketing numbers, "minors" are being incarcerated for sex with younger
or older partners, as "juvenile sex offender" and "behavior disordered"
are substituted for the term "gay youth." By contrast, most young people
subjected to forced or coerced sex are teenaged girls raped by young men,
or girls victimized with impunity by their fathers, step-fathers, or other
authority figures.
Empirical studies [see bibliography] have shown clearly that most
man/boy relationships are harmless, and they are often beneficial, because
most are mutually desired. Man/girl relationships, like adult
heterosexual relationships, more often involve coercion or force--an
unfortunate consequence of our society's gender roles. When harm does
occur, it is not a result of sex or age, but of coercion and fear, often
compounded by a lack of knowledge of sexual matters. Campaigns against
sex and knowledge are misguided. Instead, we should act against ignorance
and coercion, which are the true sources of emotional trauma.
This requires a different approach to the ongoing problem of abuse:
young people must be respected as well as protected. NAMBLA supports laws
against unwanted sex and all kinds of coercion. But for such measures to
work, the human rights of young people must be fully and legally
recognized. These include their right to initiate and sustain legal
proceedings against those who mistreat them, their right to economic
independence, through access to alternative housing and economic support
as well as employment, their rights of freedom of speech and association,
including access to uncensored information and educational curricula, the
unabriged right to health care, including drug treatment and reproductive
choice, and a whole range of basic human rights that adults take for
granted. All of these are necessary for the development of self-esteem
and decision-making skills in youth, and for the prevention of abuse and
exploitation.
THE LESBIAN AND GAY COMMUNITY AND NAMBLA
NAMBLA is one of the oldest and most progressive gay liberation
organizations. NAMBLA was founded in Boston in December 1978, in response
to an explicitly antigay witch-hunt of men and boys which aroused the
outrage of that city's lebian and gay community. With the support of
every lesbian and gay group in the city of Boston, the Boston-Boise
Committee exposed the lies and distortions being spread by the police and
media, and spoke out against their exploitation of the community's most
vulnerable members. It was at a conference organized by this 200-member
committee that NAMBLA was formed, by thirty men and two teenaged boys.
Since then, NAMBLA has maintained strong ties with the lesbian and
gay and progressive communities. Many of our activists have backgrounds
in the civil rights, antiwar, and antidraft movements. Founding member
David Thorstad, for example, was also a founding member of New York's
Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights and a former president of New York's
Gay Activists Alliance. We have marched in lesbian/gay pride parades in
Boston, New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles and in all "March on
Washington" demonstrations for lesbian and gay rights. We joined the
International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) in 1983, after ILGA
called on all lesbian and gay organizations to support man/boy love groups
in their struggle against oppression.
We have spoken out on a wide range of social issues-- opposing the
draft (1980), opposing human rights abuses in El Salvador (1981), opposing
restrictions of reproductive choice (1982), opposing circumcision and
clitoridectomies (1982). In 1983, we adopted a broad platform on youth
rights and empowerment. This platform condemns corporal punishment,
kidnapping, rape, and sexual exploitation. It calls for a more effective
approach to the prevention of unwanted sex and coercion, including the
provision of alternative housing and economic support, and full legal
rights for youth. In 1985, NAMBLA called for increased funding for
HIV/AIDS research and free health care for all persons with HIV or AIDS,
making NAMBLA one of the first gay groups to speak out on this
controversial issue.
Many prominent civil libertarians and lesbian and gay activists have
spoken at NAMBLA conferences. They include Harry Hay, Frank Kameny, Jim
Kepner, Morris Kight, Pat Califia, Mel Boozer, George Lakey, Jennifer
Firestone, Michael Petrelis, Dan Tsang, psychologist Joan Nelson, and gay
poets Allen Ginsberg and Antler.
STAND WITH US
NAMBLA calls on lesbians, gays, and all who oppose bigotry to look
seriously at issues of ageism, erotophobia, and the intolerance of
intergenerational sexuality--to look beyond media sensationalism and
cultural myths to the facts as they impact the lives of young people and
those of us who love them. We must all work together to make a real
contribution to the emancipation of lesbian and gay youth, to provide for
real protection of youth no less than others from unwanted sex, and to
decriminalize freely chosen relationships. Love is not a crime! We call
on all sexual minorities to honor the spirit of Stonewall and stand with
us against oppression and injustice.
=========================================================
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY: PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE ON THE QUALITY
OF MAN/BOY RELATIONSHIPS (and related social issues).
Adam, Barry, "Age, Structure, and Sexuality: Reflections on the
Anthropological Evidence on Homosexual Relations," Journal of
Homosexuality, Vol. 11, No. 3/4, pp. 19-34, Summer 1985. (Also published
as The Many Faces of Homosexuality: Anthropological Approaches to
Homosexual Behavior. New York: Harrington Park Press, 1986.) Compares
data from 19 different named cultures, and many more not named, where
man/boy homosexual relationships are institutionalized, to support the
view that the kinship structures of a society largely determine the
prevalent modes of sexual expression in that society, whatever they may
be.
Baurmann, M. C., Sexuality, Violence, and Psychological After-Effects:
A Longitudinal Study of Cases of Sexual Assault which were Reported to the
Police. Wiesbaden: Bundeskriminalamt, 1988. Massive longitudinal study
of all reported victims of sex offenses against minors in the German State
of Lower Saxony from 1969-1972, with six to ten year follow-up, under the
direction of the German Ministry of Justice. Total sample is over 8,000,
including over 800 boys up to age 14. Violence and/or coercion were
present in roughly half the reported offenses against girls, and were
correlated with negative outcomes. None of the boys experienced force or
coercion, and no negative outcomes were observed for any of the boys. The
study used both subjective and multiple standardized objective measures.
It is by far the most in-depth large study and the largest in-depth study
in this field—even though the sample was drawn from police records.
Best, Joel, Threatened Children: Rhetoric & Concern about Child
Victims. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. A highly
recommended, pioneering survey of a constellation of social problems and
their recent magnification. Provides statistical evaluations and analyses
of the most common fears and prejudices underlying society's concerns
about child abduction, sexual abuse, and other urban myths, from a
sociological perspective. Describes media pandering to public fears.
Constantine, Larry L., "Effects of Early Sexual Experiences: A Review
and Synthesis of Research," in Constantine, L. L., Martinson, F. M.,
(eds.) Children and Sex: New Findings, New Perspectives. Boston: Little,
Brown & Co., 1981. Reviews 30 studies, most of which include child-adult
contacts. Breaks down experiences by outcome for the younger partner:
positive, neutral, or negative. Examines relationships between several
variables and observed outcomes.
Constantine, Larry L., "Child Sexuality: Recent Developments and
Implications for Treatment, Prevention, and Social Policy," International
Journal of Medicine and Law, 1983 No. 2, pp. 55-67. Reviews findings of
the above article. Discusses implications for treatment, prevention, and
social policy. Includes proposals for legal revisions. Among the
findings of_this major literature_review: "The most important determinant
in the outcome of childhood incest or adult-child sexual encounters is the
child's perception of freedom of choice in participating." Among the
observed implications:_"The research to date points to the child's
subjective experience as the central concern. If it is the child's person
which is to be protected from being violated against the child's will,
then it is the child's will which governs the determination."
Gagnon, John, "Female Child Victims of Sex Offenses," Social Problems,
Vol. 13, pp. 176-192, 1965. Investigates common characteristics of girls
who have experienced various kinds of sexual contact with adults, using a
large sample from original Kinsey study.
Gay, Judith, "`Mummies and Babies' and Friends and Lovers in Lesotho,"
Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 11, No. 3/4, pp. 97-116, Summer 1985.
(Also published as The Many Faces of Homosexuality: Anthropological
Approaches to Homosexual Behavior. New York: Harrington Park Press,
1986.) Examines institutionalized woman/girl love in southern Africa,
noting the key role of these relation-ships in providing the girls with
emotional support prior to marriage and providing a network of support for
women in new towns or schools.
Jones, G. P., "The Study of Intergenerational Intimacy in North
America: Beyond Politics and Pedophilia," Journal of Homosexuality, Vol.
20, pp. 275-295, 1990.
Money, John, "Juvenile, Pedophile, Heterophile: Hermeneutics of
Science, Medicine and Law in Two Outcome Studies," International Journal
of Medicine and Law, 1983 No. 2 pp. 39-54. Unusually detailed
investigation of two consensual long-term "pedophiliac" relationships.
This long-term, prospective case study finds the relationships to be
non-harmful and possibly beneficial for both partners. Money is among the
most widely cited American authors on pediatric sexology and sexual and
gender development.
Nelson, Joan, "Incest: Self-Report Findings From a Nonclinical Sample,"
Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 463-477, Nov. 1986. Looks at
the experiences of 100 subjects who have had sex with relatives. Results
indicate that outcomes vary from negative to positive.
Okami, Paul, "Self-reports of "Positive" Childhood and Adolescent
Sexual Contacts with Older Persons: An Exploratory Study," Archives of
Sexual Behavior, Vol. 20, pp. 437-457, 1991. Examines how contacts are
perceived by the younger partner in later life. Investigates
relationships between "positive" self-assessment and several variables.
Okami, Paul, "Sociopolitical Biases in the Contemporary Scientific
Literature on Adult Human Sexual Behavior with Children and Adolescents,"
in Feierman, J. (ed.) Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions. New York:
Springer-Verlag, 1990. (may be found at UC Berkeley Ed./Psych. library)
Okami, Paul, "`Child Perpetrators of Sexual Abuse': The Emergence of a
Problematic Deviant Category," Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 29, No. 1,
pp. 109-130, Feb. 1992. Discusses the nature and origins of recent
attacks against sexual expression by young people. Finds much of the
literature on the subject of sexual contacts between minors to be
scientifically unsound. Highly recommended reading.
Okami, Paul and Goldberg, Amy, "Personality Correlates of Pedophilia:
Are They Reliable Indicators?" Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 29, No. 3,
pp. 297-328, Aug. 1992. Critical and extensive review of the literature.
Sandfort, Theo, "Sex in Pedophiliac Relationships: An Empirical
Investigation Among a Nonrepresentative Group of Boys," Journal of Sex
Research Vol.20, No.2, pp. 123-142 May, 1984 Investigates 25 ongoing
consensual long-term "pedophiliac" relationships. "The sexual contacts
were found to have had no negative influence upon the boys' sense of
general well-being, nor did the boys perceive in these contacts a misuse
of authority by the adult" (Quoted from the Abstract).
Sandfort, Theo, The Sexual Aspect of Paedophile Relations. Amsterdam:
Pan/Spartacus, 1982. Detailed presentation, explanation, and discussion
of data from the above study. Recommends that future legislation should
observe young peoples' right of sexual self-determination.
Sandfort, Theo, Boys On Their Contacts With Men. Elmhurst, New York:
Global Academic Publishers, 1987. Contains extensive quotes in context
from the boys interviewed in Sandfort's study.
Tindall, R. H., "The Male Adolescent Involved With a Pederast Becomes
an Adult," Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 373-382, 1978.
Longitudinal study of nine cases covering a span of over thirty years.
Finds the relationships to be non-harmful, with positive benefits in some
cases.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Bob
> Empirical studies [see bibliography] have shown clearly that most
>man/boy relationships are harmless, and they are often beneficial, because
>most are mutually desired. Man/girl relationships, like adult
>heterosexual relationships, more often involve coercion or force--an
>unfortunate consequence of our society's gender roles.
So if I understand this correctly, adult/child sex between all males is a
loving, nurturing thing (ouch! that's gonna sting for days) while adult/child
sex between an older man and young girl are forced and coerced. So pedophilia
is a good thing between all males, kinda like Jeffrey Dahmer (only don't
drug, kill, and eat the boys).
Then, should age of consent laws only apply to young girls? Who decides what
consent is, and if the person, a minor, has the ability to truly give consent
for what they are about to do?
I think the age of consent laws are fine the way they are. These pedophiles
are just fooling themselves (as per a previous post regarding a documentary)
and seriously injuring the children they "love."
brian jones
In article <58713q$s...@news.bu.edu>, echl...@bu.edu (Eden Chlamtac) wrote:
> Studies have shown that a male-male intergenerational relationship is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> not coercive as often as Male-female(minor) intergen relationships tend to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> be.
You mispelled "pedophile/victim". HTH.
> He was also saying that the latter tend to be coercive because of the
> sexism abundant in our culture. This is not a difficult concept.
Well, it's at the very least a difficult concept for normal people to
stomach. Any interaction between a child and an adult, whether positively
or negatively affecting the child, is coercive on its face; that is, the
adult will have his way due to his size, authority level as perceived by
the child, innocent trust of the child, etc. That you could omit any of
these considerations in your definition reveals your true colors.
> Here is my modest suggestion, anyone thought of asking the kids,
I hope you get within 40 yards of my kid. I really, *really* do.
> This is like the white slave-master saying "Oh! My slaves are
> content, besides they don't know any better."
Um...no. Your metaphor would be perfect as applied to pedophiles, as they
are the ones who indulge in harmful behavior toward the child. To apply it
to someone who truly cares (and I'm not using the NAMBLA definition, where
"cares" == "desires sexual contact") about children once again reveals
your true colors.
> Obviously, no one is suggesting that a.o.c. laws apply only to girls,
> but that female liberation be pursued so that young girls be protected from
> exploitation by older males. Also that women be likewise protected.
This has to be the working definition of a self-serving argument. That we
live in a paternalistic society, which makes abuse of young girls all the
more heinous, does not justify abuse of young boys as you seem to imply.
> Your appeal to clan mentality is quite touching. You would have us
> beleive that everyone arguing from my side of the issue is one of "those
> peodphiles". Therefore, their opinions should be ignored.
Actually, his appeal to clan mentality is quite redundant. Everyone
arguing from your side of the issue is wrong. Therefore, their opinions
should be ignored.
> Actually, the
> aforementioned organization (N*MBLA), has a membership which includes members
> of both sexes, and all age groups,
I also hope one of your recruiters gets within 40 yards of my child. I
really, *really* do.
> also supported by many respected activists
Respected? By whom? Other pedophiles?
> and echoing the positions which every gay-rights platform included in the
> 70's. Was there a pedophilia plague in those days? How do you account for
> this?
You seem to imply that only a "plague" is sufficient to prove your side
wrong. However, you're still wrong.
> About that infamous video. You are obviously reffering to "Chicken
> Hawk(s)". I have been in contact with some of the people featured in that
> video, and advised that it was a bunch of pedophobic propoganda.
"pedophobic"? Don't you mean "pedophilophobic"?
> The person
> who made it had a very clear agenda, and used extremely warped footage to try
Footage of pedophiles is warped by definition.
> and forward his bizzare cause.
You've slipped the rails here. Exposing the inner workings of the
pedophile community, or any pedophile, is a valuable service. You probably
won't be shocked to discover that the pedophile community is regarded by
normal people as "bizarre".
> I am dissappointed to see that you can only muster up this sorry
> response to a long, well-thought-out post.
This type of statement might work when used on a child. I know many, many
adults who coerce children to their will with this type of statement. But
nobody here gives a fuck how disappointed you are.
> Yours,
> Eddie Chlamtac ( echl...@acs1.bu.edu )
> Member, North American Man/Boy Love Assoc. (N*MBLA)
> Steering committee
I wonder why you write "N*MBLA". If you're so proud of yourself, shouldn't
you write
Eddie Chlamtac ( echl...@acs1.bu.edu )
Member, North American Man/Boy Love Assoc. (NAMBLA)
Steering committee
or is there some reason you don't want your name officially associated
with Pedophile Central, say on DejaNews?
Brian "Member, n*rmal society" Jones
posted and mailed
--
GLEN: ...Yeah, it's a crazy world. | UCE IS U
HI: Someone oughta sell tickets. | My actual e-mail
GLEN: Sure, I'd buy one. | address does not
--Raising Arizona | contain an 'x'.
Mark Shaw
In article s...@news.bu.edu, echl...@bu.edu (Eden Chlamtac) writes:
> Studies have shown that a male-male intergenerational relationship is
>sexism abundant in our culture. This is not a difficult concept.
"Intergenerational relationships" are -- by definition -- coercive.
Now go crawl back in your hole. Please.
[further pro-child-molestation nonsense deleted]
---
Mark "ghod I hate these guys" Shaw
My opinions only
PGP public key available at ftp.netcom.com:/pub/ms/mshaw
Robert A. Pierce
The good B...@bob.com (Bob) sent these blessings:
choms...@juno.com wrote:
>> Empirical studies [see bibliography] have shown clearly that most
>>man/boy relationships are harmless, and they are often beneficial, because
>>most are mutually desired. Man/girl relationships,
>>like adult heterosexual relationships,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>more often involve coercion or force--an
>>unfortunate consequence of our society's gender roles.
>So if I understand this correctly, adult/child sex between all males is a
>loving, nurturing thing (ouch! that's gonna sting for days) while adult/child
>sex between an older man and young girl are forced and coerced. So pedophilia
>is a good thing between all males, kinda like Jeffrey Dahmer (only don't
>drug, kill, and eat the boys).
Yeah, that's what I understood him to mean. Adult men don't rape
boys, because the boys really _want_ it. The perverts are the adult
men who desire heterosexual relationships with young girls _or_ adult
women, according to chomskyfan.
>I think the age of consent laws are fine the way they are. These pedophiles
>are just fooling themselves (as per a previous post regarding a documentary)
>and seriously injuring the children they "love."
It just makes me all warm and fuzzy to know that NAMBLA is against the
draft, (unwanted) corporal punishment, and Jesse Helms, and that
they're so conscerned about World Hunger and the UN. It's so much
easier to forgive someone for sodomizing a young boy when the
sodomite's heart is pure. Besides, the little kid _wanted_ it!
Puking,
Rob Pierce
---
My e-mail address is antispam encoded.
| GCM d++(+) H- s+:- g++ p4 au-- a w++ v--* C+++$ UH+ N++ K |
| W+++$ FSIOP+++$ M- V- po---(++) Y+ t++ j++ R G'' tv- b++ D++ |
| B- e+ u** h*(----) f+ r+++ n---->- y++++ |
Charles Lieberman
brian jones (brian...@ajc.com) wrote:
: Actually, his appeal to clan mentality is quite redundant. Everyone
: arguing from your side of the issue is wrong. Therefore, their opinions
: should be ignored.
At the risk of being falsly labeled, I'd like to say that that's absurd. You
can't tell me to not listen to anyone who disagrees with you.
--
Charles A. Lieberman
http://members.tripod.com/~calieber/index.htm
Brooklyn, New York, USA
"Well I have walked/Over miles/And under a stone wall/Across the fields
of snow"--For Squirrels
brian jones
In article <587kqk$c...@news.bu.edu>, cali...@bu.edu (Charles Lieberman) wrote:
> brian jones (brian...@ajc.com) wrote:
> : Actually, his appeal to clan mentality is quite redundant. Everyone
> : arguing from your side of the issue is wrong. Therefore, their opinions
> : should be ignored.
>
> At the risk of being falsly labeled, I'd like to say that that's absurd. You
> can't tell me to not listen to anyone who disagrees with you.
Of course, you're right. I'll amend the above statement as follows: Their
opinions can safely be dismissed out of hand, except insofar as one feels
the need to rebut them in case a naive or gullible person is hearing them.
> --
> Charles A. Lieberman
> http://members.tripod.com/~calieber/index.htm
> Brooklyn, New York, USA
> "Well I have walked/Over miles/And under a stone wall/Across the fields
> of snow"--For Squirrels
Has your sig been warlorded?
Brian "Because it's over McQ, and it's got the worst Rush quote
imaginable" Jones
Dave Wilton
Eden Chlamtac wrote:
> Studies have shown that a male-male intergenerational relationship is
> not coercive as often as Male-female(minor) intergen relationships tend to
> be. He was also saying that the latter tend to be coercive because of the
> sexism abundant in our culture. This is not a difficult concept.
Cite please. What studies are these? Who conducted them? In what
refereed
journals do they appear? Don't you dare come into afu brandishing
studies
unless you are prepared to cite them.
> Here is my modest suggestion, anyone thought of asking the kids,
> instead of sitting here on our high-horses, dictating what kids are or aren't
> ready to do? This is like the white slave-master saying "Oh! My slaves are
> content, besides they don't know any better."
The comparison to slavery is specious. Children develop and will
eventually be mature enough to care for themselves. The assumption
of the slave owners was that the slaves were perpetually "children,"
incapable of development. Children are "minors" precisely
because they are not intellectually or emotionally developed enough
to make decisions like adults. Any parent can tell you that children
make all sorts of poor decisions. They often do not understand the
potential consequences of a course of action, etc.
Certainly some individual minors are capable of making informed and
mature decisions about sexual matters, but most are not. The age of
consent laws are society's attempt to protect children from emotional
and physical harm. Admittedly, they are somewhat arbitrary in that
they do not take into account that some individuals are more mature
than others, but as case-by-case determinations would be an
administrative nightmare, the laws are an effective measure.
Also note, that in the most jurisdictions within the United States,
the age of consent is below the voting age, the age where minors are
considered competent to make financial decisions, and below the
drinking age. Given this, I think the age of consent laws in the US
are actually pretty liberal.
--
Dave Wilton
dwi...@sprynet.com
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dwilton/homepage.htm
Cheryl L Perkins
Is there really anyone around who doesn't realize that manipulating
vulnerable youth into sex is WRONG???? Heterosexual, homosexual, it
doesn't matter. If a kid is desperate enough, he or she will act the
eager sex partner in return for shelter for a night.
Well, I haven't followed the empirical studies. I've known of suicides,
though...
Perhaps I should say I don't care what consenting adults do. That's their
business. But it is so damn easy for adults to manipulate young children
into sex acts - and it seems without much thought for the children's
future well-being. There's a world of difference between consensual homo
or hetero sexual sex, and those people who molest young children. One
case I know of involved a 5 yr old being raped.
Cheryl
Robert A. Pierce (rapierceATpoboxDOTcom) wrote:
: The good B...@bob.com (Bob) sent these blessings:
: choms...@juno.com wrote:
: >> Empirical studies [see bibliography] have shown clearly that most
: >>man/boy relationships are harmless, and they are often beneficial, because
: >>most are mutually desired. Man/girl relationships,
: >>like adult heterosexual relationships,
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >>more often involve coercion or force--an
: >>unfortunate consequence of our society's gender roles.
: >So if I understand this correctly, adult/child sex between all males is a
: >loving, nurturing thing (ouch! that's gonna sting for days) while adult/child
: >sex between an older man and young girl are forced and coerced. So pedophilia
: >is a good thing between all males, kinda like Jeffrey Dahmer (only don't
: >drug, kill, and eat the boys).
: Yeah, that's what I understood him to mean. Adult men don't rape
: boys, because the boys really _want_ it. The perverts are the adult
: men who desire heterosexual relationships with young girls _or_ adult
: women, according to chomskyfan.
: >I think the age of consent laws are fine the way they are. These pedophiles
: >are just fooling themselves (as per a previous post regarding a documentary)
: >and seriously injuring the children they "love."
: It just makes me all warm and fuzzy to know that NAMBLA is against the
: draft, (unwanted) corporal punishment, and Jesse Helms, and that
: they're so conscerned about World Hunger and the UN. It's so much
: easier to forgive someone for sodomizing a young boy when the
: sodomite's heart is pure. Besides, the little kid _wanted_ it!
: Puking,
: Rob Pierce
: ---
: My e-mail address is antispam encoded.
:
: | GCM d++(+) H- s+:- g++ p4 au-- a w++ v--* C+++$ UH+ N++ K |
: | W+++$ FSIOP+++$ M- V- po---(++) Y+ t++ j++ R G'' tv- b++ D++ |
: | B- e+ u** h*(----) f+ r+++ n---->- y++++ |
:
--
Cheryl Perkins
cper...@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca
Mark Shaw
Would it be asking too much to request that we take this NAMBLA
nonsense elsewhere?
AFAIK it has nothing to do with either urban legends or atheism.
---
Mark "furrfu" Shaw
Charles Lieberman
Eden Chlamtac (echl...@bu.edu) wrote:
: If you are unwilling to believe that a:children can stand up for themselves,
Not against adults. Adults are seen by kids as authority figures. I'm less
willing to disobey those above my than my peers, and I'm more willing to go
along with what they say. I concede that I don't unquestioningly carry out
every instruction I receive from adults--and don't recall doing so ever--but I
think that there is at least some coersion involved in that sort of
relationship.
Mark Shaw
In article 6...@news.bu.edu, echl...@bu.edu (Eden Chlamtac) writes:
>Mark Shaw (ms...@asic.sc.ti.com) wrote:
>: Would it be asking too much to request that we take this NAMBLA
>: nonsense elsewhere?
>
>: AFAIK it has nothing to do with either urban legends or atheism.
>
>As far as I am concerned the entire topic is knee-deep in ULry.
Actually, you seem to be using it primarily to flog the er, virtues of
your er, quirky taste in er, recreational activities.
> However I for
>one have no problem taking it out of alt.atheism (though I haven't seen much
>on alt.atheism that had much to do with anything). I am taking it out of the
>Follow-Up clause to this article, and will no longer post to alt.atheism. If
>anyone on alt.atheism has not yet had their fair chance to send me hate-mail,
>I'll still be around on a.f.u, don't you worry.
Oh joy.
*plonk*
---
Mark "isn't there an alt.sex.intergen or something on some ISPs?" Shaw
Labrys
Move NAMBLA to alt.evil where it *belongs*!!! :-(
______________________________________________________________________
Teresa Tutt EPHY `97
tu...@rpi.edu
______________________________________________________________________
Angus Johnston
echl...@bu.edu (Eden Chlamtac) writes:
> Having not that long ago been a "child" (I am 20), and still living
> with my parents, I think I can speak from an informed position. The status of
> children in our society is very similar to that of 18th-century American
> slaves.
[cough]
> (Don't cut me off, let me finish my thought).
Okay, but this better be good.
>The slaves were patently
> kept ignorant, misinformed, and dependent. The argument then used was that
> they could not take care of themselves. Evidence for this was abundant in the
> state that slaves were molded into. Thus, many slave-owners did not challenge
> the notion of blacks being inferior.
> The modern image of the noble, eloquent, dignified slave is an absurd
> attempt to prettify their situation. If you've read 1984, I imagine the slaves
> as resembling the pitiful state of Winston Smith after having been beaten and
> tortured into submission in the Ministry of Love.
Sorry. You imagine wrong. There is by now a tremendously broad and deep
historical literature on American slavery, and though many
controversies still rage in the field, your description of slaves'
condition is utterly outside the pale of modern scholarship.
I don't have the time or energy to sketch all this out more fully here,
but I'd just like to caution you that historical analogy is a dicey
rhetorical tool under the best of circumstances---when it's engaged in
as cavalierly, as ignorantly, and for such specious purposes as you
have here, it's damn close to immoral.
--
Angus Johnston
fidelibus
Eden Chlamtac (echl...@bu.edu) wrote:
: From my observations as a child, adults did not seem to have the
: slightest idea what kids are about. Adult actors portray children as loud and
: clumsy, as if childhood was a temporary state of mental retardation.
Have you ever watched a child just learning to walk? Have you ever been
to a slumber party? The first is very clumsy, the second very loud.
Does that mean they are bad or "retarded"? Of course not, and your
assumption this is what actors (whom you have not named) are portraying
is therefore ridiculous. Kids are learning so many things at such a
rapid rate. Childhood is not "a state of mental retardation," but it IS
a state of mental development, and to confuse the two is ineffective and
just plain silly.
-sarah
Billy Chambless
In article <58n6hv$j...@news.bu.edu>, echl...@bu.edu (Eden Chlamtac) writes:
|>Oh yes, my quirky taste in (er) recreational activities. Of the people I have
|> had wild passionate sex with (that is what you're reffering to, no?), the
|> average age was around 27.
Aaagahag!
You SICK SICK BASTARD!!!!!
27-year-olds!!!!
Eeeeeewwwwwww!!!
Billy "how old were the people you had lame boring sex with?" Chambless
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
*}Eden Chlamtac (echl...@bu.edu) wrote:
*}If you are unwilling to believe that a:children can stand up for themselves,
cali...@bu.edu (Charles Lieberman) wrote previously:
*}Not against adults. Adults are seen by kids as authority figures. I'm less
*}willing to disobey those above my than my peers, and I'm more willing to go
*}along with what they say.
Does ANYONE who was ever a child believe what Lieberman claims? I'm
getting a little bit long in the tooth myself, but from memory I
certainly have no distinct impression of being willing to go along with
much anything an adult said (nor have I particularly gained that
inclination with age). Peers were much more influential and controlling
overall.
Along the lines of this thread: despite the general homophobia and
"child-molestation" hysteria bandied about by many posters, what
percentage of readers of AFU actually waited until they turned their
local age-of-consent to have any sexual contacts (including with peers,
which may or may not change the legal status in a given jurisdiction)?!
I actually did, but unhappily, while a distinct minority of my peers did
so. Overall, few of these childhood peers were emotionally harmed by
their early sexual contacts. None of those who had them consensually.
Yours, Lulu...
_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/
_/_/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[qui...@philos.umass.edu]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _/_/
_/_/ The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer... _/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them! _/_/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PGP 2.6 key available by finger <qui...@oitunix.oit.umass.edu>
Angus Johnston
echl...@bu.edu (Eden Chlamtac) writes:
> Angus Johnston (ang...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> : echl...@bu.edu (Eddie Chlamtac) writes:
>
> : > ...The status of children in our society is very similar to that of
> : > 18th-century American slaves. The slaves were patently kept ignorant,
> : > misinformed, and dependent. The argument then used was that they could not
> : > take care of themselves. Evidence for this was abundant in the state that
> : > slaves were molded into. Thus, many slave-owners did not challenge the notion
> : > of blacks being inferior.
> : > The modern image of the noble, eloquent, dignified slave is an absurd
> : > attempt to prettify their situation. If you've read 1984, I imagine the
> : > slaves as resembling the pitiful state of Winston Smith after having been
> : > beaten and tortured into submission in the Ministry of Love.
>
> : Sorry. You imagine wrong. There is by now a tremendously broad and deep
> : historical literature on American slavery, and though many
> : controversies still rage in the field, your description of slaves'
> : condition is utterly outside the pale of modern scholarship.
>
> I am always glad to have someone more informed on certain topics enlighten me
> as to my misperceptions. However, you have merely indicated that I was wrong,
> w/o saying where, how, or what the correct notion is to replace mine. Since
> you are so critical of my analogy, you ought to be able to at least put down
> one line as to demonstrate *how* I was wrong...The paragraph you have written
> above could be written by anyone who may or may not know the first thing about
> American slavery. Obviously I don't know too much, so I speculate.
Okay, I guess I should have been more specific. The field is, as I say,
a very broad one, and any sweeping statements I make should be taken
with more than a grain of salt, but here goes...
The idea that enslaved African Americans in the Revolutionary era were
uniformly "dependent" and in a state of "pitiful submission" flies in
the face of modern historical scholarship. Slaves resisted their
captivity in a hundred ways, large and small. They also formed strong
internal bonds of family and community, and although these bonds were
under constant threat of disruption, they formed the basis for an
African American culture that was far removed from the picture of
abject servitude that you paint.
It is, of course, possible to overestimate the independence and
strength of slave culture, but the work of scholars such as Herbert
Gutman, Eugene Genovese, John Blassingame, Lawrence Levine, Jacqueline
Jones and Barbara Fields (as diverse, and sometimes contentious, as
they are) make clear that one cannot begin to understand American
slavery without appreciating the power of slaves' actions on their own
behalf.
> It is futile to attack me for my lack of knowledge on a topic which I was merely
> using for the purpose of analogy. If you cannot accept that I am not an expert
> in every field imaginable, I will have to make up imaginary situations to use
> in my analogies, call them zxcnbvs instead of slaves, and then you can laugh
> at me all you want.
> IMHO, the point of an analogy is to extend the imagination to make a
> hypothetical situation suit a real one. Notice I said I "imagine" the slaves
> as having been in that situation. It is not the particulars about slavery that
> are important, it is how the notion I have presented may be comparable to the
> state of children in today's society. Unless I am wrong in some way that is
> profoundly ironic, this correction should only be made in passing, unless it
> is your purpose to publicly discredit me so that others will refrain from
> taking me seriously.
My primary purpose is to correct a major, pernicious error in your
argument, one which I consider a slander on an entire people as well as
evidence of sloppy, ignorant argumentation.
My secondary purpose is to stand up for the seriousness of history.
When you invoke the spectre of slavery (or the Holocaust, or the civil
rights movement, or whatever) for contemporary political ends, you
should be prepared to back up one's claims with real historical
knowledge. If you make such a weighty connection from a posture of
ignorance, as you have done here, then a violence is done to the past.
If you really believe that "the particulars of slavery" aren't
important, then you shouldn't try to exploit them for rhetorical gain.
For some of us, those particulars are very important indeed.
> As far as my "specious purposes" are concerned, you have no buisiness
> making assumptions about my intent or the nature of my purposes. If you must
> develop your own ideas about someone you know not the first thing about, it
> would behoove you at least not to broadcast it until you have some good
> evidence and with good reason to expose me for the fraud you apparently think
> I am.
I consider an argument which rests on historical myth to be a specious
argument. I also consider your broader claims about the subjugation of
American children to be overblown and florid, but that's another
subject.
--
Angus Johnston
Phil Edwards
In message <58o4dh$2...@news.bu.edu>
echl...@bu.edu (Eden Chlamtac) included some much-needed light relief:
> If the
> situation I described did not exist at the place and time I mentioned, it is
> at least not unimaginable that it would have happened somewhere in history.
No further questions.
Phil "it's true because it's not unimaginable" Edwards
--
Phil Edwards amr...@zetnet.co.uk
"It's a bat, it's a bat, it's a bat!
It's a girl!" - Robyn Hitchcock
Victor Gregorio
> Yours,
> Eddie Chlamtac ( echl...@acs1.bu.edu )
> Member, North American Man/Boy Love Assoc. (N*MBLA)
> Steering committee
Anyone that belongs to NAMBLA is just sick and demented. It's just that
simple. Leave the kids alone for crying out loud! When I have kids..
if I see anyone that belongs to NAMBLA approaching my child.. that
person is gonna learn what it feels like to be at the recieving end of a
12 gauge.
-Victor Gregorio
-vic...@unixville.com
PS> The fact that you say N*MBLA shows that you yourself (a member) see
it as a "bad word". Please seek professional advice before you mess up
another poor kids head up.
David Martin
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters wrote:
> Along the lines of this thread: despite the general homophobia and
> "child-molestation" hysteria bandied about by many posters, what
> percentage of readers of AFU actually waited until they turned their
> local age-of-consent to have any sexual contacts (including with peers,
> which may or may not change the legal status in a given jurisdiction)?!
Let me get this right. You're asking a bunch of geeks and people with
no lives if they got laid when they were 13?
David "Hell, around here we don't even sing about masturbation" Martin
Charles Lieberman
fidelibus (fide...@rohan.sdsu.edu) wrote:
: Eden Chlamtac (echl...@bu.edu) wrote:
: : From my observations as a child, adults did not seem to have the
: : slightest idea what kids are about. Adult actors portray children as loud
: : and
: : clumsy, as if childhood was a temporary state of mental retardation.
<snip>
: rapid rate. Childhood is not "a state of mental retardation," but it IS
: a state of mental development, and to confuse the two is ineffective and
: just plain silly.
Really? I thought childeren sprung like Athena fully grown.
Charles Lieberman
Victor Gregorio (vic...@unixville.com) wrote:
: Anyone that belongs to NAMBLA is just sick and demented.
I can only assume that this is not intended as rational arguement. It
resembles more an attempt to stifle same.
Michele Tepper
In article <58o4dh$2...@news.bu.edu>, Eden Chlamtac <echl...@bu.edu> wrote:
>: > The modern image of the noble, eloquent, dignified slave is an absurd
>: > attempt to prettify their situation. If you've read 1984, I imagine the
>: > slaves as resembling the pitiful state of Winston Smith after having been
>: > beaten and tortured into submission in the Ministry of Love.
[and then in a futile attempt to backpedal, added:]
> IMHO, the point of an analogy is to extend the imagination to make a
>hypothetical situation suit a real one. Notice I said I "imagine" the slaves
>as having been in that situation. It is not the particulars about slavery that
>are important, it is how the notion I have presented may be comparable to the
>state of children in today's society.
This is such an amazingly pathetic excuse that it caught my eye. Eden, I
have been wandering around for the past week in a haze brought on by
insomnia, stress, and too many carbohydrates (damn you, Will!) and even I,
even I in my wretched and pathetic condition, can see this for the
ignorant, self-contradictory claptrap it is. You made an argument that
was wrong enough to verge on the immoral, and Angus called you on it. Do
us all the favor of having enough dignity to slink away in silence next
time, all right?
Michele "roll, Jordan, roll" Tepper
--
Michele Tepper "Does anything strike you as being not quite right
mte...@panix.com about these statements? Such as their not making
any sense whatsoever?" -- Iain Rowan
Barbara Mikkelson
Eden Chlamtac <echl...@bu.edu> wrote in response to Angus:
> I am always glad to have someone more informed on certain topics
> enlighten me as to my misperceptions. However, you have merely indicated
> that I was wrong, w/o saying where, how, or what the correct notion is
> to replace mine.
Short and long of it -- go library, read books, come back educated.
Meanwhile, take this damnable thread with you.
Barbara "december whines are so long-winded, I find" Mikkelson
--
Barbara Mikkelson | Say, isn't it about time for somebody to
bha...@fas.harvard.edu | mention the Canadian porta-potty man again?)
| - Charles Gimon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
View a random urban legend --> http://www.best.com/~snopes/randomul.cgi
Scott
Not speaking for myself here (and many apologies to AFU for
tolerating a thread that obviously belongs elsewhere, but, please
understand, N*MBLA has been run off many, many forums). I'm a
mental health professional who works in a medium security prison
for men. Most of my time is spent running group therapy for abuse
survivors. Many of these men were sexually abused (read:
induced to engage in sexual behavior with adults) while they were
children. Most of them violently resent their "experiences";
when I informed them of the existence of N*MBLA, they initially
expressed shocked disbelief, and then incredible anger. One of
the men is in prison for tracking down pedophiles and beating the
hell out of them. Another killed his abuser. Sound like they
had a healthy or happy experience with pedophilia?
Scott
Charles Lieberman
In <58t43t$iqd$4...@mhadf.production.compuserve.com> did Scott
(73130...@CompuServe.COM) decree:
> mental health professional who works in a medium security prison
> for men. Most of my time is spent running group therapy for abuse
> survivors. Many of these men were sexually abused (read:
> induced to engage in sexual behavior with adults) while they were
> children. Most of them violently resent their "experiences";
> had a healthy or happy experience with pedophilia?
That doesn't prove that boys victimized by^W^Wexperienced with pedophilia
always become criminals. It doesn't even prove that pedophiles who act out
their desires are ALWAYS abusive.
Psycho Dave
Kevin D. Quitt wrote:
>
> On 13 Dec 1996 23:35:31 GMT, cali...@bu.edu (Charles Lieberman) wrote:
>
> >Victor Gregorio (vic...@unixville.com) wrote:
> >: Anyone that belongs to NAMBLA is just sick and demented.
> >
> >I can only assume that this is not intended as rational arguement. It
> >resembles more an attempt to stifle same.
>
>
I'm surprised that people out there are **STILL** under the
impression that NAMBLA is a real organization. Over 10 years ago,
it was exposed as a fundamentalist psuedo-organization designed
to discredit the gay/lesbian/bi community by feeding comments to
the various news agencies in connection with gay/lesbian events,
in an attempt to frighten people into believing that child
molestation is part of the alleged homosexual agenda.
Even though they were publicly exposed as a fraud, they realized
that many people wouldn't see or remember the new media's coverage
of the story, so they continued to do their dirty work, knowing
the short attention span of most people. You will note that if you
do a web search on them, you will only find articles ABOUT them, as
opposed to articles written by them. It's part of what keeps the
myth alive.
--
|________ ___ __ ___ | Email: psy...@flash.net |
| /___/ /__ \ / / /__/ / / | |
| / ___/ \/ /__ / / /__/ | Visit Psycho Dave's Dark |
| /_____________/___D__A__V__E__ | And Scary Place |
| http://www.flash.net/~twinkle/psycho/DARK/ |
Tommy Usher
Psycho Dave wrote:
>
> I'm surprised that people out there are **STILL** under the
> impression that NAMBLA is a real organization. Over 10 years ago,
> it was exposed as a fundamentalist psuedo-organization designed
> to discredit the gay/lesbian/bi community by feeding comments to
> the various news agencies in connection with gay/lesbian events,
> in an attempt to frighten people into believing that child
> molestation is part of the alleged homosexual agenda.
Could you offer some evidence for this claim?
> Even though they were publicly exposed as a fraud, they realized
> that many people wouldn't see or remember the new media's coverage
> of the story, so they continued to do their dirty work, knowing
> the short attention span of most people. You will note that if you
> do a web search on them, you will only find articles ABOUT them, as
> opposed to articles written by them. It's part of what keeps the
> myth alive.
Uh, I rather suspect the fact that members of the organization have been
arrested and convicted of child molestation is what actually tends to
keep it alive... I realize that NAMBLA is very much an embarrassment to
the gay and lesbian community, since for some time it was part of a
larger coalition of gay and lesbian organizations, but this has to be
one of the lamer attempts at damage control I have seen.
Again, could you provide evidence?
tak
In article <32BBDF...@flash.net>, Psycho Dave <psy...@flash.net> says:
>
>Kevin D. Quitt wrote:
>>
>> On 13 Dec 1996 23:35:31 GMT, cali...@bu.edu (Charles Lieberman) wrote:
>>
>> >Victor Gregorio (vic...@unixville.com) wrote:
>> >: Anyone that belongs to NAMBLA is just sick and demented.
>> >
>> >I can only assume that this is not intended as rational arguement. It
>> >resembles more an attempt to stifle same.
>>
>> Sounded more like a reasoned judgement than a rational argument.
>>
>
>impression that NAMBLA is a real organization. Over 10 years ago,
>it was exposed as a fundamentalist psuedo-organization designed
>to discredit the gay/lesbian/bi community by feeding comments to
>the various news agencies in connection with gay/lesbian events,
>in an attempt to frighten people into believing that child
>molestation is part of the alleged homosexual agenda.
>
>that many people wouldn't see or remember the new media's coverage
>of the story, so they continued to do their dirty work, knowing
>the short attention span of most people. You will note that if you
>do a web search on them, you will only find articles ABOUT them, as
>opposed to articles written by them. It's part of what keeps the
>myth alive.
Hey MORON. Have you seen the movie Chickenhawk? Probably not, otherwise,
you'd see the stupidity in your statements. NAMBLA is indeed alive and
well. It's mostly composed of middle aged men who probably don't frequent
the internet much, because many of them are on probation and as such are
not allowed anywhere NEAR a modem. And even those who ARE on the internet
aren't about to have a giant NAMBLA sig at the bottom of their posts.
In order for your little UL to be true, these men (right wing nuts
devoted to harming the gay cause) would have to have given up their entire
lives in order to carry on a charade that has cost them careers, family
relationships and societal respect.
Rent 'Chickenhawk' and consider your pie-hole stuffed.
Mt
Psycho Dave
David Moisan wrote:
>
> Psycho Dave <psy...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> >I'm surprised that people out there are **STILL** under the
> >impression that NAMBLA is a real organization. Over 10 years ago,
> >it was exposed as a fundamentalist psuedo-organization designed
>
> rally at the Common. I thought nothing of it until I saw the NAMBLA
> booth, a very unadorned booth with just two or three guys.
Did you talk to them to ask them why they have the right to molest
little boys?
> If NAMBLA is a fraud, then who are these people?
Members of NAMBLA, of course, who are acting as though they really
believe in the organization's cause. In order to make a bogus
organization believable, some people have to portray the members,
and publicize the fake cause. You noticed that it was at a gay
rally. That is how they work. They always show up at gay rallies
and try to act as though they have a common goal or purpose there.
In reality, the purpose of the organization is to discredit the
gay rights movement BY ASSOCIATING THEIR CAUSE with that of the
gay rights organizations. They are never invited, and most people
wish they would just go away.
> THAT would be a very
> good question. As would be the identity of the guy on ne.general who
> professes to be in the organization.
Okay -- about 7 or 8 years ago, on Morton Downey Jr's program,
the "head" of NAMBLA was exposed. Downey did some investigations
on NAMBLA (granted he's not exactly a great reporter, but read on),
and found that the names listed in the roster were non-existant
people -- bogus names.
Then there was a Boston Globe article not long after, which
followed around a couple of representatives of NAMBLA, only
to find out that they both attended Jerry Falwell's church,
and even made contributions to it. Further investigation
showed that the people followed were also vocal anti-gay
activists, who in another side of their lives, attended right-
wing political think tanks, and opposed gay rights.
I also read an article in the Nose (Some funky bad-attitude
publication which does stories on nasty topics and pokes
fun at famous people for their hypocrisy) which did pretty
much the same thing -- followed members around to discover
that they were ultra-right wing conservatives who wrote up
the NAMBLA literature, and led double-lives as NAMBLA members.
Even Howard Stern has played their answering machine message
on the air -- it's so ridiculous that it wouldn't convince
anyone.
If I only had all of this stuff written down -- names, dates,
and stuff, I could have the documentation required to silence
those who don't usually believe this stuff at face value. I
have the Morton Downey episode on tape, and I also have the
Nose article, but they are locked away in storage right now.
NAMBLA exists to discredit gay rights organizations by
showing up at key events and frightening people into
thinking that they are a legitimate arm of the gay rights
movement, and that the gay rights movement supports them.
You will find that NONE of the gay rights organization
recognizes them, and that they actually opposes them.
I want to see just one single peice of evidence that they
are a real organization with the goal of making child-
molestation a legitimate sexual outlet. THeir literature
is completely silly and obviously written to scare stupid
conservative types.
David Moisan
Psycho Dave <psy...@flash.net> wrote:
>I'm surprised that people out there are **STILL** under the
>impression that NAMBLA is a real organization. Over 10 years ago,
>it was exposed as a fundamentalist psuedo-organization designed
A few years ago, while in Boston, I happened to attend a gay rights
rally at the Common. I thought nothing of it until I saw the NAMBLA
booth, a very unadorned booth with just two or three guys.
If NAMBLA is a fraud, then who are these people? THAT would be a very
good question. As would be the identity of the guy on ne.general who
professes to be in the organization.
Dave
| David Moisan, N1KGH Email: dmo...@shore.net |
| WWW: http://www.shore.net/~dmoisan n1...@amsat.org |
| Invisible Disabilities Page: |
| http://www.shore.net/~dmoisan/invisible_disability.html |
| GE Superradio FAQ: |
| http://www1.shore.net/~dmoisan/faqs/superradio/gesr_faq.html |
tak
In article <32C324...@flash.net>, Psycho Dave <psy...@flash.net> says:
>
>David Moisan wrote:
>>
>> Psycho Dave <psy...@flash.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm surprised that people out there are **STILL** under the
>> >impression that NAMBLA is a real organization. Over 10 years ago,
>> >it was exposed as a fundamentalist psuedo-organization designed
>>
>> A few years ago, while in Boston, I happened to attend a gay rights
>> rally at the Common. I thought nothing of it until I saw the NAMBLA
>> booth, a very unadorned booth with just two or three guys.
>
>little boys?
>
>
>believe in the organization's cause. In order to make a bogus
>organization believable, some people have to portray the members,
>and publicize the fake cause. You noticed that it was at a gay
>rally. That is how they work. They always show up at gay rallies
>and try to act as though they have a common goal or purpose there.
>In reality, the purpose of the organization is to discredit the
>gay rights movement BY ASSOCIATING THEIR CAUSE with that of the
>gay rights organizations. They are never invited, and most people
>wish they would just go away.
>
>> good question. As would be the identity of the guy on ne.general who
>> professes to be in the organization.
>
I am not a conservative type, and I'm telling you to rent the
film Chickenhawk. NAMBLA does exist. And of COURSE no homosexual
groups are going to recognize them, just as no hetero groups would
recognize men who want to molest little girls.
But for christ's sake, just rent the movie and let me know if you
think these guys are putting on a show. They had a meeting that was
attended by Allen Ginsberg (who sympathises with their traditional 'Greek'
longings and aesthetic). He recites a poem that begins: 'sweet young
boy, give me your ass.' It's actually kind of funny. But what makes
me refuse to believe they're putting on a show is the amount of dangerous
hatred that surrounds them. Why would they put themselves in harm's way?
Anyway, check out the flick and report back.
Mt
Timothy Jones
On Thu, 26 Dec 1996, Psycho Dave wrote:
> David Moisan wrote:
> >
> > Psycho Dave <psy...@flash.net> wrote:
> >
> > >I'm surprised that people out there are **STILL** under the
> > >impression that NAMBLA is a real organization. Over 10 years ago,
> > >it was exposed as a fundamentalist psuedo-organization designed
> >
> > A few years ago, while in Boston, I happened to attend a gay rights
> > rally at the Common. I thought nothing of it until I saw the NAMBLA
> > booth, a very unadorned booth with just two or three guys.
>
> Did you talk to them to ask them why they have the right to molest
> little boys?
That's a completely seperate (and loaded, as in biased) question. The
issue, I thought, was simply the question of the group's status and
existance, and not their moral justifications for their position.
> > If NAMBLA is a fraud, then who are these people?
>
> Members of NAMBLA, of course, who are acting as though they really
> believe in the organization's cause. In order to make a bogus
> organization believable, some people have to portray the members,
> and publicize the fake cause. You noticed that it was at a gay
> rally. That is how they work. They always show up at gay rallies
> and try to act as though they have a common goal or purpose there.
> In reality, the purpose of the organization is to discredit the
> gay rights movement BY ASSOCIATING THEIR CAUSE with that of the
> gay rights organizations. They are never invited, and most people
> wish they would just go away.
Considering how very successfull the mainstream gay groups have been at
distancing themselves from NAMBLA, I'd have to be very skeptical of this.
When a strategy just doesn't work, one tends to discard it.
> > THAT would be a very
> > good question. As would be the identity of the guy on ne.general who
> > professes to be in the organization.
>
> Okay -- about 7 or 8 years ago, on Morton Downey Jr's program,
> the "head" of NAMBLA was exposed. Downey did some investigations
> on NAMBLA (granted he's not exactly a great reporter, but read on),
> and found that the names listed in the roster were non-existant
> people -- bogus names.
And what of those why spoke out (at some personal and social risk) on the
chickenhawk video?
> Then there was a Boston Globe article not long after, which
> followed around a couple of representatives of NAMBLA, only
> to find out that they both attended Jerry Falwell's church,
> and even made contributions to it. Further investigation
> showed that the people followed were also vocal anti-gay
> activists, who in another side of their lives, attended right-
> wing political think tanks, and opposed gay rights.
If this is so, couldn't they be exceptions rather than true
representatives of NAMBLA? It does occur to me that, *if* NAMBLA is a
legitimate group, saboteurs-as-members like these would be an excellant
way to discredit their cause.
> I also read an article in the Nose (Some funky bad-attitude
> publication which does stories on nasty topics and pokes
> fun at famous people for their hypocrisy) which did pretty
> much the same thing -- followed members around to discover
> that they were ultra-right wing conservatives who wrote up
> the NAMBLA literature, and led double-lives as NAMBLA members.
As above, *plus*, in this case, I would add general-principal dismissal of
a comedy group as authoritative investigators.
> Even Howard Stern has played their answering machine message
> on the air -- it's so ridiculous that it wouldn't convince
> anyone.
Why not? I remember hearing *a* message on the chickenhawk video. It
didn't seem at all ridiculous. In fact, I'd even say it was almost
inspirational. So maybe they have more than one? Maybe they change it
every so often, and hey, one time they made an ineffectual one and so
what? Or, once again, maybe the broadcast message of yours isn't really
theirs but made up to make them look bad by pseudo-members?
> If I only had all of this stuff written down -- names, dates,
> and stuff, I could have the documentation required to silence
> those who don't usually believe this stuff at face value. I
> have the Morton Downey episode on tape, and I also have the
> Nose article, but they are locked away in storage right now.
Yes, these things *would* be of interest. But I cannot say they would be
conclusive.
> NAMBLA exists to discredit gay rights organizations by
> showing up at key events and frightening people into
> thinking that they are a legitimate arm of the gay rights
> movement, and that the gay rights movement supports them.
> You will find that NONE of the gay rights organization
> recognizes them, and that they actually opposes them.
This last part is true, as far as I know. However, I would claim as much
ignorance and paranoia for that as *they* would (used to, and still do)
for "normal" people's fear and rejection of *them*. (Quite ironic of them,
don't you think...)
> I want to see just one single peice of evidence that they
> are a real organization with the goal of making child-
> molestation a legitimate sexual outlet. THeir literature
> is completely silly and obviously written to scare stupid
> conservative types.
First, child "molestation" is a loaded term; you really should be more
carefull -- "scaring stupid people" is all that such well-poisoning is
good for. And second, I think the chickenhawk video exhibits none of the
marks of stupidity or fraud you suspect, and so, would be a good place to
start for that evidence you seek. And third, if indeeed they are not a
real "legitimate" organization, that in itself would say nothing to the
question of whether they ought to be; which I think is, deep down, the
real question you seek to address.
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
*}If I only had all of this stuff written down -- names, dates,
*}and stuff, I could have the documentation required to silence
*}those who don't usually believe this stuff at face value.
Motto?!
Timothy Jones
On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, Kevin D. Quitt wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Dec 1996 00:17:44 -0800, Timothy Jones
> <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >Except that no reason was given.
>
> Life experience is sufficient reason.
I disagree. Please elaborate.
> --
> #include <standard.disclaimer>
> _
> Kevin D Quitt USA 91351-4454 96.37% of all statistics are made up
> Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list
>
>
Apuleius
dmo...@shore.net (David Moisan) wrote to and alt.folklore.urban:
== Psycho Dave <psy...@flash.net> wrote:
==
== >I'm surprised that people out there are **STILL** under the
== >impression that NAMBLA is a real organization. Over 10 years ago,
== >it was exposed as a fundamentalist psuedo-organization designed
==
== A few years ago, while in Boston, I happened to attend a gay rights
== rally at the Common. I thought nothing of it until I saw the NAMBLA
== booth, a very unadorned booth with just two or three guys.
==
== If NAMBLA is a fraud, then who are these people? THAT would be a very
== good question. As would be the identity of the guy on ne.general who
== professes to be in the organization.
==
== Dave
The moderator of the Fidonet Controv echo said that the State of
California did an undercover investigation of NAMBLA in that state and
found it to be dominated by heterosexuals. I have no reason to doubt
the word of the moderator, an ex-professor, I believe, whose
moderating activity showed him to be reliable. That being the case,
it's hard to believe NAMBLA is a government front.
Psycho Dave
Apuleius wrote:
>
> The moderator of the Fidonet Controv echo said that the State of
> California did an undercover investigation of NAMBLA in that state and
> found it to be dominated by heterosexuals. I have no reason to doubt
> the word of the moderator, an ex-professor, I believe, whose
> moderating activity showed him to be reliable. That being the case,
> it's hard to believe NAMBLA is a government front.
I've never made the claim that NAMBLA was a government group. I did
claim that it was a group of ultra-conservative Christians, who hate
homosexuals and want to frighten people into thinking that child
molesting is on the Homosexual agenda. All along, I've been hearing that
NAMBLA is a PRIVATE group of individuals, whose leadership is made of
anti-homosexuals, and who have been linked to various fundy churches.
Drew Lawson
> I've never made the claim that NAMBLA was a government group. I did
> claim that it was a group of ultra-conservative Christians, who hate
> homosexuals and want to frighten people into thinking that child
> molesting is on the Homosexual agenda.
Over the years, I've had a few on-line discussions (UseNet and e-mail)
with Roy Radow, who claims to be either a representative or at least an
information source for NAMBLA.
I've had the impression that the organization, at least in Mr. Radow's
mind, is what it presents itself to be.
I'm neither a NAMBLA membor nor a NAMBLA supporter, but have seen valid
rhetorical issues raised by those who claim to be NAMBLA members.
Drew "I discuss many things that I don't practice" Lawson
--
| Opportunity is for the taking
Drew Lawson | Look inside yourself, you'll see
dla...@aimnet.com | then go clean up your own back yard
| leave my yard to me
falc...@ix.netcom.com
In article <Pine.A41.3.95b.96122...@dante32.u.washington.edu>,
>Timothy Jones <time...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Dec 1996, Psycho Dave wrote:
> > David Moisan wrote:
> > > Psycho Dave <psy...@flash.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >I'm surprised that people out there are **STILL** under the
> > > >impression that NAMBLA is a real organization. Over 10 years ago,
> > > >it was exposed as a fundamentalist psuedo-organization designed
> > >
> > > A few years ago, while in Boston, I happened to attend a gay rights
> > > rally at the Common. I thought nothing of it until I saw the NAMBLA
> > > booth, a very unadorned booth with just two or three guys.
> >
> > Did you talk to them to ask them why they have the right to molest
> > little boys?
No one has the right to molest little boys. Besides being illegal, it's wrong.
NAMBLA is *against* child molestation and molestors.
> > > If NAMBLA is a fraud, then who are these people?
I'm NAMBLA's membership secy, and responded because it seems that a bunch of
non-boy-lovers are trying to figure our just how evil NAMBLA is and whether we
actually exist. Whew! Talk about weird! Below is a stock boilerplate. Hope to
have our 70+ page website up and running soon. -=- Tebster
The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) supports
the rights of all people to engage in consensual relations, and
we oppose laws which destroy loving relationships merely on the
basis of the age of the participants.
NAMBLA does not say that ALL children should engage in such
relationships.
However we believe that when this does occur society should be
able to distinguish between those relationships that are loving,
supportive and mutually desired, and those which are harmful and
involve force or coercion.
NAMBLA unequivocally condemns all coercive or non-consensual acts,
sexual or otherwise, between people of any age.
NAMBLA supports youth liberation and the empowerment of young people
in all areas of their lives (not just sexual). We believe that there
should also be improved education and the establishment of viable
community resources so that young people are better able to manage
their own lives and function as productive citizens of this society.
* =================================
NAMBLA's legal and for real !!
USD $35/10 issues, $50 overseas, $5 Sample to:
NAMBLA Dept TB
PO Box 174 Midtown Station
New York, NY 10018-0174 USA
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
falc...@ix.netcom.com
In article <Pine.OSF.3.93.970108...@mole.uvm.edu>,
Jeffrey Nelson / STILL AGIN' <jlne...@mole.uvm.edu> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 3 Jan 1997 falc...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > NAMBLA is *against* child molestation and molestors.
>
> decry molestional relationships"? Please explain your definition of "Boy"
> in the name.
No. If you want to play games with semantics, I won't bother to respond
>
> > it seems that a bunch of
> > non-boy-lovers are trying to figure our just how evil NAMBLA is and whether
we
> > actually exist. Whew! Talk about weird!
>
> Ummm...I wouldn't call it weird. I'd call it "legitimately protectionist.
> Just as people are concerned about all the Aryan power groups around.
NAMBLA's purpose is to speak out against age-of-consent laws. We neither condone
nor condemn breaking the law. We receive many inquiries requesting information
on pornography or the best sex-tourist countries. Some naively ask for a list of
boys in their area. I don't reject these men outright, but they are sadly
confused about NAMBLA, boy-lovers in general, and themselves. Simply because
society has branded you immoral does not mean you need to be immoral. This is
the danger of catorgorizing any section of society as monsters: the weak
individuals among them too often buy into it.
>
> > we oppose laws which destroy loving relationships merely on the
> > basis of the age of the participants.
>
> Okay, please explain how you can call sex between a 10-year-old and
> 40-year-old in anything other than "molestation" Would you say that it
> was a loving relationship, and leave it at that? Hunh, predator?
NAMBLA is against judging relationships solely by the age of the participants.
Of course, there are 10 year olds out there being abused. But such abuse is
rampant only in societies that do not allow their children, as individuals,
contol over who may touch them and who may not. If anyone, including children,
is raped (including simple unwanted sexual touches) due to force, coercion, or
trickery, there are abundant rape laws in place to punish the attacker.
Age of consent laws exist, therefore, only to deprive children of their ability
to consent. When did you decide to be sexual? When you were in Jr High School
did you dream of adults or other age mates.
Children are far safer in sex-positive cultures where a "sexual child" is not
regarded as an abstract freak. Such cultures don't harbor "dark secrets that
scar for life".
> > NAMBLA does not say that ALL children should engage in such
> > relationships.
>
> Right, only the ones that have been carefully selected.
Cheap shots only highlight your desparation.
> > However we believe that when this does occur society should be
> > able to distinguish between those relationships that are loving,
> > supportive and mutually desired, and those which are harmful and
> > involve force or coercion.
>
> a) society has done this already, except
Bull. States are re-confirming their sodomy laws and the Defense of Marraige Act
was a homophobic rallying cry for this election year. This is bigotry on a
national level. Now that my boyfriend's 23 I presume you'd allow us "privacy"
but 10 years ago or 6 years ago I'd be subject to prison terms longer than were
I to kill him. That's absurd.
> b) you and NAMBLA seem to not be able to accept its conclusion (age is
> necessary for consent)
Ask your average "too young" hetero boy what he thinks about a law that
"protects" him from Pamela Anderson.
> > NAMBLA's legal and for real !!
>
> If I may interject with a bit from HBO's Mr. Show, I think the new motto
> should be "NAMBLA- We're Not Killers"
Fortunately, couch potatos who garner their ethical contructs from late night
comedy skits don't bother to vote.
Jeffery, I responded on the NG only because I search for NAMBLA and respond to
the more idioticly misconceived threads. I've made my point and will not
continue this off-topic thread.
> ============================================================================
> Jeffrey L. Nelson http:///mole.uvm.edu/~jlnelson
> I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar Wilde
> ============================================================================
Funny, you should quote Britains most notorious pederast (self-described).
-=- Tebster
WHERE WE STAND
The North American Man/Boy Love Association is both political and
educational. We work to organize support for boys and men who have or
desire consensual sexual and emotional relationships and to educate
society on their positive nature. We speak out against the oppression
endured by men and boys who love one another and support the right of all
people to consensual intergenerational relationships. Throughout most of
Western history (and not only Western), man/boy love has been the primary
form of homoeroticism, and it is this love for which NAMBLA stands.
NAMBLA was founded in 1978, within Boston's gay and lesbian community,
in response to a witch hunt against man/boy lovers in that city. Since
then, NAMBLA has worked to build a community of support through our
publications and conferences. Our spokespeople raise awareness of the
issue in the media and academia, before community groups, and among the
general public.
While NAMBLA's members represent a diversity of backgrounds and
polotics, we all share a liberatarian, humanistic attaitude on sexuality.
We believe that sex is good and wholesome and that it is an important
medium of personal expression.
NAMBLA condemns sexual abuse in all forms of coercion. We insist there
is a distinction between coercive and consensual sex. Laws that focus
only on the age of the participants fail to capture that distinction, for
they ignore the quality of the relationship. Differences in age do not
preclude mutual, loving interaction between persons any more than
differences in race or class.
Some existing laws criminalize sexual relationships that are loving and
fully consensual. These laws are ill-conceived and morally repugnant. As
is our right, we advocate their repeal. Nothing that we speak or write
about is intended to advocate or counsel the violation of such laws.
NAMBLA calls for the empowerment of youth in all areas, not just the
sexual. We are against arbitrary constraints on the rights and freedom of
all, young and old. We support greater economic, political, and social
oppertunities for young people and denounce the rampant ageism that
segregates and isolates them in fear and mistrust.
* =================================
North American Man/Boy Love Association
McEneaneyL
Jeffrey L. Nelson, an admitted child molester wrote:
<snip, snip>
NAMBLA's purpose is to speak out against age-of-consent laws. We neither
condone
nor condemn breaking the law. We receive many inquiries requesting
information
on pornography or the best sex-tourist countries. Some naively ask for a
list of
boys in their area. I don't reject these men outright, but they are sadly
confused about NAMBLA, boy-lovers in general, and themselves. Simply
because
<snip snip>
You don't reject these men outright? What are you saying, that you
provide them with this information?
The purpose of your group (The North American Man-Boy Love Association) is
to help old men glorify the young male body's sexuality, and help
encourage and pass information on about sexual relationships between young
boys and older men. To confuse your organization's sick perversions with
consenting adult homosexual relationships is extremely misleading.
And, might I add as a postscript, if I ever found you or your pervo
friends engaging in any of these "loving caring relationships" I would
punch your teeth through to the back of your ass.
AuntieM56
seems to me, that many years ago..when I first heard of this group..I
read, or heard, there was a motto that said "sex by 8 or its too late"
Sorry..I find it hard to believe that an 8 year old would be considered
consenting by ANYONES standards
Marie >^..^<
Your life is the only one you will have. Use it well.
A waist is a terrible thing to mind.
falc...@ix.netcom.com
In article <19970114225...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
mcene...@aol.com (McEneaneyL) wrote:
>
> Jeffrey L. Nelson, an admitted child molester wrote:
>
> <snip, snip>
> condone
> nor condemn breaking the law. We receive many inquiries requesting
> information
> on pornography or the best sex-tourist countries. Some naively ask for a
> list of
> boys in their area. I don't reject these men outright, but they are sadly
> confused about NAMBLA, boy-lovers in general, and themselves. Simply
> because
Excuse me, but *I* wrote the above-snipped text.
> You don't reject these men outright?
I'd even send *you* a join form and pamphlet upon request. If you send $5, you
get a sample Bulletin and NAMBLA Topics along with it. In fact, dozens of "open"
police officers have requested such packets simply looking for information on
the attractions of their "suspects" I presume.
> What are you saying, that you
> provide them with this information?
Of course not. NAMBLA activists wouldn't even know how to answer such questions.
I just acknowledged that there are some seriously confused men attracted to boys
out there. I posited that they needed some *real* help to get their act
together. I believe my post bore that out.
> The purpose of your group (The North American Man-Boy Love Association) is
> to help old men glorify the young male body's sexuality, and help
> encourage and pass information on about sexual relationships between young
> boys and older men.
You wish. Then you could pass on your scapegoat mantle to a "real monster".
Sorry, no go.
> To confuse your organization's sick perversions with
> consenting adult homosexual relationships is extremely misleading.
Oh, what a difference a birthday makes! Remember, to all those 700 club viewers
out there, you're just the pot calling the kettle black. Very foolish strategy.
> And, might I add as a postscript, if I ever found you or your pervo
> friends engaging in any of these "loving caring relationships" I would
> punch your teeth through to the back of your ass.
You don't have much of a family, do you? -=- Tebster
Once again, the boilerplate:
NAMBLA: WHERE WE STAND
McEneaneyL
The Tebster, a child molester and proud of it, writes:
>You don't have much of a family, do you? -=- Tebster
Excuse me, Mr. Child Molester? At least *I* was taught not to touch
little boys' penises. And at least my family protected me from predator
monsters such as yourself.
BTW, my offer still stands; if I catch you or your freak friends anywhere,
I'll beat you within an inch of your life (and I'll send you the rest of
the way if you mention my family again).
True love can only be found with two or more consenting adults.
Drew Lawson
In article <19970114233...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
aunt...@aol.com (AuntieM56) wrote:
> seems to me, that many years ago..when I first heard of this group..I
> read, or heard, there was a motto that said "sex by 8 or its too late"
No, that was another group.
I don't recall the name, Rene <mumble> Society?
The two get mixed up a lot in the rather irrational discussions that
this tends to start.
Drew "please don't debate morality in AFU" Lawson
--
| Most North American consumers are smart enough
Drew Lawson | to know the difference between a store and an
dla...@aimnet.com | infection.
| -- Greg Franklin (in alt.folklore.urban)
Barbara Mikkelson
Gentlemen, you're off topic. Badly. Drag it to email and kill it there.
Barbara "and then bury it with a stake through its heart" Mikkelson
--
Barbara Mikkelson | The prospect of signal got me all excited.
bha...@fas.harvard.edu | - Madeleine Page
Ewan Kirk
In Article <19970115235...@ladder01.news.aol.com> McEneaneyL
writes:
>The Tebster, a child molester and proud of it, writes:
>>You don't have much of a family, do you? -=- Tebster
>
>Excuse me, Mr. Child Molester? At least *I* was taught not to touch
>little boys' penises.
Interesting (*) though this is from an intellectual point of view for
me I think this would be better continued if at all by email.
Ewan "not urban folklore" Kirk.
(*) I've always wondered how I would react to reading a discussion
between two people where the person who's views I disagreed with had
by far the most reasoned argument and the person who's views I agreed
with was a raving maniac. Now I know.
--E.