NAMBLA, the ILGA Secretariat and the United Nations
Roy Radow
NAMBLA has been a member of the International Lesbian and Gay
Association for 10 years. We've been continuously active in ILGA longer
than any other US organization. NAMBLA delegates to ILGA helped write
ILGA's constitution, its official positions on the sexual rights of
youth, and its stands against sexual coercion and corporal punishment.
We are proud of our contributions in making ILGA a stronger voice for the
international gay and lesbian movement and for sexual justice.
In spite of this proud history, four of ILGA's six secretariats,
meeting in New York, November 5-7, have request NAMBLA to resign and stated
that they will seek its expulsion by the general membership this summer
unless it complies. This small administrative body individuals issued press
releases on November 7 stating that ILGA "condemns pedophilia" and that
NAMBLA's "political aims... are in direct contradiction" to those of ILGA.
In particular, the statement cites NAMBLA's opposition to age-of-consent
laws as a tool for protecting young people from sexual coercion.
These statements by the secretariats' committee are a craven and
dishonest attempt to satisfy demands by the US Mission to the UN. On
October 16, the US Mission's Bisa Williams-Manigault sent a letter to
ILGA stating that the US will seek ILGA's removal from the UN's Economic
and Social Council (ECOSOC) unless ILGA "dissociate[s] itself from NAMBLA
and other affiliate organizations whose objectives," in the opinion of the
US government, "are not consonant with UN human rights activities." In
addition, Williams-Manigault has told the press that to meet US demands,
ILGA would have to expel at least two other organizations. The Dutch
Vereniging Martijn and a US group called Project Truth along with any
other member organization that has expressed support for NAMBLA's
positions.
The ILGA secretariats' statement contradicts the positions
ILGA has adopted over the course of a decade, and greatly distorts
NAMBLA's platform.
ILGA's current positions on man/boy love and pedophilia are
explicit:
-- In 1985, ILGA adopted a position on "Age of Consent/Paedophilia/
Children's Rights" that urged member organizations to "lobby their
governments to abolish the age of consent law" so long as there is
"adequate protection for youth from being sexually abused without
the age of consent law."
-- In 1986, ILGA adopted a position that says the group "supports
the right of young people to sexual and social self-determination."
-- In 1988, ILGA declared "this conference recognizes that existing
same-sex age-of-consent laws often operate to oppress and not to
protect; that in many countries, existing laws on sexual coercion
and rules of evidence also often operate to oppress and not to
protect; that therefore member organizations are urged to consider
how best children, adolescents, and people of all ages can be
empowered and supported against both sexual coercion and sexual
oppression and to work towards that end."
-- In 1990, ILGA "calls on all members to treat all sexual
minorities with respect and to engage in constructive dialogue
with them. In another position adopted that year, ILGA declared
that it "supports the right of every individual, regardless of
age, to explore and develop her or his sexuality."
ILGA has also taken strong stands against sexual coercion. NAMBLA
helped write these positions, and our delegates supported them in the General
Assembly, contrary to what the ILGA secretariats imply.
-- In 1990 ILGA adopted as an official position that "Major power
imbalances create the potential for child abuse. ILGA condemns the
exploitative use of power differences to coerce others into sexual
relationships."
Every one of the resolutions cited above was adopted by at least
an 80 percent majority of ILGA delegates; many were adopted unanimously.
Their status as official ILGA positions is a matter of public record. Not
one of these positions has ever been revoked by ILGA's membership, and all
have been distributed to the media as recently two months ago by ILGA's
Information Secretariat as official positions.
NAMBLA fully supports ILGA's efforts to achieve consultative status
on the UN's ECOSOC, though we did not play any role in attaining that status.
Any attempt to link NAMBLA or ILGA with child abuse is dishonest and
malicious. But in an effort to save ILGA's ECOSOC status, one small project
of ILGA, its secretariats have taken a dangerous step toward destroying what
ILGA is at essence: a diverse, democratic coalition controlled by its members,
not a small group of leaders.
The following are quotes from NAMBLA position papers adopted at the
indicated times by NAMBLA's membership. The reader can determine whether or
not an "extreme divergence" exists between the views of NAMBLA and ILGA.
"NAMBLA condemns those who exploit children and others for
profit and pornography... NAMBLA condemns pornography which furthers
racial and sexual stereotypes." [adopted November 11, 1981]
"NAMBLA supports economic and racial justice for youth, especially
for gay youth, who are often doubly oppressed. Wherever forms of
hustling thrive on racial or economic inequality-- especially in
third- world countries, where imperialism is involved-- NAMBLA
condemns the inequality and imperialism and calls on men and boys to
work actively against them." [adopted November 11, 1981]
"NAMBLA... calls for the adoption of laws that both protect
children from unwanted sexual experiences and at the same time leave
them free to determine the content of their own sexual experiences."
[adopted December 4, 1983]
"NAMBLA has always opposed any form of abuse or coercion... and
NAMBLA condemns rape and sexual assault." [adopted December 4, 1983]
"Exploitation, sexual or otherwise, is neither approved of nor
practiced by NAMBLA. NAMBLA recognizes that exploitation occurs in
the area of hustling, and the publication of erotica, and has called
on its members to help eliminate exploitation in these areas."
[adopted December 4, 1983]
"NAMBLA condemns corporal punishment, kidnapping, rape, and
sexual exploitation. Participation in corporal punishment, kidnapping,
rape, and sexual exploitation is contrary to NAMBLA'S statement of
purpose. It is grounds for expulsion from NAMBLA." [adopted December
4, 1983]
As the above positions detail, NAMBLA has no difficulty supporting
in its entirety the 1990 statement of ILGA on the protection of children.
We reaffirm our support of that ILGA statement now. NAMBLA believes that
the attitude of the 1990 ILGA conference is also shown by the resolution
calling on "all members to treat all sexual minorities with respect and to
engage in constructive dialog with them."
Already, several ILGA activists and member organizations have
condemned the secretariats' actions and reaffirmed their support for the
participation in ILGA of man/boy lovers. The national German gay coalition
Bundesverband Homosexualitat has declared that it is "astonished and
embarrassed" at the secretariats' actions. "We are convinced that any
attempt to expel NAMBLA and others from ILGA will be rejected by the
vast majority of ILGA members," writes BVH executive committee member
Wolfram Setz. Another German group, Verein for Sexuelle Gleichberechtigung
adds, "The fight for... fundamental human right[s] must not be relinquished
or reduced because of the political pressure from any government. Where
would we end up if we made concessions in this respect? NAMBLA's objectives
are as far we know absolutely in agreement with... the UN declarations of
human rights and children's rights."
The Secretariats, by their actions, are seeking to transform ILGA
from being a "parliament" of the international lesbian and gay movement--
a place where real discussion and compromise takes place among groups with
varied focuses and approaches-- and instead turn it into a public relations
showcase for a few leaders.
We value our participation in ILGA in part because of how we
ourselves have been challenged and have grown by talking and working
with lesbian and gay people with different experiences and perspectives
than our own. We have been gratified and encouraged at seeing others
change their feelings and perceptions about man/boy love through working
with us. Growth and understanding of this kind should continue.
****
In Liberation For All,
Roy
Roy Radow r...@panix.com ...rutgers!cmcl2!panix!roy
North American Man/Boy Love Association -For membership info & brochure
write to: NAMBLA, Dept. RR, PO Box 174, Midtown Station, NYC, NY 10018.
Send $5 for current Bulletin with amount credited toward membership fee.
Publications list available upon request.
--
Thomas C. Hartman
In article <2icgo2$t...@panix2.panix.com>, Roy Radow <r...@panix.com> wrote:
> In spite of this proud history, four of ILGA's six secretariats,
>meeting in New York, November 5-7, have request NAMBLA to resign and stated
>that they will seek its expulsion by the general membership this summer
>unless it complies. This small administrative body individuals issued press
I'm in TOTAL agreement with the four secretariats.
>releases on November 7 stating that ILGA "condemns pedophilia" and that
>NAMBLA's "political aims... are in direct contradiction" to those of ILGA.
I believe that NAMBLA's "political aims... are in direct contradiction" to
those of gays and lesbians in general.
>In particular, the statement cites NAMBLA's opposition to age-of-consent
>laws as a tool for protecting young people from sexual coercion.
The reason for age of consent laws is for the same reason we have driving
age laws, drinking age laws, work age laws, voting age laws (US Constitution),
truancy laws, etc. The point is that children are not able to make these
kinds of decisions because they are TOO YOUNG. I know I was.
>"NAMBLA condemns corporal punishment, kidnapping, rape, and
> sexual exploitation. Participation in corporal punishment, kidnapping,
> rape, and sexual exploitation is contrary to NAMBLA'S statement of
> purpose. It is grounds for expulsion from NAMBLA." [adopted December
> 4, 1983]
Hmm. NAMBLA condemns rape. How about statutory rape?
NAMBLA is against sexual expoitation. Sex with a child is not sexual
exploitation? "Hey little boy, I'll give you a candy bar if you take off
your pants..." A person who is not mature enough to drive, vote, work, etc.
is NOT mature enough to have sex with an adult. (oops repeating myself).
IMO, NAMBLA has NOTHING to do with equal/civil rights for gays/lesbians.
NOTHING! NAMBLA shouldn't ever be allowed into gay/lesbian organizations
because it is an organization designed to further the "cause" of pedophiles,not
gays and lesbians. In fact, the mere existance of NAMBLA damages the goal of
equal/civil rights for gays and lesbians.
Ugh, I better stop now.
>Roy
Thom
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Thom | On a tombstone: |
| Student, UC Berkeley | |
| | "They gave me a medal for killing two men, |
| thom...@ocf.Berkeley.edu | and a discharge for loving one." |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ude.nnamenhah.ivc@aivlys
>those of gays and lesbians in general.
Blah, blah, blah...
Perhaps NAMBLA should include a platform calling for the murder
of young children while they play with their friends in the snow,
then the UN will be happier....
>Hmm. NAMBLA condemns rape. How about statutory rape?
>NAMBLA is against sexual expoitation. Sex with a child is not sexual
>exploitation? "Hey little boy, I'll give you a candy bar if you take off
>your pants..."
Hey, little boy, wanna get on CNN? We'll just relieve you of
your head first.
>IMO, NAMBLA has NOTHING to do with equal/civil rights for gays/lesbians.
>NOTHING! NAMBLA shouldn't ever be allowed into gay/lesbian organizations
>because it is an organization designed to further the "cause" of pedophiles,not
>gays and lesbians. In fact, the mere existance of NAMBLA damages the goal of
>equal/civil rights for gays and lesbians.
>
>Ugh, I better stop now.
Yeah, you'd better.
The UN has no problem with members who slaughter children, but do have one
with funding an organization which includes NAMBLA? The four members of the
ILGA secretariat are being pulled by puppet strings. It's a joke.
>| | "They gave me a medal for killing two men, |
>| thom...@ocf.Berkeley.edu | and a discharge for loving one." |
and with *this* in your .sig, too!
Thomas C. Hartman
ude.nnamenhah.ivc@aivlys <syl...@cvi.hahnemann.edu> wrote:
>>I believe that NAMBLA's "political aims...are in direct contradiction" to
>>those of gays and lesbians in general.
>Perhaps NAMBLA should include a platform calling for the murder
>of young children while they play with their friends in the snow,
>then the UN will be happier....
Read what I said. I said NAMBLA's political aims are in direct contradiction
to those of gays and lesbians in general. I'm sorry that you read into
what I'm saying. Both pedophilia AND murder are wrong.
>>Hmm. NAMBLA condemns rape. How about statutory rape?
>>NAMBLA is against sexual exploitation. Sex with a child is not sexual
>>exploitation? "Hey little boy, I'll give you a candy bar if you take off
>>your pants..."
>
>Hey, little boy, wanna get on CNN? We'll just relieve you of
>your head first.
I fail to see the connection between reporting the news and pedophili
I still can't figure out how you inferred that I advocate murder. Either
way, freedom of the press is protected under the US Constitution. Pedophilia
is not.
>
>>IMO, NAMBLA has NOTHING to do with equal/civil rights for gays/lesbians.
>>NOTHING! NAMBLA shouldn't ever be allowed into gay/lesbian organizations
>>because it is an organization designed to further the "cause" of pedophiles,
>>not gays and lesbians. In fact, the mere existance of NAMBLA damages the goal
>>of equal/civil rights for gays and lesbians.
>>
>>Ugh, I better stop now.
>
>Yeah, you'd better.
>
>The UN has no pRoblem with members who slaughter children, but do have one
>with funding an organization which includes NAMBLA? The four members of the
>ILGA secretariat are being pulled by puppet strings. It's a joke.
Maybe the exact reasons that those four secretariats have for wanting to kick
NAMBLA out of the ILGA include some puppetry, but at least NAMBLA will be gone
from the ILGA. As I said, NAMBLA has no place in the issue of equal/civil
rights for gays and lesbians. NAMBLA should never have been a member in the
first place.
Hell, kick out members of the UN who like to kill children in the snow.
Just because I talk of one issue (pedophilia) doesn't mean that I care little
about another (murder of children). They are two separate issues. If you'd
like, I'll write a whole newsgroup article on how I hate child killers. OK?
I noticed how you didn't argue any of the facts/reasons that I posted about
why I think pedophilia is wrong, or whether or not NAMBLA has a place in the
issue of equal/civil rights for gays. Instead you incorrectly painted me as
a person who endorses the murder of children.
>>| | "They gave me a medal for killing two men, |
>>| thom...@ocf.Berkeley.edu | and a discharge for loving one." |
>
>and with *this* in your .sig, too!
What because I'm gay I'm supposed to be/like/endorse pedophiles?
Thom
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Thom | On a tombstone: |
| Student, UC Berkeley | |
| | "They gave me a medal for killing two men, |
| thom...@ocf.Berkeley.edu | and a discharge for loving one." |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| God still does miracles... my boyfriend, Mike, for instance. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas C. Hartman
R S Rodgers <rsro...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>In article <2icgo2$t...@panix2.panix.com>, Roy Radow <r...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Children's Rights" that urged member organizations to "lobby their
>> governments to abolish the age of consent law" so long as there is
>> "adequate protection for youth from being sexually abused without
>> the age of consent law."
>>
>> -- In 1986, ILGA adopted a position that says the group "supports
>> the right of young people to sexual and social self-determination."
>
>
>
Or how about the chicken hawk liberating the chicken?
I agree with your inmplied point RS.
Melinda Shore
>Read what I said. I said NAMBLA's political aims are in direct contradiction
>to those of gays and lesbians in general.
???
Care to explain exactly why you feel this way? Please
introduce some facts as you do so.
--
Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
R S Rodgers
> Children's Rights" that urged member organizations to "lobby their
> governments to abolish the age of consent law" so long as there is
> "adequate protection for youth from being sexually abused without
> the age of consent law."
>
> -- In 1986, ILGA adopted a position that says the group "supports
> the right of young people to sexual and social self-determination."
Yeah, and the cat really just wants to liberate the mouse.
--
New .signature under development. Start your development now! Beat the crowd!
ude.nnamenhah.ivc@aivlys
>Read what I said.
Once was enough.
>I fail to see the connection between reporting the news and pedophili
>I still can't figure out how you inferred that I advocate murder. Either
>way, freedom of the press is protected under the US Constitution. Pedophilia
>is not.
Uh, Earth calling.....
>Hell, kick out members of the UN who like to kill children in the snow.
What a brave man you are!
>Just because I talk of one issue (pedophilia) doesn't mean that I care little
>about another (murder of children). They are two separate issues. If you'd
>like, I'll write a whole newsgroup article on how I hate child killers. OK?
I don't care to hear a long and pointless diatribe about what you hate.
What I'd care to hear about is why the UN thinks this window-dressing
replaces *real* concern and action on behalf of children.
>I noticed how you didn't argue any of the facts/reasons that I posted about
>why I think pedophilia is wrong, or whether or not NAMBLA has a place in the
>issue of equal/civil rights for gays. Instead you incorrectly painted me as
>a person who endorses the murder of children.
You overstate your importance in all of our lives.
>| God still does miracles... my boyfriend, Mike, for instance. |
Aren't you a wee bit jealous?
++Sylvia
Thomas C. Hartman
Melinda Shore <sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <2ietob$p...@agate.berkeley.edu> thom...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU writes:
>>Read what I said. I said NAMBLA's political aims are in direct contradiction
>>to those of gays and lesbians in general.
>
>introduce some facts as you do so.
NAMBLA -> against age of concent laws
gays and lesbians in general -> equal/civil rights for gays and lesbians
Ok, maybe not "direct contradiction" but it certainly works against
(maybe not intentionally but it does) the
goal of civil rights for gays and lesbians. Unfortunately gays and lesbians
are associated with pedophilia. And that's not who we are or what we're about.
Thomas C. Hartman
ude.nnamenhah.ivc@aivlys <syl...@cvi.hahnemann.edu> wrote:
>In article <2ietob$p...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>thom...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas C. Hartman) writes:
>What I'd care to hear about is why the UN thinks this window-dressing
>replaces *real* concern and action on behalf of children.
I'm not arguing the morality or interior decorating habits :) of the UN.
Here are my basic points:
1) NAMBLA's main cause is to remove age of consent laws. For this reason...
2) It is inappropriate for NAMBLA to be a member of of groups like ILGA
because...
3) Groups like ILGA's main cause is equal/civil rights for gays.
4) I think pedophilia is wrong (for reasons I've stated in previous posts).
This is MY opinion, so if you don't like it, fine. You don't have to be so
unpleasant about it.
>>I noticed how you didn't argue any of the facts/reasons that I posted about
>>why I think pedophilia is wrong, or whether or not NAMBLA has a place in the
>>issue of equal/civil rights for gays. Instead you incorrectly painted me as
>>a person who endorses the murder of children.
>You overstate your importance in all of our lives.
Well I'm obviously important enough for you to bother responding to my posts.
And you still haven't argued against my stated opinions about pedophilia or
NAMBLA's role in gay lesbian issues. :)
>++Sylvia
Thom
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Thom | On a tombstone: |
| Student, UC Berkeley | |
| | "They gave me a medal for killing two men, |
| thom...@ocf.Berkeley.edu | and a discharge for loving one." |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| God still does miracles... my boyfriend, Mike, for instance. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elf Sternberg
thom...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas C. Hartman) writes:
>In article <2icgo2$t...@panix2.panix.com>, Roy Radow <r...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In spite of this proud history, four of ILGA's six secretariats,
>>meeting in New York, November 5-7, have request NAMBLA to resign and stated
>>that they will seek its expulsion by the general membership this summer
>>unless it complies. This small administrative body individuals issued press
>I'm in TOTAL agreement with the four secretariats.
And I'm in complete disagreement with the four secretariats.
I've also been completely outraged at the way the gay and lesbian press
has been headlining it. Both of our local gay presses have referred to
NAMBLA as an organization that "advocates the exploitation" of children.
I don't like NAMBLA. I think they're the wrong organization
with the wrong goals and the wrong methodology. But I've read what they
have to say, and I've *never* seen them *advocate* the exploitation of
children. If memory serves, and Mr. Radow can correct me if I'm wrong,
NAMBLA has repeatedly stated that RAPE and ASSAULT laws are applicable
to all ages and should be used in all cases where a child has been
implicitly or explicitly exploited or otherwise manipulated into acts he
or she would not have otherwise engaged in.
>I believe that NAMBLA's "political aims... are in direct contradiction" to
>those of gays and lesbians in general.
And I disagree. The general political aim of NAMBLA is to call
for a re-examination and ultimately the removal of age-of-consent laws
because they are arbitrary and in many cases harmful. I know a 21 year
old man who is in prison *right now* because his lover was 17 and the 17
year-old's parents objected.
Gays and lesbians have *always* had only themselves to rely on.
And more than one person on Usenet can tell you that they *only*
resource they had when they were thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, and
looking for some way to understand how they were feeling was to
*actively* seek out someone who could explain it to them. And often,
that someone was older than they.
>>In particular, the statement cites NAMBLA's opposition to age-of-consent
>>laws as a tool for protecting young people from sexual coercion.
>The reason for age of consent laws is for the same reason we have driving
>age laws, drinking age laws, work age laws, voting age laws (US Constitution),
>truancy laws, etc. The point is that children are not able to make these
>kinds of decisions because they are TOO YOUNG. I know I was.
And I know I wasn't. I lost my virginity at 19, and I really
wish that I had had access to people who would have helped me through
those terribly confusing years between 15 and 19.
As a libertarian (small 'l'), I also happen to believe that most
of the laws in this country (voting age, drinking age, driving age) are
damned stupid and represent a failure of individuals to adequately
instruct their progeny in how to be responsible members of society.
Getting back to the original point, I think it's unbelievably
irresponsible of the ILGA to state "we reject any organization that
seeks to change age-of-consent laws," (as one of the secretariats said
point-blank) when the ILGA, and *international* organizations, deals
with a country (The United States) where age-of-consent laws are
erraticly different from state to state, deals with a country (Britain)
where the age-of-consent laws are used to punish homosexuals, deals with
countries that have *no* age-of-consent laws *at all*, yet condemns any
attempt to correct these glaring inconsistencies.
I'm shocked that the ILGA, which as a member of the UN is a
cosigner to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states in
part that children have the right to determine what happens to their
bodies, and that includes whether or not someone else can touch it. But
the statuatory rapes laws, when they exist, are applied scattershot and
in a discrimanatory manner, take those rights away.
>
>>"NAMBLA condemns corporal punishment, kidnapping, rape, and
>> sexual exploitation. Participation in corporal punishment, kidnapping,
>> rape, and sexual exploitation is contrary to NAMBLA'S statement of
>> purpose. It is grounds for expulsion from NAMBLA." [adopted December
>> 4, 1983]
>Hmm. NAMBLA condemns rape. How about statutory rape?
"Statuatory rape" is a buzzphrase. Was it rape. a
non-consensual, extortive or assaultive act, or was it consensual sex
that the state condemns for arbitrary reasons? Define your terms or to
Hell with your argument.
>A person who is not mature enough to drive, vote, work, etc. is NOT
>mature enough to have sex with an adult. (oops repeating myself).
Nevertheless, children who are not old enough to drive, vote,
work, ect., *are* having sex, and in droves. Or haven't you noticed
that 1.3 MILLION teenage girls got pregnant last year, and probably that
many will this year as well.
The question is, are we doing our teenagers a favor by letting
them fuck other, equally clueless teenagers, or would the more
intelligent among them be better off looking for mature, responsible
partners who could teach them, by example if necessary, how to have sex?
Elf !!!
--
PC Bulletin: Henceforth, sentient computers would like to be known as
"Silicon Intelligences." "Artificial Intelligence" is a pejorative term
invented by humans based on the mistaken belief that computers are some-
how not "natural." - e...@halcyon.com
Quan Anh Nguyen
Thomas C. Hartman <thom...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>I believe that NAMBLA's "political aims... are in direct contradiction" to
>those of gays and lesbians in general.
Not that I'm a member of NAMBLA, but how so?
>
>The reason for age of consent laws is for the same reason we have driving
>age laws, drinking age laws, work age laws, voting age laws (US Constitution),
>truancy laws, etc. The point is that children are not able to make these
>kinds of decisions because they are TOO YOUNG. I know I was.
Now, if you have checked the age of consent for other countries,
it's a little difficult to tell *when* someone is old enough to
make these decisions. In some country, this is 12 or even younger.
>Hmm. NAMBLA condemns rape. How about statutory rape?
>NAMBLA is against sexual expoitation. Sex with a child is not sexual
>exploitation? "Hey little boy, I'll give you a candy bar if you take off
>your pants..." A person who is not mature enough to drive, vote, work, etc.
>is NOT mature enough to have sex with an adult. (oops repeating myself).
This is painting the picture a bit. What about cases where it's
completely consensual? On the face of it, I don't see anything wrong
with NAMBLA's position. I'm still grappling with issues of power
in an adult/minor relationship, so I'm not ready to back up NAMBLA's
100%. However, I'm not going to dismiss NAMBLA from its stake in
the gay and lesbian movement. Sure, having NAMBLA associated with
the movement hurts us in the eyes of the general public and conservatives.
It gives them plenty of ammunition to hurt our cause. However, can
you live with yourself for abandoning your brother because it's
politically expedient? I think it'll take a lot more thinking than
simply offering NAMBLA as the sacrificial lamb.
Quan Nguyen
Program in Social Relations
University of California, Irvine
Jon Edelson
>
>Well I'm obviously important enough for you to bother responding to my posts.
>And you still haven't argued against my stated opinions about pedophilia or
>NAMBLA's role in gay lesbian issues. :)
>
Bodily sovereignty and sexual self determination are issues which are
directly related to g/l liberation. NAMBLA is in this fight far deeper
than most gay /lesbian groups. The problem with NAMBLA, and the reason
that it squicks so many people, is that in fighting for what appear to
be rights to take away someone else's self determination.
I am not sure of my stand on age of consent. The idea is that we pick
an arbitrary age; anyone above that age is considered capable of giving
consent, anyone below is considered incapable. Alas people don't fall
into such neat catagories.
Abolishing age of consent would seem at first glance to be promoting the
abuse of children. But at the same time, it would be saying to children
'You have self determination'. How many children remain in abusive
situations because they don't feel that they have this right.
It is clear to me that if one is prepared to call someone else's
sexuality sick, one should be prepared to hear their own sexuality
questioned.
-Jon
Henry Mensch
this was the most intelligent thing you've said.
--
# henry mensch / <h...@netcom.com> / pob 14592; sf, ca 94114-0592; usa
# "on the internet, nobody knows you're a bear." --tovah hollander
# NBCS: B3/4 w+ f+ g(-) k+ s+ m p(+)
Jon Tara
>ude.nnamenhah.ivc@aivlys <syl...@cvi.hahnemann.edu> wrote:
>>>I believe that NAMBLA's "political aims...are in direct contradiction" to
>>>those of gays and lesbians in general.
To paraphrase slightly:
First, they kicked out the pedophiles.
Then, they kicked out the drag queens.
Then, they kicked out the leather crowd.
Then, they kicked out ...
What the ILGA is doing is in direct contradiction to the political aims of
gays and lesbians in general.
_____________________________________________________________________
Jon Tara | Internet: jt...@crash.cts.com | Am I supposed to say
| CompuServe: 76477,3422 | something clever here?
ude.nnamenhah.ivc@aivlys
jt...@crash.cts.com (Jon Tara) writes:
>>In article <2idujt$l...@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>,
>>ude.nnamenhah.ivc@aivlys <syl...@cvi.hahnemann.edu> wrote:
>>>>I believe that NAMBLA's "political aims...are in direct contradiction" to
>>>>those of gays and lesbians in general.
Watch those attributions, hon!
What you cite actually comes from the keyboard of someone else:
a young man whose boyfriend lends new meaning to 'divine intervention'.
++Sylvia
David A. Kaye
: What the ILGA is doing is in direct contradiction to the political aims of
: gays and lesbians in general.
Sorry, but pedophilia is not the political aim of gays and lesbians at
all, and never has been. I think you're trying to stir up trouble. I
have no objection to consenting egalitarian intergenerational sex, but
NAMBLA has an agenda which has has nothing to do with being egalitarian.
They promote a "big brother/little brother" concept, which means a
situation of power, not egalitarianism. Sorry, but that won't wash.
David Casti
why? :) It's a slow morning and it supposed to start snowing anyway...
Thomas C. Hartman (thom...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU) wrote:
: 1) NAMBLA's main cause is to remove age of consent laws. For this reason...
Let's start with this. What about countries where the age of consent for
homosexual and heterosexual sex differs? Isn't this a perfectly valid
fight against discrimination? And what about european countries where the
age of consent is 12? Or how about countries that don't have age of
consent laws at all -- I'm sure they're out there...
: 2) It is inappropriate for NAMBLA to be a member of of groups like ILGA
Looks like you're stating another postulate here, since (2) does not
follow a priori from (1).
: 3) Groups like ILGA's main cause is equal/civil rights for gays.
Let's start with equal age of consent laws, and go from there.
: 4) I think pedophilia is wrong (for reasons I've stated in previous posts).
NAMBLA does not equal pedophilia. You appear to have bought into the Big
Lie philosophy: if you say that NAMBLA = pedophilia long enough, you seem
to think it will magically become true. Why don't you sign on with the
Christian Coalition; they'll be happy to use your services. You could
even become one of their anti-NAMBLA poster-boys for a new anti-gay ad
campaign...
David.
David Casti
David A. Kaye (d...@crl.com) wrote:
: Sorry, but pedophilia is not the political aim of gays and lesbians at
: all, and never has been.
HERE we go again. There is a lot more to repealing age of consent laws
than decriminalizing pedophilia. All the anti-NAMBLA forces don't seem
to comprehend anything beyond their "dirty old man" fears. There are
many more permutations available -- including things like two "underage"
people together, or a young person seeking out an older person.
: I think you're trying to stir up trouble.
Now I had to laugh at this one. I think this remark is true about all
soc.motss NAMBLA discussions... and perhaps about many more soc.motss
threads.
: I have no objection to consenting egalitarian intergenerational sex, but
: NAMBLA has an agenda which has has nothing to do with being egalitarian.
Oh, now this is interesting. Please elaborate how you reached this
judgement. Explain how your "consenting egalitarian intergenerational
sex" is so different from NAMBLA's goals.
David.
R S Rodgers
Jon Tara <jt...@crash.cts.com> wrote:
>To paraphrase slightly:
>
> First, they kicked out the pedophiles.
> Then, they kicked out the drag queens.
> Then, they kicked out the leather crowd.
> Then, they kicked out ...
>
>What the ILGA is doing is in direct contradiction to the political aims of
>gays and lesbians in general.
Not really. To compare, assume an egalitarian group:
First, they kicked out the spouse batterers
Then, they kicked out the abusive parents,
Then (etc. etc. etc.)
"Multiculturists" -- those folk who are so proud to have an
open mind -- have very closed minds about some of the things
other societies do. This is a _good thing_.
Melinda Shore
>NAMBLA -> against age of concent laws
>gays and lesbians in general -> equal/civil rights for gays and lesbians
>Ok, maybe not "direct contradiction"
[well, duh]
>but it certainly works against
>(maybe not intentionally but it does) the
>goal of civil rights for gays and lesbians. Unfortunately gays and lesbians
>are associated with pedophilia. And that's not who we are or what we're about.
[well, duh]
One doesn't get one's civil rights by conforming to the
white, straight male world's picture of a model minority.
One gets one's civil rights because one is entitled to them
under the law. That includes gay men, lesbians, bisexuals,
and, yes, pedophiles. Any attempt to do the model minority
thing is, by definition, exclusionary, and woefully
misguided.
Don Huppert
Thomas C. Hartman <thom...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>Read what I said. I said NAMBLA's political aims are in direct contradiction
>to those of gays and lesbians in general. I'm sorry that you read into
>what I'm saying. Both pedophilia AND murder are wrong.
Don't you think -- correction, I think I know what you think. *I* think
this is a ridiculous statement to make. Were the issues of NAMBLA
vis-a-vis GLBO politics so cut and dried, there would be no debate.
As it is, most people don't even like to *talk* about NAMBLA because
there never appears to be any resolution to the ensuing arguments.
And I personally don't think there ever will be.
Two things -- with regard to the ILGA Secretariat, Mr. Helms, and the UN, I
think that yes, ILGA is acting irresponsibly and out of political expediency.
And our esteemed lawmakers? Please. I'm with Sylvia 100%. Do you think
good ole boy Jesse gives a shit about pre-teen brothels in Thailand or the
murder of female infants in China (I don't really mean to single out the
Far East but they're the first examples I could think of)? It may well
have something to do with UN "fare-beating" -- but I actually just think it's
another case of Congressional fag-bashing.
And as for NAMBLA? How can any thinking person not have conflicted
feelings about them? Sometimes I think I could have an easier time with
their goals were they someone other than NAMBLA. The following three
(related) observations sort of show the reasons for my uncomfortability with
them: (1) their newsletters often depict third-world pre-adolescents as
sex objects (and never older "Big Brothers"); (2) when they march in public,
the group is made up almost exclusively of older men, and (3) two of the
youth groups with which I'm familiar in New York are almost hysterically
opposed to NAMBLA. They (the youth) don't want NAMBLA anywhere *near* them.
I would feel much better about NAMBLA were there even the slightest sense
that they represented youth's views and feelings on intergenerational sex.
Don
--
Don Huppert
dhup...@panix.com
Thomas C. Hartman
David Casti <di...@vector.casti.com> wrote:
>NAMBLA does not equal pedophilia. You appear to have bought into the Big
>Lie philosophy: if you say that NAMBLA = pedophilia long enough, you seem
>to think it will magically become true.
How does NAMBLA not = pedophilia? A person who wants to get rid of age of
consent laws so he can legally have sex with children is a pedophile.
I am against pedophilia because I don't think children (children loosely
defined as anyone who is not an adult (I hope not to have definition wars))
should be prey to someone older, more experienced, and mature. Sure, I
don't mind adults teaching kids about sex, but not with "hands on experience".
Oh well. I hope people don't misunderstand my point or beliefs.
>Why don't you sign on with the
>Christian Coalition; they'll be happy to use your services. You could
>even become one of their anti-NAMBLA poster-boys for a new anti-gay ad
>campaign...
Sure, whatever. anti-NAMBLA does not = anti-gay.
>
>David.
David Casti
Don Huppert (dhup...@panix.com) wrote:
: How can any thinking person not have conflicted feelings about them?
Oh, that's easy. Some of us have already thought our way through this
issue. Now the challenge is to help the others find their way to our
point of view... :)
: Sometimes I think I could have an easier time with their goals were they
: someone other than NAMBLA.
I think this is very true. Were NAMBLA to dissolve itself and reform
under a different banner, it might be just slightly easier to make
progress. NAMBLA has a lot of history it's carrying around, and
sometimes history is a bad thing.
: (2) when they march in public, the group is made up almost exclusively of
: older men,
Hmmm... Would you mother have allowed you to march with the NAMBLA
contingent when you were 16? Somehow I think even the most supportive
parents have a hard time when their son or daughter lands in an
intergenerational relationship... I know my parents certainly did. (Now
Mom and Bill get along famously, but it wasn't always that way.)
By this point you appear to suggest that there are no young people who
support the goals of NAMBLA. I submit to you that is not true, and that
we even have soc.motssers who were among NAMBLA's "young" members in the
past.
Furthermore, I encourage you to consider the context of your point (2).
It is hard enough for young people to come out -- especially if they're
living at home. It is harder yet to struggle against our culture's
general disdain for intimacy and companionship across generations.
Finally, so many of the youth who do come out and who manage to overcome
cultural barriers are slapped in the face with a gay culture which
celebrates youth and is puzzled -- in some cases even affronted -- when
young people find commonality and friendship with older gay folk. How
many times have I seen and heard young folks complaining about all the "old
people" who hang out at "their" bars? I've certainly lost count...
Then, to be gay and join NAMBLA is to become untouchable -- outcast among
the outcasts.
So, don't be surprised that its only the older men who can muster up what
it takes to march with the NAMBLA contingent of the pride march.
: They (the youth) don't want NAMBLA anywhere *near* them.
Consider the composition of those youth groups. Of course they don't
want to be around all the old folks -- that's why they joined their
little separatist youth club. You can't convince me you're seriously
looking for youth supporters of NAMBLA if you're going to the youth "just
us" clubs.
: I would feel much better about NAMBLA were there even the slightest sense
: that they represented youth's views and feelings on intergenerational sex.
Hmmmm... And just how to those views differ from what NAMBLA is espousing?
David.
Bear Hunter
Intergenerational Husband
Becoming A Progressively More Serious Proponent of NAMBLA's Goals
Melinda Shore
>I am against pedophilia because I don't think children (children loosely
>defined as anyone who is not an adult (I hope not to have definition wars))
>should be prey to someone older, more experienced, and mature.
I hope that you're not seriously asserting that those who
support NAMBLA members' legal rights and/or who find the
age of consent laws problematic think that pedophilia is a
good thing. If so, you're not understanding why people are
disagreeing with you.
Thomas C. Hartman
Quan Anh Nguyen <eao...@rigel.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
>Now, if you have checked the age of consent for other countries,
>it's a little difficult to tell *when* someone is old enough to
>make these decisions. In some countries, this is 12 or even younger.
Uh, I have no control (electoral or otherwise) of power in other
countries. I'm talking strictly about the United States. I do have
problems with age of consent laws of 12 or younger, though. BTW, I'm
not against children experiementing with each other, I'm against adults
and children having sex with each other.
>>Hmm. NAMBLA condemns rape. How about statutory rape?
>>NAMBLA is against sexual expoitation. Sex with a child is not sexual
>>exploitation? "Hey little boy, I'll give you a candy bar if you take off
>>your pants..." A person who is not mature enough to drive, vote, work, etc.
>>is NOT mature enough to have sex with an adult. (oops repeating myself).
>This is painting the picture a bit. What about cases where it's
>completely consensual? On the face of it, I don't see anything wrong
Aren't most cases of pedophilia/child molestation completely consensual?
See my "hey little boy" example. Some (if not all) preadolenscent children
will do almost anything because of curiousity, too.
Thom
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Thom | On a tombstone: |
| Student, UC Berkeley | |
| | "They gave me a medal for killing two men, |
| thom...@ocf.Berkeley.edu | and a discharge for loving one." |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Casti
: How does NAMBLA not = pedophilia? A person who wants to get rid of age of
: consent laws so he can legally have sex with children is a pedophile.
EXSQUEEZE ME?! How about all those young people who want to have sex
with our elders? How about all those young people who want to have sex
with each other? How can you sit there and honestly tell me the ONLY
thing that repealing age of consent laws does is open up the gates for
pedophiles?
: Oh well. I hope people don't misunderstand my point or beliefs.
Oh, I don't think there's much danger of that.
David.
Daniel J. Karnes
[a lot of pedophilic nonsense deleted]...
>In Liberation For All,
>
>Roy
>
>
>Roy Radow r...@panix.com ...rutgers!cmcl2!panix!roy
>North American Man/Boy Love Association -For membership info & brochure
>write to: NAMBLA, Dept. RR, PO Box 174, Midtown Station, NYC, NY 10018.
>Send $5 for current Bulletin with amount credited toward membership fee.
>Publications list available upon request.
>
>
>
>--
>
Radow, fuck off and die. Now that even your fellow queers are getting sick
of your child molestation why don't you take a hint from the clue bin and
see a shrink.
-djk
--
----
Daniel J. Karnes | |
WA6NDT || || || WA6NDT@WB6YMH.#SOCA.CA.USA.NA
---||=|---------------|||||||||||||||||--------------------------------
"living my life on || || || d...@Netcom.Com / d...@Halcyon.Com
shakey ground" | |
Thomas C. Hartman
>In article <2icgo2$t...@panix2.panix.com> r...@panix.com (Roy Radow) writes:
>[a lot of pedophilic nonsense deleted]...
>>Roy
>Radow, fuck off and die. Now that even your fellow queers are getting sick
>of your child molestation why don't you take a hint from the clue bin and
>see a shrink.
>-djk
Scary world when there are rare
instances where I somewhat agree with djk.
Of course I don't think that
Roy or djk should fuck off and die...
I just agree that pedophilia is wrong...
Of course I can bet that djk and I agree that the world is round...
Roy Radow
Roy Radow
>I would feel much better about NAMBLA were there even the slightest sense
>that they represented youth's views and feelings on intergenerational sex.
Since its inception NAMBLA's membership has been open to all people
regardless of age, gender, or sexual orientation.
Young people have participated on an equal basis in our organization.
They have served as full voting members of NAMBLA's Steering Committee
(the governing body of the organization).
Young people have also been designated as official Spokespeople for NAMBLA
and have publicly appeared as such representing our organization.
The NAMBLA Bulletin (published 10 times a year) has always been an open
forum for young people and issues pertaining to Youth Liberation.
Our youngest regular contributor was eleven years old when he began
writing a monthly column for the Bulletin. Young people have been members
of our Bulletin Collective, and our current editor was a gay youth himself
when he first became involved in NAMBLA.
We provide financial and other assistance to GLB youth organizations
here and abroad. NAMBLA and its members have been involved in various
groups which provide support and services to the GLB youth community.
We have participated in and sponsored public forums as well as appearing
before the media, university and community groups where we supported the
cause of GLB Youth and Youth Liberation.
For years NAMBLA has adopted numerous official positions and have spoken
out publicly regarding youth empowerment and liberation. The following are
a sampling of our positions.
1980- Opposition to reinstatement of the military draft & conscription.
1982- Opposition to the "Schwieker" bill which would force doctors to
inform a young women's parents if she sought contraceptive devices
or an abortion.
1983- Support of equal civil rights for youth, including: freedom of
speech, press, religion, and privacy; freedom from involuntary
servitude; the right to due process; protection from illegal
search and seizures. More student input in matters pertaining
to their education, and the establishment of viable alternative
living conditions.
1985- Call for improved funding and education regarding AIDS, and
opposition to forced testing and quarantines.
1991- Support of young people's right to emancipation.
Support of young people's right to sex education & contraception.
How many other GLB organizations historically have had such accessibility
and meaningful participation by young people?
How many other GLB organizations have adopted positions and spoken out
publicly in support GLB Youth and Youth Liberation?
In Liberation,
Roy
--
Roy Radow r...@panix.com ...rutgers!cmcl2!panix!roy
North American Man/Boy Love Association -For membership information and a
NAMBLA brochure write to: NAMBLA, Dept. RR, PO Box 174, Midtown Station,
New York City, NY 10018. Send $5 to receive a current Bulletin with amount
Daniel J. Karnes
(Jon Tara) writes:
>>In article <2idujt$l...@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>,
>>ude.nnamenhah.ivc@aivlys <syl...@cvi.hahnemann.edu> wrote:
>>>>I believe that NAMBLA's "political aims...are in direct contradiction" to
>>>>those of gays and lesbians in general.
>
>To paraphrase slightly:
>
> First, they kicked out the pedophiles.
> Then, they kicked out the drag queens.
> Then, they kicked out the leather crowd.
> Then, they kicked out ...
>
>What the ILGA is doing is in direct contradiction to the political aims of
>gays and lesbians in general.
>
So.. You admit that pooter-pumpers are supportive of pedophilia after
all.
We thought so. :)
Thomas C. Hartman
David Casti <di...@vector.casti.com> wrote:
>Thomas C. Hartman (thom...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU) wrote:
>
>: How does NAMBLA not = pedophilia? A person who wants to get rid of age of
>: consent laws so he can legally have sex with children is a pedophile.
>
>EXSQUEEZE ME?! How about all those young people who want to have sex
>with our elders? How about all those young people who want to have sex
>with each other?
So what if young people want to have sex with their elders? Nothing
happens unless the elder agrees to have sex with the "young people".
I'd like to see how many members of NAMBLA are "young people" anyway.
I have no problem with young people having sex with each other.
>How can you sit there and honestly tell me the ONLY
>thing that repealing age of consent laws does is open up the gates for
>pedophiles?
Sorry if you misunderstood me. But I didn't say "the ONLY thing that
repealing age of consent laws does is open up the gates for pedophiles."
What I'm saying is that I am against NAMBLA because I believe that the main
reason they want the repeal of age of consent laws is because they (the
adults of NAMBLA) want to make pedophilia legal for their own interests, not
that of the child.
Kristin Bergen
[famous quotation deleted]
>Rev. Martin Miemoeller (1892-1984)
I don't mean to spell-flame (if that's the right syntax), but isn't it
"Niemoeller" with an N? Somebody might want to look up the reference, I
thought.
ude.nnamenhah.ivc@aivlys
>Sorry if you misunderstood me. But I didn't say "the ONLY thing that
>repealing age of consent laws does is open up the gates for pedophiles."
>What I'm saying is that I am against NAMBLA because I believe that the main
>reason they want the repeal of age of consent laws is because they (the
>adults of NAMBLA) want to make pedophilia legal for their own interests, not
>that of the child.
We know, we know.
And the only people worried about unlawful search and seizure
are the ones with something to hide.
++Sylvia
mark ryan miller
[some deleted....]
>By this point you appear to suggest that there are no young people who
>support the goals of NAMBLA. I submit to you that is not true, and that
>we even have soc.motssers who were among NAMBLA's "young" members in the
>past.
It would be very helpful in this discussion, if some of these "young"
members you mentioned were willing to come forward and show their
support. I've decided to keep an open mind, but one thing I find m
missing in this discussion are the young people that we keep talking
about.
[more deleted]
>young people find commonality and friendship with older gay folk. How
>many times have I seen and heard young folks complaining about all the "old
>people" who hang out at "their" bars? I've certainly lost count...
>
I understand that there are young people who want to be around older
men. At the same time, I have to point out that often, *some* (not all)
older men just assume that any younger guy they are interested in
is fair game. (Look up 'chickenhawk' in the gay dictionary.)
I'm not saying that I don't want to get to know older people. Until
I moved to Chicago, many of my friends were over 65! I have no bias
about age. Yet, I've had older gay men who took liberties with me
that I didn't like. I realize that the older generation has different
values. For example, I've had older men make aggressive physical contact
with me before even getting to know my name. I don't get this same
treatment from people my own age! On at least one occasion, I unfortunately
embarrassed an older man when I refused to be kissed by him. (This is
someone I didn't even know, who just decided that he was going to kiss
me.) Even after I indicated that I would be happy (and preferred to) shake
his hand, he kissed me on the cheek anyway. I was uncomfortable.
What's Mark's point??? Just that, some young people do want the
knowledge and maturity of older men, but that older men should be
careful not to force themselves on anyone, and should realize that
gay behavior in my generation is different from their generation.
I regret it sometimes. I'd really like to get to know some of the older
gay men. But, just a few bad experiences have made me wary. I hope I
can get over this discomfort and get to know older members of our
community, while not having my privacy/space violated.
--Mark
P.S. In spite of the above, I'm still keeping an open mind on NAMBLA.
Anyone wishing to send me info or comments is welcome. Roy was very
helpful in sending some useful reading material. Thanks Roy!
Roy Radow
>[famous quotation deleted]
>>Rev. Martin Miemoeller (1892-1984)
You are absolutely correct.
My fingers goofed.
Thanks for the correction.
Roy
--
David Casti
: Uh, I have no control (electoral or otherwise) of power in other
: countries. I'm talking strictly about the United States.
Uh huh. And the first letter of "ILGA" stands for ... ???
: I do have problems with age of consent laws of 12 or younger, though.
OK. Why is 18 any better than 12 or 16? Surely you're not going to say
that young people are sexless....
: Aren't most cases of pedophilia/child molestation completely consensual?
Interesting question. I doubt you could advance any evidence to this end...
David.
David Casti
: Ergo, even consentual sex between a child and an adult is exploitive.
Cool. Another facet of blatent ageism exposed. I'll wait a few more
hours before following up on this...
: I'm not sure my disagreement is on such solid ground anymore.
Good. Self-doubt is always healthy when you're parrotting a party line.
: I am currently dating someone who is sixteen (that's the age of
: consent in Indiana, BTW)
How convenient for you. Go on vacation to Oregon some time, so you can
see what it feels like to break one of these arbitrary age of consent laws.
: Let's be clear here, shall we?
A request I welcome with all sincerity.
: The point is not liberating children, but protecting the children who
: do not understand what is going on.
Ah yes, the need for prior restraint is a very important judicial tenant of
many oppressive regimes. Clearly protecting people from their own bad
judgement far outweighs ones' rights to self-determination, especially in
regards to what you do with your own body.
: Lord knows most teenagers in this town don't have a fucking clue what the
: dangers are, and some of them will probably die of AIDS in the next five
: years because of it. At least seven I know have already gotten pregnant.
Sounds like my home town. At any rate, this is an argument to remove age
of consent laws, not support them. Putting sex-ignorant people together
is no way to protect people from pregnancy and AIDS.
: After ten or so years of such effective education, THEN we can work
: for lowering the age of consent.
Quite the contrary! After reading your remarks, it is all the more
evident that young people need access to their elders' knowledge of sex
and disease NOW, not in some far-off future. How many 30 or 40 year old
men think about what it means to have a child compared to the number of 15
year olds? For that matter, how many 15 year olds even comprehend what
raising a child will entail? Few, if any.
David.
Lost Boy
(Breeder speaking, please ignore :) )
Regarding Mr. Radow and Mr. Harding:
I used to vigorously disagree with Mr. Radow on pedophile rights. Pedophilia
seems to me to imply exploitation of children- a child can consent to sexual
relations without understanding the problems involved (AIDS, other VD's,
pregnancy, the emotional hangups involved, &c), and therefore would not
be capable of a sound decision. Ergo, even consentual sex between a child
and an adult is exploitive.
I'm not sure my disagreement is on such solid ground anymore. I am
currently dating someone who is sixteen (that's the age of
consent in Indiana, BTW); she is extremely mature and has made it clear
that she does not want to have sex for very practical reasons: her parents
are very conservative and she does not make enough to live without their
support, let alone with a kid. Furthermore, because she's still living at
home, so birth control pills are out of the question, and neither of
us has faith in condoms. Because her research is at stake (and this means
a lot, as those of you who have published research understand), the
price of getting pregnant is way to high for both of us. This is her
reasoning, not mine, and I do not dispute it. It occurs to me that a person
who understands the risks about sex should be allowed to consent to sexual
relations. This would imply that a 16 year old who understands the risks
can consent, but a 25 year old who does not understand the risks is being
raped.
I still disagree with Mr. Radow's language. Let's be clear here, shall we?
The point is not liberating children, but protecting the children who
do not understand what is going on. Lord knows most teenagers in this
town don't have a fucking clue what the dangers are, and some of them
will probably die of AIDS in the next five years because of it. At least
seven I know have already gotten pregnant. If we're going to lower
the age of consent, we need vigorous and thurough education as to what
is involved. That means a thurough analysis of the AIDS virus! I didn't
have that in High School and I don't think a lot of other people are
getting it.
After ten or so years of such effective education, THEN we can work
for lowering the age of consent.
LB
--
Just call me LOST BOY
Mathematician:Licensed Complex Radical:Homomorphisms not Homophobia
Member, Society of People Who Would Love to See Rush Limbaugh Lose
All His Money and Become Dependent Upon the Meager Benificence of
the Welfare State
David DeLaney
Well, that settles it; if djk is against him, he *can't* be All Bad.
Oh, and Roy: "bit.listserv.gaynet" (*not* that they'll be happy to hear
from you, from what I've read...)
Dave "now I have to make a killfile again" DeLaney
--
David DeLaney: d...@utkux.utcc.utk.edu; ObQuote: `I suggest quoting 'J"K"P' and
'J"RR"P' both. --K' Disclaimer: Opinions? UTK?? Me??? BWAAAAHahahahaa <choke>
<snort> hee hee; Thinking about this disclaimer (or about theor. particle __
physics) may cause headaches. Vicki and Paul and Terry but not Joel. VR#: 0 \/
Jon Tara
>I understand that there are young people who want to be around older
>men. At the same time, I have to point out that often, *some* (not all)
>older men just assume that any younger guy they are interested in
>is fair game. (Look up 'chickenhawk' in the gay dictionary.)
>I'm not saying that I don't want to get to know older people. Until
>I moved to Chicago, many of my friends were over 65! I have no bias
>about age. Yet, I've had older gay men who took liberties with me
>that I didn't like. I realize that the older generation has different
>values. For example, I've had older men make aggressive physical contact
>with me before even getting to know my name. I don't get this same
>treatment from people my own age! On at least one occasion, I unfortunately
>embarrassed an older man when I refused to be kissed by him. (This is
>someone I didn't even know, who just decided that he was going to kiss
>me.) Even after I indicated that I would be happy (and preferred to) shake
>his hand, he kissed me on the cheek anyway. I was uncomfortable.
>What's Mark's point??? Just that, some young people do want the
>knowledge and maturity of older men, but that older men should be
>careful not to force themselves on anyone, and should realize that
>gay behavior in my generation is different from their generation.
I don't think that this attitude is limited to older men who like very young
men. I'm 39, and I *still* have older men come up to me and be overly
agressive - and some of those older men are younger than me! :)
The classic scene: guy makes several rather rude comments to me in passing
indicating his interest and exactly what he'd like to do. Later, he walks up
to me and says "what do you think of Corvettes?". Already knowing that this
guy was an overbearing jerk, I gave him no mercy: "I don't like them." Says
he: "oh, why?" Me: "because people who own them are usually assholes" Him:
(coming back for more!) "well, I own one - how'd you like to come out to my
car and have your dick sucked?" Me: "fuck off" Five minutes later, I'm
walking past him talking to somebody else. His line? "What do you think of
Corvettes?"
It generally takes a few years to develop such an overbearing attitude, and
also to develop a resistance (i.e. being able to tell them to fuck off without
feeling guilty about it.) But I don't think that this means that all older men
are jerks. It may seem that way, because when you are young and vulnerable you
are going to attract them like flies.
Now, getting back to the point: although I will admit that I really haven't
examined in detail what NAMBLA is saying, I have never seen anything that
would indicate that they advocate this type of behavior.
_____________________________________________________________________
Jon Tara | Internet: jt...@crash.cts.com | Am I supposed to say
| CompuServe: 76477,3422 | something clever here?
Jon Tara
>From: d...@netcom.com (Daniel J. Karnes)
>Subject: Re: NAMBLA, the ILGA Secretariat and the United Nations
>Date: Sun, 30 Jan 1994 19:08:17 GMT
>-djk
Why are you unable to present your arguments in a civil manner? Nobody is
going to take you seriously if you persist in personal attacks. You have
every right to disagree and to present your case, but your repeated and
vicious attacks on individuals in this news group beyond any reasonable test
of acceptability. I am sending a copy of this to Netcom system administration
along with a request that your access privleges be revoked if this kind of
behavior continues. I urge others to do the same.
David Casti
: David Casti (di...@vector.casti.com) wrote:
: : Quite the contrary! After reading your remarks, it is all the more
: : evident that young people need access to their elders' knowledge of sex
: : and disease NOW, not in some far-off future.
:
: Absolutely! But sex education doesn't require sex any more than history
: lessons require a time machine. What's your point?
Context, context, context. You've overlooked the context of my remarks
in response to "Lost Boy"'s post, hence you missed my point.
Lost boy was trying to play off the dangers of uninformed teenagers
experimenting with sex -- pregnancy, AIDS, etc. This is not an argument
to separate the experienced from the unexperienced -- "quite the
contrary", to quote myself.
Sure, sex education doesn't require sex. However, once you accept that,
the argument our Lost Boy advanced is dissolved. If you don't accept
that, the the argument our Lost Boy advanced supports my position, not his.
David.
David Casti
: Well, for one thing, there is a great difference between formal
: membership in an umbrella organization like ILGA and incidental
: coalisions on a case basis.
Uh huh. Like what? Maybe I should have told that to the No On Nine
campaign when they were collecting allies in the fight against the OCA.
: But please, David, this childish attitude was not what you could read
: out of my posting.
Oh now, c'mon. I'm quite capable of reading even MORE childish things
out of postings here on soc.motss... :)
: You can of course twist it that way to make a philosophical or theoretical
: point, but that hardly helps gays (of *any* race, religion or AoC
: sympathies) getting on with their agenda.
My point is that simply shouting "This is not a gay issue" doesn't
accomplish anything. If you're going to start saying that age
discrimination is not a gay issue, then I want to say that race
discrimination is not a gay issue using exactly the same logic.
: I have of course no problem with seeing that a coalision with an AoC
: organization has similarities with coalisions with women-only groups
: or any of the others you mentioned.
Mighty white of you, Baard.
: However, there is a huge difference in practice.
Oh, I see. Now isn't that convenient?
: ILGA is a political organization with goals that in short says "Equality
: for all without respect to preference of sex (gender)". ILGA must pick
: it's coalision partners according to whether they help ILGA reach that goal.
This is very true. I guess the ILGA was a very different organization in
the 1980s than it is today... or can you advance a reasonable explanation
as to why they had no trouble with NAMBLA until last year?
: My point is: The two issues are separate. At least we must *keep* them
: separate.
And I want you to explain why it is OK to separate this issue from gay
folk, while it is not OK to separate discrimination against women.
David.
brou...@lambda.usask.ca
In article <2iheiq$9...@agate.berkeley.edu>, thom...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas C. Hartman) writes:
|>In article <2if6bj$g...@news.service.uci.edu>,
|>Quan Anh Nguyen <eao...@rigel.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
|>
|>>Now, if you have checked the age of consent for other countries,
|>>it's a little difficult to tell *when* someone is old enough to
|>>make these decisions. In some countries, this is 12 or even younger.
|>
|>Uh, I have no control (electoral or otherwise) of power in other
|>countries. I'm talking strictly about the United States. I do have
|>problems with age of consent laws of 12 or younger, though. BTW, I'm
|>not against children experiementing with each other, I'm against adults
|>and children having sex with each other.
|>Thom
The UN and ILGA are *INTERNATIONAL* organizations, not U.S. organizations
so you are not discussing the issue if you are only talking about
the U.S.
Get a grip on the issue.
Darrell
Jamie Howarth
Fuck NAMBLA.
The political intersection between my life and that of men who want to
sleep with teenagers is completely null.
IF they want to attempt to legitimize their *own* re-enactments of their
*own * sexual abuse by visiting that upon a fresh batch of innocents.,
they'll get no support from me.
The age of consent should be 17 with a 5 year plus or minus window. 22
with 17 OK, 12 with 17 OK ... anything past that, out of line.
A kid has no clear boundaries,and it is the responsibilty of adults to
ensure wherever possible that that child is protected from invasion; to
directly and willfully violate whose boundaries sexually constitutes
theft of the most precious part of a young person's soul..
ude.nnamenhah.ivc@aivlys
>ensure wherever possible that that child is protected from invasion; to
>directly and willfully violate whose boundaries sexually constitutes
>theft of the most precious part of a young person's soul..
"The most precious part of a young person's soul?"
Getting your dick sucked is all you have to offer emotionally?
++Sylvia
Jim Halat
> In article <2icgo2$t...@panix2.panix.com>, Roy Radow <r...@panix.com> wrote:
> > -- In 1986, ILGA adopted a position that says the group "supports
> > the right of young people to sexual and social self-determination."
> Yeah, and the cat really just wants to liberate the mouse.
Yeah, and the homosexual on the corner just wants to recruit.
| _ _
. | . x .|.|-|.|
|\ ./.\-/.\-|.|.|.|
~~~|.|_|.|_|.|.|.|_|.|~~~ jim halat~~~"Start spreading the news...."
Quan Anh Nguyen
>Quan Anh Nguyen (eao...@rigel.oac.uci.edu) wrote:
>: In article <2ij605$k...@portal.gmu.edu>,
>: Debra Sue Hanrahan <dkam...@mason1.gmu.edu> wrote:
>: >Which brings me to my question: does NAMBLA support the rights of
>: >women/girl, man/girl, woman/boy, sex? If so, why should NAMBLA be
>: >considered a g/l organization? If not, why not?
>
>: I think NAMBLA does support intergeneration love of any sexual orienta-
>: tion. Why should NAMBLA be considered a g/l organization? I think
>: that any organization which has any remotely tangential relationship
>: to the gay and lesbian cause shoud be considered a g/l organization.
>: Are you suggesting that if an organization's stated goals include
>: equal rights for women, racial/ethnic groups, or any other grougs
>: *shouldn't* be considered a g/l organization? We need to move past
>: this narrow focus on issues that matter to us only.
>
>To the contrary, I think the concept of FOCUSing is to narrow one's goals
>and strategies. And what I'm suggesting is that if an organization's
>stated goals are only tangentially related to g/l issues then they should
>not be considered a g/l organization, any more than an all-queer hair
>salon should be. Just because queers are involved doesn't make it worthy
>of scarce queer resources.
Deb,
If I were to take your advice, then anytime anyone posts for help
in dealing with hostile groups, I shouldn't waste my scarce resource
helping them. This idea of a gay and lesbian (queer or otherwise)
org. is starting to bug me more and more recently. I think the time has
come to finally start bridging with other groups; and yes, I know
that having NAMBLA under our umbrella is not going to make it easier
to connect with other groups--feminist groups, for one. The point
that I was originally put across here is that it is morally wrong
to abandon an offshoot of the movement simply because of political
expediency or, as you put it, scarce queer resources.
Truly,
Quan Nguyen
Program in Social Relations
University of California, Irvine
Quan Anh Nguyen
Thomas C. Hartman <thom...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>In article <2if6bj$g...@news.service.uci.edu>,
>Quan Anh Nguyen <eao...@rigel.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>>Now, if you have checked the age of consent for other countries,
>>it's a little difficult to tell *when* someone is old enough to
>>make these decisions. In some countries, this is 12 or even younger.
>
>Uh, I have no control (electoral or otherwise) of power in other
>countries. I'm talking strictly about the United States. I do have
>problems with age of consent laws of 12 or younger, though. BTW, I'm
>not against children experiementing with each other, I'm against adults
>and children having sex with each other.
>
You're saying strictly the U.S. does that mean that the U.S. is the
one with the correct determination of when individuals are mature
enough. Face it, the age of consent, or for that matter, all social
definitions based on age, is arbitrary. Are young adults in this
country somehow *less* mature psychologically and biologically than
the ones in other countries? As someone have posted earlier, this
idea of young adults not being able to protect themselves is very
paternalistic. That's about the same as keeping women out of the
military for their own safety.
>>>Hmm. NAMBLA condemns rape. How about statutory rape?
>>>NAMBLA is against sexual expoitation. Sex with a child is not sexual
>>>exploitation? "Hey little boy, I'll give you a candy bar if you take off
>>>your pants..." A person who is not mature enough to drive, vote, work, etc.
>>>is NOT mature enough to have sex with an adult. (oops repeating myself).
>
>>This is painting the picture a bit. What about cases where it's
>>completely consensual? On the face of it, I don't see anything wrong
>
>Aren't most cases of pedophilia/child molestation completely consensual?
>See my "hey little boy" example. Some (if not all) preadolenscent children
>will do almost anything because of curiousity, too.
Again, you are inferring that little boys are prone to bribes to take
their clothes off, etc. I think young adults are a bit wiser than you take
them to be. Their parents have warned them enough about this. And if
they *are* curious, let them do whatever they want. This idea of sex
as evil incarnate just permeate this country and, I'm sorry to say, you
have been swept up in the hysteria of men lasciviously prodding and raping
young boys. You know as well as I do that what children really should
be afraid of, if I were to take your argument that intergenerational sex
is evil, are straight males--and usually someone in their family; Not
some stranger from NAMBLA.
Baard Kjos
|> status, one small project of ILGA,
Are you serious? A *small* project? How incredibly self centered can
you get? Is there a world outside the USA to you, Roy?
|> its secretariats have taken a
|> dangerous step toward destroying what ILGA is at essence: a diverse,
|> democratic coalition controlled by its members, not a small group of
|> leaders.
ILGA is an international politic organization which has *one* goal: To
work for equal rights for homosexuals in all countries. With respect
to AoC laws, this means only *one* thing: That the laws shall be equal
to homosexuals and heterosexuals. Equal in writing, and equal in how
they are enforced in practice.
If one of ILGA's member organizations has goals effectively preventing
ILGA from reaching its own goals, it is obvious what ILGA must do.
And currently this is the situation. In my opinion, it is the *only*
way to have homosexuals world wide accepted as humans of equal value
compared to heterosexuals. If you think UN and ECOSOC is a blind alley
for gay rights, and that the UN can go to hell as far as you're
concerned, then say so.
If an organization which advocates lowering or removing AoC laws (e.g.
NAMBLA) has a gay chapter, fine. But remember: NAMBLA is and will
always be a disputed AoC organization with a gay twist. This is *not*
enough to claim an obvious place among gay rights organizations.
--
Baard Kjos | And when you lose control,
| you'll reap the harvest you have sown.
Div. of Comp. Sci. and Telematics | ____ - Roger Waters
The Norwegian Institute of Technology | \ /
N-7034 Trondheim, NORWAY | \/ Silence = Death
--
Baard Kjos | And when you lose control,
| you'll reap the harvest you have sown.
Div. of Comp. Sci. and Telematics | ____ - Roger Waters
The Norwegian Institute of Technology | \ /
N-7034 Trondheim, NORWAY | \/ Silence = Death
David Casti
: Nice sidestep.
Usually by this point in a NAMBLA discussion I've talked about how
unhealthy and unnatural our whole culture is towards sex, and how adults
(and especially parents) spend a tremendous amount of time and energy
desexing their children. For some reason -- perhaps because this point
doesn't seem to be in contention this time around -- I don't feel like
doing that right now. I make no apologies for putting limits on my
discussion -- and perhaps those limits will be removed if we keep at this.
: >: I'm not sure my disagreement is on such solid ground anymore.
: >
: >Good. Self-doubt is always healthy when you're parrotting a party line.
: Ad Hominem is not appreciated, Mr. Casti.
Oh please! You can't be so thin-skinned as all this and still wander
around on soc.motss. Here's an ad hominem attack for you: grow up.
: I'm sure you're all too willing to slam me with assumptions about my
: motivations and my lines of thinking,
I will exploit every single weakness in your argument that I find, if it
furthers my position. You should be prepared to do the same if you want
to quarrel.
: but such non-substantive remarks as these reflect a fuzzyness to your
: thinking.
Hardly. It demonstrates that every time you equivocate and leave your
argument exposed to attack, I'll dive right in. You've opened yourself
up for a clear charge of hypocricy, and if the glove fits, wear it.
: Especially in light of the fact that I'm straddling the line right now
: about this whole issue.
News flash: I'm not here to convince you, personally. I'm here to rip
apart the ignorant, brainwashed arguments that flicker past my computer
screen. If you are convinced, great. If not, too bad -- maybe next
time.
: Or is alienation of others a part of your style?
Oh yeah, I'm well-known in these parts as one who works to alienate the
general readership of this group.
: >Ah yes, the need for prior restraint is a very important judicial tenant of
: >many oppressive regimes. Clearly protecting people from their own bad
: >judgement far outweighs ones' rights to self-determination, especially in
: >regards to what you do with your own body.
: You are making an assumption that most children are capable of highly
: mature decisions,
No, I'm simply pointing out that prior restraint is a very totalitarian,
oppressive ideal. In a democracy, it is very precarious to balance public
policy on the belief that people must be protected from themselves. I do
happen to believe that our culture proudly oppresses young people, and I
don't think that's right.
: I'm saying that sex-ignorant people shouldn't be having sex AT ALL, regardless
: of age.
Hmmm... I could go along with this, as long as you were willing to
surrender all the way our culture perverts and covers up perfectly natural
sexuality. Do you consider it civilized that children grow up in an
entirely sexless environment -- quite a change from our history, or even
other parts of the world which are looked down upon as "less developed"?
We could clear away this condition of yours simply by raising people in a
less sterile and dehumanizing environment.
: Absolutely. The question is wheither this knowledge should be imparted
: in the classroom or in the bedroom. Obviously we disagree on which
: room is the more appropriate.
Interesting choice of rooms. How about the living room?
: I wouldn't trust myself to educate my partner on sex while in the act of
: seducing her.
So, you have two choices: seduce her first and educate her later; or have
a little respect and educate/know her first, and then forget about
seduction.
: You have a point here. My argument is that this knowledge should be imparted
: IN A NON-RELATIONSHIP SETTING, for accuracy's sake.
Fine. I'm all in favor of sex education. However, the longer we talk
about this, the further it gets from the topic at hand... ILGA and
NAMBLA.
David.
David Casti
: It would be very helpful in this discussion, if some of these "young"
: members you mentioned were willing to come forward and show their
: support.
Actually, we've had them out before. One fellow from Oregon comes to mind
because that's the part of the world I'm from. I stop just short of
volunteering the name; I doubt it matters, but I'd just as soon let that
person come forward if/when they want to this time around. Were I from a
less oppressive background, I'm sure I would have signed on at a young age.
: I've decided to keep an open mind, but one thing I find missing in this
: discussion are the young people that we keep talking about.
Oh, good point, Mark. Let's see, there are (theoretically) about 110,000
folks who read this group. Find me some fraction of that -- I'd even
settle for 5% or less -- who (1) are under the age of consent for their
state, (2) feel safe enough to post as themselves since no one will accept
evidence advanced by anonymous posters, (3) have enough unrestricted
access to post followups, once their brothers, sisters, or parents catch
them identifying with NAMBLA. If you can demonstrate that the net is safe
for those people to speak anything but the party line, I'll be happy to
accept this point.
: What's Mark's point??? Just that, some young people do want the
: knowledge and maturity of older men, but that older men should be
: careful not to force themselves on anyone, and should realize that
: gay behavior in my generation is different from their generation.
Well, if they'd just sit in the back of the bus like good old trolls
instead of lumbering out of the shadows and scaring all the young'uns,
there wouldn't be such trouble. You know; speak when spoken to, and all
that good stuff.
David.
David Casti
: In article <djkCKG...@netcom.com> d...@netcom.com (Daniel J. Karnes) writes:
: >From: d...@netcom.com (Daniel J. Karnes)
: > Daniel J. Karnes | |
: Why are you unable to present your arguments in a civil manner? Nobody is
: going to take you seriously if you persist in personal attacks.
New around here, Jon?
David.
Baard Kjos
writes:
|> The general political aim of NAMBLA is to call
|> for a re-examination and ultimately the removal of age-of-consent laws
|> because they are arbitrary and in many cases harmful.
Which is on a completely ortogonal axis compared to gay rigths. They
have *nothing* to do with each other. You will always find people who
support AoC laws, and people who oppose them. To have the slightest
chance to stand united in the fight for gays rights, the only sensible
attitude towards AoC questions is to say that there should be no
difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Any other view is
*doomed* to lead to division and internal fights. Thus, including an
organization like NAMBLA is *suicide* for ILGA.
|> As a libertarian (small 'l'), I also happen to believe that most
|> of the laws in this country (voting age, drinking age, driving age) are
|> damned stupid and represent a failure of individuals to adequately
|> instruct their progeny in how to be responsible members of society.
That's fine, and I certainly agree with you on a lot of these points.
But I have the decency *not* to bring these issues into the gay rights
debate. It is harmful, and nothing else. Again: It is *suicide* for
any gay rights organization to try to make homosexuals agree on
*anything* but the right to be treated *equally* with heterosexuals.
|> >A person who is not mature enough to drive, vote, work, etc. is NOT
|> >mature enough to have sex with an adult. (oops repeating myself).
|>
|> Nevertheless, children who are not old enough to drive, vote,
|> work, ect., *are* having sex, and in droves. Or haven't you noticed
|> that 1.3 MILLION teenage girls got pregnant last year, and probably that
|> many will this year as well.
AoC laws are certainly interresting, but to gays the only interesting
thing is whether they are applied equally to us, compared to
heterosexuals. If you have particular interest in AoC laws beyond
this, fine. Join an appropriate organization. I won't condem that at
all. However, you can't expect to be included in ILGA just because
that organization favours equality for gays and straights.
Debra Sue Hanrahan
: be afraid of, if I were to take your argument that intergenerational sex
: is evil, are straight males--and usually someone in their family; Not
: some stranger from NAMBLA.
Which brings me to my question: does NAMBLA support the rights of
women/girl, man/girl, woman/boy, sex? If so, why should NAMBLA be
considered a g/l organization? If not, why not?
--
___________________________
Deb + "The heart and the mind on a parallel course,
dkam...@mason1.gmu.edu + Never the two shall meet"
___________________________+ - Emily Saliers
David Casti
Sorry for the delay in answering your email. As you can see, I've been too
busy posting news... :)
Don Huppert (dhup...@panix.com) wrote:
: >Hmmm... Would you mother have allowed you to march with the NAMBLA
: >contingent when you were 16?
: This brought back an interesting memory. But as to your question, no, she
: wouldn't have. At 16, I was in my 2nd year of psychoanalysis, brought
: about by accusing my mother of making me a homosexual by forcing me to
: practice the piano.
Sounds like she was on a very artsy kind of trip. :)
: The interesting memory is that the therapist fell in
: love with me (I found this out much later) and probably saved my life,
: literally, when I was a teenager.
You'll have to tell me this great story when I come to visit New York
some time. I was also taken off to the great temple of head shrinking
"for evaluation" when I was a young'un. Fortunately, I was raised as a
good Mormon and knew how to snow the shrink.
: No, David, I was suggesting that it doesn't 'appear' that there are
: young people who support the goals of NAMBLA.
Ah! Critical missing information. By introducing the word "appear" into
your meaning, you've equivocated enough that we can agree. You're
absolutely right: there doesn't appear to be much youth motivation behind
NAMBLA, and I think I've made a very good argument as to why that is.
: I should rephrase this: I would feel much better about NAMBLA were there
: even the slightest sense that youth had an active voice in NAMBLA. This
: perhaps is a perception problem, David, but it's a very common one.
I agree with you whole-heartedly: this is a perception problem which has
blinded otherwise intelligent and well-meaning people. However, I don't
think we'll ever see a youthful voice behind the goals of NAMBLA for
reasons I've outlined in my many posts.
David.
Quan Anh Nguyen
>women/girl, man/girl, woman/boy, sex? If so, why should NAMBLA be
>considered a g/l organization? If not, why not?
I think NAMBLA does support intergeneration love of any sexual orienta-
tion. Why should NAMBLA be considered a g/l organization? I think
that any organization which has any remotely tangential relationship
to the gay and lesbian cause shoud be considered a g/l organization.
Are you suggesting that if an organization's stated goals include
equal rights for women, racial/ethnic groups, or any other grougs
*shouldn't* be considered a g/l organization? We need to move past
this narrow focus on issues that matter to us only.
Quan Nguyen
David Casti
: So what if young people want to have sex with their elders? Nothing
: happens unless the elder agrees to have sex with the "young people".
So what if you want to have sex with someone of your same gender?
Nothing happens unless the other partner agrees to this sexual perversion.
Any time you're ready to make your point, feel free to do so. I'm still
waiting.
: Sorry if you misunderstood me. But I didn't say "the ONLY thing that
: repealing age of consent laws does is open up the gates for pedophiles."
No, I think I had a handle on what you said, but I need to entice you to
clarify yourself.
: What I'm saying is that I am against NAMBLA because I believe that the main
: reason they want the repeal of age of consent laws is because they (the
: adults of NAMBLA) want to make pedophilia legal for their own interests, not
: that of the child.
How blind can people be? PLEASE people, *think* about the context here
-- don't quote to me from rote, I already know the pat arguments.
Do you honestly believe there will or could ever be a group of young
people who act in their own interests in this matter? We live in a world
where children have no legal standing, other than as property in some
cultures. You sit there in one of the most liberal-minded parts of the
world, where even there young people are still the victims of involuntary
medicine and abuse of a million kinds and then tell me that whenever
adults speak out in behalf of the sexual opression of children, they are
acting only to expedite their self-interest of pedophilia. What's wrong
with that picture?
Youth groups will never address the age of consent issue for two reasons.
First, almost all of them are "just us" clubs which have no interest in
the richness of intergenerational relationships. The prevailing attitude
is "fuck you, old troll". I'll go so far as to say most of them -- and
certainly ALL that I've ever visited on either coast -- are just meat
markets. Mostly they are content to imagine themselves immortal and
flaunt the law as they see fit. Second, these youth groups have no power
to do anything. They have no money, no connections, and often times a
very serious attention span deficit. They are completely impotent and
rarely, if ever, act in accordance with long-range goals. Indeed, to act
with long-range goals would require realizing an existence outside their
selfish youth, and is often contrary to the founding principles of these
groups.
So what we're left with is a community which sits on its laurels,
abstractly codemning age discrimination and patting itself on the back for
supporting "youth empowerment" groups. In the mean time, any thinking
adult who has an ice cube's chance in hell of making a difference (e.g.
can vote, has a salary, has connections) and takes up the cause of
challenging the misapplied and inconsistent age of consent laws is branded
as a pedophilie. Sounds like a really intelligent and healthy way to
address this situation, eh?
Well, I think anyone who condemns age discimination on one hand and then
blast anyone who supports the goals of NAMBLA as pedophiles is a hypocrite
of the worst kind. Chew on that in your self-satisfied righteousness.
David.
Debra Sue Hanrahan
: Quite the contrary! After reading your remarks, it is all the more
: evident that young people need access to their elders' knowledge of sex
: and disease NOW, not in some far-off future.
Absolutely! But sex education doesn't require sex any more than history
lessons require a time machine. What's your point?
Deb
--
Melinda Shore
>Which brings me to my question: does NAMBLA support the rights of
>women/girl, man/girl, woman/boy, sex? If so, why should NAMBLA be
>considered a g/l organization? If not, why not?
This is getting absurd.
NAMBLA is, by definition, a gay men's/boy's organization.
Whether or not they show general support for inter-
generational sex is interesting, but not directly relevant.
I am no fan of NAMBLA, but I truly hate to see us offering
up the least popular members of our community to an
anti-gay feeding frenzy that is not going to stop at
pedophiles. You may not like them, but pedophiles are
entitled to the same freedoms as the rest of us, and if
individual NAMBLA members are committing criminal acts or
conspiring to commit criminal acts, then individual NAMBLA
members should be prosecuted *as* individuals.
As members of various sexual minorities, each of us has a
vested interest in making sure that dialogue about issues
like the nature of consensuality is not suppressed. Shame
on those of you who would give up our long-term interests
in civil rights for all for reasons of short-sighted
political expediency.
--
Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
Elf Sternberg
Jamie Howarth <ja...@panix.com> writes:
> The age of consent should be 17 with a 5 year plus or minus window.
> 22 with 17 OK, 12 with 17 OK ... anything past that, out of line.
> A kid has no clear boundaries,and it is the responsibilty of
> adults to ensure wherever possible that that child is protected
> from invasion; to directly and willfully violate whose boundaries
> sexually constitutes theft of the most precious part of a young
> person's soul..
An absolutely dear friend and sometimes fuckbuddy of mine once
said, "When I was 12 years old I discovered a park where there were men
who wanted to suck my dick. You can imagine where I went every day
after school!"
In Christopher Street recently magazine a writer of one article
wrote, "When I was tweleve, my mother told me to stay away from a
certain park because bad men went there. I knew what those bad men were
up to, and I went to that park for just that reason. Imagine my
disappointment when nothing ever happened."
Those are just two extreme, but nonethless extremely poignant
examples of /why/ some of what NAMBLA has to say makes sense. This
isn't "direct and willful violation," this is a cojoining of young lust
that knew *exactly* what it wanted and how to invite it, with people who
could appreciate that lust, got off on it, and apparently didn't harm
the youth in the process. If anything, they gave these men their first
steps towards coming to grips with the bi- or homosexuality (since
there's one of each).
*Adults* have few clear boundaries; if you're one who does, I
offer you both my congratulations and my condolences. But I must say
your limits are so wonderfully arbitrary; an 11-year-old boy isn't
sexual, *ever* at all? A 23 year old will take advantage of a 17 year
old, but a 22 year old won't? Why? Is the younger one more mature?
Pfagh. You're erotophobia just won't quit, will it? Give it a
break; children are having sex and you're looking to put up a barrier to
that. Why? Because they might get something you didn't? What a lovely
tendency we have to perpetuate the abuses of our parents; because your
parents didn't let you have cock, you're not going to let your kids have
any either.
Elf !!!
--
PC Bulletin: Henceforth, sentient computers would like to be known as
"Silicon Intelligences." "Artificial Intelligence" is a pejorative term
invented by humans based on the mistaken belief that computers are some-
how not "natural." - e...@halcyon.com
David Casti
: Fuck NAMBLA.
Here we find a well-considered and thoroughly developed opinion, shared
with us by the magic of soc.motss. Now if this isn't what I've come to
expect from "the opposition" on the topic of NAMBLA, I don't know what is.
: The political intersection between my life and that of men who want to
: sleep with teenagers is completely null.
Clearly women are lifted above this perversion and have no interest in
younger women -- or younger men. So, in the case of this well-informed
reader, let us add gender bias to the list of motivations for their remarks.
: IF they want to attempt to legitimize their *own* re-enactments of their
: *own* sexual abuse by visiting that upon a fresh batch of innocents.,
: they'll get no support from me.
Here again we witness the righteous judgement (with a cool psychoanalytic
twist) of the wicked, brought to your computer screen by a miracle of
modern technology.
: The age of consent should be 17 with a 5 year plus or minus window. 22
: with 17 OK, 12 with 17 OK ... anything past that, out of line.
This would be a good first step. However, it still doesn't pass the
"totally arbitrary and irrational" basis test. Just a few articles ago,
someone was talking about how their girlfriend was 16, and that was the
age of consent in their part of the world. Why 17? Why not 16? That
man might be in jail now if you had your way... not that you probably
care or even thought about it.
David.
Ann Carlson
|> In article <2ijipn$m...@portal.gmu.edu> dkam...@mason1.gmu.edu (Deb) writes:
|> >And I think this is OK too... I belong to organizations fighting sexism
|> >and I belong to gay rights organizations, and I think both do their jobs
|> >better when they stick to their areas of expertise.
|>
|> Let's try to be a little more clear about what we're
|> talking about, okay? This discussion is taking place
|> within the context of questions about NAMBLA's membership
|> in the ILGA.
My thinking would probablly be 180 degrees different if NAMBLA were only
just now petitioning from membership in the ILGA. All these arguments
about whether they are sufficiently les/gay focused and whether the
association would be politically expedient would make sense.
But the situation we have is NAMBLA's long-standing membership in the
ILGA. If we trust Roy Radow's article, representatives of NAMBLA to the
ILGA even helped to write the organization's charter. It seems a bit
late now to start wondering whether the association ought to occur. I
don't see any big about face on the part of NAMBLA and their stated
position which would justify expulsion from the coalition.
I even wonder about whether it is politically expedient in the long run.
ILGA has a history with NAMBLA whether they like it or not. Will they
now be viewed as a group ready to sell out their friends for political
advantage? My guess is that to our political opponents, ILGA is going
to always be either "the group that is associated with NAMBLA" or "the
group that used to be associated with NAMBLA but kicked them out when it
became politically expedient." I don't see any advantage to the
second option.
--
*************************************************
*Dr. Ann B. Carlson (a.b.c...@larc.nasa.gov) * O .
*MS 366 * o _///_ //
*NASA Langley Research Center * <`)= _<<
*Hampton, VA 23681-0001 * \\\ \\
*************************************************
David Casti
: Point one: Discrimination in general is both a gay and a racial issue.
Surely your limits don't stop there...
: Point two: It is highly debatable, to say the least, whether laws
: restricting people of certain ages from certain activities can be
: claimed to be *discriminatory*
I'll remember that when they pass a law which requires everyone from
Norway to yeild their seats on the bus to us Americans.
Discrimination, stereotyping, arbitrary restrictions -- it's all about
the same thing: PRE-judging people, rather than allowing them to stand on
their own merits. You can add any kind of window-dressing you like, but
I doubt you'll ever convince me that young people are not oppressed in my
country -- and yours.
: Would you welcome a gay chapter of KKK?
Interesting question. My answer: I think so. In other times and places
I have defended the right of women to have separatist "women only" groups
and clubs; the same logic extends to separatist "whites only" groups. If
you want to form a group where separation is a guiding principle, I'll
support you tooth and nail -- but you've gone 180 degrees from the issue,
which isn't about groups who want to separate, but groups who want to
build coalitions.
: The day *any* issue becomes a problem for ILGA, they should separate.
I see. It falls to the ILGA to support its historic allies only as long
as that's expedient and convenient. If I was a leader of some group,
this precedent would make me think long and hard before signing on with
the ILGA. Who knows how long it would be before my issue became a
political liability and the ILGA would dump me like yesterday's trash?
Your advice is a very good recipie for short-term success, and long-term
suicide.
: Womens lib isn't a problem for ILGA.
Yet. What goes around comes around.
Cheerfully sanitizing our community for the UN will be a mistake, and will
damage the longevity and moral strength of the ILGA. This was the point I
tried to make for you two postings ago. I accept that it is a necessary
evil for ILGA to separate from NAMBLA -- and I also realize I can not
castigate them for that decision without hypocricy. HOWEVER, that
separation is made under duress, and the ILGA should call a spade a spade by
issuing statements [for example] calling the Helms' Amendment a
thinly-veiled attack on all of us and that the ILGA realizes that it will
gain nothing by scapegoating NAMBLA. Instead, we see the ILGA happily
caving in to these demands. I'm waiting for the head of the ILGA to call
up Helms' office and ask what else the ILGA can do to improve its image
for him.
There are a lot of ways this situation can twist. It is a mistake for
the ILGA to roll over and play dead for their political opponents --
which is exactly what it is doing.
David.
Don Huppert
Baard Kjos <baar...@storlind.ugle.unit.no> wrote:
>The day *any* issue becomes a problem for ILGA, they should separate.
>For the best of ILGA.
It appears that the ILGA *has* made their decision. It is politically
expedient for the ILGA to ditch NAMBLA.
I just realized how truly naive I am. I think I almost prefer that
decision-makers reach these nasty solutions behind closed doors. I feel
sick seeing the process in broad daylight.
Don
--
Don Huppert
dhup...@panix.com
Deb
To the contrary, I think the concept of FOCUSing is to narrow one's goals
and strategies. And what I'm suggesting is that if an organization's
stated goals are only tangentially related to g/l issues then they should
not be considered a g/l organization, any more than an all-queer hair
salon should be. Just because queers are involved doesn't make it worthy
of scarce queer resources.
--
Deb
Lost Boy
>Lost Boy (smi...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
>
>: Ergo, even consentual sex between a child and an adult is exploitive.
>
>Cool. Another facet of blatent ageism exposed. I'll wait a few more
>hours before following up on this...
Nice sidestep. Care to take on any of the supports for my argument or
are you simply going to resort to PC terminology to bar discussion of
this topic?
>: I'm not sure my disagreement is on such solid ground anymore.
>
>Good. Self-doubt is always healthy when you're parrotting a party line.
Ad Hominem is not appreciated, Mr. Casti. I'm sure you're all too willing
to slam me with assumptions about my motivations and my lines of thinking,
but such non-substantive remarks as these reflect a fuzzyness to your
thinking. I was hoping you'd have something intelligent to say. :( Especially
in light of the fact that I'm straddling the line right now about this
whole issue. Or is alienation of others a part of your style?
>
>: I am currently dating someone who is sixteen (that's the age of
>: consent in Indiana, BTW)
>
>How convenient for you. Go on vacation to Oregon some time, so you can
>see what it feels like to break one of these arbitrary age of consent laws.
Nolo Contendere, guilty.
>: Let's be clear here, shall we?
>
>A request I welcome with all sincerity.
Then do yourself a favor and act in kind.
>: The point is not liberating children, but protecting the children who
>: do not understand what is going on.
>
>Ah yes, the need for prior restraint is a very important judicial tenant of
>many oppressive regimes. Clearly protecting people from their own bad
>judgement far outweighs ones' rights to self-determination, especially in
>regards to what you do with your own body.
You are making an assumption that most children are capable of highly
mature decisions, an assumption which is not supported by fact. Granted,
most older children are more capable of intelligent thinking, but only
the most exceptional are capable of understanding all the implications
of consenting to sex at the age of, say, eleven.
>: Lord knows most teenagers in this town don't have a fucking clue what the
>: dangers are, and some of them will probably die of AIDS in the next five
>: years because of it. At least seven I know have already gotten pregnant.
>
>Sounds like my home town. At any rate, this is an argument to remove age
>of consent laws, not support them. Putting sex-ignorant people together
>is no way to protect people from pregnancy and AIDS.
I'm saying that sex-ignorant people shouldn't be having sex AT ALL, regardless
of age.
>: After ten or so years of such effective education, THEN we can work
>: for lowering the age of consent.
>
>Quite the contrary! After reading your remarks, it is all the more
>evident that young people need access to their elders' knowledge of sex
>and disease NOW, not in some far-off future.
Absolutely. The question is wheither this knowledge should be imparted
in the classroom or in the bedroom. Obviously we disagree on which
room is the more appropriate. My girlfriend is a biologist who knows
more about AIDS &c than I do, and I am the older of the two. I wouldn't
trust myself to educate my partner on sex while in the act of seducing
her. Her classroom knowledge of what is going on is much more important
right now than what experience in the bedroom would teach.
> How many 30 or 40 year old
>men think about what it means to have a child compared to the number of 15
>year olds? For that matter, how many 15 year olds even comprehend what
>raising a child will entail? Few, if any.
You have a point here. My argument is that this knowledge should be imparted
IN A NON-RELATIONSHIP SETTING, for accuracy's sake.
>
>David.
Lost Boy
--
Mathematician:Licensed Complex Radical:Homomorphisms not Homophobia
Member, Society of People Who Would Love to See Rush Limbaugh Lose
All His Money and Become Dependent Upon the Meager Benificence of
the Welfare State
Lost Boy
>In article <2ij605$k...@portal.gmu.edu> dkam...@mason1.gmu.edu (Debra Sue Hanrahan) writes:
>>Which brings me to my question: does NAMBLA support the rights of
>>women/girl, man/girl, woman/boy, sex? If so, why should NAMBLA be
>>considered a g/l organization? If not, why not?
>
>This is getting absurd.
>
>NAMBLA is, by definition, a gay men's/boy's organization.
>Whether or not they show general support for inter-
>generational sex is interesting, but not directly relevant.
> Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
From what I understand of NAMBLA litterature, they do support
women/minor relationships, implicitly. Mr. Radow may correct me
if I am wrong here.
Lost Boy
--
Just call me LOST BOY
Deb
: Baard Kjos (baar...@storlind.ugle.unit.no) wrote:
: : You can of course twist it that way to make a philosophical or theoretical
: : point, but that hardly helps gays (of *any* race, religion or AoC
: : sympathies) getting on with their agenda.
: My point is that simply shouting "This is not a gay issue" doesn't
: accomplish anything. If you're going to start saying that age
: discrimination is not a gay issue, then I want to say that race
: discrimination is not a gay issue using exactly the same logic.
And I for one have no problem with that logic.
: : My point is: The two issues are separate. At least we must *keep* them
: : separate.
: And I want you to explain why it is OK to separate this issue from gay
: folk, while it is not OK to separate discrimination against women.
And I think this is OK too... I belong to organizations fighting sexism
and I belong to gay rights organizations, and I think both do their jobs
better when they stick to their areas of expertise.
--
Deb
Deb
: Cheerfully sanitizing our community for the UN will be a mistake, and will
: damage the longevity and moral strength of the ILGA.
My perspective is that perhaps ILGA has only now been made accountable for
the groups it admits into its organization, and that future decisions may
be made in a more thoughtful manner, without an eye toward how many
organizations they can claim. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that a
side-effect may be that political expediency will also be a factor in
those decisions.
Melinda Shore
>If ILGA wants to keep *any* credibility at all as an international
>organization with political POWER (and yes, we are talking about POWER
>here, nothing more, nothing less), they *must* work within the
>organization that sets standards throughout the world with respect to
>human rights.
Amnesty International?? I *sincerely* hope you're not suggesting
that the UN fills this role.
>I also wonder, what is the problem with excluding NAMBLA if it helps
>ILGA to reach its goals?
Anytime you give in to bigotry, you lose. Big.
Melinda Shore
>I just realized how truly naive I am. I think I almost prefer that
>decision-makers reach these nasty solutions behind closed doors. I feel
>sick seeing the process in broad daylight.
Hear, hear.
Shawn R. Hicks
[bits removed...]
>NAMBLA is, by definition, a gay men's/boy's organization.
>Whether or not they show general support for inter-
>generational sex is interesting, but not directly relevant.
>
>I am no fan of NAMBLA, but I truly hate to see us offering
>up the least popular members of our community to an
>anti-gay feeding frenzy that is not going to stop at
>pedophiles. You may not like them, but pedophiles are
>entitled to the same freedoms as the rest of us, and if
>individual NAMBLA members are committing criminal acts or
>conspiring to commit criminal acts, then individual NAMBLA
>members should be prosecuted *as* individuals.
>
>As members of various sexual minorities, each of us has a
>vested interest in making sure that dialogue about issues
>like the nature of consensuality is not suppressed. Shame
>on those of you who would give up our long-term interests
>in civil rights for all for reasons of short-sighted
>political expediency.
>--
> Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
*THIS* is the Melinda that won the *splatty* award! Right on target.
Shawn
Baard Kjos
|> Baard Kjos (baar...@storlind.ugle.unit.no) wrote:
|>
|> : Well, for one thing, there is a great difference between formal
|> : membership in an umbrella organization like ILGA and incidental
|> : coalisions on a case basis.
|>
|> Uh huh. Like what? Maybe I should have told that to the No On Nine
|> campaign when they were collecting allies in the fight against the OCA.
What I mean to say is: If ILGA supports some campaign, there is no
reason to pull out (of fright for the associastion) just because
NAMBLA or any other "undesireable" organization also supports the same
goal. However, it would be a bad idea to go public with the message
"Hi, I and my friends in NAMBLA stand together against #9". Like it or
not. Such is life.
|> My point is that simply shouting "This is not a gay issue" doesn't
|> accomplish anything. If you're going to start saying that age
|> discrimination is not a gay issue, then I want to say that race
|> discrimination is not a gay issue using exactly the same logic.
Point one: Discrimination in general is both a gay and a racial issue.
Point two: It is highly debatable, to say the least, whether laws
restricting people of certain ages from certain activities can be
claimed to be *discriminatory* (in the way law defines
discrimination). Age is a trait which easily can be proven has effect
on a persons ability to handle emotional experiences. Prohibiting kids
from seing violent movies is *not* age discrimination.
Point three: Shouting "This is not a gay issue" accomplishes *a lot*.
It ensures that we stand united around a common cause, contrary to
being split in zillions of fractions with individual views on
different matters. The effect of fractioning is an *exponentially*
growing function. Every new single issue that is brought into the gay
rights organizations has the potential to transform the gay movement
from a solid rock to dust. And very light dust too.
|> : ILGA is a political organization with goals that in short says "Equality
|> : for all without respect to preference of sex (gender)". ILGA must pick
|> : it's coalision partners according to whether they help ILGA reach that goal.
|>
|> This is very true. I guess the ILGA was a very different organization in
|> the 1980s than it is today... or can you advance a reasonable explanation
|> as to why they had no trouble with NAMBLA until last year?
I can only guess. My best guess would be that in those days, ILGA
never had any saying at all. Nobody listened to us, thus, nobody cared
about who we were, and we didn't care about who we were as long as we
were gay. Would you welcome a gay chapter of KKK?
|> : My point is: The two issues are separate. At least we must *keep* them
|> : separate.
|>
|> And I want you to explain why it is OK to separate this issue from gay
|> folk, while it is not OK to separate discrimination against women.
The day *any* issue becomes a problem for ILGA, they should separate.
For the best of ILGA. Womens lib isn't a problem for ILGA. On the
contrary, ILGA gains from the cooperation. The danger is, I'd say,
that womens lib will separate from us, due to our association with
NAMBLA. *That* will be a *major* loss.
Baard Kjos
|> If you're
|> cannot do so by rejecting the notion of coalitions without
|> broadening the discussion far too widely to be useful.
Melinda,
Do you suggest that there should be a universal policy for ILGA,
stating who to establish coalisions with? Ok, here is my suggestion:
ILGA works with anybody who helps ILGA reach its goals. ILGA throws
out anybody who stands in the way.
The acute reason for the discussion is that Uncle Sam threatens the UN
with cutting its ECOSOC fundings, unless ILGA gets rid of NAMBLA. The
motives for this threat are diverse, but there is no doubt that they
are real. Thus, ILGA has two choices:
- Get rid of NAMBLA and keep a foot inside the UN.
- Embrace NAMBLA and tell the rest of the world to drop dead.
If ILGA wants to keep *any* credibility at all as an international
organization with political POWER (and yes, we are talking about POWER
here, nothing more, nothing less), they *must* work within the
organization that sets standards throughout the world with respect to
human rights.
And to all those who have dozens of arguments pointing at UN's
complete incompetence with respect to human rights: Yes, they often
fail. But what are the alternatives?
I also wonder, what is the problem with excluding NAMBLA if it helps
ILGA to reach its goals? Is it the terrible feeling in the stomach
that we've let someone down? I mean, *if* ILGA achieves an increased
international respect for homosexuals, and perhaps even to have
sexual orientation included in UN's anti-discrimination clause (or
whatever they have; help me if you can), this would only be to the
good for NAMBLA and other similar groups. They would then only be left
with the age thing, thus, 50% of their man/boy love agenda would
already have been solved.
Jim Halat
> In article <2ij605$k...@portal.gmu.edu> dkam...@mason1.gmu.edu (Debra Sue Hanrahan) writes:
> >Which brings me to my question: does NAMBLA support the rights of
> >women/girl, man/girl, woman/boy, sex? If so, why should NAMBLA be
> >considered a g/l organization? If not, why not?
> This is getting absurd.
[...]
> I am no fan of NAMBLA, but [...]
Although I agree with your basic point, perhaps
your need to distance yourself from NAMBLA before
defending their rights has the same sort of mechanisms
at work that lead to political expediency.
| _ _
. | . x .|.|-|.|
|\ ./.\-/.\-|.|.|.|
~~~|.|_|.|_|.|.|.|_|.|~~~ jim halat~~~"Start spreading the news...."
| _ _
. | . x .|.|-|.|
|\ ./.\-/.\-|.|.|.|
~~~|.|_|.|_|.|.|.|_|.|~~~ jim halat~~~"Start spreading the news...."
Melinda Shore
>and I belong to gay rights organizations, and I think both do their jobs
>better when they stick to their areas of expertise.
Let's try to be a little more clear about what we're
talking about, okay? This discussion is taking place
within the context of questions about NAMBLA's membership
in the ILGA. This is an international coalition of
of organizations with gay/lesbian concerns. If you're
going to argue that NAMBLA has no place in it, you simply
cannot do so by rejecting the notion of coalitions without
broadening the discussion far too widely to be useful.
Deb
: What if they kicked out a group which was for transvestites? Now, not
: all transvestites are homosexual, so it is really an unrelated issue.
: So, who should ILGA do anything but exclude transvestite groups? Now,
: the transvestites are gone. Next, the S&M community is excluded. Why?
: Because S&M is not only a gay or lesbian phenomenon, they can fend for
: themselves. Would you then say "I don't understand why ILGA should
: retain in its membership an S&M group which happens to serve gay men."?
: Next, it is the black and white living together groups. Would you say
: "what is so special about inter-racial relationships which makes
: validates their membership in ILGA?" Now, we don't have any groups
: which are for any special interests.
Right.
: How will you feel when all the "questionable" groups are gone from ILGA?
: Then, suddenly, the ILGA acheives their goals of acceptance for all the
: groups which are members. Of course, this excludes any group which could
: be either a fringe group or a group which is not "really a gay and lesbian
: issue."
You're on a roll!
: What happens if you happen to be a member of this group?
I AM a member of groups which I would expect to be excluded. And if ILGA
achieves the goal of acceptance (yeah, BIG "if"), it's all the better for
us, even if we're not members. OTOH, if my groups were accepted by ILGA
and as a result it achieves nothing, we all lose.
--
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
+ "We've all been removed in one way or another/
Deb + We don't know our families/
dkam...@mason1.gmu.edu + We don't need our brothers" - Amy Ray
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Deb
: In article <2im537$4...@portal.gmu.edu> dkam...@mason1.gmu.edu (Deb) writes:
: >You bet. But no one has yet demonstrated to me why this exclusion should
: >be considered bigotry.
: Oh, *come* *on*. I have yet to see one single person, up
: until you brought this up, seriously advance the argument
: that NAMBLA's [stated] goals are incidental to the
: interests of the ILGA.
And I have yet to see one single person even attempt to explain to me
what makes NAMBLA's goals more than incidental to the interest of ILGA.
I am *NOT* nit-picking here, I seriously want to hear a reasonable
explanation of why ILGA should embrace an AoC group.
: Second, NAMBLA is already a member of the ILGA. Have the
: ILGA goals changed in some substantive way? If not, why
: are they tossing a member organization out on its butt? If
: so, what other organizations are being asked to leave?
NAMBLA is being asked to leave for political expediency, and I've made no
suggestions otherwise, and I wouldn't dare to defend ILGA in this regard.
As I stated previously, I think it's unfortunate that it took this to make
ILGA examine its membership requirements.
Baard Kjos
|> [...] The same situation with boylove
|> nowadays, but these gays won't see they're just like the people who believed
|> homosexuality was wrong forty years ago. They just joined those people... so
|> sad.
Conceptually the situation is the same, yes, but the real content is
different. There is no reason to applaude *any* kind of sexual activity
simply because you think homosexuality is equivalent to
heterosexuality.
|> 2. These gays want ILGA to remain part of the UN and, when the sacrifice is
|> NAMBLA and/or MARTIJN... hell with principles...
Which priciples?
|> People like these are even worse than the ones above. They are just mean,
|> dishonest people, only thinking about their own position and
|> winning, not about trying to find the truth [...]
Finding the truth? Hello, is there anybody in there?
Tim Pierce
Jon Tara <jt...@crash.cts.com> wrote:
>In fact, quieting the non-mainstream gay groups WOULD probably
>result in quicker political gains for gays. This is good political thinking -
>but it is wrong.
It's not even particularly good political thinking, either. Is anyone
here suffering under the delusion that the Right opposes queerness
only because of NAMBLA and for no other reason? They'll come up with
no end of miserably uninformed arguments without NAMBLA -- of that you
can be sure.
--
____ Tim Pierce / "Is that a UNIX book? ... Cool!"
\ / twpi...@unix.amherst.edu /
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / -- Garth, WAYNE'S WORLD 2
Tim Pierce
Baard Kjos <baar...@storlind.ugle.unit.no> wrote:
>In article <2iedoa$j...@nwfocus.wa.com> e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
>writes:
>|> The general political aim of NAMBLA is to call
>|> for a re-examination and ultimately the removal of age-of-consent laws
>|> because they are arbitrary and in many cases harmful.
>
>Which is on a completely ortogonal axis compared to gay rigths. They
>have *nothing* to do with each other. You will always find people who
>support AoC laws, and people who oppose them.
You will always find people who support EEO, and people who oppose it.
You will always find people who support marriage as a state-sponsored
institution, and people who oppose it. And so on. But are all these
issues *completely* orthogonal to gay rights?
To say that homosexuality, EEO, polygamy, age-of-consent laws and the
like do not all share at least some element of commonality is to admit
to a very shaky understanding of the oppressive sexual paradigm under
which we live.
>Any other view is
>*doomed* to lead to division and internal fights.
You don't seriously think that a movement of any size whatsoever can
expect to be free of internal strife, I hope.
>Thus, including an
>organization like NAMBLA is *suicide* for ILGA.
It seems to have gotten along all right so far.
Jeff Dauber
Pierce) writes:
|> In article <jtara.42...@crash.cts.com>,
|> Jon Tara <jt...@crash.cts.com> wrote:
|>
|> >In fact, quieting the non-mainstream gay groups WOULD probably
|> >result in quicker political gains for gays. This is good political
|> thinking -
|> >but it is wrong.
|>
|> It's not even particularly good political thinking, either. Is anyone
|> here suffering under the delusion that the Right opposes queerness
|> only because of NAMBLA and for no other reason? They'll come up with
|> no end of miserably uninformed arguments without NAMBLA -- of that you
|> can be sure.
In addition, I have to add that with the exclusion of NAMBLA, the "fringe"
of the gay community moves into a much more populated segment of our
community. The advantage of NAMBLA is that they were a fringe group for
everyone. With NAMBLA gone, where is the fringe? Is it the leather
community? How about the drag community? What group is going to be
attacked
next?
FWA
Tim Pierce
Baard Kjos <baar...@storlind.ugle.unit.no> wrote:
>I also wonder, what is the problem with excluding NAMBLA if it helps
>ILGA to reach its goals?
In some views, it is the very inclusion of NAMBLA that may be a goal
of the ILGA. This may be partly why you're having such a hard time
understanding. Think about it.
Tim Pierce
named "bit.list.serv.gaynet."
In article <2iheiq$9...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Thomas C. Hartman <thom...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>Aren't most cases of pedophilia/child molestation completely consensual?
>See my "hey little boy" example.
Your "hey little boy" example is not even slightly consensual. This
is what the idea of "informed consent" is all about.
Melinda Shore
>And I have yet to see one single person even attempt to explain to me
>what makes NAMBLA's goals more than incidental to the interest of ILGA.
If nothing else, age of consent laws are selectively
enforced as a weapon against gay people. The more general
question, however, is the right to make informed decisions
to enter into consensual relationships without the government
being used as a mechanism to codify bigotry. This is obviously
a very broad concern, but NAMBLA is clearly interested in
seeing these questions addressed and they've been active in
forming coalitions with other glb organizations.
For whatever it's worth, I really don't like NAMBLA, but as
a member of at least one sexual minority I have a vested
interest in making sure that the rights *and* concerns
*and* efforts of members of other sexual minorities receive
the same respect and recognition that I would like to
receive for mine. If I don't, I lose any credibility I
might have as someone who cares about human/civil rights.
NAMBLA is currently an ILGA member, and the ILGA cannot
jettison them without undermining their entire reason
for being.
Caitlin Mackay Shaw
[...]
>Cheerfully sanitizing our community for the UN will be a mistake, and will
>damage the longevity and moral strength of the ILGA.
Exactly. After all, *why* is ILGA dumping NAMBLA? Because the
representatives of the global mainstream, such as it is, object. Fifty
years ago they would have objected to a lesbigay organization of any
kind -- maybe Americans should have purged all queers from the country
before joining. After all, it would have been politically expedient.
But wait, didn't they try? Wasn't that good? After all, it wasn't an
American issue -- the fact that most gays in America were American
citizens was merely incidental, right?
Not to advocate a random "slippery slope", but there are already people
in lesbigay organizations who don't wish to associate with drag queens
and feel no particular need to defend them to the rest of the world, who
almost certainly doesn't like "men in women's clothes" (as if one gender
had a monopoly on appearance!). And S&M -- there are queers who *hate*
that! Should IGLA be a rich white man's organization? Would that be
politically expedient?
You can say that NAMBLA is harmful. Actually, I've yet to hear
supporting evidence that pedophilia is always child molestation; ie,
that the younger person involved did not consent, or would not have
consented knowing the outcome (I would like to point out that while
experience can be a guide, no one *ever* knows for certain the outcome
of anything until it happens). Is sex such a bad thing that children
must be protected from it, even with each other?
You can say that NAMBLA advocates illegal behavoir. <Laugh>. Go check
out the anti-sodomy laws on the books around the world.
Face it, in this day and age to be queer is to defy what is expected,
what the world in general wishes of you. IGLA cannot survive to change
those expectations if it does not first fight them.
-Caitlin
"There is no /one true way/." -- M. Lackey
Caitlin Mackay Shaw
>I also wonder, what is the problem with excluding NAMBLA if it helps
>ILGA to reach its goals? Is it the terrible feeling in the stomach
>that we've let someone down?
Yes.
-Caitlin
Jamie Howarth
break; children are having sex and you're looking to put up a barrier to
that. Why? Because they might get something you didn't? What a lovely
tendency we have to perpetuate the abuses of our parents; because your
parents didn't let you have cock, you're not going to let your kids have
any either.>>>>>
That's mindless. I don't have kids. You make my point about perpetuating
the abuses of our elders more eloquently than I did. Unfortunately for
the remainder of the paragraph, it ain't facts, jackson... I had a ton of sex
with other kids when I was a kid, and more power to the kids doin' it amongst
themselves now...
I'm looking to put up a barrier against sexual abuse of kids, yes.
You shouldn't confuse this with healthy sex, of which I am a hearty
proponent...
But really.
Fuck NAMBLA. If Melinda wants to equate homosexuality with perversion,
well, isn't that what Helms is doing? Why help him.?
Count me in on the former, out on the latter.
--
________________________________----+----_________________________________
"Come on down to the river of | - | ja...@panix.com
sight and you can really | - | (Jamie Howarth)
understand" - Neil Young | - |
Henry Mensch
->what makes NAMBLA's goals more than incidental to the interest of ILGA.
->I am *NOT* nit-picking here, I seriously want to hear a reasonable
->explanation of why ILGA should embrace an AoC group.
i would recommend you extract your head from your butt long enough
to read what others have written here. it's been explained ... more
than once.
--
# henry mensch / <h...@netcom.com> / pob 14592; sf, ca 94114-0592; usa
# "on the internet, nobody knows you're a bear." --tovah hollander
# NBCS: B3/4 w+ f+ g(-) k+ s+ m p(+)
Sammie L. Foss
ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
>To imply that saying "don't fuck children" to an adult is
>the equivalent of saying "don't go to the front of the bus"
>to a black man is, to me, sheer and utter bullshit.
>
To say that it is ok to 'fuck' a 'child' who is X years old is
OK, but to 'fuck' a 'child' who is (X years)-(1 day) old is wrong
is complete and utter bullshit! Especially when X is variable within
a 1/2 mile radius.
Anyway, I think that there will always be AoC laws, but a little
consistantcy would be nice.
I have a couple of comments and questions.
1)If NAMBLA's goals are so different than those of the IGLA,
why were they given membership in the first place? I have a feeling
it was a 'strength in numbers' thing, and now that IGLA is in a
position to make a political impact they feel that 'the boat is
to crowded' and they are throwing NAMBLA over-board. Talk about
your exploitation. GEESH!
2) Can someone tell me where I might find the 'statement of purpose'
of both organizations?
3)Whoever asked about a 'differently inclined' KKK chapter knows
nothing about the KKK. They hate 'queers' so saying that there
could be a gay KKK is about like saying there could be a Jewish
nazi organization. (I am adding it to my favorite oxyMORON list)
4) Can someone explain to me what a straigt acting queer looks
like. It seems to be a cardinal sin to be such a thing, and
I want to make sure I am not one. Can one be out and still be
straight acting. Maybe one of the Atlanta motssers can let me know
if I am guilty of such a thing. (I am really serious, this is not
a joke, I honestly don't know how one could be out and be straight
acting.)
Sammie
Deb
: In article <BAARDKJO.9...@storlind.ugle.unit.no> baar...@storlind.ugle.unit.no (Baard Kjos) writes:
: >I also wonder, what is the problem with excluding NAMBLA if it helps
: >ILGA to reach its goals?
: Anytime you give in to bigotry, you lose. Big.
You bet. But no one has yet demonstrated to me why this exclusion should
be considered bigotry. That is, I still don't understand why ILGA should
retain in its membership an AoC group which happens to serve gay men. If
I start "Dykes for the Decriminalization of Marijuana," is ILGA bigoted
in rejecting me as inconsequential to their goals?
Jeff Dauber
writes:
|> You bet. But no one has yet demonstrated to me why this exclusion
|> should
|> be considered bigotry. That is, I still don't understand why ILGA
|> should
|> retain in its membership an AoC group which happens to serve gay men.
|> If
|> I start "Dykes for the Decriminalization of Marijuana," is ILGA bigoted
|> |> in rejecting me as inconsequential to their goals?
What if they kicked out a group which was for transvestites? Now, not
all transvestites are homosexual, so it is really an unrelated issue.
So, who should ILGA do anything but exclude transvestite groups? Now,
the transvestites are gone. Next, the S&M community is excluded. Why?
Because S&M is not only a gay or lesbian phenomenon, they can fend for
themselves. Would you then say "I don't understand why ILGA should
retain in its membership an S&M group which happens to serve gay men."?
Next, it is the black and white living together groups. Would you say
"what is so special about inter-racial relationships which makes
validates their membership in ILGA?" Now, we don't have any groups
which are for any special interests.
How will you feel when all the "questionable" groups are gone from ILGA?
Then, suddenly, the ILGA acheives their goals of acceptance for all the
groups which are members. Of course, this excludes any group which could
be either a fringe group or a group which is not "really a gay and lesbian
issue." What happens if you happen to be a member of this group?
FWA
Deb
: In article <jtara.42...@crash.cts.com>,
: Jon Tara <jt...@crash.cts.com> wrote:
: >In fact, quieting the non-mainstream gay groups WOULD probably
: >result in quicker political gains for gays. This is good political thinking -
: >but it is wrong.
: It's not even particularly good political thinking, either. Is anyone
: here suffering under the delusion that the Right opposes queerness
: only because of NAMBLA and for no other reason? They'll come up with
: no end of miserably uninformed arguments without NAMBLA -- of that you
: can be sure.
This is true, but only of the far Right; it is with those who are more
moderate that the gains would be made. If they see gays distancing
themselves from NAMBLA, and fundies grasping at straws, do you have any
doubt that queerness benefits, at least in this regard? At this time,
the Right has a huge hammer with which to clobber gay advances (and in
fact, to drive home anti-gay initiatives), and they are making grand use
of it.
Deb
: You will always find people who support EEO, and people who oppose it.
: You will always find people who support marriage as a state-sponsored
: institution, and people who oppose it. And so on. But are all these
: issues *completely* orthogonal to gay rights?
: To say that homosexuality, EEO, polygamy, age-of-consent laws and the
: like do not all share at least some element of commonality is to admit
: to a very shaky understanding of the oppressive sexual paradigm under
: which we live.
Who in the world (other than bigots) oppopses EEO?! Perhaps you mean
affirmative action? But I think you hit a home run with marriage. [light
bulb over head here]
: >Thus, including an
: >organization like NAMBLA is *suicide* for ILGA.
: It seems to have gotten along all right so far.
This argument can be made about a frightening number of dreadful things.