Child porn
TIM BROWN
The recent post by Rex about Child Pornography is a timely and
disturbing one. It reminded me about the controversy surounding
NAMBLA. What are the opinions out there about this group? Is it
"Time to dump NAMBLA"?
Tim
sucks Syntax!
Jerry Trowbridge
"TIM BROWN" <TBR...@Marsh.VINU.edu> wrote:
> The recent post by Rex about Child Pornography is a timely and
> NAMBLA. What are the opinions out there about this group? Is it
> "Time to dump NAMBLA"?
Dump NAMBLA from what? ILGA dumped NAMBLA because it thought it would
appease the conservative elements trying to derail the United Nations,
yet ILGA got dumped anyway.
The Stonewall 25 committee dumped NAMBLA, yet the alternative march
in which NAMBLA joined featured a carload of original participants
in the Stonewall riot being commemorated, and marched down the
parade route that the SW25 committee sought but could not acquire.
SW25 is deeply in debt.
The HRCF took a hardline stand against NAMBLA and is now crying that
it must cut its budgets because of a shortfall of funds. I'm not saying
that dumping NAMBLA has caused all these things.
I'm saying that our organizations have all gotten too heady for their
own good to think they have the imprimatur to "dump" anybody. NAMBLA
may be as big a personal embarrassment to you as Rev. Phelps is to
the heterosexuals of Topeka, but I don't think they've tried to
remove his citizenship...at least yet.
If we don't stop fighting over who we ought to toss out, we'll capsize
the boat.
--------
Jerry Trowbridge Jer...@touchmap.com
punkboy
>"TIM BROWN" <TBR...@Marsh.VINU.edu> wrote:
>> The recent post by Rex about Child Pornography is a timely and
>> disturbing one. It reminded me about the controversy surrounding
>> NAMBLA. What are the opinions out there about this group? Is it
>> "Time to dump NAMBLA"?
>If we don't stop fighting over who we ought to toss out, we'll capsize
>the boat.
We should not "kick" anyone out.... unless "they" advocate or engage in
actions
which harm others. Engaging in sex with children, I would think, is a harmful
pursuit... from the standpoint of the child, anyway. I have yet to understand
how anyone can claim that such action in any way "benefits" the child.
Interesting
how -anyone- can possibly conceive of sex with a child and simultaneously
justify such an action.... even considering as how a child does not posess the
physical, let alone mental, faculties neccessary for sexual relations...
especially
with an older person who will basically be in a position to see that most,
if not
every, sexual desire is gratified... for their own benefit, not the child's.
Clearly,
a sickening proposition.
punkboy
Major Stockholder
Peace & Love, Incorporated. :)
Roy Radow
>>In article <52A9E...@marsh.vinu.edu>,
>>"TIM BROWN" <TBR...@Marsh.VINU.edu> wrote:
>>> The recent post by Rex about Child Pornography is a timely and
>>> disturbing one. It reminded me about the controversy surrounding
>>> NAMBLA. What are the opinions out there about this group? Is it
>>> "Time to dump NAMBLA"?
>>If we don't stop fighting over who we ought to toss out, we'll capsize
>>the boat.
> We should not "kick" anyone out.... unless "they" advocate or engage in
>actions which harm others. Engaging in sex with children, I would think,
>is a harmful pursuit... from the standpoint of the child, anyway. I have yet
>to understand how anyone can claim that such action in any way "benefits"
>the child.
What a tired argument. "My" sexual activity is ok, but what those
other guys are doing can't be any good, I would think.
This is just the kind of "logic" that caused the Bloddy Brits to
keep the "age of consent" for homosexual activity at 21 years of
age- they felt that innocent and impressionable youths needed to
be protected from such a deviant lifestyle.
Instead of pre-judging the "benefits" of intergenerational
relationships why not look at what GLBTO people have had to
say about their experiences as GLBTO youth, or read some of
the scientific research that is readily available.
(I would gladly send lists of quotes from GLBTO people on
man/boy love, annodated research studies, and selected readings
to anyone who requests them.)
The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) supports
the rights of all people to engage in consensual relations, and
we oppose laws which destroy loving relationships merely on the
basis of the age of the participants.
NAMBLA does not say that ALL children should engage in such
relationships.
However we believe that when this does occur society should be
able to distinguish between those relationships that are loving,
supportive and mutually desired, and those which are harmful and
involve force or coercion.
NAMBLA unequivocally condemns all coercive or non-consensual acts,
sexual or otherwise, between people of any age.
NAMBLA supports youth liberation and the empowerment of young people
in all areas of their lives (not just sexual). We believe that there
should also be improved education and the establishment of viable
community resources so that young people are better able to manage
their own lives and function as productive citizens of this society.
Yours in Liberation,
Roy
--
Roy Radow Now: ra...@netcom.com (was: r...@panix.com)
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 a sample Bulletin. Publications list available upon request.
Joshua Lee
with as alies of the GLB movement! These men are, IMHO, taking advantage
of individuals whose sexuality has yet to develop for the most part.
Don't get me wrong, I am not condeming all relatonships between older and
younger persons; however, I find it absolutely abominable that a group of
people could ban together to support the sexual relations between an
eight year old boy and a thirty-five year old man. I know when I was
eight, much less 15, I was still in a haze about myself as a sexual being
if I had in fact even the facility to consider the notion. Furthermore, I
think the GLB community should be pissed as hell that because of NAMBLA
the international GLB lost its foot hold in global affairs in the UN. How
can we let a perverted few screw everything for the whole movement? We
have come to far to let this get in our way now.
Sincerely,
Joshua Lee
------
from the desk of:
Joshua Lee
jos...@peabody.jhu.edu
(410)752-8537
Joshua Lee
posted last night on the net. To be honest, I was moved to see that the
experience that Adam and I have experienced seems to be almost universal.
And though we all have had to deal with the trauma of coming out at
some point in our lives, I still do not think that is an excuse for the
GLB community to allow thousands of young gays suffer through this alone.
My point is the same as before. Let's get off our asses and help those
who are where we have all been- Let's not let there lives turn into the
psychological hell that many of us are dealing with on a day to day basis
because of our earlier experiences. Again, I am interested in any
responses and opinions anyone can offer.
In the True Spirit,
punkboy
>
>> We should not "kick" anyone out.... unless "they" advocate or engage in
>>actions which harm others. Engaging in sex with children, I would think,
>>is a harmful pursuit... from the standpoint of the child, anyway. I have yet
>>to understand how anyone can claim that such action in any way "benefits"
>>the child.
And r...@panix.com did respond :
>What a tired argument. "My" sexual activity is ok, but what those
>other guys are doing can't be any good, I would think.
So, in essence, you are decrying any argument which would
attack a sexual activity not practiced by the author ? Tell me
Roy, do you feel rape should be legal ? If not, then are you not
using the "tired old argument" that what you do is o.k., but
what someone else does "can't be any good" ?
Further, let me ask this question: Do you feel that all sexual
behavior should be protected as "legal" ? Even those sexual
acts which cause harm ? Don't even think of replying about
"love", "caring", etc... Why ? Because Roy, if we keep in
mind physiological facts which tend to hold true.... 8 yrold
boys are NOT capable of having SEX. Period. They have not
yet even begun (most) to have any significant levels of male
hormones. Surely, you would agree that mother nature is
an excellent judge of when someone should engage in sex ?
Isn't it logical to think... "hmm..." if someone doesn't even
have the desire, let alone the equipment, perhaps they are
too young.
Another question which fascinates me to no end... suppose
you do have sex with an 8 yrold "partner" [I'm sure in a
mature relationship], what happens when he, oh say, reaches
the age of 18-20 ? Oops! Time to get rid of the old man, isn't
it ? Guess it would then be time for him to seek out a child
who he could then "love". Really, Roy, your defense of taking
advantage of someone who, due to age, is totally at your mercy
physically and psychologicaly is almost as absurd as hearing
a rapist say "she wanted it". Give me a break. If a child does
not even have FEELINGS of sexual desire, what makes you
think that you should be able to have sex with them on the
grounds that you would "care" for them ? In other words,
you would seek to engage in an activity which the child has,
as of yet, no interest in.... and then claim that the child ben-
efits from engaging in this act ??? How is this possible ?
What is the scenario ? What do you tell the CHILD ?
"Son, you won't like this nor understand it, but that's ok.
I really enjoy it, and someday, you will to. And you'll
thank me." ?????
>This is just the kind of "logic" that caused the Bloddy Brits to
>keep the "age of consent" for homosexual activity at 21 years of
>age- they felt that innocent and impressionable youths needed to
>be protected from such a deviant lifestyle.
I am a firm believer in lowering the age of consent laws, however,
not to the point of providing "kiddie stock" for those who are
so inclined to "help" and "love" children. The age of consent
should be no lower than 14. An arbitrary number, to be sure,
but one must start somewhere. And I certainly don't think it
should be with an elementary grade-school age child.
>Instead of pre-judging the "benefits" of intergenerational
>relationships why not look at what GLBTO people have had to
>say about their experiences as GLBTO youth, or read some of
>the scientific research that is readily available.
Scientific research ? How about this "scientific" research:
Until puberty strikes, it is most unlikely that physically an
individual may engage in sexual acts, certainly, for males,
such a time is the time when their bodies began to mature
and hormones are flooded throughout the body in the process
referred to as "puberty" -- a time of physical and mental
maturity. Again, desiring sex with a person too young to
even have the biological equipment neccessary for the sexual
act is preposterous. Well, then again, I doubt the child
ever plays a dominant role... and as such... the question of
equipment really isn't important to the ones who "love" them.
>(I would gladly send lists of quotes from GLBTO people on
>man/boy love, annodated research studies, and selected readings
>to anyone who requests them.)
No thank you. Hopefully, this will be the last post (by me)
on this subject as I find I grow sickened with every word
I type/read.
punkboy
punkboy
Major Stockholder,
Peace & Love, Incorporated.
David Nice
<BIG SNIP>
... but far too often there is also a major power differential where the
child is unable to give voice to his real feelings, and he therefore
makes it be OK as a way to survive.
... But, kids don't have the same power in a intergenerational
relationship. They lack boundaries and past experience which would
help them make choices about what is and isn't acceptable, and they
often lack an ability to say no.
> As older Gay men, we need to mentor youth, but I question if that is
> better done withoutsexual intimacy instead of through it.
>
Yes, and often the older man is using the mentoring as a
cover for fulfillment of a sexual desire. I venture that 9 times
out of 10 the youth does not want a sexual relatioship, but will
do it for fear he will lose this older and wiser(?) friend, if he
does not. Count me...one of the victims.
David
Steven T. Ellis
: How
: can we let a perverted few screw everything for the whole movement? We
: have come to far to let this get in our way now.
There are alot of people who would say the same about GLBT people. There
are people who said this about ACT-UP. Are you suggesting that there is
one proper gay politic? I don't agree with all of NAMBLA's beliefs, but
isn't that what building a coalition is all about? banding together with
people who share some (but not all) of your views. Or perhaps we should
just condemn all sexual practices that make us feel uncomfortable (like
the religious right does to us) I certainly do not condone the
exxploitation of children, but closer examination may revealthat that is
not what NAMBLA is all about. I am not suggesting everyone should agree
with NAMBLA, or even support them, but we of all people should not
condemn people (or groups) because of our stereotypical notions of who
they are. Prejudice is most often the result of laziness as well as
ignorance.
-steve
Tris and Di
>Instead of pre-judging the "benefits" of intergenerational
>relationships why not look at what GLBTO people have had to
>say about their experiences as GLBTO youth, or read some of
>the scientific research that is readily available.
I was just barely 17 and living on my own when two adult friends (33 & 27)
"invited" me into their bed. They told me I was different from the
other kids. That I was mature. They said that they knew I could handle it.
So suddenly I felt I could. I entered into a sexual relationship with them -
mostly the husband. My relationship with the wife stayed pretty much on the
petting level. I always felt I was a full participant in the acts. I felt
like I was the one making choices. I was 25 before I was finally separated
from them, and it has only been since then that I have realised how trapped,
how preyed upon I was. No one "rescued" and told me it was wrong. I have
not been reprogrammed or anything like that. Circumstances just caused me
to move away.
Now at 29 I am still working things out. I look back on that first invitation
as a polite rape. I was victimized, and yet all that time they told me it
was what I wanted. If I had not escaped their influence, this post might have
been a testimonial to your organization. I remember well how wonderful I
thought it was at the time. That feeling was one THEY had grafted on to my
emotions.
I wrote this because I was concerned about your boasting of a list of happy
people who participate in adult/child relationships.
I don't know how others feel about whether at 17 someone is old
enough to engage in this type of relationship. At that time I was sexually
active with others my own age. I feel 100% different about these
relationships. They were healthy for me. But this thing was abuse. Clear and
simple.
>The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) supports
>the rights of all people to engage in consensual relations, and
>we oppose laws which destroy loving relationships merely on the
>basis of the age of the participants.
You CANNOT consent if you are not an equal participant, and coercion is not at
all clearly definable.
>NAMBLA does not say that ALL children should engage in such
>relationships.
>However we believe that when this does occur society should be
>able to distinguish between those relationships that are loving,
>supportive and mutually desired, and those which are harmful and
>involve force or coercion.
************************************************************
I refuse to be like the rest
These women in their straight dress
Their life is just a beauty contest
I'm not like that and don't you forget it. Soho "Goddess"
************************************************************
Joshua Lee
I am not saying "to hell with NAMBLA," but I am asking what sort of an
effect is this group having on the movement as a whole? After doing some
reading I now understand that the UN was most likely going to drop us
anyway, but I still think NAMBLA's involvment in the mainstream movement
is going to cause more problems than it is worth. Although many of us
have a "f*ck the world... we will do what we feel is right" attitude, you
must be ready and willing to admit that we MUST HAVE help from almost all
parts of the national and global community before many of our goals will
be realized. I wonder if many of you understand what a profound task we
are undertaking. We propose to change thousands of years of tradition in
Western Civilization in regards to the popular conception of the
Homosexual. I am not saying this impossible (look how much has been done
since Stonewall), but I am saying that by aligning ourselves with such
extremists in beliefs we will alienate some of best possible allies.
We need support from all aspects of society of we do intend to reshape
the popular concious, not just from the left. I see and understand
that such "crossing over" between the two camps of American political
thought is happeing, but at what rate could it proceed without the ill
effects of NAMBLA? This is just an opinion, from the heart- as always.
Sincerely,
Josh
Jon Pickhardt
On Sun, 11 Dec 1994, Joshua Lee wrote:
> I wonder if many of you understand what a profound task we
> are undertaking. We propose to change thousands of years of tradition in
> Western Civilization in regards to the popular conception of the
> Homosexual.
Josh, I am sorry if I am about to flame you but I find your tone kinda
condescending. Do you think that those of us who disagree with you must
not have a true sense of what our goals are or how 'profound' they are?
I, myself, find your description of our goals somewhat curious since
there has been no 'popular conception of the Homosexual' in our culture
or any culture for thousands of years. Our conception of 'the
Homosexual' was formed from psuedo-scientific inquiry into deviant sexual
activities in the second half of the nineteenth century. Prior to that,
there was no 'Homosexual'. Such a mistake as yours is not a big deal
until you start preaching. And you were preaching.
Jon
Rod Swift
Yes. NAMBLA is a pedophile organisation trying to gain
legitimacy by clinging onto mainstream gay rights. In the end,
we will all suffer the backfire of this. Gay rights groups have
already lost UN consultative status over this.
I never have, nor ever will, consider NAMBLA a gay-rights
organisation or even affiliated with the gay and lesbian
movement.
Rod
Rod Swift
>Jerry Trowbridge (jer...@touchmap.com) wrote:
>: If we don't stop fighting over who we ought to toss out, we'll capsize
>: the boat.
>An excellent analogy.
>Sadly, there are far too many in this "community" who would much rather sink
>the boat than to sail in it if they cannot play at being Captain. Hell, there
>are even more than a few who would do it just to ensure that nobody could
>report their failed attempts at walking on water.
And in a similar analogy, someone who is scrambling into the
boat, and capsizing it.
NAMBLA makes gay groups easy to target. I hate hearing how "all
gay people are pedophiles" and how people should "keep their kids
away from homosexuals" because of it.
NAMBLA has been trying to jump on the boat, and is sadly sinking
us all.
Rod
Joshua Lee
that you deny the existence of a popular conception of the Homosexual in
Modern Western Society. Just as the role of the woman and the African
have been dynamic thruoghout history, so has the role of the homosexual.
Have you ever heard of a book called the RISE OF THE GAY AND LESBIAN
MOVEMENT? I believe that to be the correct title, and correct me if I am
wrong, but this book traces the role and the treatment of the homosexual
throughout the past several hundred years. There is a trend of negative
actions taken against the homosexual community ever since the 1700's and
earlier. Because of religious dogma as well as governmental control of
our "activities" society as a whole has placed a stigma of sorts about
our community. We have been concieved as perverts and abominations
against nature... things many of us have heard before. Only recently have
these beliefs begun to change, thanks in part to the departure of archaic
psychological practices and the advent of a higher biological sience. No
Jon, I am not preaching- I have done my time in the library studying my
past. Sorry to sound so bitter, but I, undoubtedly like you, am offended.
Sincerely,
Josh
David Nice
> TIM BROWN (TBR...@Marsh.VINU.edu) wrote:
>
> >"Time to dump NAMBLA"?
>
> Yes. NAMBLA is a pedophile organisation trying to gain
> legitimacy by clinging onto mainstream gay rights. In the end,
> we will all suffer the backfire of this. Gay rights groups have
> already lost UN consultative status over this.
>
> I never have, nor ever will, consider NAMBLA a gay-rights
> organisation or even affiliated with the gay and lesbian
> movement.
David Nice
> NAMBLA makes gay groups easy to target. I hate hearing how "all
> gay people are pedophiles" and how people should "keep their kids
> away from homosexuals" because of it.
>
> NAMBLA has been trying to jump on the boat, and is sadly sinking
> us all.
>
YES!
Steve Hansen
On 9 Dec 1994, twater wrote:
> In article <radowD0...@netcom.com>
> ra...@netcom.com (Roy Radow) writes:
> (lots deleted)
> > >>In article <52A9E...@marsh.vinu.edu>,
> > >>"TIM BROWN" <TBR...@Marsh.VINU.edu> wrote:
> > >>> The recent post by Rex about Child Pornography is a timely and
> > >>> disturbing one. It reminded me about the controversy surrounding
> > >>> NAMBLA. What are the opinions out there about this group? Is it
> > >>> "Time to dump NAMBLA"?
>
> IMHO, there are positive value in some
> intergenerational relationships, but far too often there is also a
> major power differential where the child is unable to give voice to his
> real feelings, and he therefore makes it be OK as a way to survive. I
> am not saying this is always the case, but because of the potential for
> this to happen, I believe it is very very important to help protect
> young people.
>
Intergenerational relationships are GREAT! As long as those generations
involved are over the age of 18!!!
Steve Hansen
David Nice
> Intergenerational relationships are GREAT! As long as those generations
> involved are over the age of 18!!!
Yes! Thank you Steve...and anyone who thinks otherwise is
entitled to do so...just don't expect my support or respect!
David
Jon Pickhardt
On Mon, 12 Dec 1994, Joshua Lee wrote:
> I am SO sorry if I have offended, but I think it impossible to believe
> that you deny the existence of a popular conception of the Homosexual in
> Modern Western Society.
Josh
Perhaps my phrasing was a little obtuse. Sorry. I don't mean to suggest
that there is no popular conception of the Homosexual in Modern Western
Society today . . . but it certainly has not existed for thousands of
years. My understanding is the conception that western thought has of the
Homosexual (as an identity, not an act) can be traced back to an article
written by a guy named Westphal in 1870. This was where we started
thinking of 'deviant' sexualities as people and not just as activities.
It was a few years after this that the idea was popularized so, again by
my understanding, the 'popular conception of the Homosexual' has only
existed for a hundred or so years. If your library research suggests that
I am mistaken, please let me know. I would appreciate the enlightenment.
My info comes from Foucault's History of Sexuality and is supported I
believe by Boswell's Christianity, Social Tolerance . . .etc.
Jon
David Nice
> The real reason NAMBLA is a target is because Jesse Helms hates FAGS, period.
That's it? End of story? Period!? Talk about a diversion.
An excellent job of picking a part what was perhaps not
the best arguement...yet it doesn't wash.
NAMBLA gives him an excuse...let's not give him any. When he
takes action and points to NAMBLA what do we say? What does
the world see?
Yes...it is incomprehensible that we would now want to stick it
to NAMBLA in light of the current political climate! Actually
it's quite Clintonesque(sp?).
If we as a community had any integrity at all we would have
stuck it to them from the get go!
Oh well...live and learn.
> When bigots like Jessie Helms set out to target a group they will always
> point to the most obvious targets, choose what they believe to be the weak-
> est victims, that is a given. This being true, Just who would you have
> prefered to have had serve as a scapegoat?
So shall we now come to the defense of poor victimized
NAMBLA...is that what you are suggesting?
> Yes, NAMBLA makes an easy target. One of the central tenets of homophobia is
> that homosexuality is a threat to young people. You write above that you hear
> this all the time. In the face of this, NAMBLA goes about saying that the
> young can be SEXUAL and HOMOSEXUAL and yet suffer no harm. Common sense
> would say that conflict is assured. This does not mean that doing away with
> NAMBLA will put an end to bigotry or to conflict, only that someone else will
> be chosen to bear the brunt of the attack.
>
Is this a rendition of 'we're all in this together against a
common foe'...'just ignore my reprehensible behavior' (not speaking
personally)
> The only thing that is "sinking us all" is the fact that far too many of
> us are willing to let others take all the heat in the struggle for civil
> rights. Liberation, an end to social injustice, a place at the table, whatever
> you choose to call the goal, it will not come without a price.
^
So does this include a roll in the hay with a 14 year old
for the sake of "Love"?
It is up to each and every one of us to pay our share of that price, to
fight our piece of the fight.
Yes...and NAMBLA's share is to CUT THE CRAP and stop clouding
the issue, talk straight, take responsibility and get help.
(preferably professional)
David
Roy Radow
>Intergenerational relationships are GREAT! As long as those generations
>involved are over the age of 18!!!
Gee, in Canada the age of consent is *14*.
Maybe it's something in the water?
Yours in Liberation,
Roy
--
Roy Radow * Now: ra...@netcom.com * (was: r...@panix.com)
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 a for sample Bulletin. Publications list available upon request.
Chad Helms
Jon,
I see your point and think it's well taken. (I could hardly argue
against the historical evidence you cite anyway, could I?) Yet, while
conceding you the point that a "popular conception of the Homosexual" can
only have existed since the Westphalian definition of "homosexual" as
"other" with a separate sexual identity as opposed to acts, don't you
think that Josh has a point as well in maintaining a consistently
negative view of homosexual behavior? And, in a sense, can a person not
be defined by behavior? (I'm reminded of Sartre's concept of "man being
what he does")
Not to go into a long and boring history of Western concepts of
the homosexual as defined by homosexual activity, I'd like to point out,
in Josh's defense, that my reading has given me to understand (with all
due respect to Foucault, whose work I admire) that there has always been
some sort of society "view" of the homosexual, or at least of homosexual
activity. Obviously this has been the case since the establishment of
Christianity as state creed and moral arbiter. I would suggest, however,
that there was a negative view of the homosexual in pre-Christian
societies as well. Although I'm far from being an expert, I think any
serious Classicist would support me in saying that what we often think of
as Hellenic acceptance of the homosexual (or, at least, homosexual
activity) is more Plato's concept than the average Greek's view of
homosexuality. The Jews? At the risk of being flamed (I'm aware that the
Sodom myth has been debunked on the net recently), we have only to look,
if not at the Torah, then at two thousand years of Judaic commentary and
tradition. The Romans? In spite of an apparent social acceptance of
homosexual behavior, at least among the upper classes, we have as much
evidence of Roman authors condemning and ridiculing the behavior as we do
of their praising it. (In fact, I'm tempted to say "much more evidence"
but I don't want to say anything that's not clearly supportable)
So, I guess what I'm tyrying to say here is that it seems to me
as if we're in danger of splitting hairs, so to speak. I bow to your
historical evidence and have much respect for the work of both Boswell and
Foucault. I just don't think that Josh's argument can be dismissed out of
hand and, in the final analysis, I suspect that you're both closer to
each other's position than you think.
I trust that nothing I've said here will be construed to be a
criticism of your position or a heating up of the debate. Just wanted to
throw out some food for thought.
Thanks to both of you for enlivening our discussion on this issue,
Chad
Steven T. Ellis
Then again, what Western (christian) culture chose to preserve and
discard of all of these past cultures is pretty darn subjective.
The guys in the monasteries who were preserving the ancient libraries
were quite selective. Most of what we know about these ancient cultures
was passed through the filter of medieval christian thought. There is a
lot that we will never know about these ancient cultures, because so much
of their legacy was lost. What we do know has a pretty clear bias.
Men who have sex with men (and women who have sex with women) have some
common problems to deal with. We need to deal with them now, hopefully
together. I doesn't seem to matter so much when those problems started,
as how to deal with them now.
Speaking of which, wasn't this thread about NAMBLA?
queer luv always,
-steve
Jerry Trowbridge
r...@marlin.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au (Rod Swift) wrote:
> And in a similar analogy, someone who is scrambling into the
> boat, and capsizing it.
>
> NAMBLA makes gay groups easy to target. I hate hearing how "all
> gay people are pedophiles" and how people should "keep their kids
> away from homosexuals" because of it.
>
> NAMBLA has been trying to jump on the boat, and is sadly sinking
> us all.
So, the question is, which analogy is correct. Is NAMBLA a latecomer
to the gay movement, or has it been around a long time? I don't know
how long you've been around, but NAMBLA has been around as long as I
can remember.
I think NAMBLA scrambled onto the boat before I did.
--------
Jerry Trowbridge Jer...@touchmap.com
Steven T. Ellis
called "the movement" because we disagree with some of their ideas, who
will we exclude next? What about drag queens or transgendered people?
People say the same types of things about them- that they are making the
rest of us look bad. The thing that makes SF's LGBT parade so fabulous is
that it is inclusive. Sure the religious right has made some twisted
videos using parade footage, but what ever "damage" that caused "the
movement" I would not trade in a million years for the incredible freedom
I feel when I'm there.
I don't think I would fight for the age of consent laws to be abolished
or anything, but I believe the first ammendment is an important thing. If
NAMBLA's politics bother you, be anti NAMBLA. But lets not reject them
solely for political expediency. We have been at the other end of that
one too many times, and I think it really sucks.
You would think we would have learned by now.
-steve
Richard Brown
I haven't got the answer to the NAMBLA question, but your reply set me
thinking. Maybe the thinking will lead *someplace. Here's the thought:
What place does the "Right to Life" movement have in the "Women's Movement?"
Is there an analogy? How might that analogy work to clarify the NAMBLA
issue... if we *have to go over it again for the second time in three months.
Richard
Joshua Lee
definitely not in the best interest of the GLB community? Even I like to
play the devil's advocate sometimes, but COME ON!! I have to say cudos to
Richard- great analogy! As usual- just an opinion....
josh
joshlee@peabody jhu.edu
David Nice
> Roy Radow (ra...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) supports
>the rights of all people to engage in consensual relations,
** [Which of course includes NAMBMA Members and 8 to 16 year old boys]
and
>we oppose laws which destroy loving relationships merely on the
>basis of the age of the participants.
** [not to mention laws that make some NAMBLA Members criminals
and lands there butts in jail]
Jerry Trowbridge
Joshua Lee <jos...@peabody.jhu.edu> wrote:
> Why are so many people intent on defending an interest group that is
> definitely not in the best interest of the GLB community? Even I like to
> play the devil's advocate sometimes, but COME ON!!
You might want to put this post in a key macro. It can be so useful for
so many things:
1. Gay republicans and/or Log Cabin Club. They lessen our ability to
deliver votes to the Democrats and therefore participate at a higher
level in the party.
2. Drag queens. They reinforce the stereotypes that cause us to be
looked at as sissies and boys that carry purses and want to be women.
3. Dykes on Bikes. They reinforce the stereotypes that cause us
to be looked at as tomboys and girls that wear pants and want to be
men.
4. Leathermen/S&M. They scare people and make them think we're all a
bunch of kinky weird perverts.
5. ACT UP. They break the law, and do things that make us look like
we're not good upstanding citizens.
6. LESBIAN AVENGERS - See number 5, and they're even more aggressive,
and they're women who should know their place.
In fact, you might be able to construct a program using a case statement
so that mention of a gay sub-minority group will automatically pop in
the reasons why we should suppress them.
How dare us believe that we can define who is gay and who is not for the
purpose of silencing our own people.
--------
Jerry Trowbridge Jer...@touchmap.com
David Nice
> How dare us believe that we can define who is gay and who is not for the
> purpose of silencing our own people.
I don't recall seeing where anyone implied that NAMBLA members
are or are not gay. If anyone said anything like that I sure
missed. I'm not sure what your point is...but if you feel they
should be an officially sanctioned(whatever that would mean)
organization in the GLB movement...fine have it your way.
Just keep em' away from my little brother or they're dead
meat!
David Nice
Patrick Ferris
> NAMBLA gives him an excuse...let's not give him any. When he
> takes action and points to NAMBLA what do we say? What does
> the world see?
The gay community will always be criticized as corrupting
youth. Whether or not there is an organized group like NAMBLA to
point to is immaterial. Such claims existed long before NAMBLA
ever got organized. Remember Anita Bryant? (I do.) That was a big
part of her message - save the children. NAMBLA didn't exist
then. Ostracizing NAMBLA won't solve anything --
our critics could even claim that ostracizing NAMBLA is just a
publicity ploy.
> If we as a community had any integrity at all we would have
> stuck it to them from the get go!
And just what action do you suggest could be taken?
> So shall we now come to the defense of poor victimized
> NAMBLA...is that what you are suggesting?
Over the long haul, I think one of the big difficulties gay
people have had in building community is in communicating with
each other, especially about sexuality. There is much more public
information nowadays, than say, 25 years ago. Free expression is
an important issue for our community -- look at the censorship of
gay materials over the years. Canada Customs still seizes gay books,
Well of Loneliness was banned years ago, the Mattachine had to
take the US Postal Service to court to be able to distribute One
-- I'm sure there are many more recent examples. I've heard
numerous stories of gay newspapers having to shop around to find
a printer willing to print their material. My point, anyway, is
that now that communication is getting easier for gays in
general, I am still chary of any attempts to inhibit the free
expression of other groups, no matter how I feel about them.
> So does this include a roll in the hay with a 14 year old
> for the sake of "Love"?
I've heard so many news stories about teenage mothers,
but I've never even heard a suggestion that the father has
been/should be charged with statutory rape. Why is it OK to get a
14 y.o. pregnant, but not to give a 14 y.o. a blowjob? Special
rights for heterosexuals? Sexism?
Patrick F.
Rod Swift
>The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) supports
>the rights of all people to engage in consensual relations, and
>we oppose laws which destroy loving relationships merely on the
>basis of the age of the participants.
And at what point do you place the legal age of consent, Mr Radow?
I find your statement to be tautological.
Rod
--
| ... ..... | 39 Flinders Crescent | ******* |
| + + + + + + + + | Bull Creek WA 6149 | ***** |
| * * * * * * * * | Australia | *** |
| R o d S w i f t | "Hate is NOT a family value" | * |
Rod Swift
> THANK YOU!
YOU ARE WELCOME ;)
Jerry Trowbridge
David Nice <dn...@conan.ids.net> wrote:
> I don't recall seeing where anyone implied that NAMBLA members
> are or are not gay. If anyone said anything like that I sure
> missed.
NAMBLA is an acronym. It stands for the North American Man Boy Love
Association. The definition of gay I'm operating under is that one
loves or is capable of loving a member of the same sex. Man and boy
are both references to males, therefore it seems to follow that
a group that advocates love between men and boys would be a gay
organization, but I've seen some really arcane arguments to prove
that NAMBLA is not a gay organization.
> I'm not sure what your point is...but if you feel they
> should be an officially sanctioned(whatever that would mean)
> organization in the GLB movement...fine have it your way.
The "whatever that means" is exactly my point. Who is doing the
sanctioning and on what criteria do they sanction.
> Just keep em' away from my little brother or they're dead
> meat!
If you mean because your little brother wants it that way, good
for you, protecting your family. If because you mean you're
going to decide your brother's sexuality and sexual development
for him because you know better, you might want to take some
lessons from Jimmy Swaggert or Jerry Falwell. They're the
experts in deciding other's sexuality for them on the basis
of their personal knowledge of right and wrong.
--------
Jerry Trowbridge Jer...@touchmap.com
Steven T. Ellis
I am not merely playing devils advocate. I think it is far more hurtful
to exclude gay male groups from the "gay community"than to include a
group with some common issues even though it may initially hurt us.
Perhaps we should also exclude people like me who support NAMBLA's inclusion
in the gay movement. Who's next? You will be fighting alone in no time.
We have been angry when other groups (like the UN) have excluded us out
of political expediency. I think it is hypocrytical to do the same to
other groups with whom we _do_ have much in common. The notion that all gay
men are child molesters stems much more heavily from homophobia than
NAMBLA, as evidenced by the fact that most molestation is done by
straight men to members of their own families. Same sex child molestation
is seen as more repugnant to the larger society because of homophobia. I
don't think NAMBLA is interested in raping or molesting children. Men who
have sex with underage members of the same sex are treated more harshly
by the law than men who have sex with underage members of the opposite
sex. This is homophobia, it's part of the problem wether you agree with
NAMBLA or not.
Look into NAMBLA before writing them off so hastily. It is not their
intention to hurt children. (although I must admit, there are different
views on what is hurtful)
Regarding the analogy: Frankly I don't get it. The right to life movement
has aligned it self with anti-femminist forces. It seems to me to go
against femminist doctrine. It is not NAMBLA'S intention to destroy us.
Again I don't agree with alot of what NAMBLA believes in. However if we
can set our stereotypical prejudices aside, we may find a more complex
issue that is very much the business of the LBGT movement.
*
And Richard,
I wasn't here last time we went over this. If the topic *bores you, you
don't *have to read it. (I feel I have been ever so *gently flamed)
*
Yes, this is just my opinion, give me compelling reasons and it just
might change. But I have no illusion that my opinion is of any
significance in the greater scheme of things.
Richard Brown
No intention to flame you...even gently. It's just that this road was
covered so recently. If we have to go over it again, I'd like to see the
threads of the argument disentangled, which is why I raised the serious
question of the analogy, hoping we could find a way through this maze. I
don't even mind going over it, or I'd just skip it. It seems to me a
central issue and I'm in for the ride.
Unfortunately, at the heart of the center of the debate... the question
of consentuality...lies on very shifting sand. At what age? Under what
circumstances? All of those questions abound.
The issue of "whether to dump NAMBLA" is related, only, by the issue of
consent. I have the feeling that those who feel strongly that NAMBLA
should be "dumped" are outraged at the org's apparent lack of deep
consideration of consentuality and advocacy for clarity in that area.
This gets conflated into charges of Nazism. Too bad. Moral outrage at
non-consentual policy by an organization and its supporters is, I think
understandable, though cooler approaches to the issue might be better.
The general heterosexism of the law in the U.S. and elsewhere is
important, imo, but not crucial in this discussion. Neither is the
"intention to harm" on NAMBLA's part. Some sex laws, wisely [I think]
include provisions going to the difference in ages of the parties. That
makes sense to me. The closer the ages, the less likely there is to be
subtle coercison. I do not recall NAMBLA addressing that issue.
The fact seems to me to be that no matter how sexually attractive an
older partner finds an underage partner, the state has a prevailing
interest in protecting the underage partner from coercion. If we knew
more about the developement of young gay men and boys, we might have a
better basis on which to proceed. The unfortunate fact appears to me to
be that we have relatively little data on this or related matters about
young gay men because the social sciences have still an overwhelmingly
heterosexist bias on one hand, and the influence of the pressures of the
closet on young men has yet to be given what I would call adequate
study. We have no data, and aren't likely to have any soon.
It's a quandry with heavy moral overtones, and heavy political ones,
given that heterosexist society wants very much to see us as abusers, in
the face of some very good evidence to the contrary [e.g. the recent
study in Pediatrics].
It is, imo, dangerous and misleading to extrapolate from the
marginalization of some lesbigay groups to this case. The other
marginalized groups are not on the very boundary of the moral outrage
shared by straights of good faith and gay people against the abuse of
power across generational lines.
If this sounds like I don't have an answer, that's true. I'd also like
to see the discussion clarified as to its threads. I'd even like to
contribute what I can to that goal.
Best,
Richard Brown
John A. Stanley
>Intergenerational relationships are GREAT! As long as those generations
>involved are over the age of 18!!!
Is this an opinion or is it a reference to the AOC? If it's the
latter, it is invalid in many parts of the world as well as many
states in the US where the AOC is below 18.
--
John A. Stanley jsta...@solar.win.net
Roy Radow
>Roy Radow (ra...@netcom.com) wrote:
>>The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) supports
>>the rights of all people to engage in consensual relations, and
>>we oppose laws which destroy loving relationships merely on the
>>basis of the age of the participants.
>And at what point do you place the legal age of consent, Mr Radow?
>I find your statement to be tautological.
Relationships should be judged on the QUALITY of the relationship
not merely on the age of the participants.
Is that less tautological for you?
David Nice
> Relationships should be judged on the QUALITY of the relationship
> not merely on the age of the participants.
This statement is so far off the track of what's being
cussed and discussed that one can only think it was
a ruse to be able to post another message that includes
a signature file that is an advertisement for NAMBLA.
<sig with NAMBLA shit deleted>