left biblioblography: MIXED MEMES: OF PEDERASTY, PEDOPHILIA, AND PESTILENT MISPERCEPTIONS

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

MIXED MEMES: OF PEDERASTY, PEDOPHILIA, AND PESTILENT MISPERCEPTIONS

We’ve all heard (or most of us at least) this mishmash mix ‘n match: Pedophile = Homosexual. Upon which, said provocateur (without much further ado) begins idiotically quoting pro-pedophile groups in a guilt-by-association that only a half-wit could find causal connection.

From where does this stem? Pederasty was practiced by the ancient Greeks (and to this day by other cultures, few and far between), and even by Islam up to the 19th CE, but why is this stigma attached to the Gay movement of today? Two words: Allen Ginsberg.


“One contribution that is often considered his most significant and most controversial was his openness about homosexuality, including his love of youths. In talking more frankly than other writers before him about homosexuality, he opened the way for other writers to speak honestly about something often before only hinted at or spoken of in metaphor. Also, in writing about sexuality in graphic detail and in his frequent use of language seen as indecent he challenged — and ultimately changed — obscenity laws. Ginsberg also spoke out in defense of the freedom of expression of NAMBLA. He saw that organization's right to exist as a civil liberties issue and joined to make a statement. According to Ginsberg in "Thoughts on NAMBLA" published in Deliberate Prose: "NAMBLA's a forum for reform of those laws on youthful sexuality which members deem oppressive, a discussion society not a sex club. I joined NAMBLA in defense of free speech." This was a controversial decision: many who supported his gay rights advocacy could not support this decision.”

Small wonder there.

More on NAMBLA:

“Disagreement was evident following the conference that organized the first gay march on Washington in 1979. In addition to forming several working committees, the conference was responsible for drafting the basic organizing principles of the march ("the five demands" PDF [see p. 23]). Originally, the Gay Youth Caucus had won approval for its proposal demanding "Full Rights for Gay Youth, including revision of the age of consent laws." However at the first meeting of the National Coordinating Committee, a contingent of lesbians threatened not to participate in the march unless a substitute was adopted. The substitute, authored by an adult lesbian and approved in a mail poll by a majority of delegates, stated: "Protect Lesbian and Gay Youth from any laws which are used to discriminate against, oppress, and/or harass them in their homes, schools, job and social environments."[18]
In 1980 a group called the "Lesbian Caucus – Lesbian & Gay Pride March Committee" distributed a hand-out urging women to split from the annual New York City Gay Pride March because the organizing committee had supposedly been dominated by NAMBLA and its supporters.[13] The next year, after some lesbians threatened to picket, the Cornell University gay group Gay PAC (Gay People at Cornell) rescinded its invitation to NAMBLA founder David Thorstad to be the keynote speaker at the annual May Gay Festival.[13] In the following years, gay rights groups attempted to block NAMBLA’s participation in gay pride parades, prompting leading gay rights figure Harry Hay to wear a sign proclaiming "NAMBLA walks with me" as he participated in a 1986 gay pride march in Los Angeles.
Thus by the mid-1980s, NAMBLA was virtually alone in its positions and found itself politically isolated. Gay rights organizations, burdened by accusations of child recruitment and child abuse, had abandoned the radicalism of their early years and had "retreat[ed] from the idea of a more inclusive politics,"[19] opting instead to appeal more to the mainstream. Support for "groups perceived as being on the fringe of the gay community," such as NAMBLA, vanished in the process.[14] Today almost all gay rights groups disavow any ties to NAMBLA, voice disapproval of its objectives, and attempt to prevent NAMBLA from having a role in gay and lesbian rights events.”

Also:”The case of International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) illustrates this opposition. In 1993, ILGA, of which NAMBLA had been a member for a decade, achieved United Nations consultative status. NAMBLA's association with ILGA drew heavy criticism, and many gay organizations called for the ILGA to dissolve ties with NAMBLA. Republican Senator Jesse Helms proposed a bill to withhold $119 million in U.N. contributions until U.S. President Bill Clinton could certify that "no UN agency grants any official status, accreditation, or recognition to any organization which promotes, condones, or seeks the legalization of pedophilia, that is, the sexual abuse of children". The bill was unanimously approved by Congress and signed into law by Clinton in April 1994.
ILGA had passed a resolution in 1985, which stated, "young people have the right to sexual and social self-determination and that age of consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect." In spite of this apparent agreement with NAMBLA on the age of consent issue just nine years before, ILGA, by a vote of 214-30 expelled NAMBLA and two other groups (MARTIJN and Project Truth) in early 1994 because they were judged to be "groups whose predominant aim is to support or promote pedophilia." Although ILGA removed NAMBLA, the U.N. reversed its decision to grant ILGA special consultative status. Repeated attempts by ILGA to reacquire special status with the U.N. have not been successful as of 2006, but the group does exercise consultative status with the European Commission.
Gregory King of the Human Rights Campaign later said that "NAMBLA is not a gay organization ... They are not part of our community and we thoroughly reject their efforts to insinuate that pedophilia is an issue related to gay and lesbian civil rights."[20] NAMBLA responded by claiming that "man/boy love is by definition homosexual," that "man/boy lovers are part of the gay movement and central to gay history and culture," and that "homosexuals denying that it is 'not gay' to be attracted to adolescent boys are just as ludicrous as heterosexuals saying it's 'not heterosexual' to be attracted to adolescent girls.”

And:”Immediately following the Stonewall riots, some U.S. and Canadian gay rights organizations advocated the abolition of age-of-consent laws, believing that gay liberation for minors implied the permission to engage in sexual relationships.[14] The Gay Activists Alliance (GAA), a group which splintered from the Gay Liberation Front in December of 1969, opposed age-of-consent laws and hosted a forum on the topic in 1976. In 1972 Chicago's Gay Activists Alliance and New York's Gay Activists Alliance jointly sponsored a conference that brought together gay rights activists from eighty-five different gay rights organizations and eighteen states.[15] At the conference these approximately 200 activists coalesced to form the National Coalition of Gay Organizations, and drafted and passed a "Gay Rights Platform"[16] which called for the "repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent." The Canadian Lesbian and Gay Rights Coalition, also known as the National Gay Rights Coalition (NGRC), supported eliminating age-of-consent laws, as did Gay Alliance Toward Equality (GATE).[17]
The relative acceptance or indifference to opposition of the age-of-consent began to change at the same time as accusations that gays were child pornographers and child molesters became common. Only weeks apart in 1977 both Judianne Densen-Gerber, founder of the New York drug rehabilitation center Odyssey House, and former beauty queen Anita Bryant launched separate campaigns targeting gays. Densen-Gerber alleged that gays produced and sold child pornography on a massive scale, while Anita Bryant's "Save Our Children" campaign sought to portray all gays as child molesters. "The recruitment of our children," Bryant argued, "is absolutely necessary for the survival and growth of homosexuality." Bryant's campaign focusing on the alleged "recruitment" of boys by gay men succeeded in overturning a law that had protected civil rights for gays in Dade County, Florida. As a result, the age-of-consent issue became a hotly debated topic within the gay community, and disputes over the age of consent issue within and between gay rights groups — many of which directly or indirectly involved NAMBLA — began to occur on an increasingly frequent basis.”

So there you have it. In the beginning, the gay rights groups were far too radical, and sought to bring other point of views under their growing umbrella. They rejected the pedophiliac allies upon the gradual acceptance from the mainstream. It was a huge error in judgement, and the resonance continues, after two decades’ worth of work.

Pedophilia is categorized as a deviant sexual disorder (as well it should be) by the DSM-IV. Obviously, this is an extension of that religious worship of ‘youth and innocence’, combined with the inability of said deviant to initiate and/or maintain an adult relationship. In short, it’s about POWER and the ability to corrupt: it’s not about homosexuality or heterosexuality – if it were, there are easier ways to go about getting release from another adult. It’s about paternal/maternal instincts gone horribly awry.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

13 comments:

Aviaa said...

Excellent post all around. I also find it terribly frustrating that homosexuality is so frequently unfairly linked to everything from pedophilia to bestiality.

I did want to note though that the term pedophilia is often thrown around loosely. According to the DSM-IV, pedophilia is the attraction of an adult to a prepubescent child. I think the Foley scandal and others that are often label as pedophilia are not actually such... though they are indeed gross misuses of power and shouldn't be legally permitted. I think age of consent laws are good, as they protect minors (prepubescent or otherwise) from emotionally dangerous sexual relationships adults. However, I also favor the "Romeo and Juliet" laws of some states that make exceptions for minors (in the 13-17 year old range) that are sexually experimenting with others that are within their age range Unfortunately, most don't (or at least, didn't, last time I looked) include homosexual minors experimenting with one another. That's discrimination.

Anonymous said...

pedophilia is loosely tossed around, it is an attraction to children not child molestation. Anyone can have their own sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean they're going to hurt anyone by liking kids and not doing anything with them.

say no to christ said...

Aviaa and Ka

I couldnt agree more! You both make excelent points.

Especially when it comes to the sexual opression of teens. I also believe kids should be allowed and should be viewed as normal for teens to be able to fulfill their natural instincts. We have no right to deny them a completely normal experience amunst themselves.

Krystalline Apostate said...

SNTC:
I also believe kids should be allowed and should be viewed as normal for teens to be able to fulfill their natural instincts.
Well, I adopt a very cautious approach. The pubescent years are chaotic enough. It seems there's a big push to get laid at an early age (we see it in movies, TV: 'virgin=loser'). & peer pressure is ridiculous.
A person is ready when they're ready. & sometimes they're not. More often, they're not.
I'm very much in favor of age of consent, & not crazy about a hedonistic approach.

Mesoforte said...

It seems there's a big push to get laid at an early age (we see it in movies, TV: 'virgin=loser'

And that's adopted by the teens in high school and junior high who precede to force that idea on everyone else.

Aviaa said...

ka,

The pubescent years are chaotic enough. It seems there's a big push to get laid at an early age (we see it in movies, TV: 'virgin=loser'). & peer pressure is ridiculous.

Agreed. However, I don’t know that classifying sex between consenting minors as a criminal act necessarily addresses this mindset.


I'm very much in favor of age of consent, &

16? 18? Some other age? It varies from state to state. I’d suppose I’d encourage waiting…. but not criminalize not waiting.


not crazy about a hedonistic approach.

Sure. However, I suppose I don’t see much of an issue between two high school students within a relationship experimenting sexually. It would be lovely if they waited until (blank) certain age, but I’m not sure it’s realistic. I’m in favor of encouraging waiting and various alternative sorts of sexual experimentation rather than jumping into full-fledged intercourse…. but goodness, I was one of the “good” kids, didn’t feel overly pressured by anyone, and still didn’t wait to have sex until after I left high school.

I suppose, in the end, I’d rather a person’s “first time” with whatever sort of sexual whatever be within a loving relationship (and with protection), whether in high school, college, or later in life.

Krystalline Apostate said...

aviaa:
However, I don’t know that classifying sex between consenting minors as a criminal act necessarily addresses this mindset.
Well, kids will be kids: it should be frowned upon, but not criminal.
16? 18? Some other age? It varies from state to state. I’d suppose I’d encourage waiting…. but not criminalize not waiting.
Being an old-fashioned fart, I lean towards making it older as I grow older (which ain't fair, I know, I know).
Some Asian countries count a person as an adult at the ripe old age of 25.

I had my 1st experience at 18. W/2 women, no less.

I look back at my earlier years, & count myself lucky I never caught anything.

& that 1st time? Always memorable. & usually you fall in love w/her (or him?).

Aviaa said...

ka,
Well, kids will be kids: it should be frowned upon, but not criminal.

(nods) This is why I think it’s important to include “if-they-are-within-a-certain-range-of-each-other’s-age-they-won’t-be-in-legal-trouble” clauses to those age of consent laws… you still have my permission to frown all you want and can even increase your frowning as you continue to age.

I had my 1st experience at 18. W/2 women, no less.

Oh, reaaalllly?

I look back at my earlier years, & count myself lucky I never caught anything.

I think safe sex practices go a long way towards helping people ensure that today. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s not so risky as many would like you believe when used reliably.

& that 1st time? Always memorable. & usually you fall in love w/her (or him?).

Or her and her, in your case? ;P

remy said...

I would dearly like to know what it is about the realization of sexual feeling that brings out the prude in all of us.

We progress (if that's the correct word) from ignorance to icky to myopic lust to guilt in a relatively short time. Alas, it seems to me that many of us retain the iccky and the guilt beyond reason. Some, usually conservatively minded, people cannot accept that others engage in such sin.

It has taken me too many years to come to terms with these feelings. While I have't yet totally gotten over my youthful ickyguilt, I see sex for what it is, a human need, not dirty and certainly not sinful.

Education is the only weapon against the theist's need to demonize sexual "congress".

Krystalline Apostate said...

aviaa:
(nods) This is why I think it’s important to include “if-they-are-within-a-certain-range-of-each-other’s-age-they-won’t-be-in-legal-trouble” clauses to those age of consent laws… you still have my permission to frown all you want and can even increase your frowning as you continue to age.
I can tell you from personal experience (I was somewhat promiscuous in my younger years) that people tend to wallow in pleasurable sensations.
Oh, reaaalllly?
Scout's honor. Oh wait. They never let me into the scouts. No word of a lie.
I think safe sex practices go a long way towards helping people ensure that today. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s not so risky as many would like you believe when used reliably.
True enough, but TIO brought a point up recently, that people might be convinced it's 'bullet-proof' due to semantics.
Or her and her, in your case? ;P
In this case, it was #1, not #2. #2 fell in love w/ME.

remy:
I would dearly like to know what it is about the realization of sexual feeling that brings out the prude in all of us.
I'm not so much a prude, as over the years, I've learned the value of brashness: to wit, nothing.
Education is the only weapon against the theist's need to demonize sexual "congress".
Exactly.

spanders said...

"I had my 1st experience at 18. W/2 women, no less." I've said it before and I'll say it again... I couldn't bear the thought of disappointing more than one woman at a time.

Krystalline Apostate said...

spanders! Thanx for droppin' in.
I couldn't bear the thought of disappointing more than one woman at a time.
Well, I was young, & didn't know any better.
These days, I move very cautiously w/just one woman. Hehehehe.

Anonymous said...

I can tell you from personal experience (I was somewhat promiscuous in my younger years) that people tend to wallow in pleasurable sensations.

Yes, but the urge to wallow can be overcome. I consume foods other than cheesecake on occasion and spend at least a few hours each day not having sex.

True enough, but TIO brought a point up recently, that people might be convinced it's 'bullet-proof' due to semantics.

“Safer” sex is fine with me as long as we also change it to “safer” driving techniques. Oh, and the insurance company Safe Auto should change its name to Safer Auto. (nods) Otherwise, people might thing seat belts are infallible.

I do see what your saying- but I think we need to balance the risks of everything we do against the benefits and I think sex is often targeted as being particularly dangerous when, in balance, many other things in life are much more dangerous. Yes, no sex will ever be completely safe and it’s important that we make that clear instead of just throwing condoms at teenagers. However, even the abstinence-till-marriage plan of the religious right isn’t foolproof. The only time I’ve ever been truly terrified that I might have caught some sort of sexually transmitted disease was after I found out my ex-husband had had an affair. (shrugs) In the end, everything was okay. Life is about minimizing risks where you can and dealing with the consequences of the risks you didn’t anticipate.