Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
'I hate pedophiles," she said
It's commonly believed that people hate pedophiles because they're sexual with children. What if behavior were not the reason? Why do people hate pedophiles?
"I hate pedophiles," She said
by
Dennis Bejin
I still remember going to my brothers house. The brother I thought was a liberal. His daughter wanted to see a movie and the movie was "Happiness." I said, "That should be interesting because part of the movie’s about a pedophile." My brother’s wife immediately responded, "I hate pedophiles!
In America it’s almost a given that people should hate pedophiles. But if we examine that "given" it falls away like a shroud of mist.
The assumption is that most people hate pedophiles because of the popular belief that we’re all sexual with children. In other words, calling someone a pedophile is just a shorter way of saying, "I hate child molesters." It makes sense doesn’t it? The reason people hate pedophiles is because they hate child molesters. While it sounds good. I think it’s too simplistic.
If behavior was the issue than people should read the article, "You Must Be A Fag Among the spurts of seething hate mail our columnist receives, one recurring -- and sadly distressing – attack," by Mark Morford,
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2002/06/14/notes061402.DTL&nl=fix
Mark Morford is apparently a political columnist whose viewpoints provoke a lot of hate mail. What he’s found out is that calling him "gay" or a "fag" is the worst epitaph they can think of to call him.
So if behavior is the issue than why are gay people so hated? Certainly there’s nothing harmful and abusive about two adults of the same gender having sex with one another.
I’m sorry folks, but if you hate pedophiles it’s not because some of use are having sex with children. The roots go far deeper than that.
The opposite of hating pedophiles would be loving pedophiles. So let’s play with the statement "I love pedophiles" and see what happens? Josh, it sounds absurd.
It’s like saying I love blacks, or Jews, or Gays, or white people. It doesn’t make sense because all these groups are made up of individuals, and it’s only after we’ve gotten to know someone as a person that we can say we love them. So the whole concept of loving or hating an entire group of people is absurd. Still, our culture persists in the notion that it’s OK to hate pedophiles.
In the article, "Feminism, Pedophilia, and Children's Rights," Pat Califia provides some hints as to why our society has such a hatred for pedophiles and adult/child sex. She suggests that it’s an attempt to deny children and teenages the sexual freedom they deserve.
http://home.uni-one.nl/hostroom/supergirl/speaking/advocacy/califia.html
‘The American government's campaign against the sexual rights of young people has been so successful that most gay men, lesbians, and feminists are convinced that the movement to repeal age-of-consent laws was nothing more than an attempt to guarantee rapacious adults the right to vulnerable child victims. The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) has been banned from so many annual gay pride marches that people are astonished when the organization does appear."
She goes on to say:
"Lesbians work constantly to undo their racism, classism, able-bodyism, looksism, coupleism. and all other forms of prejudice. We give lip service to confronting ageism, but we do not really include underage lesbian and bisexual women in our community. The simple truth is that we are afraid to. We are afraid the state will come down on us, brand us as child molesters, and put us in jail."
Her final statement in the article is:
"You can't liberate children and adolescents without disrupting the entire hierarchy of adult power and coercion and challenging the hegemony of antisex fundamentalist religious values."
Other article’s that deal with the issue of why pedophiles are such a pariah group in our culture can be found at:
The Risks of 'Protection': Panic Over Youthful Sexuality Endangers Kids by Laura Flanders
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0606-08.htm
Dr. John Money Give an explanation of why we fear pedophiles when he writes:
http://www.allaboutsex.org/drjohnmoneyprofile.html
"Money believes we have barely progressed from the days when aberrant sexual behavior was ascribed to demonic possession. "Everything in sex and sexual medicine is influenced by the fact that we have sexology .... the science of sex ... which is not very well developed, and we also have sexosophy [another Money neologism]. Every society had it's own sexosophy as part of it's religion millennia before it got down to having any science of sex." And unlike most other branches of science, where religious explanations have given way to scientific facts, our "sexosophy" continues to dictate many of our attitudes"
Some other good resources on the reason we fear and hate pedophiles are as follows.
Politicizing puberty: Excellent short sketches by those who have written about pedophilia:
http://www.nerve.com/Dispatches/voicebox/puberty/
Religion Government and adult/child sex
http://www.danpedo.dk/forum/read.php?i=2840
Please express your opinion. Why are pedophiles so feared in our culture?
Dennis Bejin
by
Dennis Bejin
I still remember going to my brothers house. The brother I thought was a liberal. His daughter wanted to see a movie and the movie was "Happiness." I said, "That should be interesting because part of the movie’s about a pedophile." My brother’s wife immediately responded, "I hate pedophiles!
In America it’s almost a given that people should hate pedophiles. But if we examine that "given" it falls away like a shroud of mist.
The assumption is that most people hate pedophiles because of the popular belief that we’re all sexual with children. In other words, calling someone a pedophile is just a shorter way of saying, "I hate child molesters." It makes sense doesn’t it? The reason people hate pedophiles is because they hate child molesters. While it sounds good. I think it’s too simplistic.
If behavior was the issue than people should read the article, "You Must Be A Fag Among the spurts of seething hate mail our columnist receives, one recurring -- and sadly distressing – attack," by Mark Morford,
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2002/06/14/notes061402.DTL&nl=fix
Mark Morford is apparently a political columnist whose viewpoints provoke a lot of hate mail. What he’s found out is that calling him "gay" or a "fag" is the worst epitaph they can think of to call him.
So if behavior is the issue than why are gay people so hated? Certainly there’s nothing harmful and abusive about two adults of the same gender having sex with one another.
I’m sorry folks, but if you hate pedophiles it’s not because some of use are having sex with children. The roots go far deeper than that.
The opposite of hating pedophiles would be loving pedophiles. So let’s play with the statement "I love pedophiles" and see what happens? Josh, it sounds absurd.
It’s like saying I love blacks, or Jews, or Gays, or white people. It doesn’t make sense because all these groups are made up of individuals, and it’s only after we’ve gotten to know someone as a person that we can say we love them. So the whole concept of loving or hating an entire group of people is absurd. Still, our culture persists in the notion that it’s OK to hate pedophiles.
In the article, "Feminism, Pedophilia, and Children's Rights," Pat Califia provides some hints as to why our society has such a hatred for pedophiles and adult/child sex. She suggests that it’s an attempt to deny children and teenages the sexual freedom they deserve.
http://home.uni-one.nl/hostroom/supergirl/speaking/advocacy/califia.html
‘The American government's campaign against the sexual rights of young people has been so successful that most gay men, lesbians, and feminists are convinced that the movement to repeal age-of-consent laws was nothing more than an attempt to guarantee rapacious adults the right to vulnerable child victims. The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) has been banned from so many annual gay pride marches that people are astonished when the organization does appear."
She goes on to say:
"Lesbians work constantly to undo their racism, classism, able-bodyism, looksism, coupleism. and all other forms of prejudice. We give lip service to confronting ageism, but we do not really include underage lesbian and bisexual women in our community. The simple truth is that we are afraid to. We are afraid the state will come down on us, brand us as child molesters, and put us in jail."
Her final statement in the article is:
"You can't liberate children and adolescents without disrupting the entire hierarchy of adult power and coercion and challenging the hegemony of antisex fundamentalist religious values."
Other article’s that deal with the issue of why pedophiles are such a pariah group in our culture can be found at:
The Risks of 'Protection': Panic Over Youthful Sexuality Endangers Kids by Laura Flanders
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0606-08.htm
Dr. John Money Give an explanation of why we fear pedophiles when he writes:
http://www.allaboutsex.org/drjohnmoneyprofile.html
"Money believes we have barely progressed from the days when aberrant sexual behavior was ascribed to demonic possession. "Everything in sex and sexual medicine is influenced by the fact that we have sexology .... the science of sex ... which is not very well developed, and we also have sexosophy [another Money neologism]. Every society had it's own sexosophy as part of it's religion millennia before it got down to having any science of sex." And unlike most other branches of science, where religious explanations have given way to scientific facts, our "sexosophy" continues to dictate many of our attitudes"
Some other good resources on the reason we fear and hate pedophiles are as follows.
Politicizing puberty: Excellent short sketches by those who have written about pedophilia:
http://www.nerve.com/Dispatches/voicebox/puberty/
Religion Government and adult/child sex
http://www.danpedo.dk/forum/read.php?i=2840
Please express your opinion. Why are pedophiles so feared in our culture?
Dennis Bejin
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$225.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
requires a social system completely unlike the current one. It requires going "out of the box," yet who is really secure enough to do that? Even though the present system is headed towards suicide, most people still want their "security" anyway, even while suspecting that this "security" is falsely based.
No, actually, that's precisely why people hate pedophiles. Ya hit the nail on the head there!
What is this, NAMBLA propaganda or something?
"So the whole concept of loving or hating an entire group of people is absurd."
Well, no. When that group of people is defined by a behaviour that is beyond any doubt amoral, that ruins other people's lives; that exploits children in the most disgusting and inhumane way possible ( short of killing them ), it's quite logical to say that you hate them. I don't need to know a pedophile personally to think that he's a sick fuck. Just like I don't need to know a Nazi or a homophobe personally.
This is kind of like saying it's "illogical" to hate a bunch of murderers because, like, you're not on a first name basis or something with them.
"Still, our culture persists in the notion that it’s OK to hate pedophiles."
Yeah, our culture also persists in the notion that it's OK to hate Nazi's. What a bunch of sickos we are.
"The American government's campaign against the sexual rights of young people"
The 'sexual rights of young people'?? We're talking about a group of people that don't yet have sexual desires. What meaning does "sexual rights" have for someone who has not yet reached puberty? Nothing!
You sound just like a capitalist arguing for child labour in a factory. You can dress this shit up however the fuck you want, the fact remains that it's wrong. I'm sure that the thousands of victims of pedophile priests all over the world will be happy to fill you in on the details. Children show grow up being children, not being molested by twisted fucks.
"Money believes we have barely progressed from the days when aberrant sexual behavior"
Sexual behaviour should always be CONSENSUAL. Pedophilia is not consensual, because 1) often the victim doesn't understand what is going on 2) they are controlled by the pedophile for their own ends. The child is instructed not to tell anyone, because if they do then bad things will happen, blah blah. The child is terrified, hates the abuse but is powerless to stop it. A pedophile is a rapist who preys on people that he knows will not be able to fight back.
Pedophilia is just like slipping a roofie in someone's drink and then having your way with them. No difference whatsoever.
The above statement was made by "chris". Perhaps you should be asking the question of him.
JoJo is under no obligation to answer to something he didn't say, nor is he obligated to answer a general question asked by "old boy" or anyone else.
nessie >JoJo saw fit to respond, but not with an answer. Do you have an answer. I do.
nessie >I don’t have an answer for <old boy>’s question.
So, which is it?
How many people think nessie made up JoJo in a pathetic attempt to make his enemies look stupid?
Regarding pedophilia- good luck folks. Its just this kind of reaching into the deep pits of our consciousness that keeps us real, keeps us fearless. Tearing away the layers of ourselves. But this issue is so deep and weird and full of sickness, desire, reality and pain that it is unrealistic to believe we can get anything resolved, at this point in time, by discussing the issue directly. Too many of the roots of sexism, power imbalance, violence, misery, freedom are bound up in our understanding of the genesis of sexual energy. For a start, how about that IMHO, the root of male power madness has much to do with the fear of blossoming female sexuality. This inspires many reactions- either absolute repression or absolute will to consume, often rationalized in the mind as something perfectly acceptible and sensible. To wit, the rationalizations of poor self-tortured pedophiles(internal), or the cultural justfications of institutional sexism (external). Like i said, way too muddy right now for even a basic overview or analysis.
But as we all know, we CAN begin to work with political manifestations in order to hopefully someday get to the root of things. Child sex slaves worldwide (the usa included) are in need of real work and help. Anyone with unfilled plates looking for work to do? Lots here.
Now, about extreme homophobia as the deep murky hidden desire to f*** another man to death...
Like I said before, I prefer to stick to the issues. Perhaps you're inclined to blame me for that stupid shit because you know that, when we stick to the issues at hand, I ALWAYS CRUSH YOU.
In jo jo's little world everything he doesn't like is a priori 'leftist'. It's bad because it's leftist, it' s leftist because it's bad, say boy jo jo. Utterly tedious, circular, straw man "debate" than follows. A good portion of the views you stupid rightist slugs attribute to leftists aren't held by people on the left, or not any more so than in any other definable community. Is drunk driving leftist jo jo?
This is a serious question jo jo: Is there anything you dislike or disapprove of that ISN'T "leftist"?
As far as having doped-out hippies for parents: well, there too, I must disappoint you.
Indeed, it might surprise you to know that most hippies are apolitical and are not viewed, on the whole, to be reliable allies by most radicals.
I'm disgusted by Islamist terror and deplore attacks upon civilians. What you fail to grasp, jo jo, is that the principal foe of the Islamist's throughout the Middle East are secular leftists/anti-capitalists. States throughout the region -- US allies, mind you -- have at various times aided and abetted the Islamist's as a front-guard against anti-capitalist movements that threatan their power. This isn't to say that the Islamist's are simply state-stooges, for they do have their own distinct goals, but that their extreme conservativism and militancy can be, and has been, exploited to the benefit of rulers throughout the Mid East.
The Muslim Brotherhood, which is seen as the progenitor of today's Islamists, was affiliated with the World Anti Communist League (perhaps it still is, I don't know). Sadat of Egypt revived it in the early 70's to wage war against leftists and Nasserites. Proving that the Islamist's have their own agenda, Sadat was ultimately offed by the MB in the late 70's.
The Pakistani state has used the Islamist's as a front wedge against incipient secular and radical movements. The number one foe of the Islamist's in Pakistan are communists and other leftists. Look it up.
Saudi Arabia -- erstwhile ally of the US -- has aided and abetted the Islamist's for its own ends. The Taliban were virtually a creation of the Saudis and Pakistanis. The US, of course, was complicit in that it whipped up and massively assisted Islamist's in the jihad against the Soviets and then disappeared once the Soviets withdrew.
And then there is Israel. It is now known -- because it has been admitted by both the CIA and Israeli officials -- that Israel aided and abetted Hamas in the 80's as a counter-weight to the PLO. Like other states in the region, Israel understood that the Islamist's could serve a dual purpose: 1) Weaken the secular -- and at the time, widely popular -- PLO; and 2) Give opposition to Israeli occupation and expansion a medieval and difficult-to-support complexion.
The suicide bombings are the result of hopelessness and misery that Israel has insisted on imposing on the Palestineans. Schlomo, of the Labor Party, described Oslo as a neo-colonial arrangement. While mainstream media in the US describe Oslo as evidence of Israel's willingness to end the occupation, it was in fact an attempt by the Israeli's to have the Palestinean Authority administer a bantustan state, surrounded by Israel, segmented by check-points and Israeli-only roads. Like I said before, I don't doubt that the PA -- corrupt and inept as it is -- is willing to administer a neo-colonial arrangement (replete with a 'free-trade' pact to the benefit of the Palestinean bougeosie), but not one as humiliating as what Israel has so far offered. Indeed, if Arafat had accepted he'd probably have been overthrown.
Israeli governments, for years now, have argued that the Palestineans are barbaric -- this has been the chief argument against Palestinean self-rule. Yet, the same Israeli governments have systematically sought to move Israeli civilians into the occupied territories where they are surrounded by Palestineans. More and more Israeli's are coming to see that there won't be any chance for peace until the occupation is ended and ALL the settlements are dismantled.
One last thing: If you think that the US support for the Shah is anomolous or somehow "distant history" you couldn't be more wrong.
In the corner, foaming at the mouth, right where we want him! its true jojo, the more you talk the more of an object lesson you become. maybe you should find an intellectually coherent reactionary to help you write yer little spurts of foma. because really, you're just sending us wheelbarrows of ammunition.
So you should email me. i'd love to talk to you as much as possible, its such an education for me. usually reactionary commentators are pretty good at hiding their intellectual paucity with doublespeak. you on the other hand, bring it all right to the surface. how convenient!
just don't expect such a rapid-fire back 'n forth, i'm pretty busy working remediating toxic environments and trying to create sustainability and autonomous empowerment whenever and wherever i can. but i'll fit you in, i swear. you're important to me as a person, and i validate your beingness. now that's some sarcasm, so don't bite on something that isn't even meant to be bait, it really makes you look bad. in the east folx regard these losses of composure as a loss of face. but i'm serious about correspondence. c'mon jojo, it'll be fun-
love and kisses!
You, of course, would rather reiterate how much you hate Palestineans (while calling others Nazis!), thinking that suffices as argument.
Like virtually every other rightist that slithers onto indymedia you are quite adept at batting down straw-men, vomitting bile, and arguing by syllogism. But putting forth a reason argument and defending it from attack, well, you're basically a retard. The same goes for you Racer X.
That's why your side is slipping.
>How about you, JoJo? Are you cut or uncut?
So, what does that say about you?
ps 'remediating toxic environments' means doing REAL actual work cleaning up the mess people like you make with your physical existance, aka converting chemical agriculture to organics and permaculture, and using that as a springboard to create communities that are self-supporting, abundant, and sustainable. I've been in West Kalimantan for a while, and now i'm in Bali taking a little break and eating wonderful dead fishies (hope i taste that good when i die) that were caught using sustainable practices. Soon i will head to Australia to continue my education in sustainability practices, because i love Life and people and this planet and i'd really like to see it flourish and grow and be healthy for millenia to come, for all our children. How can i afford to do this? i worked my ass off in Alaska last summer catching salmon working 18 hour days, all fall cutting sorghum in Missouri, and all winter house painting. I do shit, mr. whatever, lots of shit. All activists do. We serve, because we love to serve, and there is little else to do at this stage of the game. You think we do it for our health? ITS HARD FUCKING WORK, as opposed to taking breaks form your internet masturbation to write grimy little disgruntled missives. So please, keep writing, because folks like you are seriously in need of intervention, and i think we can help. As disturbing as it is to interact with you, its just another service. I'm sorry about the nature of your life jojo (and racistx) that you are reduced to this, but please, give us time. Things are changing for all of us. Have a nice day.
Now i don't usually like to be so foreward with my personal power, as i really don't think i'm all that special. I just do what i have to do. When we're self-effacing, you accuse us of being weak. When we are honest about the power of our lives, its too much for you and you accuse us of being egotistical. You know, the great thing about purely reactive people is that they're so easily led by the nose. Which is basically what your whole mentality is about. Now before you go yelling 'psychobabble' again, reflect on it for a second. You'll notice just how meaningless and empty your life has become.
---
Oh, racer-eks, if you really mean what you say send me an adress. I don't make lots of money, just enough to do what i need to do, but i'd love to come represent for us folks with yer sorry self. See, we used to get a little fight club together in the coolers on the catcher-processer after hours... So really, anytime. Put yer money where your teeth used to be.
---
Like i said, just keep talking. The more you do, the more everyone sees just how empty your words are.
If y'all doubt the veracity of my statements, contact me. I'll send you some personal references. Because unlike y'all little gremlins, i'm not bullshitting. I came up on the streets and learned the hard way. Look foreward to it. I'd just love to take it outside with any of you; i'm not even worked up about it- i think it'd be fun. C'mon if yer comin'.
---
To get back to origins, if you really study the problem, its generally conservative patriarchal business-mafioso types who run and support the child-slavery and child-abuse industries. My good friend who was horribly abused since age 5 and was on the streets since age 12 (and who is doing just fine now and leads an unimpeachable life in spite of it all), has all kinds of stories to tell about 'secret sex parties' of government and military officials. Rich business types are famous for child abuse and slavery. So like i said, you can spew all the bullshit and lies you want, its easy as hell to talk, but the truth remains the truth regardless.
---
Like i said, right where we want you. Y'all are running around like chickens with yer heads cut off.
-Jaybird
---
"Craig Vihn" <craig_vihn [at] yahoo.com>
12490 Quivira Rd, Shawnee Mission, KS 66213
ANY TIME YOU LIKE. JUST KNOCK ON THE DOOR AND CALL ME
A RACIST TO MY FACE.
RACER X
---
how 'bout if i just call you a dipshit? y'all are freaking idiots. you're really just not paying attention at this stage of the game, are you?
I'll be out of the country until next winter. after that i'm headed back to the 9th w/d in New Orleans. but who knows, maybe we can work something out. but now, look! everyone has yer adress! and your real name and email! ah ha ha ha! coyote fucking rides!
Rolling in the aisles! right where we want you! let's move this thread and title it 'laughingstocks of indymedia'. y'all are just endlessly amusing.
Yet this is a case where I really think a consensus is needed that transcends politics and personal philosophies, a consensus of the need to protect the innocence and openness of children, the least protected among us.
It's just common decency to say "no" to people who wish to justify the indefensible through the use of distorted intellectual agendas.
When the day is over, ask yourself if you'd want Dennis touching your boy "even in the most loving way," as he astonishingly wrote on Seattle indymedia. Would you like that? Would you believe that his touching your 2-year-old-boy (Dennis has stated elsewhere that he likes boys as young as two) is "loving" ?
Or is approaching prepubescent children in fact an act of aggression with longterm harmful consequences for the victim?
Dennis even goes so far as to put the word victim in quotes in his articles, as though children who were the objects of adult sexual aggression were not in fact victims.
Anyway, this basic and fundament question is the debate here. Not nessie's circumcision, not JoJo Gunn's personality or tactics, but this basic question of what constitutes the sexual violation of children.
Why is it that pedophiles are hated? Because they exploit and abuse the most innocent among us. You don't need to be "leftist" or "anarchist" or "right-wing" to understand this. You just need to be human.
Is the Catholic hierarchy leftist Jo Jo?
A few years back there were some NAMBLA slime-balls that attempted to insinuate themselves into the anarchist movement. They'd try to depict their cause as being fueled by some sort of dispassioned interest in the iniquities of age-of-consent laws. It's one thing to think these laws are overly rigid or problematic. It's another thing altogether to think that children could use the "guidance" of a pedophile sleaze-bag.
As a father of a two year old I don't take these matters lightly, even if Jo Jo derives pleasure in suggesting otherwise.
Jo Jo (foam forming from sides of mouth): "LEFTISTS ARE BAD!!!!!"
Those unfortunate enough to be in Jo Jo's presence: "Why's that Jo Jo?"
Jo Jo (steam emitting from all orifices): "BECAUSE WHAT IS BAD IS LEFTIST!!!!!"
You should be commended for your aptitude in deploying tauto-logic jo jo. It's a handy polemical device that's seductive to idiots everywhere (think talk radio fans).
I promise to give you another lesson if you, jo jo, promise to look up the word 'syllogism'.
I find it interesting that some NAMBLA members attempted to join themselves with the anarchist movement. There was something about the anarchist movement that left them with the impression that they would be welcome there, else they would have been foolish to even try.
by aaron • Friday June 21, 2002 at 04:27 PM
A few years back there were some NAMBLA slime-balls that attempted to insinuate themselves into the anarchist movement. They'd try to depict their cause as being fueled by some sort of dispassioned interest in the iniquities of age-of-consent laws.
>You’re dodging my question, JoJo. I asked for the names of NAMBLA members who “attempted to join themselves with the anarchist movement.” Be specific.
As you can see, aaron is the anarchist who made the statement. You should be asking him.
Given the type and character of people who regard themselves as anarchists, I have no reasonable choice but to believe that aaron would be telling the truth on this particular subject. In fact, if nessie denys it, even the more reason to believe it.
here is a statement that the "right" should keep in mind:
"thou doth protesteth too much" - w. shakespeare.
you guys on the "right" seem a little too fascinated, if you know what i mean...
like i was trying to say, if you guys are so opposed to homosexuals, what the hell are you doing with homoeroticism on your computers and posting it to this message board?
it's a valid question. it just seems a little strange to me, that's all.
just kidding.
by aaron • Friday June 21, 2002 at 04:27 PM
I don't know any leftists that believe that pedophiles should be coddled.
Is the Catholic hierarchy leftist Jo Jo?
A few years back there were some NAMBLA slime-balls that attempted to insinuate themselves into the anarchist movement. They'd try to depict their cause as being fueled by some sort of dispassioned interest in the iniquities of age-of-consent laws. It's one thing to think these laws are overly rigid or problematic. It's another thing altogether to think that children could use the "guidance" of a pedophile sleaze-bag.
As a father of a two year old I don't take these matters lightly, even if Jo Jo derives pleasure in suggesting otherwise
>"some NAMBLA slime-balls"
by just wondering • Monday June 24, 2002 at 07:45 AM
Who were they? Name names.
just wondering, otherwise known as nessie (DQ) when he ain't got the balls to sign his own name, is wondering who "some NAMBLA slime-balls" are. He wants you to "name names" for some reason. I don't why he wants you to name names. Perhaps he wants to speak to these individuals regarding "bonobos" or ask them if they're "cut or uncut", or maybe inquire of them about "the really important topic of discussion, our penises". Whatever it may be, I do wish you would provide him with an answer.
I believe you, aaron. There is nothing you have written here that gives me any reason to believe you would lie about something like that. I have every reason to believe that DQ would want to distance anarchy from the topic of NAMBLA.
first you say this:
>What makes you think we're "opposed" to homosexuals? If truth be told, we are "indifferent" to them.<
and then you start saying this:
>5. Right recognizes this and states it to be as such, "an attempt to gain acceptance". Right claims it will backfire on society.<
and this:
>8. Right say "we told you so" and attempts to end the madness with coherrent dialogue.<
and this:
>10. Right says left is disturbed. Right claims left is cause of problems.<
if you, or the "right", were indifferent to homosexuality, i doubt that we would be having this conversation, and you would not be writting the words above.
first off, the whole specious, spurrious charge that the "left" coddles and supports pedophiles and the sexual abuse of children is not acceptable. you be sure to say that you believe the "left" supports pedophiles when you're around some liberal parents. be sure to tell them that they "support" the sexual abuse of their own children. tell them what you think they believe to their face, and see what kind of reaction you get. not a smart move, mate...
and secondly, lets talk about human sexuality and attempts to control it. i'm reminded of two things. these are things i have heard, so admittedly they could be false, but i'll share them anyway.
- a stauchly anti-homosexual conservative mp of the british parliament was found in '99? i think, with a suitcase full of gay pornographic videos from amsterdamn. he was stopped during customs, and asked to open the suitcase.
- a study was conducted which found that men who professed being strongly offended by homosexuality were found to be the most turned on by homosexual pornographic videos. lets just say they had ways of measuring the "plumbing". men who expressed indifference or support had a much less strong reaction to the images.
IF, IF, IF these stories are true, it shows the wisdom of bill shakespeare, "thou doth protesteth too much". people have strange desires. sexuality is complex. so what's the point of controlling it with laws? it's like passing laws to control the rain, or wishing really hard that the snow would stop falling.
it would do the "right" and "left" a great deal of good to leave people the fuck alone when it comes to their sexuality. why make it an issue? it's a personal thing. it's one thing to be personally offended by homosexuality (every person should have the right to be personally offended by anything...), but it is quite another to make an entire political movement and party out of feeling offended. you wanna lecture people how to live their private lives? good luck, and how supremely arrogant an idea.
NOTE TO THE "RIGHT" AND TO THE "LEFT": stay right the fuck away from people's bedrooms and their desires. it's not worth the trouble, or the hypocrisy. we are all human beings after all.
that being said, pedophilia and the sexual abuse of children is another matter completely. lock the perverts who do that up.
What happens then?
so if there was some 7 year old kid, it would be more harmful to show gay porn videos to him or her, than to show straight porn videos?
ever been to mardi gras in the french quarter? from what i hear men and women flash and show off all kinds of different parts of their bodies. just drunk people having fun, right?
so then there's the gay pride parades of which san fran is known for. gay couples, men and women, dressed in all kinds of explicit costumes.
so which event is most harmful to minors? (as if minors would be at these events)
why can girls up on balconies flash parts of their bodies to men, and men their crotches to women (and everyone else on the street below, including other men, gay or straight), and all of it just being seen as some harmless fun which doesn't infringe on anyone's beliefs.
but when gay people do the same thing, it's suddenly an affront to the world, and sure to brainwash the young into becoming a deviant. homosexuality being the "deviancy" in question.
so straight people can flash their shit on balconies, or driving down main street in sturgis on their harleys, but gay's cannot because they have a secret agenda.
people are people, homo or no right? they just wanna have fun, right?
when i eat something that tastes bad i stop eating it. if something's on t.v. that i don't like, i change the channel. if something's on the radio i think is bullshit, i find another station. i can complain, but i know that it doesn't do a lot of good. if i were a parent, i would try to preserve the innocense of my child by keeping an eye on what the kid's doing and watching ect. it's my responsibility, is it not?
or is it the responsibility of gay people to not be gay on t.v. or around my kid? or is it the fault of the gay people shown parading around on jerry springer? (the very fascination in "freaks and perverts" that "normal" people have making jerry springer a wealthy man and making ad revenues for the fox network, run by conservative rupert murdoch, no less...)
i could change the channel, but instead i'll blame them for being who they are. why are they shown on t.v. why can't they stay indoors. why can't they act straight. why do they have a secret agenda. i don't have time to watch my kid in this world, i wish the world would watch my kid................
"he's this. no? then he's that. no? well then he's this. no? well dammit, what's the fucking point?"
>Let’s all just tattoo our sexual preferences to our foreheads and pull our cocks out and walk down the street. Fuck it. It doesn’t matter.<
you sound as frustrated as i do about this whole thing...
where's the damn rabbit... been down this rabbit hole for so long...
i get what you're saying, alright? i understand what you dislike. i can finally see the complex shades of gray behind the black and white, good vs. evil, reasoning skills of the typical conservative. that being said, i disagree with it. but hey, that's life.
In response to your four questions of another subject re: "crazy cops":
I too blow off steam and do apologize for my comments. I have no desire nor interest in causing anyone physical harm unless attacked first.
I would absolutely not post my picture on the Web, for I do value my privacy and that of my family. As you can see, I have included my email address. Thats as far as I go.
Most of these protests occur during the normal work day. I work and have responsibilities to tend. I support the right to assemble and speak, but do not agree with your cause.
I am not a coward. I defended our country and your freedom for over 20 years. I have lived in many countries and understand how other's view our nation.
nessie, don't be so touchy. I'm on your side on this one.
For one of the few times, in fact it may the the only time, you made a legitimate inquiry, and I believe you deserve an answer. You got aaron saying that sometime in the 90's some NAMBLA slimeballs tried to join themselves with anarchists, and you wanted him to "Be specific. Name names." For some reason he hasn't answered you and I'm wondering why. Aren't you? If I had said what aaron said, you'd be pressing me constantly, making comments along the line that "I'm a liar", or "where's the proof", and "don't be putting out accusations you can't back up." If you wouldn't let me off the hook that easy, and you know you wouldn't, you certainly shouldn't cut aaron any slack.
So nessie, what do you think? Do you think aaron's telling the truth?
aaron, if you're out there, please answer nessie's inquiry. Or, if you can't name names as he has requested, at least provide some information to go on.
nessie, you and aaron need to get together and talk this out. By the tone of your inquiry, it appears a though you are not aware of this NAMBLA/anarchist thing ever happening. A statement like that of aaron's just doesn't need to be left out there to hang, leaving people to wonder if it really occured or not.
No, No, No. Very, very, very valid inquiry on your part.
aaron, the inquiry is on the table. Please answer. Inquiring minds want to know.
The editors of the Magazine didn't endorse pedophiles nor pedophilia. I recall that quite a few anarchists wrote in mad-as-fuck not only at the pro-peds but also at the magazine editors for allowing the letters section to become a de facto forum for pedophiles. Again, many of the letters were unequivocally opposed to pedophilia and threats of violence weren't uncommon.
I think to a large extent the fact that this magazine became a forum of sorts for pedophiles had to do with its wide-open letters policy. While, as I recall, a couple of the peds identified as anarchists, most were simply exploiting an opportunity to trumpet their own predilections and gain sympathizers. As I indicated previously, judging from the response, they didn't succeed.
To the extent that some "anarchists" -- albeit a small handful -- expressed favorable views of pedophilia demonstrates in my view a recurring -- and perhaps irremediable -- problem with organizing under the rubric of "anarchism". Simply put, it's too vague a designation and tends to attract a preponderance of people who are simply acting out rebellion against mommy and daddy and looking for an excuse to do whatever, whenever. Too often, the anti-statism of anarchism is simplistic and ahistorical and really not that distinguishable from stupid right-wing anti-statism. Having tried at one time to organize under the rubric of anarchism, i found that it often meant having to endure alot of silliness and round and round on issues that are peripheral or simply pointless.
There are many self-identified anarchists that are really together. The problem is that there are fair number that are pretty out to lunch. This is why alot of the anti-capitalists that I know, for clarity sake if nothing else, no longer identify as anarchist, and are more inclined to ID themselves as libertarian socialists or communists or ultra leftists.
In an earlier post, nora noted:
>I find it interesting that some NAMBLA members attempted to join themselves with the anarchist movement. There was something about the anarchist movement that left them with the impression that they would be welcome there, else they would have been foolish to even try.
I must concur. There is something about anarchy that caused “some NAMBLA slime-balls” to believe they could find a home therein. Perhaps it was the subject of “age-of-consent laws” that drew their attention to write on the occasion mentioned, but to believe that it was the only reason they saw hope would be too limiting. I don’t believe these people just fell out of the trees, picked up the latest issue of Anarchist-R-Us, and saw an opening to exploit. At least some pedophiles had been reading this magazine all along, even as they conducted the rest of their daily lives as a true-blue dyed-in-the-wool anarchists. Given that they “come out from under their rocks to promote the idea that pedophilia isn't inherently exploitative” leads me to believe that a home among anarchists was a hope they held.
Whether these people were or were not truly anarchists is not the issue. Even nessie admits that “…but of those that are (anarchist), not all are representative of the anarchist movement, either world wide or historically.” So, it’s possible to be an anarchist, but not be completely representative of the movement. Pedophiles that are anarchist could fall into that category. It is also not the issue that they were rejected by some anarchists.
The issue is that they had some reason to believe they *could* be accepted. What message is the anarchist community projecting that would have caused these people to believe they had a chance?
> There are many self-identified anarchists that are really together. The problem is that there are fair number that are pretty out to lunch. This is why alot of the anti-capitalists that I know, for clarity sake if nothing else, no longer identify as anarchist, and are more inclined to ID themselves as libertarian socialists or communists or ultra leftists.
It’s noteworthy that there are those who feel the need to shake off the chains of being identified as anarchists.
>Brigg shows an occasional glimmer of intelligence…
nessie, I’m going to have to insist that you don’t say that about me ever again. Having you say anything remotely nice about me is like me going to Roman Polanski to conduct an interview about an upcoming role in one of his movies and having Charles Manson on my resume as one of my personal references. No, thanks.
Racer X stumbled upon a relevant and important question that goes to the heart of anarchist thinking. He's saying that you need to have rigidly conceived and executed laws in order to root out abusers. If you are saying that the alternative to his proposal is simply vigilante justice, then I think you are making a poor argument for anarchism.
>What makes you an anarchist is how you behave. Those people in the Bay Area who identify themselves as anarchists are not only not all anarchists, but of those that are, not all are representative of the anarchist movement, either world wide or historically.
Maybe you just tried to say too much in one statement, I don't know. But I don't think I misintrepreted what you said. I don't mind disagreeing with people, but I don't like to be misquoted or misunderstood and I don't intend to do that to others.
>What makes you an anarchist is how you behave.
OK, fine.
>Those people in the Bay Area who identify themselves as anarchists are not only not all anarchists,
So, there are people who identify themselves as being anarchists, but they really aren't. They just want to feel trendy or they have evil intentions or whatever, I'm with you here.
>but of those that are,
I added to that "but of those that are (anarchists), to help clarify my point as people were reading so they wouldn't have to go back and re-read all you said. I do not believe that I misrepresented your statement here, and I wouldn't want to.
>not all are representative of the anarchist movement, either world wide or historically.
Given the previous phrase, I can only take that to mean that there are some anarchists (not the ones who believe they are anarchist but the ones who really are anarchists) that are not "representative of the anarchist movement".
If that's not what you meant, your statemnt needs to be clarified somewhat.
That's why I placed pedophiles in that category. They may be conducting every other aspect of their lives as an anarchist, except for this one thing. They are in fact "anarchists" who "are (not) representative of the anarchist movement, either world wide or historically.
Now, I know you said that "what makes you an anarchist is how you behave", and I'm fine with that. Any group or philosophy of life or political party can make the same claim. "What makes you a (insert) is how you behave." But just like those groups, if someone within gets caught with child pornography for example, the enemies of that group are going to use it against not only the individual but the whole group. I've seen on this board where writers use guilt by association. It's fair game. No one gets a free pass.
Now whether it be pedophilia, or reckless destruction of property by those who call themselves anarchists, or any number of things, anarchy's got a PR problem.
I'm going to have to agree with Aaron. Some people evidently found something in anarchy that they not only wore the name, but in the case of Aaron, "tried at one time to organize under the rubric of anarchism, i found that it often meant having to endure alot of silliness and round and round on issues that are peripheral or simply pointless." I don't know if this envolved some form of "red tape" of some type, or if ensuring that everyone had an equal say created some type of burden. Maybe if Aaron is reading this he can expond upon that. But something made these people want to change the way they were identified. If you're an anarchist and you trying to "build yourself up" (you know what I mean), this is not good.
And, you're not going to help yourself by saying that you agree with part of the NAMBLA platform. All this other discussion aside, the writers in here, including yourself, who say these people are undesirable, are right. But if you say you're going to agree with some of what they say, you're drawing a bulls-eye on your ass. It's akin to saying that one would agree with some of the KKK's paltform but not all, people just don't want to hear that. What NAMBLA and the KKK stands for disgusts the general public. On the other hand, to say you agree with the right on gun control and with the left on environmental issues lets say, that's an entirely different thing to the general public. Most people are somewhere in the middle, so they can emphathize with you. By doing this other, you isolate yourself from those who might otherwise be interested in at least discussion on more immediately important topics. Surely you see that? (I do. And quit calling me Shirley. - Airplane - circa 1979?)
Now, on another issue, if you're going to critique me, go for it, fair game. But don't get into this stuff your talking about with the others, just address me. It will save you typing time and save me from reading a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with me.
And as far as the main subject goes (I mean the one about "age of consent" not the one about how nessie is making you all show your rigor mortis of thought.) I'll agree with Nessie there too. I was playing doctor with my little girlfriend at 5. What are you going to do to stop that? When I was adolecent (yes there is such a stage, and you get out of it you'll recognize it). I was attracted to older girls (20's-even 30s) MUCH more than the little screechy girls my age. I would've LOVED to be with one. Was that wrong? well, no, because I still like girls this age, and now, its OK.
But the distinction remains: child predators are fucking awful! We all agree about that! Nessie agrees, so what the hell is all the bitching about?
Children are sexual. I know because I was one. So let's not hide sex from them, or hide their sexuality from our selves.
In Europe, the age of consent is 16. In Amsterdam it's perfectly common to pick up a 16 year old prostitute. Should we go bomb their windmills? In India, at age 14 you can marry with your parents consent. Should we have a trade embargo on them? Oh wait, OF COURSE we should! They are all perverts! Kill all perverts!!!
Oh wait, that's not my view, that's the baa-ing of non-think.
(Please note that we are privately owned and funded and will never attempt to solicit financing or donations.)
You can recieve our newsletter via email or snailmail. It is absolutely free of charge. Please show us your moral support and contact us for a copy.
Michael Mantis
President
Parent-Child World Organization
As much as I believe in a free society, freedom of speech and freedom of expression, no one has the right to advocate and encourage hatred of any citizen or group of citizens just because they are different from others. I don't believe we as citizens have the right to hurt, cause pain or anguish, bully or harras anyone to the point that those two had.
Their organization was started because Dave Caster lost parental rights of his daughters to his ex-wife for refusal to pay child support. He's a dead-beat dad who took his personal anger of his ex-wife for leaving him for another woman out on an entire group of other citizens!
The truth is these two need serious professional psychiatric care and constant monitoring! They are a danger to themselves as well as others!