top
Newswire
Calendar
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories:
NAMBLA
by copied thread
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 12:22 PM
This was the start of a thread about NAMBLA on a post about the Anarchist Book Fair, but since it was getting in the way of updates about the book fair, the thread was moved here.
by crudo
(driller9 [at] msn.com) Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 12:25 PM
From what I remember about the whole NAMBLA thing (all I heard was hersay), was that not everyone involved in the collective, in fact I think everyone didn't want the NAMBLA stuff there, just some people didn't want to censor it.

At this point, I think all NAMBLA stuff has been gotten rid of. I've never seen it, in all the times I've been in there.
by pointer
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 12:27 PM
this:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/01/1717956_comment.php#1718085
by Bound Together Books
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 12:44 PM
books and periodicals about terrorism, pacifism, animal rights, conspiracy, crime, and a variety of other subjects that some people find repugnant. Not a single collective member agrees with everything in the store. We get along. You can, too.

If you don't like something you see for sale, don't buy it. If you don't like us because we sell it, or for any other reason, stay away from the fair. You won't be missed. Already too many people come to the Fair. If too many more people show up, the fire marshal will make us institute a one goes out/one comes in policy, and there will be a line to get in. We would prefer this not happen.

The Book Fair is not for everybody. If it's not for you, don't come. If you do come, be polite and respectful to everyone else there, table holders included, whether you like them or not. If you cause trouble, for any reason whatsoever, you will be physically ejected.
by more hearsay
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 1:01 PM
My impression was that most of those at Bound Together wanted it to stop selling NAMBLA related stuff but one person consistently blocks that. There are enough rumors about this that it would be good if Bound Together would be more open about this since the rumors are probably worse than reality.
If you're not a member, it's none of your business. If you want a say in how the place is run, join the collective, volunteer, show up, do the work. Otherwise, butt out.
by ?
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 1:40 PM
"If you're not a member, it's none of your business."

So its ok to complain if a corporation is doing something one sees as bad but if its an Anarchist collective its off limits? If the problem wasnt Bound Together promoting books that glorify child abuse but instead selling products made with slave labor in China would that be off limits for nonmembers to talk about? To argue that Biund Together's selling of NAMBLA material is only an internal issue and the reason the stuff is being sold should not be discussed outside the Bound Together collective is in a sense taking the Libertarian Capitalist argument of private property to an extreme that even most Libertarian would not agree with.

Since most of this stuff isnt in the open and its just rumors one doesnt know how much blame to place on Bound Together or its collective members.
Here are a gfew questions that probably should be answered at some point.
1. Does Bound Together purchase NAMBLA material from a group that promotes child abuse and by doing so actively fund such a group?
2. Does Bound Together profit off of the sale of NAMBLA material?
3. Do most of those in the Bound Together collective feel like its ok to sell NAMBLA material? If not why is process being allowed to stop things? Isnt there a way to change process?
4. What kind of NAMBLA material is being sold. Is it mainly supportive of those who have issues with being attracted to children? Does it attempt to justify sex with children (And if so is there some age before hwich consent is considered impossible)?
by ?
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 1:44 PM
" If you want a say in what happens there, join the Book Fair Committee, show up, do the work. Otherwise, STFU."

Is this the official view of the Book Fair? Telling people they cant talk in public about your event seems pretty authoritarian.
If it isnt the official view of the Book Fair and is just Nessie's view, do others working on the book fair have issues with him smearing the Book Fair by going around denouncing people in its name?
by that explains a lot
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 2:00 PM
Are anarchists all this mean spirited and divisive? If an animal rights activist were to show up at the organizing meeting how would they know they would be safe from having Nessie punch them in the face. He's already said he would do so if anyone told him that HLS shouldnt experiment on pigs.
by tkat
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 2:08 PM
People that have a problem with Nambla should probably go read their publication or at least their website
http://216.220.97.17/welcome.htm

then think for yourself. Most people that would read Nambla are not the people that perpetuate child abuse. Those people are parents, relatives, priests, police, or victims of child abuse. Nambla is a scapegoat for people to focus on, when we actually live in a society that sexualizes youth and blurs the line between power/sex/violence. Read the essay in Pat Califia's Public Sex on the subject.
I agree that if you don't like what the book store carries don't shop there, if it isn't a reflection of you in the community it serves then that is just how it is.

by no ifs, ands, or buts
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 3:52 PM
a quick check of the page linked above finds these two scary thoughts, amongst others...

"supporting the liberation of persons of *all ages* from sexual prejudice and oppression" -- when they say prejudice, they mean the overwhelming majority of humanity considering it vile to sexually exploit children, and when they say oppression they are not talking about themselves exploiting children but rather the public oppressing adults' "right" to sexually exploit children

"Blindly, this system condemns consensual, loving relationships between younger and older people" -- minors can't consent and that's where all of pedophiles legal poblems arise, and rightfully so

folks, they're not talking about uncles "loving" their nephews in a platonic way, or little league coaches befriending their players, they're talking about sex between adults and children, plain and simple, and the rest is a puffed-up, psuedo intellectual distraction

they are the "Man/*Boy* Love Association" after all, not the "Man/Late Adolescent Love Association" or the "Older Man/Younger Man Love Association" or the "let's end statutory rape laws and set the age of consent at 15 or 16"

sorry, but the age of consent in this country is 18, and below 15 or 16 is not even "statutory" rape any more, it's just clear cut rape and/or child molestation. and with good reason below 15 -- children's minds are still forming and they are not psychologically prepared to compete (or love, even) on an equal level with adults. NAMBLA tries to promote the of the rights of children to be sexual as a rationalization for their own perverted urges

NAMBLA lives in a victorian-like fantasy world whereby children are really just little adults. thank goodness for the rise of child labor laws and laws against pedophilia or who knows what kind of horrible, hell-world for children we would live in today? granted it is not good for children in all places in all countries, and there still is a great deal of work to do to further protect children from real harm, but largely the exploiters of children are on the run and have to operate underground internationally... except at Bound Together

it's so sad that anarchists can't just say "No!" to the life-long damage that pedophiles inflict on far too many children every day. free speech is a cop-out whereby those who can least defend themselves are secondary to an abstract principle. it's like fighting for the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie house full of children. there's plenty of other free speech battles to fight without offering space for pedophiles to promote their sick and selfish agenda.

Bound Together should be ashamed of themselves, as they would hopefully be if they were found to sell books promoting the rape of adult women (I dunno, maybe they do allow such books). Assuming Bound Together does not assist in the distribution of materials from groups that promote the rape of women, then why would they help those who actively campaign to promote chld sexual abuse?

Any anarchist or other activist who frequents Bound Together, and thereby looks the other way while pedophiles flaunt their wares in their midst, is a co-collaborator in the abuse of God knows how many child victims. If you do not boycott Bound Together and their book fair, go hang your head.
by no it's not
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 4:09 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#United_States_of_America

* United States: varies from state to state, usually between 16 and 18; some states formerly forbade homosexual acts entirely, however such laws have been declared unconstitutional in 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas). Federal law forbids crossing state lines or international borders with the intent of having commercial sex with a person who is under 18, or any sex with a person who is under 16 and at least 4 years younger than the perpetrator (18 U.S.C. 2243 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/109a/sections/section_2243.html), 18 U.S.C. 2423 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/117/sections/section_2423.html)). In the US it is illegal to produce pornography featuring those under 18 and prosecutions have been commenced for cases where both partners are over the age of consent and under 18 years old, where they were making material solely for their own consumption or that of their lawful partner. The constitutionality of these cases is uncertain.
o Alabama: 16
o Alaska: 16
o Arizona: 18
o Arkansas: 16
o California: 18
o Colorado: 15/17
o Connecticut: 16
o District of Columbia: 16
o Delaware: 16/18
o Florida: 16/18
o Georgia: 16
o Hawaii: 16
o Idaho: 16/18
o Illinois:17
o Indiana: 16
o Iowa: 14/16
o Kansas: 16
o Kentucky: 16
o Louisiana: 17
o Maine: 16
o Maryland: 16
o Massachusetts 16/18
o Michigan: 16
o Minnesota: 16
o Mississippi: 16
o Missouri: 14/17
o Montana: 16/18
o Nebraska: 17
o Nevada: 18 homosexual, 16 heterosexual
o New Hampshire: 18 homosexual, 16 heterosexual
o New Jersey:16
o New Mexico: must not be 4 or more years older than teen
o New York: 17
o North Carolina: 16
o North Dakota: 18
o Ohio: 16
o Oklahoma: 16
o Oregon: 18
o Pennsylvania: 16
o Rhode Island: 16
o South Carolina: 14/16 (bill pending 03/2002)
o South Dakota: 16
o Tennessee: 18
o Texas: 17
o Utah: 16/18
o Vermont: 16
o Virginia: 18
o Washington: 16/18
o West Virginia: 16 18? 18?
o Wisconsin: 18
o Wyoming: 16/18?
o Military: equal to the state the base is located in if the state law is 16yrs or greater else 16 if the state law is less that 16yrs; homosexuality grounds for dismissal



by why else distract with this?
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 4:53 PM
why bother to zoom in on the technicalities of the age of consent, which is really just the cutoff for statutory rape more or less? the points made above were about child molestation that, to those outside of the ranks of NAMBLA and BOUND TOGETHER, is extremely offensive, to put it mildly

funny that this next quote was bypassed and ignored by the quibbler...

"...below 15 or 16 is not even "statutory" rape any more, it's just clear cut rape and/or child molestation. and with good reason below 15..."

NAMBLA believes children under the age of 15, way under 15, are fair game sexually, and BOUND TOGETHER offers NAMBLA moral support. and then commenters right here attempt to distract rather than address NAMBLA's twisted views on childrene and BOUND TOGETHER'S inexplicable and inexcusable tolerance of child abuse

to not boycott BOUND TOGETHER is to look the other way while children are literally raped and NAMBLA encourages more of the same
by Really, really cute kids.
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 5:02 PM
If only NAMBLA offered a dating service, I'd get me some of that fresh tender tonight. Those children have every right to get it on with adults.

But of course, our rat bastard society would consider a dating service "child trafficking," those backwards-assed prejudiced oppressors.
by BT member
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 5:05 PM
No we don't. We sell their magazine, that's all. Why? Because some of us agree with some of what it says. That’s enough.

We also sell publications that promote terrorism and apologize for the depredations of the ALF. How come that doesn't offend you? We also sell publications that fetishize pacifism and tell people not to resist oppression by any means necessary but to submit rather than resist effectively by employing violence. How come that doesn't offend you? Do you consider that we are “offering moral support” to terrorists and pacifists? If so, why does that not offend you? Do you support terrorism? Do you support pacifism?

What is it about sex in particular that you find more offensive than, oh say, condemning sick people to death by trashing the research that could have saved them, or encouraging people to not use force to defend themselves against oppression?

by is one tiny word
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 5:17 PM
it's not

"What is it about sex in particular that you find more offensive than, oh say, condemning sick people to death by trashing the research that could have saved them, or encouraging people to not use force to defend themselves against oppression?"

that's the wrong question. it's really

"What is it about SEX WITH CHILDREN in particular that you find more offensive than, oh say, condemning sick people to death by trashing the research that could have saved them, or encouraging people to not use force to defend themselves against oppression?"

don't put words in my mouth -- I never claimed to be anti-sex and am reasonably fair concerning even so-called statutory rape, but SEX WITH CHILDREN (not adolescents, nor young adults, but children) is completely different than adults arguing over adult on adult terrorism vs. sick people or adult on adult oppression vs. defense and so forth

children are not adults

if you can't see the difference, you're as sick as NAMBLA is
by tkat
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 7:06 PM
Let's nessie alone for now. The thing about age about Nambla and sex with children is that is not necessarily what they are talking about. The confusion between love and intimacy and sex. I know alot of gay men that were gay children who had loving relationships with older adults. Were they sexual? Sometimes yes but not always. Even so those relationships were more than sexual. They were shelters from the storm of heterosexist society. They were relationships that saved these kids lives, they were consenual. and also illegal.
I am highly suspicious of adults who seek out relationships iwth children. I am equally suspicious of anarchists using this issue as a reason to validate the state and arbitrary age of consent laws.

by not as adults would
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 7:42 PM
at what point is child and adult sex not okay for you? is it *all* arbitrary? and one does not have to be promoting the state to note that most of humanity finds pedophilia to be a despicable exploitation of children. I would hope most anarchist collectives consent that none of them should molest eachother's children -- no power of the state required for people to protect their young.

children *are* substantially different than adults: mentally and physically. while there might be some grey area in the middle it's not an arbitrary distinction on the whole, and NAMBLA would have you believe it's *all* good

adults can support children and be loving, and help them feel accepted in a cruel world, but a 30 year old having sex with a 10 year old is just wrong, interupts that childs natural growth processes, and it would be false to call it consensual. a 30 year old having sex with a 5 year old is likely to damage the child for the rest of his or her life.
by info
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 8:50 PM
"The thing about age about Nambla and sex with children is that is not necessarily what they are talking about"

Nambla

BOSTON (Reuters) - The lone accuser in the child rape trial of defrocked priest Paul Shanley broke down in tears and had to briefly leave court on Thursday after facing a withering assault of barbed questions about his background.
...
Shanley played a central role in the abuse scandal that rocked the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston and enveloped other dioceses. The Vatican defrocked Shanley last year, more than two decades after his superiors learned of the priest's views on sex between men and boys.

Internal church documents released in 2002 showed that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston knew in 1979 that Shanley had attended a meeting of men involved in sexual relationships with male youngsters -- a meeting that gave rise to NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association.

Shanley was indicted in 2002 on charges of child rape and indecent assault and battery on a child. But prosecutors have dropped most of the charges because three of the original four accusers either wouldn't testify or couldn't be found.

http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=7458716

by fsad
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 8:51 PM
Man: We are NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association, and we heard about these political prisoners you're keeping?
Officer Barbrady: Political prisoners? No, these are child molesters.
Man: Loving young boys has been around since the time of the Romans, pal! There's nothing wrong with it! We are an organization dedicated to showing that sex between a man and a young boy can be a beautiful thing!
Other NAMBLA Men: [ad lib] Yeah, uh-huh.
Officer Barbrady: [stands up] Uuuh, I don't know who you are, but these men aren't going anywhere until I hear from the FBI.
Man: Hate mongerer! Hate mongerer!
Other NAMBLA Men: Hate mongerer! Hate mongerer!
Officer Barbrady: Okay people [the men fall silent], I think you'd better move along before I arrest more of you!
Man: All these men wanted was to love a young boy! [pounds the table a few times] There is nothing wrong with love!
Mr. Garrison: I did not want love from a young boy! I like men my own age. [gasps and shrieks] Aah! I mean, I like women! What did I say?-Oh God! I love titties!
Man: You haven't heard the last of us, officer! Together we are strong. [turns and heads for the door] Come on, men! [the others follow him out, chattering]
Officer Barbrady: [sits back down and plops his feet up] Wow, they've got activists for everything these days.

[South Park Genetic Engineering Ranch, night. Dr. Mephesto and Kevin are at a lab table]
Dr. Mephesto: I've done it, Kevin. I've successfully spliced this chipmunk with a piece of provolone chese. [the "cheesemunk" groans] Do you know what this means, Kevin? No more will the world have to look in two different places for squirrels and provolone cheese. No more will mankind have to pick- [the doorbell rings] Who could that be? [walks over and opens the door] Why, it's little Eric Cartman.
Cartman: Dr. Mephesto, I need help.
Dr. Mephesto: Well of course, come in.
Cartman: [follows Mephesto and Kevin in] You see, unfortunately I have matured faster than all my friends. I wanna hang out with older friends, but I can't find any, so I was wondering if you could genetically engineer some older friends for me.
Dr. Mephesto: [stops and faces him] Oh, Eric, I'm afraid it's not that simple. Genetic engineering has not yet evolved to the state where I can just make people.
Cartman: Damnit! But I wanna hang out with older guys!
Dr. Mephesto: Oh. Well, I happen to be a member of an organization that can help you. It's called, NAMBLA.
Cartman: NAMBLA?
Dr. Mephesto: Yes. I have been a member for several years. I'm sure they'd let you join. You l-look about right.
Cartman: Hokay, thanks, Dr. Mephesto! [turns and walks out]
Dr. Mephesto: Sure!

[South Park Inn. "No Vacancy" "Welcome NAMBLA." Inside, the NAMBLA leader speaks to the group in a meeting room. On either side of him are portraits of men with boys on their laps. More picture line the walls]
Man: [henceforth, NAMBLA leader] Fellow members of NAMBLA. As you know, hn hn, we continue to be discriminated against. Recently, the FBI has started to arrest men, who are doing nothing more than trying to start a sexual relationship with a young boy.
Members: Awwww.
NAMBLA leader: And now that all ethnic groups, homosexuals and womens are protected under civil-rights laws, [pounds on the podium] we want the same!
Members: [weakly] Yeah.
Eager Man: Yeh-hehah-hah.
NAMBLA leader: What we need is proof that young boys want to be members of NAMBLA. That they want love from us. We need a poster child, to show the world that it is a beautiful and wonderful thing and a- [Cartman enters and takes a seat. Men in the back row look on with some awe.] Can we… help you?
Cartman: Yes. I'd like to join your fine organization. Is that cool?
NAMBLA leader: You… do?
Cartman: Sure.
NAMBLA leader: [greatly relieved] Oho, thank you. Thank you, Jesus.
Cartman: [looks around] …Sweet.

[South Park Clinic, day. Stan, Kyle, and Kenny stand before the picture window. Stan and Kyle make blow faces again. The patients are dismayed. Kenny soon makes a blow face. His parents walk up]
Mrs. McCormick: Well, Kenny, the doctor confirmed it. I'm pregnant! You're gonna have a little brother or sister.
Kenny: (No!!) [the camera zooms in on him]
Mrs. McCormick: Yup, it's for sure!
Stuart: And he fixed my shattered left testicle, too!
Mrs. McCormick: Don't be out too late, Kenny. We need to start movin' stuff out of your room. [the parents walk away]
Kyle: Wow. Your mom's pregnant, Kenny.
Stan: Yeah. Now what are you going to do?
Kenny: (I don't know. But I've gotta think of something.) [turns around and walks away in his parents' direction]
Cartman: [rushes up from the other direction] Nyanyanyanyah nyah nyah! Nyanyanyanyah nyah nyah! I got into NAMBLA and you gu-uys didn't!
Kyle: What are you talking about, fatass?
Cartman: Oh, no big deal. I just found a group called NAMBLA with adult members, and they all think that I'm sure mature they want me to be their new poster child is all. [Stan and Kyle look at each other] It looks like I'm finally gonna have mature friends who I can relate to. Nyanyanyanyah nyah nyah! I'm too mature for you guys! Nyanyanyanyah nyah nyah! [turns and walks away]
by more background
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 8:57 PM
Parents of murdered child sue child-sex advocates

(CNN) -- A grieving Massachusetts couple is at the center of a court battle over free speech rights.

Robert and Barbara Curley have filed a $200 million wrongful death lawsuit against the North American Man Boy Love Association -- an organization that defends what it calls 'intergenerational sex'. Critics call them pedophiles.

The Curleys' lawsuit claims that NAMBLA and seven of the group's leaders encouraged the "illegal rape of young male children," which ultimately led to the 1997 murder of their 10-year-old son Jeffrey Curley.

On its Web site, NAMBLA says it is a political organization that favors repeal of age-of-consent laws, but opposes any form of sexual coercion.

NAMBLA did not return phone calls from CNN seeking comment on the lawsuit. The American Civil Liberties Union is defending NAMBLA in the name of free speech.

"There is room in this country for people who believe man-boy love is okay. There is room for people who believe, who say it, but not who do it," ACLU attorney Harvey Silvergate said.

The Curleys' attorney, Lawrence Frisoli, disagrees.

"When it comes to the commission of a crime, which is the rape of children in this America, free speech doesn't protect you," Frisoli said.

Salvatore Sicari and Charles Jaynes are serving life sentences for kidnapping and killing Jeffrey. Massachustetts has no death penalty.

The men who wanted sex from Jeffrey promised him a new bicycle to replace one he had lost. Jeffrey's mother, Barbara Curley, had told him to wait until Christmas.

"I just wanted him to learn some responsibility. And it's hard to live with that today. I think if I had to live with that today. I think if I had just bought him the other bike, maybe it wouldn't have happened. Maybe they would have moved on to somebody else," she said.

Sicari was a neighbor who lived only a block away from the Curleys. Sicari's friend Jaynes was a pedophile who belonged to NAMBLA.

David Yannetti, who prosecuted the case, said Jeffrey thought the men were his friends, when in fact, they were targeting him for sex.

"That was the reason for the whole seduction. That was the reason for the lure of the bicycle, and I think the evidence points to the fact that when Jeffrey Curley found out what these men were after, he said no, and he struggled, and that's why they killed him," Yannetti said.

Police found publications from NAMBLA in Jaynes' car, where Jeffrey was killed, and a diary in Jaynes' apartment where he had written about seducing young boys and told how NAMBLA changed his life:

"This was a turning point in discovery of myself.... NAMBLA's Bulletin helped me to become aware of my own sexuality and acceptance of it," Jaynes wrote.

"As a result of reading a NAMBLA bulletin, he came to cope with his feelings and his desires and then he came to realize it's OK to rape little boys and that's what he went and did," Frisoli claims.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/01/08/nambla.suit.crim/
by more background
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 9:02 PM
Article on the controversy over the membership of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA)
http://www.glaa.org/archive/1994/namblaoutofbounds.shtml

The case against NAMBLA is even more tenuous and mostly reflects abhorrence of
its ideology. Unpopular speech, especially unpopular speech about sex, is regularly
blamed for sexual violence and "deviance." Pornography causes rape, according to
antiporn feminists. Sex education causes teen pregnancy, according to their
counterparts on the right. NAMBLA's advocacy of "man-boy love" causes
homosexuality and violent predatory behavior, according to the Curleys' lawsuit.
...
NAMBLA strongly opposes age-of-consent laws in the belief that they are
arbitrary, simplistic, and a violation of the rights of minors as well as adults. It
expressly condemns "sexual abuse and all forms of coercion," believes only in
"mutually consensual relationships" between men and boys, and stresses that it "does
not provide encouragement, referrals, or assistance for people seeking sexual
contact." The Web site included the sayings of respectable writers and academics
(Oscar Wilde, Allen Ginsberg, Dudley Clendinen, and John Money), a rather dry
discussion of "positive and beneficial experiences" between adults and minors, and a
list of journal articles on sexuality as well as some sophomoric poetry. Maybe some
people found this titillating, but all in all, the NAMBLA Web site seemed a lot less
incendiary than the Bible.

NAMBLA's bulletin is more likely to offend: The issue I've seen included a story
about man-boy sex that could qualify as soft-core porn--but nothing sanctioning,
much less encouraging, violence and abuse. Of course, some may believe that any
erotica involving minors is an invitation to abuse, or statutory rape, at least. But if
stories involving sexually active minors were not protected by the First Amendment,
Lolita would be illegal (along with numerous TV shows and movies). In fact,
Nabokov had predictable trouble finding a publisher for his controversial book; but
even if Lolita were construed as an endorsement of statutory rape, it would remain
protected speech. For speech to be prohibited, it must have a clear, direct,
immediate, causal relationship to violence or other unlawful activities. Mere
advocacy of violence is legal; only incitement to violence--intentionally provocative
speech that is likely to result in immediate unlawful action--can be prohibited.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberfortytwo.htm

by curious
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 10:20 PM
What percent of adults who have sex with minors are gay and what percent are straight?
by gsadsf
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 10:31 PM
Strom Thurmond fathered a child with his 15 year old housekeeper ( http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/15/thurmond..paternity/ ) and most cases of pedophilia ones hears about on the internet involving grown men stalking children involves girls. Strangely most cases of Catholic priests abusing children involves boys but thats partly matter of self selection into a community that claims to be celebate. The obesession America has with the sexuality of underaged girls can be seen in the style of most pornography where youth is values up to the point where many over 18 models are often made to look as young as 12 or 13.
by history buff
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 11:15 PM
See:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/01/1713731_comment.php#1719476

(snip)

If all this were not enough, still worse will be found in the legacy of a comprehensive system of residential “Indian Schools” established during the early 1880s and maintained for a century thereafter.

(snip)

Severe corporal punishment - whippings, solitary confinement, restriction to bread and water rations - was routinely employed to prevent students speaking their own languages, practicing or in many cases even knowing about their spiritual traditions or anything else associated with the autochthonous functioning of their cultures.47 Not infrequently, this harsh “discipline” was transmuted into outright torture, as when children were chained to walls or posts for days, sometimes weeks on end, burned or scalded, had needles run through their tongues, were forced to eat their own vomit, subjected to electrical shocks and/or denied medical attention.48 Sadism was often conjoined by the sexual predations of staff members, a pattern of abuse now proven to have been pervasive in many institutions (and covered up by responsible officials).49 Under such conditions, death rates among students were extraordinarily high.50

(snip)





by just wondering
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 11:18 PM
Where's the outrage?
by Re:
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 11:23 PM
Bound Together isnt profitting from and giving money to organizations that promote hitting children so it makes more sense for people to complain about it profitting and giving money to an organization that encourages molesting children.
by hmm
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 11:48 PM
As long as NAMBLA's magazines or whatever doesnt directly exploit children in their publications (with naken pictures or whatever) they should have a right to publish their material. Bound Together should also have the right to sell these publications.

But just because you should have the right to do something doesnt mean you should do something. Bound Together could also sell Neonazi literature and they choose not to for political reasons. What is an interesting question is why exploitation of children was chosen as a subject that falls within what an Anarchist book store should be selling. Its in opposition to existing laws but so is rape and I doubt Bound Together would sell literatre that promotes rape. Perhaps someone at Bound Together doesnt feel like NAMBLA exploits children but so far when the subject is brought up Nessie tries to distract or starts yelling and one doesnt hear a clear argument as to why this stuff is being sold at Bound Together. I'm guessing that its because someone sees consentual sex between grown men and children as possible and am curious as to how that logic goes (and what ages are being talked about); when do adults in children even come into contact where a sexual relationship might be possible it seems like the way society is structured one sends up with teachers and priests (like the founder of NAMBLA) and parents. Does NAMBLA support parents having sexual relationships with their own children? How is the issue of the power of adults over children dealt with (as it would be in the case of workplace sexua make children who engage in consentual sex with adults even more disturbed than those who are abused against their will (since guilt comes into play).
by thoughts
Wednesday Feb 2nd, 2005 11:54 PM
I dont know how it got moved into being a defense of NAMBLA by Nessie but I'm guessing part of it was talk about the Book Fair reaching out. I notice that in a comment above Nessie (or someone who sounds a lot like him) denounces Communists and says they should never be allowed at a book fair. I'm guessing that Bound Together sells Communist literature but it does get into Anarchist issues of Commuphobia if one sees NAMBLA as being more acceptable than the many Communist anti-war, anti-police brutality and labor related organizations in the Bay Area.
by member
Thursday Feb 3rd, 2005 12:05 AM
None of make a dime off the place. We're all volunteers. It’s a labor of love. The money that passes through gets ploughed back into the store as stock, rent, taxes, utilities, etc., as well as into the Prisoners Literature Project, and as mutual aid, into various anarchist projects around the world.

by history buff
Thursday Feb 3rd, 2005 2:01 AM
>NAMBLA as being more acceptable than the many Communist anti-war, anti-police brutality and labor related organizations

Anarchist corpses stacked in pits by NAMBLA: zero

Anarchist corpses stacked in pits by Communists: we lost count

by um
Thursday Feb 3rd, 2005 8:44 AM
" Anarchist corpses stacked in pits by NAMBLA: zero Anarchist corpses stacked in pits by Communists: we lost count "

I wonder how widespread this type of hatred of Communists is among Anarchist and if it has something to do with the lack of diversity in the Anarchist community. Want to work on police brutality issues? Chances are you will have had to at some point work with O22 (a Maoist front group) or Police Watch (which is somewhat of a COC front group). Want to organize around the INS roundups after 911? The Blue Triangle Network is also somewhat of a Maoist front group. Most of the large Anti-war protests were organized by Communist groups and the main contingents that are not all white were from Communist associated groups (the Filipino Maoists, Central American Communists, ...). NAMBLA never did anything to directly attack Anarchists but I'm sure many some Anarchists were sexually abused as kids and have issues with NAMBLA. Modern day Bay Area Communist groups seem to work well with Anarachists even if many Anarchists are more sectarian than any Communist group and more antiCommunist than most right-wing groups. The difference between attacking Communism and attacking NAMBLA is that its the implementation by certain states that is at issue not the ideology. One could try to make the same claim of NAMBLA but while nonconsentual sex with minors is a corruption of their ideology, the goal of a future society where people can have sex with four year olds just seems worse to me than the Communist goal of a future society with equality and prosperity and a state that withers away.
by anarchist
Thursday Feb 3rd, 2005 9:05 AM
>I wonder how widespread this type of hatred of Communists is among Anarchist and if it has something to do with the lack of diversity in the Anarchist community.

No it does not. It stems from our historical experience. Bolsheviks back stab. They have murdered us wholesale for decades on end. We’d be fools to trust them now.


>nonconsentual sex with minors is a corruption of their ideology,

Nonconsensual sex with minors is not NAMBLA’s ideology.

Nonconsensual sex with anybody is an anathema to anarchists.

Nonconsensual anything with anybody is an anathema to anarchists.

So is having our corpses stacked in pits. F*ck Bolshevism. The only substantive difference between “Socialism in one country” and “National Socialism” is the color of the uniform. Bolshevism isn’t even communism. It’s state monopoly capitalism, the ultimate corporate state. Fascism is corporatism. Red and brown are two sides of the same coin.
by some body
Thursday Feb 3rd, 2005 9:35 AM
just to make things a bit more clear:
bolsheviks have stacked anarchist corpses in pits (and in plenty of other places) for almost a century and they have never apologized, because the ideas that anarchists promote--direct action, mutual aid, solidarity and other stupid sentimentalist stuff--go against the ideas of bolshevism, which are dictatorship, state capitalism, and cops. the fact that some local communist groups get along with some local anarchists has more to do with the pre-corpse-making phase of communist interactions with other radicals: use them for increasing their influence and prestige and credibility. once that is no longer necessary or possible, the pits fill up. that's history. if you don't believe any of what anarchists have said here, just read a couple of books on the russian revolution that dare to mention anarchists. or read about the spanish revolution. or the mexican revolution. or the chinese revolution. the list is almost endless.

nambla folks have never stacked anarchist corpses in pits (or anywhere else) because their ideas are not necessarily opposed to those promoted by anarchists and others who are interested in abolishing ALL laws (which means abolishing cops and prisons too, in case you were wondering), not just those about the age of consent. someone in nambla could live in an anarchist society, but might be subject to the same sanctions as others whose behavior is seen as disruptive or disrespectful. the important thing to remember about that is that it happens on an individual and case-by-case basis, not in an impersonal institutional way where the people who are directly affected by that behavior have no say in delivering those sanctions. bolshevism is uninterested in individuals--they are seen as obstacles to the consolidation of state power and police activities.

i don't know about all you whiners about nambla, but nobody in nambla (as far as i know) has a legacy of mass murder on them. anyone who identifies with any part of bolshevism does. i know who my enemies are, and the legacy of walt whitman and leonardo da vinci is more pleasant to me than that of lenin, trotsky, stalin, and mao. read some fucking history.
by pedophilia is ok?
Thursday Feb 3rd, 2005 10:02 AM
it's sick any way you look at it, and to minimize it or say "they are not Hitler or Stalin" is to be a collaborator in the exploitation of children

not mature teenagers, children, mind you

Bound Together is a collaborator and if you shop there, you are too
by some body
Thursday Feb 3rd, 2005 10:27 AM
all your cringing and handwringing about "children" is just so much authoritarian garbage. children are not unformed (or uninformed) malleable blobs needing overbearing "protection" from well-meaning and patronizing "adults." most post-weaned little humans are pretty sharp, and if their parents/guardians are up to snuff and teach them well, the kids will know when someone posing as a well-meaning "adult" is trying to exploit them. if the parents/guardians are really well-intentioned, then the kids will also have a trusted advocate to help them if/when they get into trouble. if you continue the cycle of not trusting children to make some (mostly harmless) mistakes, they will have absolutely no reason to come to you when they encounter something they can't take care of themselves. protecting children is one of the first lines cops use when they "explain" why it's necessary to beat you up, arrest you, put you in jail, etc. the other big and well-known authoritarian lies also come from "child rearing": this is for your own good; you'll thank me for this later; i know what's best for you. if you want to stop the exploitation (sexual and other) of children, an excellent first step is to stop treating them as "children." freedom without choice and consent is meaningless.
I can't see how NAMBLA fits within any anarchist perspective, except to the extent that it refracts the libertarian capitalism of middle and upper middle class Americans through its own sexual lens

others here have rightly commented upon the obvious coercive psychological problems associated with adults having sexual relationships with children, and the possibility of permanent emotional and physical injury

but, there has been less acknowledgement of the socioeconomic aspect of the situation: adults usually have more money and independence than children, and can utilize this privileged status to persuade? coerce? intimidate? compel? children into sexual activity

I am at a loss to understand how such "relationships" have any role in anarchism, after all, there are plenty of powerful people on Wall Street who believe that the securities laws should be eliminated so that they can prey upon the public without any consequence, just as there are corporate executives who believe that they should be able to spend their money and develop their property without any public restraint

and, not surprisingly, the financial universe and the NAMBLA one sometimes intersect, like that rich guy from the Bay Area who was arrested down in Mexico a couple of years ago for molesting children

and, personally, I recall a rumor about one of my professors, an advocate of free market policies in energy, who was discovered, after a vehicle stop, to have child pornography in the trunk of his car

so, if Bound Together sells NAMBLA on the basis that the elimination of "age of consent" laws should be eliminated, shouldn't it likewise be selling the memoirs of people like James Cramer, Jack Welch and the Russian oligarchs?

after all, if one can imagine an ideal anarchist world where adult/child sexual "relationships" can be effectively regulated by the community, what is there to prevent these buccaneer capitalists/investment advisors from having an equally regulated place in this world as well?

--Richard





by committee member
Thursday Feb 3rd, 2005 10:43 AM
If that's how you feel, don't shop there. Don't come to the Book Fair, either. In fact, why don't you organize a boycott. It would really help us keep the numbers down and the fire marshal off our back. The number of people attending the Fair keeps rising steadily, and there is only so much room in the hall. If at least some people don’t boycott, for some reason, it’s going to get much too crowded. So please, boycott. Go somewhere else instead, and take your friends with you.

by you say
Thursday Feb 3rd, 2005 11:08 AM
again, the zero-sum game, whereby a false choice is made between tolerating NAMBLA's (and hence Bound Together's) promotion of pedophilia and a police state

I have worked with children of child sexual abuse and it is not pretty. these kids are scared for life.

these kids were coerced in all sorts of ways, from outright threats of violence and shaming, to money and/or drugs and alcohol, to far more subtle exploitation of their need for love

90% were raped (yes, raped, as children cannot consent to any adult sexually advances) by family and friends of the family. the TV news stories about strangers attacking children is far from the norm. sexual predators generally take the route of least resistence and exploit the children closest to them in everyday life.

it's not about treating them as children, being overbearing or patronizing (i.e not truely respecting them as individuals), it's about protecting them those who would do them harm. while they are wonderful in a million and one ways, they are not yet strong enough to defend themselves, and sometimes their very families are the ones doing the most harm.

do not apologize or make excuses for the pedophiles. it only encourages them and the children will undoubtedly suffer. not in some cheesy republican family values/law & order way, but in a very real and painful way that no child should ever feel.

to look the other way and say there are more important causes, or reasons to compromise and tolerate the pedophiles, is the worst thing we can do for those who cannot protect themselves
by RWF
(restes60 [at] earthlink.net) Thursday Feb 3rd, 2005 11:39 AM

again, perhaps the roots of NAMBLA lie elsewhere than within the vicinity of anarchism

--Richard

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/01/11/BAGNFAO7MI1.DTL

[CALIFORNIA
Murder-suicide case in desert evangelical sex cult
Sect heir apparent, woman who reared him are found dead
Don Lattin, Chronicle Religion Writer

Tuesday, January 11, 2005

Police in Arizona and California said they are investigating an apparent murder-suicide involving the son of Maria David, the prophet and spiritual leader of the Family, an international evangelical sex cult previously known as the Children of God.

Early Sunday morning, the body of Richard P. Rodriguez, 29, was found behind the wheel of a car in an industrial area in Blythe, a Riverside County town in the Mojave Desert on the Arizona border.

Rodriguez, known as "Davidito" when he was growing up in the Children of God, had been groomed as a child to be the heir apparent of the sect, founded in the late 1960s by the late David "Moses" Berg.

Police said Rodriguez died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound after making several calls on his cell phone.

By tracing those calls, police were tipped off to check a Tucson apartment, where they discovered the body of Angela M. Smith, 51, who died hours earlier from multiple stab wounds.

"We've had some reports that they were involved with a religious group, and that she (Smith) was involved in his (Rodriguez's) upbringing,'' said Sgt. Carlos Valdez of the Tucson police.

Those familiar with the Children of God know that Rodriguez had one of the most infamous upbringings in the sect, which in its early years encouraged sex between minors and between minors and adults.

Critics of the cult have long pointed to a booklet published by the Children of God titled the "Story of Davidito,'' which describes in glowing terms how Rodriquez was sexually abused as a toddler by his nanny, Sara.

"He was the prince,'' said Daniel Roselle, 29, a Los Angeles man who was also raised in the Children of God. "He was put on a pedestal as the future leader of the Family.''

Roselle, who says he was sexually abused by sect members when he was 7 years old, left the group in 1995, about five years before Rodriguez defected in 2000.

"I knew Ricky (Rodriguez) well, and talked to him about four months ago, '' Roselle said. "He had a lot of rage.'' The two lived at a Children of God commune in Japan in the late 1980s.

In a statement released yesterday, the Family International confirmed that Rodriguez was the son of Maria David, and that Smith was a member of the sect for more than 30 years.

"The tragic circumstances surrounding their untimely death have brought much grief and heartbreak to Ricky's mother and relatives, as well as Angela's family,'' the statement read.

The Children of God began in the late 1960s as a band of hippies, political radicals and "Jesus freaks'' gathered around Berg, a self-described "end times prophet."

In the early '70s, they formed Christian communes in California and Texas -- the first of dozens of small "intentional communities'' that would spring up around the world.

Berg died in 1994, but his movement lives on today as "The Family."

Other survivors of the Children of God include hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of "Jesus babies" born in the 1970s and '80s. Their mothers were young missionaries who followed Berg's call to share sexual favors in order to bring young men to Christ.

They called it "flirty fishing.''

Steve Kent, a professor of sociology at the University of Alberta, said the highly sexual climate at Children of God communes "did real damage to that second generation.''

Kent and Roselle said there have been suicides in recent years among children who grew up in the Children of God.

"While no one can justify what he (Rodriguez) did, you can understand his frustration and rage,'' said Kent, who has spent years studying the movement.

"He and others from that generation have never seen justice from all the abuse they suffered.''

E-mail Don Lattin at dlattin [at] sfchronicle.com.]

by tkat
Thursday Feb 3rd, 2005 12:14 PM
Ritual cult abuse isn't what this is about. LIke I said before, I know real life "survivors" of relationships with older men, that are not messed up about it. What if relationships between people need to be understood on a case by case baiss? What if relationship are nto caused by predatory male sexual behavior?
Odviously there are a million examples of men exploiting children, women, and other men. That is why it is called a patriarchy.
But exploitation is not necessarily a foundation of all human relationships, and if you think that it is then you must be really cynical about everything.

by better safe than sorry
Thursday Feb 3rd, 2005 1:23 PM
when looking out for the safety of children, I'd rather be cynical than naive any day

I think children would appreciate that as well. I know for a fact that those suffering from the lifelong damage that resulted from others' naivete wish those around them had been a bit more cynical and had protected them from the pedophiles who hurt them (I speak of the naivete of the indirectly collaborating people who looked the other way, assumed it did no damage to the children, or just denied the reality that someone they knew could be sexually exploiting children)

would you advocating that the case-by-case examination you desire happens *after* the sexual contact between adults and children? or before?

I say before, and that's what this whole discussion is all about, if we are collectively to try to stop it before it happens or if we will passively tolerate child sexual abuse

I don't hear NAMBLA talking about it on a case by case basis. it's *all* good with them as long as it fits their perverse sense of what is consensual between adults and children. they dishonestly frame it as children's rights when they are really advocating for their own right to have sex with children.

children make easy targets for adults, and, pathetically and dangerously, people will go to great lengths to rationalize the desire to exploit children. apologists for the pedophile advocates are no friend to children either. and, unfortunately, that includes Bound Together.

by RWF
(restes60 [at] earthlink.net) Thursday Feb 3rd, 2005 2:44 PM
[Ritual cult abuse isn't what this is about. LIke I said before, I know real life "survivors" of relationships with older men, that are not messed up about it. What if relationships between people need to be understood on a case by case baiss? What if relationship are nto caused by predatory male sexual behavior?
Odviously there are a million examples of men exploiting children, women, and other men. That is why it is called a patriarchy.
But exploitation is not necessarily a foundation of all human relationships, and if you think that it is then you must be really cynical about everything.]

First, dismissing the Children of God story as "ritual cult abuse" glosses over the actual facts

If you read the story closely, it is evident that the sexual contact between adults and children was not violent, and could be interpreted as being consistent with NAMBLA's philosophy about the nature and purported benefit of these "relationships"

and, look what happened, and what is the explanation for it? and what about that explanation separates it from NAMBLA?

Second, I'm not an absolutist here, and I don't doubt that some people, as children, survive sexual experiences with adults. I also understand that there are unique circumstances in the gay and lesbian community related to young people being out, and ostracized by their families.

Even so, can't adults give them, or anyone else, straight, gay or bi, support without having sex with them until they are at least 16 years old? It seems to me that the risk of harm escalates exponentially as the age of the child decreases.

I also admit that I have become cynical, because, while I understand that you are referring to the perspective of people looking back upon their childhood experiences, it seems to me that the most positive descriptions do generally come from adults, not children.

As a result, it is increasingly hard for me to see these situations in isolation. And, for some reason, the underlying power relationship is invariably repressed. For example, in a another context, the movie "Frida", Diego Rivera is shown having numerous sexual encounters with his models. Nowhere in this otherwise fine film is it ever suggested that the models were victimized by their fear of rejecting the sexual advances of a wealthy, powerful artist. Something very probable, given the pervasive poverty of the time.

I'm almost 45 years old, and one of the most troubling things that has happened over my life has been the sexualization of children by adults through the media, and the creation of an organized sex trade that includes prostitution and pornography.

In other words, Fordism and post-Fordism are now globally transforming the most intimate acts between people into a marketable production commodity. Accordingly, I refer to my original post about this article, where I address the similarities between the libertarianism of finance capital and the libertarianism of NAMBLA

It's the old money = power = sex equation, except, in this case, the people with the money and power use it to have sex with children instead of starlets and bodybuilders, and it has nothing to do with anarchism and a more perfect world

--Richard





by some body
Thursday Feb 3rd, 2005 3:04 PM
i am not making excuses for members of nambla. i am not making excuses for child abusers. i am calling into question the authoritarian morality that equates child sexual activity with rape and/or abuse. i am not saying that child abuse and rape does not occur. as a previous poster mentioned, most of that happens within families, and i would add quite explicitly: not by people who hang out at nambla meetings. let's look at dysfunctional families and the catholic church for that. i am not equating child sexual activity with anarchism. i am calling into question all laws, not just those that deal with what constitutes a minor and the age of sexual consent. what i am saying is that authoritarian behavior, thoughts, and morality have absolutely no place within anarchist discussions and any anarchist society. if you can't deal with that fine; not everyone is cut out to be an anarchist. some of my friends are not anarchists. but if you can't deal with it, leave us alone. we'll leave you alone too, unless the community you are a part of becomes predatory.
by tkat
Thursday Feb 3rd, 2005 3:25 PM
I am definately hearing you (rwf) on what you are talking about. I go back and forth on this subject, but since there are a bunch of people here that have choosen to go after bound together for this issue, I am willing to express the divergent view point.
The reality of the sex trade is that, it is the new slavery. And the reality is that, western men travel to other countries to have sex with underage children who are kept like slaves. It is really terrible, but you don't see people researching who goes to thialand and hunting down wealthy white men. There would be alot of job openings.
Nambla is sold in gay book shops in other parts of sf. I think people need to go talk to some queer people that grew up before the mainstreaming of queer culture to understand what it is like to grow up in a world that you are not a part of.
Another media referrence to all this is the film LIE, Long Island Expressway...it is good it is about intergenerational relationships, there are some cringy parts but it is good to see honest portrayals of those types of relationships.
Bound Together...
Bound together books is an assembledge of people and ideas, that don't all jell perfectly. We carry things that we don't all agree on like green anarchy, nambla, no surrendor (alf), tikkun, and occassionally more leftist oriented publications. Somehow these magazines all get along on the shelves, (psss green anarchy kissed tikkun and I am pretty sure that if you visit the store in the early morning you can catch anarchy magazine cuddling with the Match). But I digress, Bound together supports both visibly and financially a broad base of community organizations/organizing drives, anarchist groups in the us and abroad, both political and non political prisoners, and is a place for free exchange of ideas where purchase is not necssarily the bottom line. In a city like San Francisco, those places have disappeared almost all together. I challenge people to start a space that represents your exact politics and manage to work with other people and their politcs and keep it open for more than a year. If you can do it great, we need you, we have needed spaces in sf for years now. Please put your time and energy into creating and not destroying. But if you must destroy, please go after capitalism and the state...I know for a fact that they kill and exploit more children than a magazine ever will.
by is it really?
Thursday Feb 3rd, 2005 4:50 PM
Child sexual abuse is probably more widespread than sexual slavery. Sexual slavery exists on the margins of most societies wheras sexual abuse of children exists in almost every community. It is most common in the family and NAMBLA is obviously not responsible for most (if any) of it. But, that shouldnt let NAMBLA off the hook. Defending Nazis isnt as bad as being a Nazi but most lefty bookstores wouldnt sell Nazi literature. Defending child-adult sexual relationships that cause lifelong trauma for most of the children involved (be it consentual or nonconsentual) should likewise be seen as something outside the bounds of what should be sold ina an Anarchist venue. I'm sure that Bound Together wouldnt sell magazines by a group arguing for sexual slavery and child-adult sexual relations should probably be seen in this light.

That said I dont think its bad for there to be discussion of the historical child-adult sexual relations in various cultures (like ancient Greence and Rome) or even a discussion on why child-aduly sexual relations tend to lead to lifelong problems. The problem with carrying NAMBLA material is that its advocacy by a group composed of older men that seeks to promote child-adult relationships. If it was an organization composed of young adults who had issues with age of consent laws, an organization providing psychological support to victims of childhood molestation, or even and organization providing support to men who are trying to cope with strong sexual desires towards young children that would be a completely different story.
by sp
Thursday Feb 3rd, 2005 5:32 PM
NAMBLA Leader: Rights? Does anybody know their rights? You see, I've learned something today. [Stan and Kyle look at each other] Our forefathers came to this country because… they believed in an idea. An idea called "freedom." They wanted to live in a place where a group couldn't be prosecuted for their beliefs. Where a person can live the way he chooses to live. [Stan, Kyle, and Cartman look at each other] You see us as being perverted because we're different from you. People are afraid of us, because they don't understand. And sometimes it's easier to persecute than to understand. [Stan and Kyle look at each other, then at the NAMBLA leader]
Kyle: Dude. You have sex with children.
NAMBLA Leader: We are human. Most of us didn't even choose to be attracted to young boys. We were born that way. We can't help the way we are, and if you all can't understand that, well, then, I guess you'll just have to put us away. [shots of the agents, then the Brando look-alikes, then Stan and Kyle, who look at each other, then at the NAMBLA leader]
Kyle: [slowly, for emphasis] Dude. You have sex with children.
Stan: Yeah. You know, we believe in equality for everybody, and tolerance, and all that gay stuff, but dude, fuck you.
Kyle: Seriously.
UCB's library carries (or at least used to carry) neoNazi newspapers. You can see carrying things that are morally apalling bad or you can see it as information that is needed if you want to understand the psychology and actions of such groups. If the reason Bound Together carries NAMBLA stuff is to inform people about the psychology behind some forms of child abuse that would seem like a legitimate reason for carrying the material. If the reason the material is being carried is because NAMBLA is seen as being included in broader Anarchist thought because its an alternative sexuality then I think that would be a problem.
by member
Thursday Feb 3rd, 2005 6:33 PM
The real problem here is not how Bound Together views NAMBLA (or ALF, or the PLO the DNC or whatever). The problem is how certain individuals view Bound Together. They want to control the policies and process of an organization where they are not willing to put in the labor, time and committment that it takes to earn the right to participate in decision making. This is the same mentality that bosses have. There are no bosses at Bound Together. All decisions are made by we, the workers, ourselves. If you don't like that, too bad.

Same goes for the Book Fair Committee. Only Committee members participate in the making of Committee decisions. Even other Bound Together members have no say. Anybody who wants to participate in its decisions has to join the Committee, go to meeting and do the work. Otherwise, you have no say.

We developed this process over decades of practice. It works really, really well. We have no intentions of changing it to suit the whims of people who are not willing to work, but think they they nevertheless have the right to boss us around.

If you want to be part of a book store collective, or a fair committee, that functions by a different process, feel free to start your own. We’ll even give you advice if you ask us, which you should, because we do know what we’re doing. If we didn’t know what we’re doing, we wouldn’t still be here and thriving, thirty years later.
by well then
Thursday Feb 3rd, 2005 8:16 PM
Do businesses owe anything to their communities? The comment above sounds a lot like a GAP executive telling sweatshop protesters to shut up unless they are paying custmers or own stock. Sure, selling a controversial item isnt the worst thing in the world but to tell the community they have no say doesnt exactly make one feel good about Bound Together or the Book Fair's ideology.
by member
Thursday Feb 3rd, 2005 10:38 PM
"The" community!?! If only it were that simple.

But it’s not.

Bound Together does not serve only one community, not even yours, whatever it may be. Bound Together serves a number of communities simultaneously. Not all of them get along with each other all of the time. Some of these people actually hate each other. You know who you are.

None of you likes every single one of the other ones. But all of you like at least some of each other, so it is possible for you all to get along, at least when you are in our space and on our time.

How you all relate to each other on your own time, in your own spaces, is up to you. We highly recommend that you cooperate, freely of your own wills, but we’re not going to force you to. We couldn’t if we wanted to. You live your own lives.

How you relate you each other on Bound Together’s time, and in Bound Together’s space, however, is not up to you. It’s up to us. Same goes for the Book Fair. It’s our space. It’s our time. We put the work in to make it happen, so we decide how it happens. This is what we call worker self-management.

Here’s our plan:

When you are in the store, or at the Fair, you will relate to each other politely, no matter how much you hate each other. No fighting is allowed, not physically, not verbally, not psychically, not any kind, not on our time, not in our space, not with each other and not with us. Do it somewhere else, later. In the meantime, put it on hold.

If you’re not a member, and don’t want to become one, don’t try to tell us tell us what to do. We make our own own decisions and nobody else's, not even yours. Please show us the same courtesy.

If you only want to complain, but to not work, don’t waste your time telling us about it. We’re not interested. We’ve heard quite enough of that to last us a lifetime.

But if you have constructive suggestions that you would be willing to help implement if called upon to do so, then please, feel free to come by and offer them in person.

We’re open from 11:30 AM till 7:30 PM, every day of the week, except when we aren’t, which does happen sometimes, so call first to make sure we’re open: 415-431-8355

If you want to become a member, and participate in the decision making, and are also willing to work, you can do that. There is a process for becoming a member. It’s not difficult, but it does take some time and commitment. For details, inquire in person. New volunteers are always welcome. Very few are turned away, and never without reason.

So we do encourage you to consider volunteering. You’d be glad you did. It’s a deeply satisfying experience, which enables you to not only make a real difference in the world, but to do it without having to sweat of bleed in the process. What an opportunity! Not to be missed. Plus, you get to meet some really, really, really interesting people, at least some of whom you will like a lot.
by but
Thursday Feb 3rd, 2005 11:04 PM
" When you are in the store, or at the Fair, you will relate to each other politely"

What about the time at the fair a few years ago when Nessie got in a fight with some Green Anarchists and their table got flipped over?
by thoughts
Thursday Feb 3rd, 2005 11:53 PM
" I don't doubt that some people, as children, survive sexual experiences with adults."

The NAMBLA line usually revolves around the question of consent with historical examples being used to show that in some cultures (like Sparta) institutionalized pedophila didnt seem to cause a huge amount of harm. While it is possible to try to place blame on a taboo, a taboo that is unlikely to change means that especially for children not taught such a taboo but who will later be part of society no child-adult sexual relations can really be considered nontraumatic in the long term.
by gehrig
Friday Feb 4th, 2005 6:10 AM
but: "What about the time at the fair a few years ago when Nessie got in a fight with some Green Anarchists and their table got flipped over?"

One rule for me, one rule for thee.

@%<
by gehrig
Friday Feb 4th, 2005 6:29 AM
"The NAMBLA line usually revolves around the question of consent with historical examples being used to show that in some cultures (like Sparta) institutionalized pedophila didnt seem to cause a huge amount of harm."

And everybody knows what an innately sensitive and enfolding culture the Spartans had.

Reading this argument, it seems pretty clear to me that there are two different groups here -- ones who have raised at least one child from infancy and therefore don't romanticize away the very real limitations of awareness of an adolescent (or preadolescent), and those who merely theorize about child development in a way that seems to me to be as colored by rationalization of a power/gratification relationship as by reality.

@%<
by he does dodge the central issue
Friday Feb 4th, 2005 11:22 AM
being anti-NAMBLA is not being anti-kids-playing-doctor, or anti-teenager-on-teenager sex, it's being ANTI-PEDOPHILIA, commonly understood as adult on child sex, and NAMBLA apparently thinks small children can consent the same as full-grown adults do. NAMBLA says this to justify their own sick urges (unfortunately these sick urges are a likely result of their own sexual exploitation as children)

all the diversions around what a wonderful thing Bound Together is in a thousand other ways, and how they have no responsibility toward the community at large for propogating pro-pedophilia materials (which has the effect of encouraging further acts of child sex abuse), and the talk of child sex play, artfully dodges the issue of Bound Together's true justification for facilitating such attocities as child sexual abuse.

we know that it is not a free speech issue as they do not allow just anyone to promote their agendas at Bound Together. it must be consensed upon to be promoted there, after an advocate brings it to the table, and therefore there is at least one NAMBLA advocate (maybe more) in their ranks

the bottom-line, as it must be assumed since no rational arguement has been made as to why Bound Together thinks it is appropriate to allow pedophiles to promote their materials at the store, and no justifying arguement appears likely to ever be forthcoming as they proudly claim to have no responsibility outside their own membership, is that there is at least one pedophile in their ranks whom they are protecting. at least one person there sees value in the promotion of pedophilia and thinks NAMBLA is a good thing, that small children, as equals, can honestly consent to sex with adults. That's exactly the way pedophiles think -- I know as I have worked with both victims *and* perpetrators of pedophilia. Then, unfortunately, the other members at Bound Together who do not block the NAMBLA sales, assuming someone there actually finds pedophilia repugnant, must be trading votes for their own pet issues such as the ALF or the DNC or whatever was named earlier. Or maybe the pedophile (possibly closeted as it is illegal after all) is such a strong personality that the others are afraid to just say "no" to him, and it must be a "him" as the majority of pedophiles are male. Maybe the other members are just ignorant to the devastation caused by child sexual abuse. So, it's very easy to understand why someone would support NAMBLA sales -- they were likely a victim of child sexual abuse who never overcame their own exploitation enough to reject the ideology of their perpetrators. It's more difficult to tell why other Bound Together members would acquiesce in the promotion of the abuse of children.

the root problem here is that the other non-NAMBLA supporting members do not find pedophilia repugnant enough to block sales of such materials (assuming Bound Together is not 100% pro-NAMBLA). and that problem extends to everyone who is aware of NAMBLA's presence at Bound Together and continues to shop there and look the other way while children suffer.

by tkat
Friday Feb 4th, 2005 12:54 PM
The real bottom line is that bound together is a merging of different people and ideas and somehow we all get along. There are things that individuals find inappropriate for the store, but there are other people that want them there. If you use a consensus model of decision making you are bound by other peoples' desires. Perhaps there would be a time when there is consensus about things like nambla or green anarchy and perhaps then we would not carry them, but I don't think that the store is going to cow tow to anonymous right wing or liberal trolls on indymedia.
by kumbaya with pedophiles
Friday Feb 4th, 2005 2:23 PM
it's not impressive to "get along" with pedophiles, especially if those pedophiles advocate for further child abuse rather than seek help to fight the demons that make them want sex with young children

there are different models for consensus. what do you use at Bound Together? consensus minus one, two?? of course, if enough members *really* wanted NAMBLA out of Bound Together, NAMBLA would be out on their asses. but to most BT members, apparently, child sexual abuse is no big deal, or things would change

either way, it bodes poorly for the role anarchists could ever play on larger world stages if they can not find a way to deny pedophile advocates a platform, in their own house, on which to peddle their sick agenda. what would a world without hierachies and government look like? to gage by Bound Together's ethical model, we know that NAMBLA would have a special place and advocating for increased child sexual abuse would be accepted as another fight for "civil rights" (the "rights" of predators and those of consenting 10 year olds)

as for those further distractions, besides ignoring the fact that NAMBLA makes no distinction between pubescent and pre-pubescent in their advocacy, and ignoring that fact that people have stated repeatedly in comments here that their objections are not to what is commonly known as statutory rape, and by trying to put the blame on those opposed to child sex abuse ("why is child abuse so bad?" he ponders), it still isn't working.

child abuse is *everyone's* business and Bound Together is flat out wrong to tolerate it
by gehrig
Friday Feb 4th, 2005 3:09 PM
kumbaya: "the fact that NAMBLA makes no distinction between pubescent and pre-pubescent in their advocacy"

Now that both you and I have explicitly pointed this out, let's see what pretext nessie uses to ignore it _this_time. Will he instead continue to dreamily reminisce about a fucking that took place before the first moon walk?

@%<
by child sexual abuse tutorial
Friday Feb 4th, 2005 3:33 PM
please, take note Bound Together members.

this is just a small sampling of the mountains of data on the harmful effects of child sexual abuse:


--Child Sexual Abuse ~ Disclosures

Among victims of sexual abuse, the inability to trust is pronounced, which also contributes to secrecy and non-disclosure.
Source: Courtois & Watts, 1982.

Children often fail to report because of the fear that disclosure will bring consequences even worse than being victimized again. The victim may fear consequences from the family, feel guilty for consequences to the perpetrator, and may fear subsequent retaliatory actions from the perpetrator.
Sources: Berlinger & Barbieri, 1984; Groth, 1979; Swanson & Biaggio, 1985.

Victims may be embarrassed or reluctant to answer questions about the sexual activity.
Source: Berlinger & Barbieri, 1984.

Victims may also have a feeling that "something is wrong with me," and that the abuse is their fault.
Sources: Johnson, 1987; Tsai & Wagner, l978.

In addition to "sexual guilt," there are several other types of guilt associated with the abuse, which include feeling different from peers, harboring vengeful and angry feelings toward both parents, feeling responsible for the abuse, feeling guilty about reporting the abuse, and bringing disloyalty and disruption to the family . Any of these feelings of guilt could outweigh the decision of the victim to report, the result of which is the secret may remain intact and undisclosed.
Source: Courtois & Watts, 1982; Tsai & Wagner, l978.

A child's initial denial of sexual abuse should not be the sole basis of reassurance that abuse did not occur. Virtually all investigative protocols are designed to respond to only those children who have disclosed. Policies and procedures that are geared only to those children who have disclosed fail to recognize the needs of the majority of victims.
Source: Sorensen & Snow, 1991.

Study of 630 cases of alleged sexual abuse of children from 1985 through 1989: Using a subset of 116 confirmed cases, findings indicated that 79 percent of the children of the study initially denied abuse or were tentative in disclosing. Of those who did disclose, approximately three-quarters disclosed accidentally. Additionally, of those who did disclose, 22 percent eventually recanted their statements.
Source: Sorensen & Snow, 1991.

Young victims may not recognize their victimization as sexual abuse.
Source: Gilbert, l988.

There is the clinical assumption that children who feel compelled to keep sexual abuse a secret suffer greater psychic distress than victims who disclose the secret and receive assistance and support.
Source: Finkelhor & Browne, 1986.

Early identification of sexual abuse victims appears to be crucial to the reduction of suffering of abused youth and to the establishment of support systems for assistance in pursuing appropriate psychological development and healthier adult functioning . As long as disclosure continues to be a problem for young victims, then fear, suffering, and psychological distress will, like the secret, remain with the victim.
Sources: Bagley, 1992; Bagley, 1991; Finkelhor et al. 1990; Whitlock & Gillman, 1989.




--Child Sexual Abuse ~ Allegations

In a twelve state study of approximately 9000 divorces cases, child sexual abuse allegations were made in less than 2% of contested divorces involving child custody.
Source: Association of Family Conciliation Courts, 1990.

Reported cases of child sexual abuse reached epidemic proportions, with a reported 322 percent increase from 1980 to 1990.
Source: Sorensen & Snow, 1991.

Bruises, burns, and broken bones are more easily identified as child abuse than is sexual assault.
Source: Farrell, 1988.

This crime must usually be proven without corroboration or physical evidence.
Source: Janssen, 1984.

A study conducted at Children's Hospital Medical Center of Cincinnati (Amy Arszman Daso and Robert Shapiro, M.D) indicates that child sexual abuse allegations should be taken seriously and found children's testimony more reliable than physical exams in cases of sexual abuse. The researchers reviewed the records of 31 pedophiles who confessed between 1994 and 1999. The 31 perpetrators confessed to a total of 101 acts of sexual abuse, some of which they committed multiple times. The perpetrators abused 47 children. The 45 old enough to provide a history described 111 acts of sexual abuse. "Physical exams are an unreliable indicator of sexual abuse," says Dr. Shapiro. "We're not saying that children never make things up, but the responsible reaction is to listen carefully to allegations of abuse so that abused children will be identified and false allegations recognized." (May 2000)
Contact: Jim Feuer (EMail: jfeuer [at] chmcc.org), Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, 513-636-4420




--Child Abuse & Child Sexual Abuse ~ Substantiated

Composition of substantiated child abuse in 2000:
879,000 children were victims of child maltreatment.
Neglect ~ 63%
Physical ~ 19%
Sexual ~ 10%
Psychological ~ 8%

Victimization rates declined as age increased.
Rate of victimization per 1,000 children of the same age group:
Birth to 3 years old = 15.7 victims per 1,000.
Ages 16 and 17 = 5.7 victims per 1,000.

Except for victims of sexual abuse, rates
were similar for male and female victimization:
11.2 and 12.8 per 1,000 children respectively.
Rate of sexual abuse by gender:
1.7 victims per 1,000 female children
0.4 victims per 1,000 male children.

Rate of child abuse by race:
White = 51%
African American = 25%
Hispanic = 15%
American Indian/Alaska Natives = 2%
Asian/Pacific Islanders = 1%

The comparative annual rate of child victims:
decreased steadily from 15.3 victims per 1,000 children in 1993
to 11.8 victims per 1,000 children in 1999;
then increased to 12.2 per 1,000 children in 2000.
Whether this is a trend cannot be determined until additional data are collected.

Source: US Dept of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children & Families,
National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect, 2000.




--Child Victims

An average of 5.5 children per 10,000 enrolled in day care are sexually abused, an average of 8.9 children out of every 10,000 are abused in the home
Source: Finkelhor & Williams, 1988.

In the adult retrosptective study, victimization was reported by 27 percent of the women and 16 percent of the men. The median age for the occurrence of reported abuse was 9.9 for boys and 9.6 for girls. Victimization occurred before age eight for 22 percent of boys and for 23 percent of girls. Most of the abuse of both boys and girls was by offenders 10 or more years older than their victims. Girls were more likely than boys to disclose the abuse. Forty-two percent of the women and thirty-three percent of the men reported never having disclosed the experience to anyone.
Source: Finkelhor et al., 1990.

"WHEN SEXUALLY abused boys are not treated, society must later deal with the resulting problems, including crime, suicide, drug use and more sexual abuse, said the study’s author, Dr. William C. Holmes of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine." [snip] "The earlier studies found that one-third of juvenile delinquents, 40 percent of sexual offenders and 76 percent of serial rapists report they were sexually abused as youngsters." [snip] "The suicide rate among sexually abused boys was 1½ to 14 times higher, and reports of multiple substance abuse among sixth-grade boys who were molested was 12 to 40 times greater." [snip] "Holmes said a review of the studies leads him to believe 10 percent to 20 percent of all boys are sexually abused in some way. But widely varying definitions of sexual abuse in the studies and differences in who was being studied make it difficult to accurately gauge the prevalence of sexual abuse, he said."
Full Story at MSNBC News, Dec 1998 (Note: may be archived).

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS):
1. Sexual assault of young children as reported to law enforcement:
Victim, incident, and offender characteristics (Acrobat PDF or ASCII text).
2. National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), ~ regarding sexual assault, especially of young children; based on reports from law enforcement agencies of 21 States and covering the years 1991 through 2002 (or, use the BJS search to find these documents).
The July 2000 NIBRS report presents sexual assault in 4 categories:
Forcible rape,
Forcible sodomy,
Sexual assault with an object, and
Forcible fondling.
Findings include statistics on the incidence of sexual assault, the victims, their offenders, gender, response to these crimes, locality, time of incident, the levels of victim injury, victims' perceptions of offenders' ages, and victim-offender relationships, and other detailed characteristics.
Highlights from 2000 include the following as reported to law enforcement:
67% of victims of sexual assault were juveniles (under age 18);
34% of sexual assault victims were under age 12;
1 of every 7 victims of sexual assault were under age 6;
40% of offenders who victimized children under age 6 were juveniles (under age 18).
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)


NOTE: For information on the investigation and forensic psychology aspects of child sexual victimization, Dr. Suzanne Sgroi is an excellent resource (Law Enforcement And Child Abuse, by Sgroi and co-authored by law enforcement officer, Patricia Graves).

Excerpt from Sgroi's book review: "Helping sexually abused children depends on the combined efforts of law enforcement, medical, social service, and prosecution personnel. It is essential for those in each field to recognize and understand the others' responsibilities in dealing with child sexual abuse. Only then can we learn how best to help each other to help the victims and their families. As experience, research, and learning advance. It becomes increasingly clear that the police officer -- and indeed the entire criminal justice system -- are an integral part of identifying the problem, protecting the victim, and remedying the situation."




--Impact of Child Sexual Abuse

It is estimated that there are 60 million survivors of childhood sexual abuse in America today.
Source: Forward, 1993.

Approximately 31% of women in prison state that they had been abused as children.
Source: United States Department of Justice, 1991.

Approximately 95% of teenage prostitutes have been sexually abused.
Source: CCPCA, 1992.

It is estimated that children with disabilities are 4 to 10 times more vulnerable to sexual abuse than their non-disabled peers.
Source: National Resource Center on Child Sexual Abuse, 1992.

Long term effects of child abuse include fear, anxiety, depression, anger, hostility, inappropriate sexual behavior, poor self esteem, tendency toward substance abuse and difficulty with close relationships.
Source: Browne & Finkelhor, 1986.

Clinical findings of adult victims of sexual abuse include problems in interpersonal relationships associated with an underlying mistrust. Generally, adult victims of incest have a severely strained relationship with their parents that is marked by feelings of mistrust, fear, ambivalence, hatred, and betrayal. These feelings may extend to all family members.
Source: Tsai and Wagner, 1978.

Guilt is universally experienced by almost all victims. Courtois and Watts described the "sexual guilt" as "guilt derived from sexual pleasure"
Source: Tsai and Wagner, l978.

Sexuality is regarded not simply as a part of the self limited to genitals, discrete behaviors, or biological aspects of reproduction, but is more properly understood as one component of the total personality that affects one's concept of personal identity and self-esteem.
Source: Whitlock & Gillman, 1989.

Sexual victimization may profoundly interfere with and alter the development of attitudes toward self, sexuality, and trusting relationships during the critical early years of development.
Source: Tsai & Wagner, 1984.

If the child victim does not resolve the trauma, sexuality may become an area of adult conflict.
Source: Courtois & Watts, 1982; Tsai & Wagner, 1984.

There is the clinical assumption that children who feel compelled to keep sexual abuse a secret suffer greater psychic distress than victims who disclose the secret and receive assistance and support.
Source: Finkelhor & Browne, 1986.

Early identification of sexual abuse victims appears to be crucial to the reduction of suffering of abused youth and to the establishment of support systems for assistance in pursuing appropriate psychological development and healthier adult functioning . As long as disclosure continues to be a problem for young victims, then fear, suffering, and psychological distress will, like the secret, remain with the victim.
Sources: Bagley, 1992; Bagley, 1991; Finkelhor et al. 1990; Whitlock & Gillman, 1989.

Adolescents with a history of sexual abuse are significantly more likely than their counterparts to engage in sexual behavior that puts them at risk for HIV infection, according to Dr. Larry K. Brown and associates, from Rhode Island Hospital, in Providence.
See Medscape

Adolescents with a history of sexual abuse are significantly more likely than their counterparts to engage in sexual behavior that puts them at risk for HIV infection, according to Dr. Larry K. Brown and associates, from Rhode Island Hospital, in Providence. Inconsistent condom use was three times more likely among youths who had been sexually abused than among the 55 who had not. A history of sexual abuse was also significantly associated with less impulse control and higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases. According to Dr. Brown, "These results suggest two things. Abused kids need adequate counseling around abuse issues. A lot of these kids keep re-experiencing the anxiety and trauma for years." The second issue, he said, is that "most therapy does not address current sexual behavior" and the anxieties that sexually abused adolescents experience.
Source: Larry K. Brown, M.D., et al, American Journal of Psychiatry 2000;157:1413-1415.

Young girls who are forced to have sex are three times more likely to develop psychiatric disorders or abuse alcohol and drugs in adulthood, than girls who are not sexually abused. Sexual abuse was also more strongly linked with substance abuse than with psychiatric disorders. It was also suggested that sexual abuse may lead some girls to become sexually active at an earlier age and seek out older boyfriends who might, in turn, introduce them to drugs. Psychiatric disorders were from 2.6 to 3.3 times more common among women whose CSA included intercourse, and the risk of substance abuse was increased more than fourfold, according to the results. Family factors -- parental education, parenting behavior, family financial status, church attendance -- had little impact on the prevalence of psychiatric or substance abuse disorders among these women, the investigators observe. Similarly, parental psychopathology did not predict the association between CSA and later psychopathology.
Source: Kenneth S. Kendler, M.D., et al, Medical College of Virginia Commonwealth University, Archives of General Psychiatry 2000;57:953-959.
Also see review at Medscape

Among both adolescent girls and boys, a history of sexual or physical abuse appears to increase the risk of disordered eating behaviors, such as self-induced vomiting or use of laxatives to avoid gaining weight. Among those at increased risk for disordered eating were respondents who had experienced sexual or physical abuse and those who gave low ratings to family communication, parental caring and parental expectations. In light of these findings, the researchers conclude that "strong familial relationships may decrease the risk for disordered eating among youth reporting abuse experiences."
Source: Dr. Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, et al, University of Minneapolis, International Journal of Eating Disorders 2000;28:249-258.

Young girls who are sexually abused are more likely to develop eating disorders as adolescents. The findings also add to a growing body of research suggesting that trauma in childhood increases the risk of developing an eating disorder. Abused girls were more dissatisfied with their weight and more likely to diet and purge their food by vomiting or using laxatives and diuretics. Abused girls were also more likely to restrict their eating when they were bored or emotionally upset. Wonderlich suggests that abused girls might experience higher levels of emotional distress, possibly linked to their abuse, and have trouble coping. Food restriction and perhaps other eating disorder behaviors may (reflect) efforts to cope with such experiences. The report also indicates that while girls who were abused were less likely to exhibit perfectionist tendencies (such as making extreme efforts to avoid disappointing others and a need to be 'the best'), they tended to want thinner bodies than girls who had not been abused.
Source: Stephen A. Wonderlich, M.D., et al, University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences in Fargo, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2000;391277-1283.

US Healthcare system missing most mentally ill children and adolescents. More than 7 out of 10 American adolescents with mental health problems are getting no care, according to data released today at the Surgeon General's Conference on Children's Mental Health. See Medscape




--Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse
Later Criminal Consequences

by Cathy Spatz Widom
Source: NIJ Research in Brief
March 1995

Discussed in the Brief: Previous research established evidence for a cycle of violence: people who were abused and neglected in childhood are more likely than those who were not to become involved in criminal behavior, including violent crime, later in life. This Research in Brief, the second in a series on the cycle of violence, examines the criminal consequences in adulthood of a particular type of childhood victimization: sexual abuse. It traces the same individuals studied initially, using official records of arrest and juvenile detention.




--Sexual and Other Abuse
May Alter a Brain Region

"Many women and men who have been subjected to severe physical or sexual abuse during childhood suffer from long-term disturbances of the psyche. They may be invaded by nightmares and flashbacks -- much like survivors of war -- or, conversely, may freeze into benumbed calm in situations of extreme stress. Two recent studies find that survivors of child abuse may also have a smaller hippocampus relative to control subjects. If substantiated, the discovery could fill out the profile of an abuse survivor and help define what constitutes abuse."

"Changes in the hippocampus--the part of the brain that deals with short-term memory and possibly the encoding and retrieval of long-term memory--could, researchers suggest, be wrought by hormones flooding the brain during and after a stressful episode."

"Dissociation and PTSD are not sharply separated and often alternate in the same individual. Dissociation, often employed by children who cannot escape from the threat of abuse, is a means of mentally withdrawing from a horrific situation by separating it from conscious awareness. The skill allows the victim to feel detached from the body or self, as if what is happening is not happening to her or him."

"David W. Foy of Pepperdine University notes that within days or weeks of a traumatic experience, therapy seems beneficial in dispelling PTSD. This period, Bremner speculates, could reflect the timescale over which the hippocampus organizes experiences into a person's worldview. Although some functions of the hippocampus are known, its mechanics are poorly understood."

"Psychiatrists contend that if repeatedly invoked in childhood, dissociation prevents memories from being integrated into consciousness and can lead to an altered sense of self. Many normal children play with imaginary companions; abused children can use such creative resources to a pathological extent, in extreme cases falling prey to multiple personality disorder (MPD). Adults may continue to use dissociation as a coping mechanism. Once dissociation or PTSD develops, the majority of psychological symptoms and the hormonal profile are very resistant to treatment."

Reference: Scientific American, N.Y., (273: 4) 10/95, page 14.

by @?
Friday Feb 4th, 2005 5:49 PM
In the US "Anarchism" really doesnt mean anything. Its mainly a brand name or even a group nationalism taken up by radical white youth to mean radical but not Communist/Marxist. Its usually a term chosen for negative reasons. Liberals and some radicals decide to become Greens or support a center-left candidacy and nonCommunist radical can use anarchism as a foil. In a way its for those people who feel like they are too radical for political parties or NGOs but also feel like they must have a label to cling to. Sure it has a history as a grouping of ideologies (that have likewise been all over the place and usually defined in relationship to Communist groups) but one can go the any Anarchist Bookfair to see that its modern definition is more of a social movement than something wholely political. A label, a flag, a symbol to put on patchs, books by famous heros and the like are a way to create a group identity that gives people a sense of belonging (sortof like Deadheads, fans or a sports team or those who attend Sci Fi conventions).


This debate on NAMBLA is a symptom of the use of Anarchism to include both individualist libertarianism (which in its extreme form can say that even when it comes to sex abuse kids must fend for themselves) to Chomsky's desire for something that looks a lot like the demands of Social Democracts (where society will have more rather than less power to help those in need and prevent the exploitation of children). The expression of the diversity of magazines sold by Bound Together one can see in above comments is a a confusing mixture of unrelated ideologies that just happen to use the "A" name (which is similar to what most Anarchist identitied bookstores sell). NAMBLA somehow snuck into the diversity wheras less oppressive piblications that have names that are clearly not anarchist are shunned (because they are seen as containing the logo of a competeing team).

The NAMBLA debate also bring up a broader lefty tendency to focus on instututionalized forms of oppression better than societal forms. NAMBLA, sexism, and other forms of individuals oppressing individuals cause as much harm as the easier to focus on instututional forms of oppression. Both shoudl be focused on but for some reason its just easier see "the enemy" as those who push members of ones group up against the wall rather than the millions killed due to oppressive interpersonal relationships.
by rationale behind carrying NAMBLA materials
Friday Feb 4th, 2005 8:01 PM
(1.) We're not talking about child abuse here.

you might be trying really hard not to, but, yes, we are talking about child abuse here -- and NAMBLA encourages it. Bound Together allows them to do that in their store. that's the last thing children need. pedophiles are wrecking enough young lives without an advocacy group directly promoting more of it

(2.) If you don't want to read about it, don't buy the magazine.

well, duh, of course those disgusted by promotion of child sexual abuse will not buy it, and those with enough fortitude will boycott the store and the fair until NAMBLA is removed

(3.) Why is it that none of our critics on this issue seem to possess the intestinal fortitude to talk to our faces about it?

you yourself said you do not care what "outsiders" (er, non-members) have to say about it, and you appear to be speaking for the Bound Together collective here. so, this discussion is more more intended for the general public than BT members who shrug their shoulders and blame the stocking of NAMBLA materials on "process" (rather than the pedophilia advocate in your midst)

(4.) And why is this happening now? We’ve been selling NAMBLA Journal for 25 years.

it was never okay. I would assume less people were aware of it in the past. must more is known about the issue of child sexual abuse now as well. child rapists are being held accountable more than ever before, although much work remains to be done as most still skate through life without ever being called on it

(5.) Why are these people so obsessed with the sexual abuse of children, but haven’t a word to say about the far, far more prevalent non sexual abuse of children.

no one is obsessed. Bound Together allows it to be promoted and that is the issue here in this thread. does Bound Together also sell publications that encourage non-sexual physical or mental abuse of children? if so, that would definitely be an issue as well for those interested in protecting children from predators.

(6.) What does this issue have to do with the Book Fair, and why is it being discussed here, and not in one of the threads dedicated specifically to the topic:

those threads are not about Bound Together's promotion of child sexual abuse, but about another supposed anarchist who apparently is down with pedophilia, and hence the discussion is more relevant here. although those are important threads as well. why do self-proclaimed anarchists tolerate pedophiles? it certainly doesn't do much to broaden the interest in anarchism

>Are our critics attempting to convince people not to attend the Fair? If so, that’s fine us.

if you didn't care, and were really so blase about people's reaction to BT's promotion of NAMBLA's promotion of the abuse of children, why do you waste your time debating those most vocally opposed to child abuse?

of course, not a word yet on why Bound Together finds it beneficial to stock NAMBLA materials, just more deflections and distractions

and yes, those concerned about the devastating effects of sexual abuse will boycott the store and the fair


by um
Friday Feb 4th, 2005 9:04 PM
" Are our critics attempting to convince people not to attend the Fair? If so, that’s fine us."

Its going to be the most crowded Book Fair ever since Ward Churchill will be there right when hes a huge mainstream media topic.
by a female BT member
Friday Feb 4th, 2005 9:59 PM
"please, take note Bound Together members. this is just a small sampling of the mountains of data on the harmful effects of child sexual abuse:..."

don't lecture me on child sexual abuse. i know first hand the devastating effects, mmkay? AND, at this point in time, i'm ok with Bound Together carrying the NAMBLA magazine. i do think that children can be sexual, and, if they're raised to make good decisions for their well-being, can make clear choices about sex. yes, there is a power differential. there's also a major power differential between men and women, between whites and people of color, rich and poor. it has to be taken into account, and the relationship must be noncoercive. . i don't think that every sexual relationship between a minor and an adult is necessarily wrong, especially between same sex people. i know at least two queer folks (one male, one female), who had sex with much older adults while a young teen. for both it was a positive experience, and a positive introduction to their queerness. NAMBLA is clear in their statement of purpose that they are supportive of "mutually consensual relationships," so i have no problem carrying it. maybe some people "mis-use" it, by using it to make themselves feel ok about wanting to molest children. you can't control how people use your lit once you put it out there. i used to get excited over some of Women Against Pornography's literature, and i'm sure that's not how they intended it. (i know, i know TMI...)

as for boycotting bound together based on us carrying one periodical, well, do what you want, but i think it's ridiculous. do you boycott rainbow grocery because they carry israeli products? do you call for boycotts of more general interest bookstores because they carry right-wing and racist and sexist crap? do you boycott every store that sells "barely legal?" this all smacks of an anti-anarchist witch hunt. but if you hate us so much for carrying NAMBLA, please don't shop at our store. i deal with enough negativity every day living in the u.$., thank you.
by a female BT member
Friday Feb 4th, 2005 10:03 PM
anyway, check this out. this is a book review from NAMLA's website, but i've read this book (a great read, by the way, and you can pick up a copy at Bound Together!), and i agree with the review:

"How I Learned to Snap" by Kirk Read

“Intergenerational sex saved my life.” – Kirk Read

In this, Kirk Read’s first book, the nationally syndicated gay journalist explores his own childhood and adolescence, and coming to terms with his gay identity in the Bible Belt of the Shenandoah Valley. In what is often a tale of woe and hardship for many gay men, Read’s memoir is a refreshing look at growing up gay in the increasingly tolerant 1980s, when gay men and women began to gain ground as a mainstream cultural force, rather than an unspoken-of shadowy aberration.

Really, Read’s personal story will wax nostalgic with any young man or woman, gay or straight, who grew up in that ridiculous decade of leg-warmers and neon shoelaces. An individual of my generation cannot help but smile at a middle school talent show featuring a lip-synching dance rendition of Michael Jackson’s “Beat It,” complete with multi-zippered red leather jacket and mirrored sunglasses.

Yet, on another level, Read’s story carries a very significant message on the importance of consensual intergenerational relationships for many burgeoning adolescents who are discovering, or learning to accept, the fact of their homosexuality. In this age of queer politicians and gay adoptive parents, the gay “assimilationist” movement has pointedly distanced itself from the stigma of “child abuse,” which inevitably accompanies almost any discussion of man/boy relationships. Modern “gay rights” groups today often refuse to even recognize such relationships as a “gay issue.” It is therefore reassuring to have a well respected, contemporary gay activist speak up in our defense, and to testify to the importance of such relationships in his own life.

Many of Read’s shenanigans in search of intergenerational relationships as a boy resonate sympathetically with my own memories of approaching puberty in the 1980s. His tale, at twelve years old, of earnestly trying to attract the attentions of the local video-arcade manager, for instance, whom, he has heard it rumored, “touches boys,” sounds very much like a similar experience of my own at that age. In one hilarious episode, he hides in the corner of his bathroom to covertly watch a blind houseguest undress and shower. He laments the fact that the only way for him to find sex was to “steal it from the blind.”

Read finally found that longed-for relationship, at thirteen years old, with an adult neighbor named “Rich,” which, he attests, “saved my life.” He feels that this, and other intergenerational relationships in his youth, greatly contributed to his sexual development, and goes into some detail on the subject. He states:

"If it hadn’t been for sex at such a young age, my questioning phase could have stretched on for years, and would have gotten really tedious."
"Sex with an older man probably sped up my coming-out process by years. If it hadn’t been for Rich, I might have turned into a mopey Goth kid. The horror, the horror. Had our relationship been discovered, Rich could have done time in jail. During the time we were having sex, it never dawned on me that he was literally risking his freedom over me."

"American culture’s only frame of reference for sex with minors is abuse. I don’t deny that abuse occurs, but it should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. A blanket approach that criminalizes all sex between adults and minors undermines the fact that for many gay teenagers, sex with an adult can be a beautiful, life changing experience. It was for me."

This is an all too seldomly heard sentiment today, and his fresh, rational honesty, especially coming from a non-boylover, is greatly appreciated.
Kirk Read, though publicly coming out at an early age, and in a conservatively Christian Fundamentalist area of the South, had a surprisingly smooth transition into adulthood. He endured the inevitable taunts and verbal abuse with a good natured attitude, and was helped along by a loving, accepting, and complacent mother, as well as supportive friends. Although his father was an elderly career military man and devout Christian, clearly unsupportive of gay rights, he too showed complacence by turning a blind eye to Kirk’s often flagrant homosexuality. In one touching episode, shortly before his death, Kirk’s father follows him into an alternative record store, and in his own way tries to bond with the boy by purchasing for himself a Harry Connick Jr cassette. Says Read: “Harry Connick Jr was incorrect, but you gotta love him for trying.” Sounds just like my dad.

But perhaps the most important factor in Read’s successful navigation through adolescence was his ability to express himself as a poet and playwright, and the support he received in such endeavors by his older gay friends and lovers. By writing and premiering his play ropeswing, about coming-out gay in high school, while still in high school himself, he effectively expressed, in a way which he could not otherwise have done, that angst and hardship which is the rite of passage for gay youth everywhere. It elicited sympathy and understanding from peers who had previously taunted him, and gave him the confidence to pursue a career that is today nationally recognized.



by jojo
Friday Feb 4th, 2005 10:51 PM
First of all if you don’t want people to attend “your” event, why host celebrities and then advertise it? That is ridiculous. Mixed messages aside, I have long been disgusted by this ongoing tendency in the Anarchist movement to implicitly validate (by the lack of explicit denunciation) child abuse. Child sexual abuse is real. Why is it so difficult to acknowledge this? What does an adult’s claimed “right” to have sex with a young child have to do with a struggle for liberation? I resonate with the ideas of Anarchism but really have a problem being associated with a movement that can not standup against such an obvious example of exploitation. In all this back and forth I do not read anyone suggesting a way to deal with the very real phenomena of people who are struggling with overcoming past abuse. Here’s one: Stop validating people who victimize children. Perhaps this is why american Anarchism is a subcultural movement that appeals to a small minority and is a relatively harmless political force. It alienates the vast majority of people by failing to provide concrete solutions that are comprehensible to most people to current social problems. If a social movement can’t get its shit together enough to take a stand against a documented and real crisis, how the fuck is it going to be a vehicle by which the exploited, marginalized, oppressed and disadvantaged mobilize a viable resistance? Keep your apologist abstractions, I’d rather be out organizing and struggling for justice with homeless people.
by hmm
Friday Feb 4th, 2005 10:53 PM
I doubt a relationship between an adult and a 13 year old could be fully consentual but there is a big difference between someone during or after puberty and before that age. I think people find older men calling for it to be legal to have sex with 13-15 year olds as pretty sleazy (mainly due to a difference in power relationships and knowledge), but the hatred directed at NAMBLA comes from the perception that they think sex between adults and 3-5 year olds is ok. There is an age before which children have no ability to really chose basic things for themselves and any sexual relationship would thus either be with a relative or arranged by a relative. Ignoring the lifelong trauma causes to those molested as children the power relationship would make sex between a grown adult and a 5-6 year old nonconsentual and almost a mater of the parents pimping the children.
by hmm
Friday Feb 4th, 2005 11:07 PM
" i know at least two queer folks (one male, one female), who had sex with much older adults while a young teen."

I have heard the same thing from straight men whose fist sexual encounters in their teens were with older women. I think the potential for the power relationships to create a manipulative dynamic is what bothers people in the case of sex between teens and adults. Perhaps due to cultural views of gender relationships I have heard far fewer women describe having had positive early teenage encounters with middle-aged men. Usually when people say boy (as in the "B" in NAMBLA) they are thinking of children younger than teens. Even legally there is a difference between child molestation and statuatory rape that depends on age which is why defending NAMBLA wholely on their view of teen-adult relationships misses the point.
by female BT member
Friday Feb 4th, 2005 11:51 PM
"the hatred directed at NAMBLA comes from the perception that they think sex between adults and 3-5 year olds is ok."

i'm not so sure they do think that sex between an adult and a child of that age is ok. that's not what i see from skimming over their website. they talk about "youths", and all the stories from boys are from boys at least 12 years old.
by well? (female BT member)
Saturday Feb 5th, 2005 12:37 AM
whatever. if you have information that counters what i said above, that nambla, as an organization, advocates sex with 3-5 year-olds, please point it out. i'm interested. Your "comment" above doesn't prove anything, except that you're an obnoxious asshole, and likely sexist and homophobic to boot.
by hmm
Saturday Feb 5th, 2005 8:50 AM
NABLA Director David Thorstad claims, "Pederasty, like homosexuality, has existed, and exists, in all societies that have ever been studied. Homoeroticism is an ubiquitous feature of human experience, as even efforts to repress it confirm. Men and youths have always been attracted to each other, and, like homosexuality in general, their love is irrepressible....NAMBLA believes that any child, regardless of age, should have the right to say "yes" or "no" to any person."
http://theearthcenter.com/ff45earthtalk3.html

"Pederasty" can be used when talking about teenagers ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty ) but it suggests something more since one would think the argument would be along the lines that a 16 year old is an adult not that there is something fundamentally different making it "Pederasty"

Here is something from Wikipedia:
"Many child abuse prevention advocates, law enforcement officials, and journalists note that the movement's claim of
separating advocacy from abuse does not always hold true. Members of the movement often respond by claiming that high-profile child abusers were not members of the movement, or that the movement could have even helped them avoid crossing the line into abuse ( http://www.soc-um.org/nambla2.htm ). Some claim that dwelling on these arrests attempts to smear the movement through guilt-by-association. Nonetheless, mainstream observers remain skeptical that ardent advocates of adult-child romance and sex do not act on the desires they claim are legitimate and harmless citing these arrests as evidence. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1996/09/05/MN43587.DTL
Many of these incidents involve NAMBLA, the movement organization most widely known to the public. Some claim that these activities are limited to this organization and are not representative of the larger
movement. Nonetheless, for most mainstream observers, these incidents remain the public face of the movement and symbolize the problems with its mission. Many opponents of the childlove movement believe the term childlove to be a misnomer since they view any and all adult child sexual contact to be abuse.
Recent incidents include:
--Rev. Paul Shanley, a priest accused of abusing children as young as six years old over a period of three decades, allegedly
participated in early movement workshops and advocacy, according to contemporaneous accounts of the events obtained by the
( http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/documents/shanley_0279.htm , http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-05-06-shanley_x.htm )
---Charles Jaynes, also allegedly a member of NAMBLA, was convicted of murdering a 10-year-old boy then having intercourse with his body; the parents of the boy sued NAMBLA and its steering committee, alleging that Jaynes wrote in his diary that participating in NAMBLA and reading NAMBLA publications helped him overcome his inhibitions about having sex with young boys ( http://www.soc-um.org/nambla3.html , http://www.courttv.com/archive/verdicts/sicari.html )
---John David Smith, a San Francisco man convicted of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old boy he was babysitting, met an undercover investigator through his activities as a NAMBLA member; according to the investigator, Smith used his contacts with NAMBLA to trade child pornography and arrange sex with children ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1996/09/05/MN43587.DTL , http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/virginiastatecases/1546974.wp )
---Johnathan Tampico was convicted of child molestation in 1989 and paroled in 1992 on condition of not possessing child pornography. After moving without informing authorities of his new address, he was found after a broadcast of America's Most
Wanted. He was arrested and convicted on child pornography charges. In his sentencing, the court found that Tampico was a member of NAMBLA, that NAMBLA supported an a foster home in Thailand that sexually exploited children, and that Tampico and others traveled to Thailand in order to have unlimited access to young boys at the foster home, as evidenced by a number of Polaroid pictures, provided by Thai officials, depicting Tampico with young Thai boys sitting on his lap ( http://www.soc-um.org/nambla2.html , http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2001/0responses/2001-0571.resp.html , http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=5th/0020178cr0.html" \
--James C. Parker, a New York man who, according to court records, told the police that he was a member of NAMBLA, was arrested in 2000 and convicted in 2001 of committing sodomy with a young boy ( http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/slips/16023.htm )
Publicity regarding these incidents -- in addition to deeply felt opposition to the movement's views -- have led to extreme
controversy surrounding the movement's activities and members.

I would offer to some of those posting on this thread the real reason that NAMBLA is somehow part of Anarchist thought "We decided from the beginning that, first, because we were still discovering our parameters, we wouldn’t censure each other. If people like NAMBLA self-identify themselves to me as gays and lesbians, I accept them as brothers and sisters with love."-Harry Hay 1994
http://216.220.97.17/sosconference1994.htm
There is a good counterargument at
http://www.glaa.org/archive/1994/namblaoutofbounds.shtml
"This is not to say that all efforts to reform age of consent laws should be opposed; but NAMBLA opposes setting any age of consent. At any rate, as Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has observed, "It's not a Gay issue" -- as long as the age of consent applies equally regardless of sexual orientation.
Recent years have seen an increase in organized efforts to protect Gay and Lesbian youth rather than exploit them. These include strongly youth-oriented Gay and Lesbian community centers in many cities, as well as D.C.'s Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League (SMYAL), L.A.'s Project 10, and New York's Hetrick-Martin Institute. To take my hometown example, SMYAL provides such services as advocacy, outreach, a telephone helpline, and a safe space for Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual youth to meet their peers. These organizations nurture the future of our movement; by supporting their work not only do we help to protect sexual minority youth, we serve as role models. Tests of character seldom accommodate themselves to our schedule. In the case of NAMBLA, not to decide is to decide. By canceling the membership of NAMBLA and other pedophile organizations, ILGA would not be denying anyone's right of self-expression but exercising its own. It is time to tell NAMBLA and its kin to express their views elsewhere, without the benefit of ILGA's assistance or its name."
by gehrig
Saturday Feb 5th, 2005 9:02 AM
"NAMBLA believes that any child, regardless of age, should have the right to say "yes" or "no" to any person."

I don't see any reference here to either age of consent or age of puberty. It's a blanket statement that sez, explicitly, "regardless of age."

@%<
by Freeda
Wednesday Feb 9th, 2005 12:21 AM
I have to assert something.

It seems to me that the anarchists who argue in favor of supporting NAMBLA (either by distributing their literature or arguing in support the ridiculous idea of a child being "free to choose" sex partners) are engaging in a semantical dodge of the core meaning of anarchism.

Though there are various meanings and versions of anarchy, one common thread through anarchy is the idea of opposition to authority, which could be translated as an opposition to rankism. Adults are the authority over all children (and also have a rank advantage over them.)

Why is it that some anarchists abandon their (loose) organizing principle when someone hints at the possibility of sexual limits?

How can an anarchist society function if there is no support for the powerless against the powerful?

I want an answer!
by Freeda
Wednesday Feb 9th, 2005 12:26 AM
And so, when a man offers a chocolate-dipped, chopped peanut-covered penis to a small child, the child has the choice to say "yes" or "no?"

And what is their choice worth if they don't know what they are choosing?

by circle a parent
Wednesday Feb 9th, 2005 11:34 PM
I totally agree that child abuse (that is absolutely what I am calling sex between adults and children) is antithetical to any philosophy that is supposed to be liberating. This whole discussion would be comical if it werent so truly sad. Why is it so hard for some people to label and name oppressive behavior? Why do they endorse it by selling pedophile magazines? If this were racist material it wouldnt be sold.

What the fuck is up with this?
by super anarchist
Thursday Feb 10th, 2005 12:32 AM
I would agree with all these ultimatime's about what anarchism 'really' is a lot easier if they didn't come off like such moralistic hang-wringing. "But what about the children..."

Honestly though, I have long considered the weakest definition of @ to be along the lines of 'against all authority'. Do you take your car to a mechanic? Who cleans your teeth? Should children kill their parents on principle?
by is not moralistic handwringing
Thursday Feb 10th, 2005 10:11 AM
we're not talking about boobs popping out on TV or censoring music for teenagers, or even 18 year olds having sex with 15 year olds

we're talking about adult men having sex with prepubescent boys and manipulatively justifying that as "consensual"

we're talking about Bound Together facilitating the dissemination of pro-pedophilia materials, unapologetically even


after all, being anti-authoritarian is not an end in and of itself, but a means to an end, the true end being a better life for all, free from exploitation, and I would hope that for the majority of anarchists that includes children and not just themselves
by super anarchist
Thursday Feb 10th, 2005 10:27 AM
No one has actually advocated Man on child rape. What the actual conversation is about is a magazine that focuses on questions of consent, sensuality, and cultural norms. A conversation about a magazine has been conflated into a conversation about 'what about the children' because that is an easier discussion to win.

Good job. You won.

We don't want the children to be hurt. Mission hand-wringing can be declared a success.
by nothing conflated at all
Thursday Feb 10th, 2005 1:13 PM
NAMBLA advocates for there to be no restrictions, cultural or legal, against adults and children having sex, children of any age. They do not specify any sort of chronological (age) or developmental (i.e. puberty) cutoff as to what might be innappropriate sexually, therefore reinforcing the notion that they find all aged "boys" appropriate for adults to have sex with. They advocate for a bizarre belief that small children can consent to sexual acts as power-equals with adults, thereby relieving the adult of any responsibility in such exploitation. (Yes, and children working in factories in third world countries have "consented" to the job and are perfectly able to negotiate their own wages.) In addition, NAMBLA refers to pedophiles behind bars as political prisoners, as if those pedophiles did no harm whatsover and are just victims of a society that doesn't understand their special love for the little ones.

Simply put, five or ten year old (or younger?) children cannot consent as equals to sex with adults. If an adult exploits that vulnerability and has sex with such a young person, I would call that rape. Most people would, thank goodness. Rape doesn't necessarily have to involve a physical struggle. NAMBLA, plain as day, advocates for what most people would call rape, and not just statutory with adolescents -- look no further than the name they've chosen for themselves. And then, all the while, Bound Together looks the other way, prefering to see it as an issue about teenagers' rights or something, whereby the pedophiles are the victims, not the children.

btw, the conversation has not been conflated to anything, as NAMBLA and children, and Bound Together's responsibility in its promotion of NAMBLA, has been the topic all along. You can try to play it down, and pretend NAMBLA is only about exploring cultural norms and/or lowering age of consent laws to reduce the number of statutory rape convictions and so forth, but they are nothing less than pedophiles-on-parade all wrapped up in a pseudo-intellectual moral relativism that would allow 5 year olds to "consensually" "date" 40 year old men. It's sick.

and it's amazing how many supposedly compassionate or anti-authoritarian people will line up to defend NAMBLA and the distribution of their materials. I can only be thankful that those who think NAMBLA represent just another civil rights movement are a scarce minority who will never achieve too much influence in society as long as they make their beds with pedophiles.

all compassionate people against exploitation, especially of the children, should boycott the store and their events until Bound Together kicks the pedophiles to the curb

by tkat
Thursday Feb 10th, 2005 1:59 PM
Anonymous postings online by right wing trolls or liberal trolls or anti queer trolls should have no sway over bound togethers decision making process. Nambla is an easy target, I personally find their magazine cringy. But magazines don't hurt people, people hurt people. People that use literature as an excuse or a justifiecation for unethical behavior, are not taking personal responsibility for their actions. Personal responsibility is a tenant of anarchism.
If some of the hateful anti queer thoughts expressed on this thread are writen by anarchists, then these folks need to deal with their shit and look at how sexuality and morality are controled/manipulated by the church and the state. I don't think that people have to extrapolate from this analysis, that sex with people under 18 is ok, but it is worth noting that children have a right to their own sexuality devoid of morals that a christian culture tries to put on them. They should also be free to experience their own sexuality without predatory adults mucking around them, but in some cases like kirk read's things happen and it is not an abussive relationship. Where do experiences like this fit into understanding how ambiguous morality can be?
by Jerry the Faerie
Thursday Feb 10th, 2005 8:59 PM
Nessie had nothing to do with kicking over the Green Anarchy table. I personally did that (as a response to one of their members pushing my friend). I saw this as a personal dispute between myself & this guy, it's long since water under the bridge. Bound Together & Green Anarchy's relationship now at the bookfair is just fine. John Zerzen of Green Anarchy apologized for his friend's temper & members of Bound Together apologized for my temper. This was three years ago! Besides wrongfully blaming Nessie, who sits around remembering this old stuff anyway?-Jerry the Faerie of the Radical Faeries
by jojo
Friday Feb 11th, 2005 2:44 AM
Imagine if the title of the magazine were North American Man Girl Love Association. Would the bookstore support something like that?
by l flynt
Friday Feb 11th, 2005 8:42 AM
" North American Man Girl Love Association"
There is already plenty of pornography that portrays young girls having sex with older men. Often times its manipulated photos so it is legal and you can probably find plenty of examples in corner stores near your house.
by Here's the poster boy for them...
Friday Feb 11th, 2005 10:29 AM
SJPD officer Stephen Gallagher was videoed molesting his 11 month old daughter. Messed up.
by the 11-mo old was consenting
Friday Feb 11th, 2005 11:57 AM
and so both parties in this encounter are equally responsible, absolutely equally. if the cop is prosecuted he will be a political prisoner in a repressed society unwilling to admit the historical precedent for thousands or millions of such relationships in the past. it's only love after all.

who are you to restrict this girl's sexual freedom with your puritanical views on sex? who are you to say she cannot make a choice for herself? all this hand-wringing about "save the children" is a bunch of BS

don't lecture me on child sexual abuse. i'm ok with Bound Together carrying the NAMBLA magazine because I do think that children can be sexual and can make clear choices about sex, as this young provacateur obviously did.

I happen to know many 11 month-old girls who enjoy active sex lives and are the richer for it. It's the greatest thing that ever happenned in their entire lives. Butt out!


(sound familiar??)
by wrong
Friday Feb 11th, 2005 12:54 PM
and knows the consequences of her actions? Consent at less than a year old? The child doesn't even know what a penis is.

Or perhaps you're just pretending to be Nessie...
by thoughts
Friday Feb 11th, 2005 1:09 PM
This seems to be mainly a flamewar by one or two people using different names attacking Bound Together for carrying a magazine that may also be available in many public and University libraries. I'm guessing half of the anger isnt really directed at NAMBLA or Bound Together but is really just an excuse to pick on anything Nessie is involved with since he has been such a pain and annoyance to so many around the Indymedia network.

On the other hand I think Bound Together probably brings some of this on themselves by misrepresenting NAMBLA and sortof making it sound like at least one individual in their collective supports the goals of NAMBLA rather than just feeling like it may be informative to have their views be heard. I dont think the misrepresention is intentional and its partly caused by the difference between the public voice of NAMBLA vs the private one. There is a difference between a group composed of teenagers (and those who had positive sexual encounters with adults as teenages) calling for an end to age of consent laws and an group composed mainly of older men attracted to children doing the same. Even the failure to define what ages are being taolked about (5 vs 15) wouldnt be much of a problem if the group calling for the change were young adults since it would just be assumed that it was by the youth feeling that society is restricting them from having sex (and the ages in question would be assumed to be the age of the teenagers calling for the change). The specific man-boy (rather than adult child) aspect of NAMBLA has turned it into a tool of the far right portraying gay men as obsessed with youth and thus unsuitable for adopting children or even working with teenagers. Of course straight culture is even more youth obsessed but one doesnt have people trying to justify this behind a political cause, so the acceptance of NAMBLA by people like Harry Hay and Allen Ginsberg rather than its mere existance is used for right-wing purposes. One shouldnt demonize a group soley off a guess on motives based off composition (I had high-school teachers who were supportive of a change in age of consent laws due to seeing problems with a law with respect the teenagers having sex with each other and how the illegality could lead to abuse), but NABLA's doesnt seem to be attempting to talk for young people.
by age is just another number
Friday Feb 11th, 2005 1:12 PM

"NAMBLA believes that any child, regardless of age, should have the right to say "yes" or "no" to any person."


the 11-month old clearly was not physically coerced by the SJ cop, was merely presented with adult male nakedness and "chose" to touch it with her mouth and hands, and therefore "consented" according to NAMBLA.

and Bound Together, whom apparently prefers to try to frame the debate in terms of what we commonly know as statutory rape and abolishing consent laws rather than show any interest in protecting small children from predators. it's more imortant to them to defend the rights of 15 year olds to be able to have sex with 30 year olds than to stop 11 month-old girls from putting their mouths on the dicks of 50 year-old cops. the tradeoff is worth it to them. a number of their members have commented here and it is clear where they stand. now, the real question is, where do those outside of the BT collective stand and what are they willing to do about it?
by not a question of yes or no
Friday Feb 11th, 2005 3:42 PM
"the 11-month old clearly was not physically coerced by the SJ cop, was merely presented with adult male nakedness and "chose" to touch it with her mouth and hands, and therefore "consented" according to NAMBLA."

Who cares whether NAMBLA thinks she consented? Who is NAMBLA to determine that? This infant could have thought it was a "super thumb" or a banana for all you know. An 11 month old is still learning to make choices about what is and is not OK to put in the mouth. You don't let them find out that toxics or even poo-poo are bad choices, you teach them.

There are obvious reasons why cop-daddy's dick is not a good choice. The powerful influence of an adult male patriarch over a trusting child is not a relationship between equals. Consent should be between those who are equally able to determine what is going on.
by political prisoner
Tuesday Feb 15th, 2005 9:54 AM
a victim of our repressed times

"once known for a being a hip "street priest" who reached out to troubled children and homosexuals"

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/02/15/national/a085044S75.DTL
by S
Monday Feb 21st, 2005 3:47 PM
Acceptance of NAMBLA among some anarchists is just another reminder of how fucked up so many anarchists are (this is coming from an anarchist). The first time I went to the anarchist bookfair, the very first table I saw was NAMBLA, which completely caught me off guard. Since then I've realized how many wingnuts call themselves anarchists, so it doesn't surprise me that Bound Together would justify carrying NAMBLA's magazine. It's yet another anarchist collective persisting in giving anarchsim a bad name.
by NAMBLA man
Monday Feb 21st, 2005 9:54 PM
NAMBLA and Bound Together are trying something new this year to celebrate their commitment to sexual freedom. in defiance of those whiners here in this thread and elsewhere who fret over "the children" when it's really the rights of teenagers and adults that are being stomped on by laws against pedophilia, as the Man and his prisons are keeping loving adults from expressing their natural feelings for young children, NAMBLA is being offered more than just a table this year

it will be really special this time. they will have a full sized black and red tent in the center of the fair, not a petting zoo for children but a petting zoo of children. little cute ones, like in the poster for the fair, will be bound together in bondage gear so that the all too repressed desires of child-loving adults may finally be expressed out in the open as it should be. advanced tickets are now available for this "A" ride, but get 'em quick as they are selling fast and the number of consenting children available is limited

organizers think this tent will be the most popular attraction at this year's anarchist festival (as what anarchist is not down for pedophilia? bound together knows where they stand as a collective. how about you?) if it is the revenue generator organizers are hoping for, they plan to expand the petting zoo for next year's event and possibly bring NAMBLA on as a permanent co-sponsor of the fair

thank goodness for bound together books and the anarchists fair or NAMBLA would have no place to call home and be accepted as just another social justice group. jeez, they have "love" in their name and what could be more loving than that? isn't that all the proof you really need of their good intentions? leave it be people
by Hail Satan
Monday Feb 21st, 2005 10:22 PM
At precisely 3PM, there will be an human sacrifice in honor of our Lord Moloch. Be there or be square. If you want to Partake of the Blood, bring your own cup.
by I'm down!
Monday Feb 21st, 2005 10:55 PM
hail to the 12 lower devils as well. will they have candy you can buy to give the kiddies? This rocks!
by NAMBLA man
Tuesday Feb 22nd, 2005 12:13 AM
your candy question is a good one

it brings to mind the ethical debates that many people do not know about that go on within NAMBLA itself.

while we all think children are sexy as fuck (er, sexy enough to fuck), there is debate in our community as to what exactly constitutes consent. you see, we are a broad group that consists of all kinds of loving men, from policemen, to priests, to family men, to stereotypical creepy uncles, to full-on anti-authoritarian anarchists like those at Bound Together Books. unfortunately, we don't always agree on everything.

in the red states, our members lean towards the more conservative side of things and they tend to believe candy would be a no-no. they would consider that a payment for sexual services or a bribe and the resulting sex would not be fully consensual in their narrow minds. they think the only incentive that is appropriate is exposing your naked self to children. if the children come, then it is consentual. but, franky, good luck with that

in more sexually liberated parts of the country, we have no problem with candy. children like it, and they could say no to it anytime. for us it counts as consent if the kids choose to accept your candy, just as much as when they choose to accept your phallus and semen in their various orifices. video games and toys are fine too, in many parts of the country, especially on the coasts.

in Texas, intimidation is acceptable as long as there is no actual physical coercion, but the pacifists amongst us have a harder time with that one

here in SF, the birthplace of the sexual revolution, the homebase of modern liberalism, and the cutting edge of numerous social justice movements, we are cool with taking candy a step further. we believe that offering children drugs in no way diminishes their full ability to consent as adults would. while we prefer our children conscious and frown on the use of mickeys (even we have our standards), we feel it is perfectly acceptable to offer children mind-altering drugs of various kinds, and we believe the dichotomy set up by the Man between "hard" and "soft" drugs is a false one. we know of many infants and preschoolers that respond equally positively to alcohol or heroin. in fact, the rugrats that temp you in the poster for the book fair and that we will feature in our tent for your amusement, will most likely be on a special drug cocktail of our own making, a cross between valium and ecstacy. the kids love it and it really deepens and enhances the whole lovemaking experience.

so, yes, there will be candy (of all types, wink, wink), but you needn't worry about bringing your own. we have it covered.

thank you for asking





by cp
Tuesday Feb 22nd, 2005 6:41 AM
when I forwarded the beginning of this article to friends, the commentary was indeed quite a turnoff.

By the way, Nessie, do you think there will be a media circus at the fair this year? I wonder what will come of that. Typically, it is this really happy event where you meet all sorts of great people and I ended up staying hours longer than I planned, and I'm always surprised by the big number of people who come out (and get along). The biggest conflict is if someone sets up their booth in the wrong space- never any fights. What if a freeper or Jennifer Jolly shows up?
by ...or thought control?
Tuesday Feb 22nd, 2005 11:03 AM
Any dissent whatsoever is unacceptable, and to them (or him, really) that is the same as quality control.

No contrary comment about the Fair is allowed the light of day in Nessieland, no comment that is not glowing in praise and/or completely ignorant of insensitive to the NAMBLA-pedophilia connection to Bound Together.

That's not quality control, that's thought control. Orwell, Bush and Karl Rove would be proud.

If ignorance is bliss to you and you need a big daddy like Nessie to keep you safe from recognizing the ugly reality that in SF anarchists and pedophiles are in cahoots, then by all means click his link above, choose ignorance, and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Bound Together and SFindymedia decide NAMBLA are worthy brothers in arms, but are can't even defend it in open public debate. They want to help promote pedophilia yet not be pointed out as advocates of pedophilia. They want to have their pedophile cake and eat it, too, without the bright light of public scrutiny. Bound Together's brand of apologia for pedophiles reinforces why so many anarchists are just not ready yet for primetime -- they are simply unable to take their ideas outside of their own insular cults and defend them to the public at large, or, hell, even the cult next door.

Yeah, the commentary is a turnoff. And if you think frank discussion of child rape is a turnoff, just imagine for a second or two what it is like to be the small child who is sexually exploited by some man who has been egged on to commit such anti-human attocities by NAMBLA and Bound Together.
by sad
Tuesday Feb 22nd, 2005 12:03 PM
while indybay doesn't sell NAMBLA magazines like bound together does, it is a shame that NAMBLAs sticky fingers are reaching much further with bound together's willing assistance than they ever would on their own. no one else will lend them such a helping hand

like a virus it spreads.
by oh, really?
Tuesday Feb 22nd, 2005 12:45 PM
There's no such thing as bad publicity.
by tkat
Tuesday Feb 22nd, 2005 12:46 PM
So far there still has not been one convincing argument from any one of you anonymous hateful right wing or liberal trolls or "self identified" anarchists, against the publication of Nambla. I don't think any of you are queer? I don't think any of you are acting in a way that would foster ever insprie dialogue that might change boundtogether's policies. A bunch of you might need therapy, cause the descriptions of things that yall talk about are a bit fucked up.
Ted bundy, american icon, said that pornography led him to rape and murder 50+ women, should all pornography be banned? S&M images are often claimed to be linked with violence against women, should they be banned as well? Where does any of it stop?
When it comes to ethical behavior and anarchists, even anarchists that read peter lamborn wilson or allen ginsberg practise a higher level of ethics that most people across the board. I don't fear for the safety of my children with other anarchists - I fear for them in this world where people with institutional authority and a lack of personal responisbility are the people that run this world and excert their sick wills.
by yes, indeedy
Tuesday Feb 22nd, 2005 4:27 PM
the descriptions of child sexual abuse are indeed pretty screwed up, but, remember, that they are never as screwed up as the acts themselves and the lifelong damage inflicted by this type of abuse. and sticking your head in the sand does not mean these horrible things are not happenning every day.

whether someone is queer or not is irrelevant to their interest in protecting small children from the sexual abuse of adults. it used to be that all gays were considered pedophiles by the masses. now most people know better.

when you are looking at NAMBLA and perplexed as to why they so seriously offend people, consider situations outside of your own life and attempt to empathize with very young small children, gay or straight, who are too young for sex being taken advantage of by predatory adults. it happens all the time. and remember that in their advocacy of "man-boy love" NABMLA specifically never names an age or level of physical development that they feel is a cutoff point for sex with minors. why? is it an accident? no, it's because they believe children of ANY age are fair game. maybe you do, too, maybe you don't, it's hard to tell because all you seem interested in is the rights of gay teens to have sex. but the mass of humanity finds adult males and prepubescent boys together sexually appalling, and there is solid scientific, and anecdotal, evidence that it is extremely harmful for the children.

------------------------------------------------------

if you still have doubts about NAMBLA members and how low they will go, it doesn't take too long to find info on NAMBLA and child porn and child prostitution and so forth. this is from the wikipedia:

Criminal Cases with Alleged NAMBLA Links

Speculation over NAMBLA's ties to criminal activity has been recurrent from the moment of its founding.

* Rev. Paul Shanley, a priest convicted of abusing children as young as six years old over a period of three decades, allegedly participated in early movement workshops and advocacy, according to contemporaneous accounts of the events obtained by the Boston Globe. [3] (http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/documents/shanley_0279.htm),[4] (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-05-06-shanley_x.htm)

* Charles Jaynes, also allegedly a member of NAMBLA, was convicted of murdering a 10-year-old boy then having intercourse with his body; the parents of the boy sued NAMBLA, alleging that Jaynes wrote in his diary that participating in NAMBLA helped him overcome his inhibitions about having sex with young boys [5] (http://www.soc-um.org/nambla3.html),[6] (http://www.courttv.com/archive/verdicts/sicari.html). The ACLU stepped into defend NAMBLA and won a dismissal based on the specific legal issue that NAMBLA is organized as an association, not a corporation. The Curleys continued the suit as a wrongful death action against individual NAMBLA members and NAMBLA Steering Committee members. [7] (http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/otoole/pdf/curley%20mem%20ord%20mot%20to%20dism.pdf)

* John David Smith, a San Francisco man convicted of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old boy he was babysitting, unwittingly spoke of his crimes to an undercover investigator who had infiltrated NAMBLA. Upon obtaining a warrant, the investigator also found guns and child pornography in Smith's apartment [8] (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1996/09/05/MN43587.DTL),[9] (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/virginiastatecases/1546974.wp).

* Johnathan Tampico was convicted of child molestation in 1989 and paroled in 1992 on condition of not possessing child pornography. After moving without informing authorities of his new address, he was found after a broadcast of America’s Most Wanted. He was arrested and convicted on child pornography charges. In his sentencing, the court stated that Tampico was a member of NAMBLA, and that Tampico and others frequently traveled to Thailand in order to have access to young boys. The court cites a number of Polaroid pictures, provided by Thai officials, depicting Tampico with young Thai boys sitting on his lap as evidence of the latter claim [10] (http://www.soc-um.org/nambla2.html),[11] (http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2001/0responses/2001-0571.resp.html), [12] (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=5th/0020178cr0.html).

* James C. Parker, a New York man who, according to court records, told the police that he was a member of NAMBLA, was arrested in 2000 and convicted in 2001 of committing sodomy with a young boy [13] (http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/slips/16023.htm).
by yep
Tuesday Feb 22nd, 2005 6:27 PM
There is an element of this fake outrage thats pretty entertaining. If Bound Together sold magazines advocating human sacrifice or cannibalism people would see it as a free speech issue since nobody would take advocacy of those things seriously. I really doubt that anyone at Bound Together feels that sex with six year olds is ok and I can only see sectarian Anarchists as being upset that at least on this thread NAMBLA is being argued for as an almost anarchist cause rather than the selling of their literature being more a matter of free speech. If NAMBLA is really involved in abusing children (as the comment two before this suggests) and there is a correlation betwen child abuse and buying NAMBLA materials then (assuming that child abusers buy NAMBLA magaines rather than it making people more likely to mollest kids) it would be a great way to find and prevent mollestation from occuring. I guess the bad part about that would be if it caused more FBI monitoring of Bound Together since they could much more easilly justify that in court via the excuse of finding mollesters than because of wanting to monitor other forms of political activity. I can see some real concerns with NAMBLA sales by Bound Together but it is ridiculous for people to post here acting as if by selling the material Bound Together is making child mollestation more likely.
by tkat
Wednesday Feb 23rd, 2005 12:15 AM
There are good arguments to be made against Nambla, I am frankly uncomfortable with the content of the magazine. But I do think that people can read things that I find uncomfortable (like green anarchy or stewart home), and reading about behaviors is not the same as actually doing them.
I find the idea of sex with children to be unethical. Children do have rights to their own sexualities and should not be messed with by adults. All that said there may not be the same firm rules for young adults, and peoples' personal experiences are not always the stuff of horror.
The bigger question for bound together is, are children welcome and safe in a community that has such reading material in it?
I have been involved in bound together and I think that children are welcome there, it is a bookstore not a day care, so there isn't that much space for kids. But the collective is probably the most multi generational project in the @ community, ranging from 80s to teens. A good number of collective members have children.
BTW I don't think that nambla ever tabled at the bookfair.
Unfortunately, this discussion is framed by the rabid hateful Nambla obsessed trolls, so that any real dialogue or efforts to change bookstore policy will be fought against for good reason.
I am not currently part of the collective, but I think that if people in the @ community are concerned about the safety of their children--it might be worth talking to people in the collective about these issues.
After that, people should take a look at the other stock there are plenty of titles to get worked up about. Freedom of ideas and expression sure has produced alot of offensive texts that could lead people to unethical behaiors.
by Shakespeare
Wednesday Feb 23rd, 2005 2:22 AM
doth protest too much, methinks.
by say it loudly
Thursday Feb 24th, 2005 11:09 AM
but it's really far more than hate

it's really more about prevention: calling to task those who advocate for child sexual abuse (NAMBLA), those who peddle it and deny responsibility for the harm caused by child rape (Bound Together), and those who might be willing to overlook the very real harm caused by pedophiles and the NAMBLA-BT connection (patrons of the store and the fair)

and what exactly is the "good reason" BT members will fight against those who fight the pedophile advocates? they've know it pisses people off for years, some of it's own members past or present are even "uncomfortable" with it, and yet NAMBLA gets to continue promoting their sickeness at Bound Together bookstore. you think if those who actively take a stand against child sexual abuse just asked nicer that BT would kick NAMBLA to the curb? pretty please with sugar on top? I seriously doubt it.

someone there believes there is a value to allowing NAMBLA to promote itself in the bookstore. it's probably more than just one person or the collective would stand up and say "no" to pedophilia once and for all. of course, no reason has been offered as to what that value is, just ad hominems against those who dare say peep about the store's contribution to pedophilia, so the only logical conclusion is that there are pedophiles working at BT and they believe in the promotion of pedophilia to the public at large in order to grow their ranks and/or to win sympathy for their exploitation of children

BT will not respond to rational debate or niceties, but talk of boycotting these allies of NAMBLA seems to have gotten a rise out of them

Boycott Bound Together and the book fair until they kick NAMBLA to the curb!! Otherwise, you're a part of the problem of child sexual abuse, plain and simple.

by Robert P. Helms
(gpzero [at] earthlink.net) Friday Feb 25th, 2005 11:16 AM
Hello anarchists of the San Francisco Bay Area!
I see that Peter Werbe is one of the scheduled speakers at the upcoming anarchist bookfair. I can't be there myself, but why don't one or more of you ask him a question for me: Hey Peter, Bob Helms asked you and the other editors of Fifth Estate about the way Peter Lamborn Wilson has become institutionalized in the journal, and you, Peter Werbe, became completely frantic and hysterical when he pressed you about the thoroughly verified fact that Wilson (Hakim Bey) is an internationally celebrated pedophile cult hero, and Bey's anarchist theories (TAZ for example) are originally and are still pedophile promotional ideas. You, Peter Werbe, refused to introduce any letter, any politely worded criticism, any short article into the magazine. The new editors in Tennessee have the same policy, but they don't froth at the mouth when answering the question. Is it not true that you, Peter Werbe, have absolutely no way to defend the fact that YOU censored criticism of Hakim Bey's anarcho-pedophilia, and is this not the reason you became very angry with Bob Helms when he kept bringing the matter up? Why did you, Werbe, try to coax Helms with "old friendship" lines, and was it not the case that you actually were caught unprepared? Is it not true that the pedophile-anarchist writings of Hakim Bey amount to a very large body of literature, and that if you acknowledge its existence in any way whatsoever, your whole facade of credibility will collapse? Is it not true that Hakim Bey is simply a worthless sexual opportunist, whose career is enhanced by YOU and by others like yourself, who keep printing any old crap he writes (even sometimes raw notes) but NEVER allow a single word in about the 25 years of public pedophile celebrity on the part of Hakim Bey?
When Mr. Werbe tells you that he won't grace this with an answer, tell him that it's an awful shame for him to have to slither around for his whole life, with no backbone to stand with, but on the other hand it's remarkable he's so good with the lickspittle anarcho-blather, he's got many people thinking he's a hard-hitting anarchist tough guy.
Mention to him also that I hope it some day occurs to him that knowledge is power, and children know almost nothing. The message coming from Bey, therefore, makes Hakim Bey a rat, and not an anarchist. Since Werbe is not a completely stupid person and since all this is very well known to him and is very clear and simple, we're talking about his (Peter Werbe's) character here; his personal integrity.
Peter Werbe, why have you taken such trouble to protect the world's premier anarcho-pedophile personality from criticism on the pages of FIFTH ESTATE?
Sincerely,
Robert P. Helms
Paris, France
by Pharme722
Friday Jul 3rd, 2009 10:35 AM
Very nice site! cheap viagra
by Anon
Monday Apr 12th, 2010 3:46 AM
" If you want a say in what happens there, join the Book Fair Committee, show up, do the work. Otherwise, STFU."

if you do this you would risk getting arrested as an accessory to the distrabution of child porn
(a felony)
I will not risk loosing my freedom for those who want to sell child porn at the Book Fiar.
you are on your own