NAMBLA's Internet Forum
Published: 2021Updated: 1 October 2022
With this forum we hope to present ideas that viewers to our Web site wish to contribute. Even ideas contrary to our views will be considered as long as opinions are presented courteously and in understandable English. We reserve the right to correct spelling and minor errors without altering meanings.
None of the arguments presented in this forum should be assumed to be in line with NAMBLA's policies. They may or may not be. The purpose is the creation of a series of debates that may ultimately distill unassailable truths. We encourage readers, even when they agree with an opinion, to find flaws in logic or fact that the writer did not see. This is the best way of arriving at sound conclusions.
* * *
We publish this verified email to a NAMBLA volunteer because the letter genuinely expresses an
orientation that is not only real and benign but potentially benevolent to society. The writer
understandably does not want to be identified, but the particular experience he relates will surely bring
recognition to many. Thank you for your quick reply. It is exciting to communicate with someone who shares my
values. With your explanation, I now understand why you do not have membership cards. I do
fully support NAMBLA and its goal to remove social and legal barriers to what should be
considered normal expressions of love. It brings me great comfort to know that there are others
who share my orientation toward boys. I have become more accepting of myself over time and
my feelings are as strong as ever.
I recall about the same time NAMBLA was started, there was a movie out named, Pretty Baby. It
was about a 12-year-old prostitute in New Orleans. Brooke Shields played the part and briefly
appeared nude in the movie. Although they did not actually show it, she was depicted as having
sex with several men throughout the movie. I watched the movie several times. It was very
affirming to me as I thought if it was normal once for adult men to have sex with 12-year-old
girls, why is it not normal today for adult men to have sex with 12-year-old nude boys. When I
was 12, I had very strong sexual curiosity and desires and would have welcomed sex with men. I
have since realized there are many men like me around the world and throughout history who
think alike.
I remember years ago hearing that there was a bookstore in Toronto that sold NAMBLA
publications. I drove all the way there. Sure enough, there was the section as plain as could be.
Nobody else was looking at it. NAMBLA was controversial and well-known to the public and
was often discussed in the media. I did not anticipate there would be several other men and
women in the otherwise somewhat mainstream store. It took all the courage I could muster to
stand by the NAMBLA publications, look through them, and select the ones I wanted to
purchase. I then had to stand in line, in great fear, and place the publications on the sales counter,
as I felt everyone in line could see what I was buying, knew what NAMBLA was, and judging
me to be a gay pedophile (which I am, but never broke any laws). As I stood there, I looked at
the people in line and could see some were looking direct at the NAMBLA publications I was
about to buy. The clerk must have sensed my fear and she said to me: “these are great magazines,
and you will enjoy reading them.” I walked out of the store with a wonderful sense of excitement
that I had, in a sense, publicly stated that I am a gay boy-lover, and nobody complained or beat
me up.
Although I must keep my feelings secret, I am very proud to be gay and very proud to be a bl. I
hope that someday we can all be ourselves in real life. Editor’s Note: The entertainment media have always been antsy about sex. At one time, even
married couples could not be shown together on a bed even if fully clothed. In TV shows, one
person had to have at least one foot on the floor if lying in bed with a partner and only of the
opposite sex. By the time he movie Pretty Baby was made, attitudes were more relaxed.
However, depicting a 12-year-old girl as a prostitute would be less offensive to popular attitudes
than depicting the young actress otherwise.
For a truer portrayal of youthful sex, the movie For a Lost Soldier relates the actual experiences
of Dutch choreographer Rudi van Dantzig when he was an 11-year-old boy during World War II.
The movie shows simulated consensual anal sex between a Canadian soldier, whom the boy had
befriended, and Dantzig as a boy. The boy is briefly seen nude in a bath scene but not in the
scene showing sexual intercourse. This bit of cinematographic legerdemain is done by having the
adult actor’s body covering most of the boy’s body as they simulate sex.
* * *
We present the following email exchange to shed some light
on current misconceptions that some in the putative Gay
community hold. The first email is from someone who identifies
as openly Gay. Because he does not specifically give his
permission to publish his name, we are leaving it out.
To whom this may concern,
a gay individual who is out and accepting of my self,
I do not understand your organization. There are plenty
of issues facing the homosexual community at large and
one of the biggest is being labeled unjustifiably as
groomers; and organizations such as yourself add to that
hatred. Your organization uses same sex love to support a
perversion of it. The gay community already is at risk
without people like you adding to it. Please stop using our life and our love to justify you and
your supporters' interest in children. Homosexuality and
being into kids have zero to do with each other but this
type of movement undermines that. I urge your organization
to consider these issues and consider the negative impact
you have on a group who are trying to live their life. Our Response: You are at least to be commented for a minimum of civility
in a request that is otherwise quite arrogant and absent of
historical and sociological perspective.
Of course, we will not accede to your presumptuous request,
but are glad to use it to demonstrate to you and to all who
read our pages why it is so wrongheaded.
From what you write, it is apparent that you lack a historical
perspective. You may not be aware that the International Lesbian
and Gay Association (ILGA) was once known only as the International
Gay Association (IGA). NAMBLA was then a welcome participant in its
conferences. Hypocritical self-interest and shameful bending to
political winds were the reasons for the attitude you now so well
mimic.
You also seem to be unaware that Harry Hay, an icon and pioneer of
Gay Liberation was a strong supporter of NAMBLA. So was renowned Gay
poet Allen Ginsberg. Anyone familiar with his works would know that
much of his poetry expressed love of adolescent boys. That love has
been and is still prominent in many cultures not subject to Western
domination with its perverted morality and dubious science.
Though you are free to love whom you want, historically it is the
mutually desired love between youths and older males that has been
the actual model of same-sex love. That love, in earlier times, was
a driver of mentorship that is woefully absent in present Western
society.
Beyond using the ancient Greek exemplar, some more modern examples
are da Vinci, Tchaikovsky, Oscar Wilde, Alan Turing and Michael
Jackson. Current men who love boys, who are or were prominent in
their fields, have either been oppressed by a vicious judicial
system or fear coming out lest they be wrongly accused. This should
sound familiar to you, as this was just the case for your brand of
homosexuality not that long ago.
Though NAMBLA disagrees with current laws dealing with sexuality, it
does not and has never counseled breaking the law. Quite the opposite.
Breaking even unjust laws creates harm for all involved. We still have
faith in a democratic process that will eventually recognize the
wrongheadedness that your email demonstrates.
That your ilk will endure accusations of "grooming" will not disappear
if NAMBLA disappears. Those who hate are very resourceful in finding
new rationales for their hate. We suggest that you grow up and learn
the realities of the world.
* * *
Our article on Cognitive Distortion further dow this page
brought disagreement from a correspondent. We are publishing
his comments as well as our response. Dear Staff Report,
I just saw the rant, and I couldn't disagree more.
Weren't individuals in fact allowed to own the same weapons
as government in the time of the framers? Muskets, cannon, etc.
Do you think they had a problem with that? I think your sort of
thinking mainly exists in modern times when most folks think
that we lowly individuals should bow to a god-like government
with powers far above and beyond those of individuals. I don't
believe that sort of thinking was common back then. And why should
a government that has committed genocide and crimes against humanity
have any control over the weapons that we may own for self-defense?
The U.S. government has no moral authority to tell anyone anything.
You say "Are they not aware of the many gun deaths caused by the
inevitable carelessness that comes with keeping track of our
possessions?" but you do not say how many deaths that is. If you
mention a statistic of such importance to your argument, why not
go ahead and tell readers what it is? You're arguing that anyone
who knows the statistic would necessarily agree with your view, yet
you don't even bother to tell the number.
Resources could perhaps be better spent engaging in activism for our
liberation instead of campaigning to increase government control over
our lives.
You guys are a trip. Dear Staff Report,
Also, your claim that the use of the word "people" instead of "individual"
means that only the collective was meant to be allowed to own weapons is
incongruent with the wording of the Fourth Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated..."
It says people, not individuals, are to be secure in their persons, houses,
etc. So does that mean you also believe the Fourth Amendment does not apply
to individuals? How much government control is enough for you?
You guys are a trip. Our Response: Please do not take us for fools. Most of us in NAMBLA's leadership are
well versed in the English language.
In the Fourth Amendment, the word "people" is a collective noun. If you
replace "people" with "public" -- another collective noun -- you do not
change the meaning of the sentence.
One never says "I know a people" when one means "I know a person." You
can know a people as in "I know the English people: They are a proud lot."
A single unit of the English people would be an English person. One never
says, "I am a people." One can say, "I am part of a people.
The Fourth Amendment narrows down the right to be secure as conferred to
the collective "people" to the individual "persons," "houses," etc. The
right of the whole nation or the people is SPECIFICALLY conferred to
individual persons.
The Second Amendment never does this. It never narrows down from "people"
to "persons," and from the two initial clauses gives the unmistakable meaning
that the right is a collective one and not an individual one as in the Fourth
Amendment. Please carefully re-read both amendments. Again, if the Second
Amendment were as many gun enthusiast would like to believe, then owning
tactical nuclear weapons would also be legal. See where that gets you!
From an etymological perspective, part of the English language is derived from
the Norman French following their conquest of England in 1066.
The word "people" is close to the French word "peuple." In French, the word is
also a collective noun.
Thanks for your comment. We hope this exchange when published without identifying
elements will help educate our readers.
* * * We publish this essay from a
correspondent because it is emblematic of a truth
we have always known – many children, even from an
early age, have pronounced sexual feelings. They
somehow find ways of expressing these. If they have
ever suffered harm from freely doing so, the harm
has been uniquely from overwhelmingly exaggerated
negative reactions by caretakers and a censorious
culture. Individuals who self-identify as LGTBQ are too
invested in the narrative imposed by the dominant
society to gainsay what are essentially lies. In
private, many will reveal experiences supporting
that they acted with agency and never experienced
physical or emotional harm. One former youngster,
now an elderly gay gentleman we know, used to use
his school issued bus pass to visit “tea rooms” for
assignations. His open-minded parents were Beat
Generation progressives and were fully aware of
their son’s escapades. Their son never experienced
trauma, and he not only graduated from a prestigious
high school but went on to university and a successful
career.
My name is Manny. I am from
Scandinavia. The legal age in Sweden is 15 and it is
16 in Norway. I am now in my 30s and uniquely a boylover.
When I was a boy, I preferred older men, but as I got
older, boys became my preference.
At the age of 11, I first realized how sexy I was in
the way only a boy could be in my now adult boylover opinion.
I didn’t hit puberty until I was 14, so I had 2-3 years in
that perfect body and dream about everything a man could do
with me sexually.
That was some years before I had a computer, but there was
a gay hotline listed in our newspaper, and I called a lot. Every
man I called was really interested, and I never got turned down
even once in those short calls.
Those calls were short because before the men could plan
anything with me, the hotline supervisors would kick me off. My
treble boy voice would give me away. It was impossible to hide
that fact :)
Then my parents got a big phone bill and decided from then on
to request that the bills had to specify outgoing calls. So, I
never dared to try again :(
Just as fast I could get online when I was 15, I started to meet
older men for sex. My only regret is that I didn’t have a computer,
with an Internet connection, years sooner.
I bet there were a lot of boys like me then as well as now.
The supervisors on the gay hotline were, as far as I know, not
obligated to report younger boys calling in. It is perhaps different
today when everything is so illegal in a way that is hard to believe.
My parents never found out, and I kept it hidden from family and
friends.
This is how it was for me in Scandinavia in the 90s. It is important to remember that Manny’s youthful experience and
the one described in our introduction, happened at different times and
places. His essay and our introductory remarks should NOT be taken as
encouragement to break any law. Even in a democracy, some bad laws do
get passed. Those should be changed ONLY through education and a
rational process – NOT by breaking laws. Our mission from the beginning
has been to educate and to encourage rational thinking.
* * * No sane person can ignore
recent events of mass killings of children
and many more innocent people. We could no
longer hold off commenting on it and on the
diseased thinking that allows the
perpetuation of such atrocities. Cognitive distortion is what
our kinder detractors accuse us of. That somehow our
perception has been twisted into some unrealistic view
is their best way of understanding us. They imagine,
"How can a man unrelated to a boy be drawn to him? What
could such an adult find appealing in a youngster?" They
are however blind to the possibility that a boy's
incipient intellect, his personality or joie de vie
holds great joy for both adult and youngster and that
all of this can sometimes bring about mutual physical
attraction. A comprehensive answer to our detractors'
distorted thinking needs to be explored in a separate
essay, but a different cognitive distortion is the
actual theme we are pursuing here. The incident that brings us to examine
our current societal twisted notions is the latest of
too many unspeakable acts – the butchering of young
children. "Butchering" is too weak a word, but there is
no alternative in the English language for a massacre
where bullets decapitate children and where their
riddled bodies are reduced to unrecognizable meat. To begin, let's look at the distorted
view of the Second Amendment that has taken on near
religious proportions among gun fanatics. It reads thus:
A well-regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right
of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed. The framers of the Constitution were no
imbeciles. They understood grammar and the importance of
the meaning of words. The amendment did not say "the
right of individuals to own and bear arms." Moreover,
the first two clauses of the amendment modify the latter
part. That right is granted only with state regulation
and in the service of the state. The framers guaranteed the right to bear
arms to the individual colonies, now states of the
United States, but not to individual persons – the word
"people" is a collective noun. Were our view not so, why
would the Second Amendment, as currently interpreted by
a politicized Court, not permit private ownership of
weapons of mass destruction? Those are arms too, are
they not? If ownership of cars can be regulated,
certainly firearms deserve the same consideration. Even
the operation of a barbershop or beauty salon can be
regulated. Give us a break! When a literate and moderately educated
person can correctly parse a basic English sentence such
as the Second Amendment, how can one not suspect Supreme
Court members of being biased along the views of the
parties that promoted their elevation? Gun aficionados like to suggest that
training and arming teachers is a solution to school
mass shootings. Really? Are they not aware of the many
gun deaths caused by the inevitable carelessness that
comes with keeping track of our possessions? Misplacing
a gun is orders of magnitude more serious than losing
one's keys or wallet. Teachers and schools are no
exception to our epidemic of accidental gun death
including those motivated by extreme anger. Then, what
are we teaching children when teachers must carry
weapons? Is it really the lesson that students need to
learn that violence can only be dealt with violence?
Must children in schools with armed teachers constantly
fear that they are only moments away from being maimed
or killed? Then there is the puerile notion that the
best way to counter a bad person with a gun is to have a
good person with a gun. That may work in movies where
these infantile notions originate but not in real life.
Imagine a "good person" happening on a situation where a
gun is being used. How does he ascertain, in the heat of
the moment, what is actually happening? Is the shooter a
"good person" or a "bad person?" The shooter might
actually be a cop not in uniform defending himself or
another. Imagine yet a "good person" now shooting at a
"bad person." How are subsequent "good persons" able to
figure out who is who? With just about every person
armed as the gun lobby would have it, there would then
be a free for all with bullets flying indiscriminately
in every direction – a plot line for a gruesome comedy
sketch. It is disheartening to realize that many
with otherwise adequately functioning brains can
formulate misconceptions of the world the way gun
apologists do. And guns are far from the many other
policy issues that a sane society needs to deal with.
Unfortunately, distorted cognitive ability is the case
for too many who either do not have the ability for
critical thinking or for those who are have it but who
cynically work to advance their own agenda. For us, the struggle is long and hard,
but we have reason and virtue on our side. Recent updates reveal that there were
indeed "good people with guns" to thwart the "bad
person with a gun." These "good people," if indeed
pusillanimous, were well armed and donned with body
armor. Yet it took over an hour for these "good
people" to act. * * * I am John, a healthy gay man in my
early 50's. For purposes of
"identifying" myself as it pertains to
this writing, I would self-analyze
myself under the labels of a hebephile
and an ephebophile. When I was an
adolescent boy of around 13-16, I had
insatiable attractions to boys around my
age and fantasized constantly. When I hear the word "love," I
don't think of age, race, sexual
preference, or appearance. I think
of commitment, mutual agreement, and
understanding. The ability to bond
and coexist as a communion of one.
The nesscessary actions one takes to
put his needs on the back burner, so
he can provide for the needs of his
significant other.
Correcting Misconceptions
Confusion About the 2nd and 4th Amendments
Cognitive Distortion
by John P.
Something happened as I aged into
adulthood. Or should I say nothing
happened. I grew older but my physical
attractions did not. I can now find
myself attracted to older guys but the
young men hold a special place. It's not
just about sexuality. Sometimes I just
want them to be my companion. The utter
fascination of experiencing a vacuum in
the presence of a perfect creature who
floods my senses with undivided
stimulus, if only for a fleeting moment.
It's as if I would trade a lifetime of
sexual interaction for just one second
of knowing I pleased him.
So now I cower in the shadows of fear
and shame. It seems the times in history
and the geographic places we dwell
dictate what is acceptable within a
population. Now in the early 2020's more
than ever at least in the U.S., the
political climate is unraveling the
final frontier of human rights, and
reversing over 100 years of progressive
evolution. Society levies the importance
of worth by who's sleeping with whom.
In my opinion most people seem to be
locked inside a paradox torn between an
obsession to live a formulaic existence,
hence the "correct" career, home,
family/peer relations, passions to the
other extreme of a personal longing to
just be left alone; a tranquil void of
the pressure to remain relevant.
So, I wonder where I fall into this
identity soup? What role do we "boy
lovers" play? Phycology breaks this down
in the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM),
now in the everchanging editions of #5.
Even though this could have monumental
legal & reputational ramifications,
isn't it all based on magic numbers?
Ages of consent, Ageism, drifting
borders? Splitting hairs of some law,
somewhere a one-year difference in age
could send a person to prison.
On a more personal level. What happens
when Johnny the boy inevitably grows
into John the man? Does that vicious
cycle continue? On a side note, my older
brother R.I.P. had feelings for younger
boys and got into legal trouble many
years ago, having to register as an
offender.
In all my "careful" (fear) research for
some kind of support, or more
information I find very little. NAMBLA's
(no offense) reputation & stature
has diminished to whatever it is over
the many years and other resources are
scarce or driven underground. One of the
biggest criticisms of the organization
seems to be the lack of documentation of
younger voices in numbers who seek age
of consent reform, etc. (besides a
handful of old letters)?
Editorial Note: We take no
offense, but it should be noted that
NAMBLA’s reputation has only diminished
among those who easily swallow consumed
popular media. No other organization has
yet dared to hold up a prominent
profile.
As for documenting younger voices, our
emails in our letters section point
otherwise. Our old publication Boys
Speak Out was put together at a
time when, especially in the
Netherlands, attitudes were much more
progressive. Doing so today is
impossible.
by David E.
But society had abused this word and
set limitations on it. They say that
you've got to be a certain age to
understand love, as well as
consenting to any acts of love. Yet
consent will vary with the
individual. I could be twelve years
old and know nothing of sex, then
down the road, a boy my age has been
sexual active since he was seven. So
why is society treating all of this
the same?
Is it because of their lack of
understanding? Or have they never
experienced this when they were
young, so they assumed minors don't
know as much as they give them
credit for? I think there might be a
couple of reasons. One, it could be
the fact that they don't want to see
their children and grandchildren as
sexual beings, so they're in denial
of this truth. But when we were
born, we had this nature already
instilled in us. We could be
extremely sheltered from anything
that's sexual related, and nature
will always find a way to draw us to
it.
And two, society may be concerned on
the crime rate going up? Let me
elaborate. If there's no age of
consent, then it'll be very easy to
lie about everything involving
relationships, love, or sex. Even if
at first it was consensual, later
on, the boy might feel differently?
So he says that he was raped or
molested. That'll look very badly on
people like us.
I can see things from both sides,
but society's side is labeling it
only one thing. We're cold hearted
monsters that needs help, and
children can't consent. Which I
understand their point of view, but
they're putting it all in one
basket. We all aren't molesters, and
all children aren't innocent. That's
the truth, and once society knows
the truth, the better.
I actually respect you guys at
NAMBLA. From what I see so far, you
aren't sexually crazed. You've got
your own belief system, but you're
not doing anything stupid to
jeopardize that. Like society had
labeled us, driving around in
dark-tinted vans looking for
children. But we're just normal
people who's opposite in agreement
with society and the law way of
thinking. And once they come to
terms with our reality, they'll see
things in a whole new light.
I want to become a NAMBLA
participant, because my belief is
similar to yours. And I'm a good
speaker, whether verbally or on
paper. When I'm passionate with
something, I keep at it. Hopefully
someday, your work with come into
the light with a different
perspective. But for now, you've got
to work in the shadows, so that it
can happen eventually.
