NAMBLA?! I can't beleive this!!

NAMBLA?! I can't beleive this!!
Never said I was defending them, and for the record, I will use my freedom of speech to say that I think NAMBLA is a bunch of sick, twisted, evil, disgusting, repulsive, bottom-feeding, cowardly, pathetic, worthless, slimy, smelly, and stupid pedophiles, who are trying to use the semblance of a lobby group to convince the public that they are not a bunch of child-molesting criminals.

I think that in the public's eye, NAMBLA will become about as credible as the KKK, just a bunch of stupid, misguided people trying to get others to believe their lies.
 
I think that yes the site is sick, and yes, I had no dialogue with them, because I already know what they are going to say.

I for one dont want to hear what they want to say nor think.
It is sick when academics make stupid thesis which are immediately looked on as ground breaking thesis.

Have they ever taken into account the stories of abused kids.
NO!
So they marry the concept that it is OK to have 'consensual' sex with a child.

There is a hidden but strong lobby in the UK for lowering the age of consent of children.
That falls right into the perps hands, Oh, I thought he/she was older!

Believe me, I could not really guess a childs age, they are all different sizes growing up I guess.

That is not the real point, it is how old a child is emotionally to engage in sex that they choose to engage in, and not what an adult chooses for the child to make a sexual relationship with.

I cannot fathom out, how any child would want to fancy an old man or woman, other than the peer pressure.

Taken aside, these fanciful thoughts are nothing but normal childish thoughts, and ones which responsible adults should never be drawn into.
Infatuation by a child is because they want to be like you, not part of you.

They invite you into their world as friends, not lovers, guess that sounds right,

ste
 
Anyone claiming 'consensual' sex with a child in any country/state where that child is legally under the age of consent, looses the argument immediately! A child that is deemed too young to give consent, cannot have consensual sex with anyone!

I think that it is time to put the age of consent up, rather than accepting liberal attititudes that it should be lowered!

Look at the posts that have appeared here....many of us were way under the age of consent when abused, however, I have also noticed from time to time, we get posts along the line of 'was I too old to be abused'.

I was sexualised, before I knew what sex was! If anyone deems that you have consented to anything that you do not fully understand, then you have not consented!

Best wishes ...Rik
 
A while back I was looking into the way that the groups such as NAMBLA used supposedly respectable and accurate studies to justify their beliefs, and I had to agree with the widely held view that these groups are VERY selective in what they put forward, obviously in an effort to gain respectability.

I have only looked quickly at these two links, and be warned one of them has views that you will find distasteful at the very least, but they are both putting forward the views of one 'researcher' - who's qualifications are possibly unknown, who's research is possibly unverified? I didn't have time to look and search that deeply.

But what is obvious is that the one site, pro-pedo, is selective in what it quotes.

We should never be in any doubt that this level of 'organized pedo' is out to create a respectable illusion surrounding their views.

Here's the links, but take care with them, one for certain will make you very angry.

Dave

https://www.ipce.info/host/sandfort_87/

https://paedosexualitaet.de/lib/Sandfort1994.html
 
NAMBLA, in my opinion, represents a segment of the perv population which I'll call the "smooth operators". Rather than impulsively kidnapping a raping, or using threats of violence to ensure silence, these clever pervs carefully manipulate the victim into thinking he (the victim) actually wants to protect the perpetrator. These individuals are fortunate, in a macabre way. Their targets are children who are too young to understand sex and its implications; such people are easy to mold. Children are not born with a concept of the boundaries that we as a society place on sex. It is the focus of the whole idea of "grooming" for a pedophile to earn a kid's absolute trust, and then use that trust as a tool to exploit a kid's ignorance and thrust a deviate conception of sexuality into the kid's mind before he has a clear understanding of those societal boundaries. The victim knows nothing about sex, but also knows that the perpetrator is "loving and trustworthy", and therefore buys into the deviate concept the perpetrator offers. The pedophile then creates a self-perpetuating delusion by using the child's "okay, whatever you say" compliance as proof of "consent" - that the kid really "wants" the abuse. Worse, the "consent" also comes with a sort of "collaboration". The pedo instructs the child as to what he should be "feeling"; once the suggestion takes root, the pedo then explains to the child that these "natural feelings" (which were planted by the perpetrator to begin with) are looked down upon by the rest of society, and that strict silence is required for the well-being of both individuals. As long as the perpetrator can reinforce the child's unquestioning trust - and prevent the child from developing an understanding of societal norms regarding sexuality - the victim's silence is assured.

But despite what the pedophiles try to say, this "consent" is by no means informed. They commit the same crime committed by those who defraud the elderly out of financial and real assets by tricking them to sign releases and powers-of-attorney. Those people also have "proof of consent" - in the form of the victim's signature on legal documents - but of course, those elderly folks really had no idea what they were signing. With children, it's the same way. They know nothing about sex, they're spoon-fed misinformation about it, and convinced that it's something they really want; they fall for the trick and go along with the abuse thinking for all the world that they're willing participants, or even instigators, in the activities which they were all along directed into by their abusers. That's exactly what happened to me.

Think of the implications of allowing an adult to have sex with a "willing" ten-year-old, for example. Suppose that, a few years later, that now-young-adult considers the events of the past and realizes that his "consent" was bought or manipulated, and that he was abused, which leads to intense emotional distress. Does such a person have an avenue of redress? Or is he, since he said "yes" at the time and didn't decide until several years later that he should've (and would've) said "no", simply out of luck? "Sorry you were tricked, but yes is yes". Or worse, will the victim be accused of becoming some type of perpetrator? "The sex was consentual and you had no problem with it, and now you're just trying to get rich at the expense of your former 'partner'!" Does anybody see the problems that could arise? I'm willing to bet that not even the NAMBLA folks have thought that far enough ahead.
 
Originally posted by BrianW:
... they were mostly a bunch of fat, pathetic old f*gs ...
Click to expand...
Must you use the term "fag" when describing NAMBLA ? It's been clearly established that normal, natural homosexuality is NOT THE SAME THING as pedophilia.

There are plenty of male survivors who just happen to be gay, and we're burdened with the extra task of separating our innate sexuality from our abuse. NAMBLA is certainly deserving of your righteous rage, but gay male survivors are not.

BTW, I just came back from the MaleSurvivor Weekend of Recovery held at Simpsonwood, where we divided up into small groups of 7-8 men to do most of the work. My group had two gay men (including myself), a third man unsure of his orientation, and 4 totally straight men. I can assure you that my straight brothers respect me as a man and would never stoop to calling me - or any other gay man - a "fag".

I expect the same from you.
 
Rik,

Thanks for this one:

I was sexualised, before I knew what sex was! If anyone deems that you have consented to anything that you do not fully understand, then you have not consented!
Click to expand...
I was abused starting at age 11, and I didn't know that what was being done to me was sex. I thought sex was about Mommy and Daddy making babies, and what the abuser was doing (and making me do) clearly wasn't that.

I used to feel very stupid about my "ignorance", but now I realize I was just very very innocent. I had a right to that innocence.

On consent, the phrase I have always liked is this one: "If a kid doesn't KNOW he has a choice, then he doesn't HAVE a choice."

Much love,
Larry
 
Nobby,

for the record, I will use my freedom of speech to say that I think NAMBLA is a bunch of sick, twisted, evil, disgusting, repulsive, bottom-feeding, cowardly, pathetic, worthless, slimy, smelly, and stupid pedophiles, who are trying to use the semblance of a lobby group to convince the public that they are not a bunch of child-molesting criminals.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm. I think that about covers it!

Much love,
Larry
 
Whilst researching the group, careful not to go on any of their sites, by reading of others expereinces, knowledge and campaigns I stumbled across a site that made me even madder.

Although they were campaigning against nambla, this right wing christian group, was trying to say it was all a result of societies 'acceptance' of homosexuality! As far as I'm concerned the abusers sexuality has very very little to do with act of sbuse. As has been said many a time the act isn't about sex it's about the taking of power and the destruction of innocence and trust!

To use NAMBLA to victimise other unrelated groups is just wrong and shifts the focus of where this anger should be directed ie at NAMBLA, it's members and their crimes.

I've managed to build an online profile of one of the nambla members in the UK. Although he proudly admits to working with children for 40 years to gain their trust the local media appear to have no interest?! When I'm ready I'll take the next step.

Mark
 
Originally posted by melliferal:
Think of the implications of allowing an adult to have sex with a "willing" ten-year-old, for example. Suppose that, a few years later, that now-young-adult considers the events of the past and realizes that his "consent" was bought or manipulated, and that he was abused, which leads to intense emotional distress. Does such a person have an avenue of redress? Or is he, since he said "yes" at the time and didn't decide until several years later that he should've (and would've) said "no", simply out of luck? "Sorry you were tricked, but yes is yes". Or worse, will the victim be accused of becoming some type of perpetrator? "The sex was consentual and you had no problem with it, and now you're just trying to get rich at the expense of your former 'partner'!" Does anybody see the problems that could arise? I'm willing to bet that not even the NAMBLA folks have thought that far enough ahead.
Click to expand...
In this case I would turn to contract law for guidance. Under Common law, contracts signed under duress are difficult to uphold. In this case you have an implicit verbal "agreement" between a pedo and a child, in which the child consents to sex. Ignoring for a moment that under common law children cannot enter into contracts, and that contracts for sex are illegal in most jurisdictions, I think any lawyer worth his salt could successfully argue that a such a contract, where one party is under duress, is not valid. So the pedos try to "hide" the duress by controlling the child to make them appear compliant with the abuse.

You asked what happens when the child later understands that they were under duress...I think that the answer is simple. Like the seniors buying aluminum siding, the law provides a framework in which such contracts are invalid, and the perpetrators are guilty of fraud. I wonder if law enforcement is getting wiser to the practise of grooming? If so, pedos will be finding themselves high and dry when the courts find them guilty of using duress.

I think sophisticated pedos such as the NAMBLA crowd try to mitigate the risk of children coming forward by putting a lot of effort into the grooming and threats. However, if law enforcement and the Courts become more aware of the practise of grooming and use the much more powerful psychological tools and expertise that exist today, I think it will eventually become much harder for pedos to successfully groom a child to become silent.

Has NAMBLA thought this far ahead? I don't know. I doubt that the pedos have the resources that the "good guys" now have, so I think that the pedos are probably fighting a rearguard action against law enforcement. I wonder if the practise of grooming might go out of fashion? If it does, what does this mean for organised pedophiles? I think the answer is in front of us. Pedos are now travelling to other countries to exploit children who do not have the protection of sophisticated law enforcement and common law. I wonder if NAMBLA might become a highly-specialised travel agency?
 
Butterfly kisses?!

The female version of NAMBLA?

Think I'm going to sit down in a dark room and just take it all in for a bit. I so hope this is a hoax but sadly I don't think it is.

You shouldn't have rights if you can't understand the responsibilities. If you advocate illegal sexual relationships then you are guilty of any crimes linked to that advocacy! Much like looking at child porn images. You create the market by buying the images.

As a kid I didn't stand a chance when I was exposed to the predators that inhabit these groups!
 
Dave,

sorry but cannot get my head around the bottom link posted, so I am not going to the first one.

What a load of crap, who did this goon interview for this data?
Must have been a poll on nambla,

ste
 
Ste
those two links contain the 'work' of one man.

One link is the full study as published, and the other is the 'selected highlights' as presented by a boylovers site.

I have no idea at all if the man who wrote the study is a genuine academic, or if he's a charalatan. I don't know. But the research paper is out there for all to read with some degree of authenticity, which seems good when you read his profile

https://www.hivcenternyc.org/people/theosandfort.html

The other site however selects parts of Sandford's work that suits their argument, the one that they claim makes it alright for adults to have 'loving and sexual relationships with boys'

It's difficult to say exactly who they are aiming their selective views at though?
If they are trying to convince the huge majority of people that are rightly horrified at child abuse then I don't think any amount of massaging the facts will make a great deal of difference, most people would read this stuff and still stick to their original view that sex with kids is still wrong.

My view is that they are preaching to the converted, other ( and potential ) abusers who seek self justification for what they either do, or plan to do.

There's a cycle that everyone goes through when we set out to do something that is outside our normal behaviour, and it doesn't matter if it's illegal, dangerous or just something right outside of our normal lives. Part of that cycle is 'justifying' to ourselves the need to do whatever it is.
And that's what dressing up sexual abuse in distorted, selective and often pseudo-scientific terms is - it's the guilty giving themselves permission.

The problem is that they have a reason to do it, a big and overwhelming reason, and the rest of us haven't got as much reason, or at least resourses, to plough through all their shit and refute it.
It's like arguing with the crazy guy ranting on a street corner, you can't argue with a sick mind.

But do we try? I guess we must.

Dave
 
Dave,

tch,tch, he is a psychiatrist yuck.
So if one of us came to him, he would prefer to say you liked what happened!

I for one, have never read about any instance of positive sexual relationships between adults and children, so God knows where he got his data sample from.

I do however remember the infatuation a child can feel over adults they meet.
Crossing the line within the trust of an adult over a child is totally wrong.

I have to be sure in my mind that people think that somehow children are complicit in what happens to them, hence the survivor feeling like they are somehow seen as guilty within society.

That is one thing that keeps us silent, not achademic clap trap,

ste
 
I think we need to realize that science and scholarship can always be twisted and distorted for the sake of vested interest. History is full of examples: imperialism, nationalism, racism, slavery, gender issues, the Holocaust.

All you need for this is a scholar who is more interested in his bank account and personal advancement than he is in the truth. And that type, sad to say, is all too easy to find.

Much love,
Larry
 
Which brings us to this piece -

https://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/bauserman_objectivity.htm

where the acedemics disagree with each other!

"We" know that our experiences were bad for us, we wouldn't be here if they weren't, and most of us have a lot of faith in counselling and therapy which are products of the world of psychology ( broadly speaking )

But we also know that each person is an individual and 'works' differently.
Some psychological theories will be proven in nearly everyone, the basic stuff. But I think that once it gets into the realms of finding clear behavioural traits in relativly small numbers of people with a particular problem or set of influences accuracy is just about impossible.

With the study I mentioned above I don't think it's worth the paper it's written on.
Of course there are boys who enjoy their relationships with men, however much we might disagree.
But can it be quantified in a meaningful way? I don't think so because it's a snapshot in time and can't possibly take into account the future feelings and behaviours of the boy.

But it's pedalled around as 'scientific data' and then selectivly used by the creeps at NAMBLA and the like.
It might be researched well, it might be accurate as far as it goes, but is it meaningful?

And we can also fall into the trap of accepting scientific data that suits our position just as easily, when I believe we should be working with the data we know best - the stuff inside our own heads!

Dave
 
I dont think it is about what academics think in a world they have no contact with.
The big trouble is those who believe this crap, an believe me there are many who do.

There are many brilliant academics, but unfortunately the state pays others to produce this utter garbage, but yes, this stuff is taken 'as gospel' by the public.

I often thought there must be some positivity among some boys who had gay feelings towards older men, hence the large number who do not seek help, or think they were the guilty partner.

You only have to see the way judges rule against perps who have been abusing the same boy for years, and somehow the judge rules teh boy to be complicit.

Judges need to be taught a few base facts, that the age of consent does not give a child any consent in abuse.
No matter what the judge thinks, nor academia,

ste
 
Mark's original post was about NAMBLA and why they are allowed to exist in a society that makes child abuse both illegal and abhorent, a good question that has raised so many interesting issues in this long topic. But has Marc's question been answered?

I know that I can't fully answer it, not even to myself. So I have no chance of 'answering' the question to anyone else.
All I can do when I see the crap that NAMBLA put out is force myself to accept that 'I' have very little influence or power to change the way pedo's and their groups think and act. And I don't think that genuine efforts by the like of 'rikijo' in his blog are going to make a huge difference either - not on their own. I wouldn't for one moment argue against them, and indeed I would support them as much as possible, but in the end I don't think that they are much more than a thorn in the sides of the pedo's and NAMBLA.

I think the way forward is for guys like us to shake off the shame and guilt of the abuse we lived through, and I deliberately didn't say "our guilt and shame" because it isn't our's, it belongs to our abusers.
Let's lose it, let's place it squarely where it belongs with the abusers, and in so doing I believe we become more comfortable with our pasts, and the abuse becomes easier to talk about. Once we start talking - people will realise the scale and magnitude of the problem, and the risk posed to their children.

Once CSA becomes a hot topic, and guys like us stand proud as the men we are, then normal, decent people will see the truth of what actually happens to sexually abused kids as they grow up, and that will shock most people.

Most unaffected people live in ignorance of the serious effects of CSA, and that isn't their fault because it's something that should be outside of everyones experiences.
So where do people learn about the effects of CSA? At the moment it seems to be from lurid stories in the media and misinformation and rumours. How often do we hear the lie that abused boys become abusers? It still gets peddaled as 'truth' and we KNOW it isn't.
Can 'we' do a better job? "Yes, we can".

So, has NAMBLA stolen a lead in the media war?
They come along with their pseudo-scientific theories, their selectivly chosen papers, and a veneer of 'respectability'. If you read through their site( and other similar sites ) they portray the image of respectable men in love with boys and not window licking madmen who lurk in the bushes after dark. The truth probably lies somewhere inbetween, but wherever it lies it's every parents nightmare. NAMBLA dresses up the nightmare as a pleasent dream!

I think the evidence is actually on our side, at least the respected evidence. But somehow we've found ourselves on the defencive against them.
That's understandable in many respects because so many of us carry the shame and guilt and need all our reserves to shake them off and recover, and some of us are simply not in a position to get out there and raise hell against NAMBLA, or have the time to forward the positive aspects of the survivors movement.

NAMBLA is a well organised movement that has every chance of raising its profile and gaining respectability, possibly child sex will become acceptable? maybe not in my lifetime but the acceptance of different lifestyles has happened in my 52 years, I sometimes dread to think what is possible in the next half century.

MS and all the other survivors groups and organisations do a terrific job of raising awareness of survivrs issues, but we are by nature generally quiet about 'ourselves' and the problems we face. Maybe we need to raise our profile and stand proud, make people listen to 'US' as survivors?

NAMBLA are doing just that, they are very active and should never be underestimated.
I said earlier "I don't give a shit about NAMBLA" and I don't, let them carry on and spread their vile rubbish, eventually they will shoot themselves in the head.

I think that our role needs to be one of proving ourselves as survivors.
If we heal and speak out, make people aware of OUR side of the sordid story and demonstrate that abuse has serious effects, and that we can recover from them then we will overcome the likes of NAMBLA.
We have a lot going for us, not only the law but the moral high ground as well, so why waste the effort in fighting NAMBLA directly when we can mobilise the allies, the normal decent folk out there, far easier?

There's strength in numbers.

Dave
 
That's exactly why I still have the bit between my teeth with regard to all paedophiles!

NAMBLA are not 'boy lovers', they are 'boy haters' - anyone that loves you would not do anything to destroy your mind!

That is why I still cannot believe that James Fowler walked out of court as 'An elderly gentleman answering for indiscretions'.

That is why, I cannot let it 'lie'.

Best wishes ...Rik
 
So what do we do next? I for one am considering a suggestion by my therapist that I join a group of rape survivors (female and male) that speaks to police organisations, child welfare workers, etc.

I am also hoping to be able to do some volunteer work with other male victims, although there are few organisations that do this.

The best weapon against misinformation is information itself. NAMBLA's strength is that it has the wherewithal to make itself sound legitimate. There is no reason why survivors cannot contact leading academics and lobby for "our" side. I'm willing to bet that the mainstream medical/psychological community is not bought into NAMBLA's lies, so maybe they can start sending out some good information.

And finally, for every NAMBLA, we must also remember that there is the Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, Childfind, Cyber Angels, the United Way, the law enforcement lobby groups, parents' groups, the parents' _media_ (all those pregnancy and parenting magazines), childrens' advertisers and any other number of groups who are interested in childrens' welfare. (edit: And of course Malesurvivor.org ;) )

If these groups aren't aware of NAMBLA I would be very surprised, but I would bet a donut that any of them would be very interested in hearing from victims of CSA. Personally I think we owe it to ourselves as survivors and to those poor kids who are still getting molested to get the word out as loudly and clearly as we can. A campaign of whispers to the right people can undo the flimsy lies that the pedos have strung up to justify their perversion.

And if you are not able to speak out, then let your actions speak for you. Volunteer with kids. Big Brothers is a great charity and one of the best ways to protect vulnerable boys from pedos. The YMCA is another. By your actions and care for children you will help fight the battle.

Remember, you are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top