[Vision2020] NAMBLA does not speak for me.

[Taro Tanaka]

"NAMBLA does not speak for me."

Even if NAMBLA did speak for someone, he or she could hardly admit that fact 
publicly in modern America, especially in Idaho. Joan compares NAMBLA to the 
Army of God, which is a good turn of phrase for public relations purposes, 
but it is not really an apt comparison. The Army of God has never been 
allowed to march in the St. Patrick's Day Parade, but NAMBLA has 
participated in San Francisco's Gay Freedom Day March along with Dykes on 
Bikes and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Admittedly, that was a few 
years ago, and NAMBLA is increasingly "persona non grata" now. Even years 
back, they were barely tolerated and were opposed by many if not a majority 
of homosexuals. I think -- and at least some "mainstream" GLBT commentators 
admit -- that this has a dimension of genuine disapproval of pederasty along 
with a dimension of pure political pragmatism.

Without pretending to be neutral, I shall try to speak about this as 
dispassionately as I am able.

In our culture, full-blown pedophilia is absolutely forbidden, but 
idolaization of youth is "in." Youth sells, sex sells, and "edgy" youthful 
sex sells. This is true for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Perceptions 
-- and the reality -- of perverseness deepen precipitously as the boundary 
of puberty is crossed. Pre-pubescent flesh is the Unholy of Unholies to 
anyone who has passed the point of puberty, especially to adults. The 
overwhelming consensus is that anyone who treats pre-pubescent children as 
sexual objects is depraved in the extreme.

But from the onset of puberty up to the age of legal adulthood, there is a 
gray zone continuum. (I'm not talking about my personal morality, but rather 
about what our society generally tolerates in varying degrees.) This zone is 
the realm of many an adult fantasy, exploited by advertisers and Hollywood 
to titillate us. And it is true for both heteros and homos. In ancient 
Greece, it was boys in this age zone that were wooed by adult men for 
pederastic relationships. Homosexuality in ancient Greece was predominantly 
pederasy, so when people talk approvingly of the ancient Greeks' tolerance 
for homosexuality, they are actually talking approvingly of the ancient 
Greeks' tolerance for pederasty. (Although not everyone is well-informed 
about the historical facts.)

However, it needs to be noted that ancient Greek pederasty had nothing to do 
with molestation of two-year-old boys. Part of the reason why NAMBLA is such 
a huge liability for homosexuals in general is that is isn't clear whether 
they are advocatiing the wooing of boys past the age of puberty or 
advocating the molestation of two-year-olds. So even in quarters where there 
is some sympathy for the idea of pederasty along the lines of that practiced 
by the ancient Greeks, there is a fear among homosexuals that they are all 
going to be painted as a bunch of perverts who can't wait to get their hands 
on somebody's two-year-old. And even though I think homosexuality is 
immoral, I also think we need to acknowledge big differences among adult 
consensual sex, "classical pederasty," and molestation of two-year-olds. 
>From the gay rights perspective, the last thing they want to be saddled with 
is the image of being a bunch of child molesters.

The article on pederasty at GLBTQ.com 
(http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/pederasty.html) is very frank:

"In the West, the relationship between the predominantly androphilic 
homophile movement and the pederasts has been contentious. Though some in 
the American gay community welcomed what they called boy lovers, most 
excluded them for political if no other reasons."

This last point is very important. 1990 saw the publication of what is 
arguably the single most influential book in the history of the modern gay 
rights movement, "After the Ball : How America Will Conquer Its Fear and 
Hatred of Gays in the 90's," by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. Basically, 
it was a strategy manual on how to manipulate public opinion in modern 
American society in order to win acceptance for homosexuality. I no longer 
own this book, but I did read it from cover to cover a few years ago. One 
reviewer at Amazon says it well: "This book pioneered the movement's shift 
toward pragmatism. Although its tone is sometimes too harsh and its 
generalizations too sweeping, AFTER THE BALL remains a prescient landmark in 
the American gay rights movement. The book recast the debate about effective 
tactics among gay activists, and laid the foundation stone for organizations 
such as GLAAD. The book's logic for gays is compelling, if uncomfortable: 
either face the unvarnished realities of American bigotry, and attack them 
aggressively at their psychological roots, or else fail to win a secure 
place in society. Ever since it made waves inside and outside the gay 
community, this polemic has been condemned by both the gay left wing and the 
religious right wing -- so it must be doing something right for the rest of 
us."

One of the core points stressed by the above book is that homosexuals as a 
group must jettison NAMBLA -- NAMBLA must be airbrushed out of the picture, 
so to speak. And since that book's argument was persuasive and carried the 
day, that is exactly what has happened. So while there was a time in the 
past when NAMBLA was accepted, that is now ancient history, long flushed 
down the memory hole.

But the ideological underpinnings of homosexuality, or at least of the gay 
rights movement, retain a high view of the ancient Greeks and their 
tolerance of pederasty (homosexuality). If you go to the online encyclopedia 
GLBTQ.com and do a search on "Dahmer," "Gacy," or "Meiwes," you won't find 
them listed among the various famous homosexuals discussed by that site, 
even though all three of them were most definitely homosexuals, and most 
definitely famous. (And no, I am NOT saying that anybody is more prone to 
murder or cannibalism simply because he or she is a homosexual.) But the 
reason those people are not discussed is because there is no way on earth 
they can be held up as heroes or martyrs for the cause of gay rights. 
However, the pederasts mentioned at the New West article by "Camille 
Saint-Saens" (a far from exhaustive list, by the way) were taken from 
GLBTQ.com, where articles can be found mentioning, but never condemning, 
their pederasty. That is because these men -- these pederasts -- are held up 
as heroes and martyrs for the cause of gay rights.

Village Voice editor Richard Goldstein wrote a very interesting article 
pertinent to this subject in The Advocate, titled "The Double Standard" 
(Aug. 20, 2002). Near the end of his article he asks, "if we eroticize the 
nymphet, why not the lascivious lad? And if we trust straight men to enjoy 
such reveries without committing child abuse, why compel gay men to deny 
them? What’s at stake is more than some abstract issue of equality: A libido 
that is too heavily policed is an incubator of pathology . . . Generations 
of young people have benefited from the great capacity for mentoring that 
many gay men have. Who knows how many boys will now be deprived of this 
nurturing in the name of safety. Talk about throwing the baby out with the 
bathwater."

That sort of language bothers me, and it ought to bother you too. But 
remember that it appeared in The Advocate, the most "mainstream" of gay 
publications.

So maybe NAMBLA doesn't speak for Joan Opyr. But pederasty nevertheless 
remains a thriving undercurrent in homosexuality even today, and the main 
reason it has to stay in the closet -- for now, at least -- is largely, if 
not primarily, a matter of political expediency. Christ Chruch vehemently 
rejects the actions of not only Steven Sitler but also of Jamin Wight, and 
not because of political expediency but rather because such things are 
prohibited by God. Yet the GLBT community has many of its own Jamin Wights. 
The GLBT community cannot openly embrace them, partly because some people 
think it is just plain wrong and partly becasue it is politically 
inexpedient. Nevertheless, the GLBT community cannot sever itself off from 
such practices, because it would mean severing its own roots. And that, I 
believe, accounts for the ambivalence on the part of the community. At any 
rate, if Joan Opyr wants to wage battle against such problems, I'm all for 
it. The facts discussed above should help to point her in the right 
direction, and it's not in the direction of Christ Church.

-- Princess Sushitushi

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/