Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association/Archive 7

This is REAL?
I actually thought that NAMBLA was a joke... Wow! I don't usually take the role of one who's so clueless, but... Wow! Good work on the article though. You might consider writing the article from the same angle as an article about a group that supports illegal activity, as that's what NAMBLA is, at least here and now. It would be one thing is NAMBLA wanted for 18 year old boys to date 50 year old men, but sexual acts between adults and children, as I said, here and now, are illegal.

Is there any previous social sattire based on NAMBLA prior to the South Park/Daily Show bits? I would assume people would have been all over this for years. I'm interested to know why anyone would publicly associate with such a group? Doesn't it, in theory, just open up the flood gates to increased observation by law enforcement (which was deemed legal by the Supreme Court earlier this decade)? I don't understand why they would want to have a ready made "I'm a pedophile, watch me closely," list. What does NAMBLA hope to accomplish with so little support?

Also, who ever deleted my comment, saying this is not a forum, that is not cool. It is a discussion, just the same. Perhaps you feel my comments are a waste of space, I'm sorry, but that's too bad.

Bottom line, I just felt when reading this, that it was vandalism or a prank, it seems far too vague, like "HQ in NYC and San Francisco", etc. That's the whole point I'm trying to make (which keeps getting deleted by some guy.)ReignMan (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as comments are about improving the article and don't violate other policies they will likely be left alone. Part of NAMBLA's heritage is that they came into being before the level of interpersonal communication; the internet, cell phones etc. were in use. Thus the same crime or crimes could go largely undetected for a long time before anyone realized patterns. Likewise adding your name to a mailing list wouldn't seem a gamble as it might now. Federal and state laws sharing information and strengthening intra-agency communication have also greatly improved so a perpetrator operating in several states would be treated jointly in the justice system. Rather than a prolonged battle. -- Banj e  b oi   03:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, some fool just deleted it saying "this is not a forum." Also, why is this in LGBT?  Isn't this classed as pedophilia, which is seperate from homosexuality?  What I'm saying here is that this almost seems unreal to me...  I think the article would be better if it were much more basic, and to the point, but it seems like it's a bunch of small bits formed into an article, of which nothing seems cohesive.  ReignMan (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is a bit messy but does give a general overview of the subject for those interested and wikilinks to send them to related subjects. To answer a few queeries - it's LGBT because this is a part of LGBT history as is pedophilia, like it or not. To this day religious groups use pedophilia and NAMBLA to disparage efforts to secure LGBT rights. As for the quality of the article? People tend to write about subjects they like and generally this group and what they represent is disliked. That's not the best reason but I think it's the most likely. -- Banj e  b oi   00:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly sure that pedophilia is considered distinct from homosexuality. Pedophilia is the attraction to pre-pubescent children, male or female, and is distinct in a psychological sense, in that homosexuals seek sex from consenting adults, pedophiles seek sex from non-conscenting children.  They are different in the same way that rape and sex are different. ReignMan (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You know that, I know that and Benjeboi knows that but I think the point he is making is that lots of other people conflate the two and think that paedophillia and homosexuality ARE the same thing. Nambla is therefore a part of the LGBT project because a) it has significance for LGBT both historically and contemporarily because people still use it to batter the community with and b) because it's an article we need to watch for the above reason. The last thing we want is for someone to come along and rewrite everything from a "gays = paedophiles" POV and the project would be none the wiser. I hope that clears it up. It's not that the project equates the two (in a rape = sex way) it's just that it is something that is a part of the LGBT world - even though we might not want it there. &#618;nt&#601;  'sv&#603;nsk'''  08:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also more than that although that remains the main issue presently. In the begining of the post-Stonewall riots era, love without restrictions was interwined as part of the agenda of LGBT rights. I'm unclear how many knew it would be applied to minors but there is a compelling case that even those who are at least teenagers - thirteen and older maybe? - would be allowed to express their sexual interests even if they weren't heterosexual ones. This is quite generallizing but quickly it's evident that those interestested in sexual activity with very young teens could have been a part of the process without others noticing the implications and extensions of these policies. My impression is that this was a hot issue that was expunged altogether in the interests of securing basic LGBT rights. -- Banj e  b oi   02:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow...just...wow. -- Penfish   00:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in historical context age of consent laws had to first be created then steadily rose. People used to start families in their teens and we continue to have teen mothers in all modern countries. Personally I think all forms of child abuse are rather shocking with this just being a more obvious form than say mental anguish or malnutrition - which also happen in modern countries. People can disappoint us, even adults who should know better. -- Banj e  b oi   09:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if that's the case, then so be it. I just hope that there is a clear definition.  Even in the old Merck Manual, homosexuality is listed as a mental state which does not warrant treatment.  People have been gay since the beginning of time, that's well known, it seems only a natural form of population control.  Lemmings commit suicide, some species eat their own, and humans are gay.  NAMBLA, while I'm sure they don't want to harm anyone, are opening a can of worms that cannot be easilly closed.  The issue is so sensitive, because the party in question is deemed incapable of consent.  I just don't know what to say, I guess if it must be LGBT, then it must. ReignMan (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It must; good or bad this is also part of LGBT history. There is a good article here but this is obvious heated topic so until is overhauled it can simply grow organicly. -- Banj e  b oi   10:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete Savage Justice reference
The "in popular media" section of this article mentions that, "The pedophile in Ron Handberg's 1992 novel Savage Justice who abuses over 30 young boys, is found to have boxes of child pornography from "a man-boy love association whose slogan is 'Sex After Eight is Too Late'" (this was the slogan of the René Guyon Society)." The Savage Justice reference is not clearly to or about NAMBLA. Including it here suggests strongly that it is definitely about NAMBLA, and this is a violation of WP:NOR. I am therefore going to remove it. Devil Goddess (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

ILGA Citation
At the tend of the ILGA section of the article, there is a phrase which "requires citation".

The citation that can be found on the ILGA article has this reference for the same phrase(more or less, the abbreviation is used when reffering to the European Comission.) .

Because it's semi protected, I cannot add this in, and would like for it to be added. Rorybob (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Califia text stronger than supported by reference.
The text says that Califia has "completely repudiated support for NAMBLA", which may be true but is not supported by the citation given. It would be better to replace this with a direct quotation, perhaps
 * However, Califia now says "I don't agree with NAMBLA".

Even that is picking the strongest text out of a wishy-washy couple of paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.230.172 (talk) 10:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

History of man - boy (young man) love
I was thinking of including an historical note about the case of Chicago socialite Robert Allerton, who had a lifelong relationship with a man 26 years his junior, which began when the youngster was in his teens. He eventually adopted the young man as his son. This brings up other issues perhaps not appropriate for this page. Any thoughts? Lattefever (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever
 * You have the wrong article. I doubt this would be a good example unless you source the teenager's actual age. You might ask at WT:LGBT. -- Banj e  b oi   02:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove reference to Roy Radow's criminal trial
Roy Radow, a self-described pedophile and member of the NAMBLA Steering Committee sometimes described as its chairman or spokesman, was arrested in 1996 for masturbating in front of a 12-year old boy. The trial ended in a hung jury.[9]

The trial did not result in a conviction. The reference serves no purpose.````

Removed
Related legal proceedings Although NAMBLA itself has never been prosecuted, there have been a number of prosecutions of alleged NAMBLA members for sexual offences involving children or adolescents.
 * One case involved a number of men arrested by the FBI in Los Angeles and San Diego in February 2005. Seven men were charged with planning to travel to Mexico to have sex with boys, the FBI said. An eighth man was charged with distributing child pornography. According to a media report, the FBI believes that at least one of the arrested men is a member of NAMBLA's national leadership, a second organized the group's 2004 national convention and a third said he had been a member since the 1980s.
 * Roy Radow, a self-described pedophile and member of the NAMBLA Steering Committee sometimes described as its chairman or spokesman, was arrested in 1996 for masturbating in front of a 12-year old boy. The trial ended in a hung jury.
 * John David Smith, a San Francisco man, unwittingly spoke of his crimes to an undercover investigator who had infiltrated NAMBLA. Upon obtaining a warrant, the investigator also found child pornography in Smith's apartment. He was arrested in 1996 and was subsequently convicted of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old boy he was babysitting. Smith's membership in NAMBLA was raised at trial to prove his lascivious intent.
 * Paul Shanley, a Catholic priest convicted of abusing children as young as six years old over a period of three decades, allegedly participated in NAMBLA workshops and advocacy, according to contemporaneous accounts of the events obtained by the Boston Globe.
 * Johnathan Tampico was convicted of child molestation in 1989 and paroled in 1992 on condition that he not possess 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 he and others frequently traveled to Thailand to have easy access to young boys. The court cited 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.
 * 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.
 * Alan J. Horowitz, an Orthodox Rabbi and adolescent psychiatrist, pleaded guilty in 1992 of sodomizing three boys ages seven to nine, and molesting one girl, aged 14. He had previously been convicted of molesting two boys in 1983. While in prison he wrote for the NAMBLA call newsletter.

In addition to Curley v. NAMBLA, several other cases have been cited as evidence that NAMBLA serves as a meeting place or front for men who commit sexual crimes against children and adolescents.


 * Peter Melzer served as a NAMBLA treasurer, Steering Committee Member, fundraiser, spokesman, and Bulletin editor. In his private life he was a tenured physics teacher at the elite Bronx High School of Science, where he had taught for over three decades. The school district knew of his membership in NAMBLA in 1985 but did not act as mere membership was not an adequate cause for discipline. In 1993 a local TV news expose revealed that he was a NAMBLA member. As a result the New York City Department of Education commissioned a report. The report states that Melzer had personally expressed a sexual interest in boys up to age 16, and that he had written about having acted on those desires. The report also asserts that, while he was editor, the NAMBLA Bulletin printed instructions for seducing young boys and avoiding law enforcement along with sensual accounts of sexual encounters between adults and minors. Further, the investigators claim not to find any significant attempts by NAMBLA to advocate for changing the age of consent laws, and claim that the self-definition of advocacy group is a misleading attempt by NAMBLA to cover itself with a political purpose. Melzer was removed as a school teacher, but no criminal charges were filed in connection with the matter. The case went as far as the federal appeals court, which affirmed the dismissal of Melzer in 2003.
 * In 2005, a NAMBLA member and self-professed pedophile, Kevin Brown, called into Rick Roberts' radio show on KFMB in response to a $1000 "bounty" Roberts had placed on the heads of NAMBLA members. Brown said that he felt calling into the show to "[take a] stand on behalf of the physical safety of NAMBLA members" was a moral imperative, and stated that he would use the $1000 to finance a play he was writing which sympathetically depicted romance between adults and children. After hearing a child in the background, Roberts convinced Brown to clarify that he was a father. A little over one week and five days later, child protective services seized his 2-year-old son, citing an expired conviction for possession of child pornography and his alleged "support [of] the sexual exploitation of minor children." Brown also lost his job and was divorced by his wife. He did not receive the $1000, and is currently seeking to have his child returned to him using legal remedies.

I've removed the above as they seem to violate WP:Coatrack and possibly WP:BLP. Anyone want to work through them to see what encyclopedic content is possible and sourcible? -- Banj e b oi   19:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)