Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

Re: NAMBLA

A rather strange 'manifesto'... written by men (not boys) to promote and somehow encourage sexual relationships between men and boys.

What happens when 'boy' reaches the age when he is no longer considered 'boy'? Does 'boy' get rejected by his 'man lover'... cast aside like refuse, no longer a viable instrument of sex?

This is very problematic for me... on many levels of course, but on this one question it tells me that there is a shortcoming to those that encourage this behavior - sex is not the epitome of love. Sex is a basic instinct that love may blossom from and not a be-all and end-all.

I think their declaration shows how limited their insight is into love. Surely those that so-call 'love' young boys have a very short-sighted view of what most folks call love. Love in its fullness does not end when youth ends. It's clear to me that it is not 'pure love' but 'love of sex with boys' going on here... pretty sad from where I sit. Is this not a 'retardation of emotions' at work within the proponents of NAMBLA..?

enough.

Zlatko said

Because I feel that the argument which has formed or half-formed here represents the kind of fearlessness that StudioEight evinces at its best, I can't just let this issue drop

First, I'd like to address this. I'm not sure exactly what you meant, Zlatko, but I need to express that the views of the columnists or anybody else who posts their material at Studio Eight, do not necessarily represent the views of this internet channel.

I was happy that the link to the NAMBLA site didn't work. Had it worked and actually taken viewers to that site, I would have removed it. Why? Because when someone registers at Studio Eight, they have to click link to agree to be at least 13 years old. That means that 13-year-olds could be posting here. And I don't think it's responsible to expose 13-year-olds to certain websites. Call me a censor if you'd like.

When I found out that the NAMBLA organization existed several years ago, I became physically ill. I felt nauseous. It's enough to make a person lose her lunch.

We discussed on Litkicks once the relationship between the art and the artist, whether it's possible to separate the two. I am not like you, Zlatko. I cannot separate them.

I never knew Ginsberg was a member of NAMBLA until you mentioned it on this thread. But, I have never been able to read Ginsberg once I knew of his sicko sexual preferences. He was nothing more than a pedophile. I don't care how brilliant his work may be, it's not work I want to read because some of his lines often refer to his desires for young boys and having sex acts with them. This material is not material I choose to read.

If I truly felt Lightning Rod was expressing Michael Jackson's right to sleep with and fondle young boys, I would stop reading him, too, and he would no longer be a columnist here.

I know that's not what he's saying. He's simply stating that, in his opinion, the media frenzy over the Jackson trial is out of control and he feels there is more important news...... All this while he adds to the media frenzy. *sigh*

Just wanted to stop by and again express my disgust about grown men who think it's OK to have sex with children.

This type of thing MUST be stopped, and in MY opinion, the more press the Jackson case gets, the more dynamic the media frenzy, the better.

Why? Because whether he is guilty or innocent, this is a tragically vital issue which people need to address and discuss.

Dear Doreen:


I rarely quote other members who post because I wish to avoid the game of refutation by textual analysis, and that is not what I am attempting here.

I seek only clarification of my intent in using the words I did. I chose to say that discussion of matters such as pedophilia, the morality of the artist, and the possible connection between the two is just the sort of theme that Studio Eight, with its reverence for many points of view, is able to permit.

My own view of pedophilia is stated explictly on the other half of this bifurcated thread.

Your choice of whether or not to permit a link I include in any message is, of course, strictly your own.

I do not see the suppression of any link or phrase or theme as censorship-- merely the lawful exercise of your prerogative as the site owner.

But now, I shall quote your post before this one:

" . . .this is a tragically vital issue which people need to address and discuss . . ." ( meaning the theme of love between men and boys, and pedophila in general, I take it?)

Therefore, I return to my phrase, and add a bit,

(I feel that a free and open discussion of pedophilia and the artist)
" represents the kind of fearlessness that StudioEight evinces at its best . . ." and therefore I added the comments about Polanski, Ginsberg and NAMBLA.

Certainly I did not mean to offend readers who might misconstrue what I post as " represent (ing) the views of this internet channel . . "

By "fearlessness" I meant simply to characterize StudioEight as a discussion forum focused on the arts which tolerates all forms of discussion and all themes pertinent to the artist. Because Allen Ginsberg and Roman Polanski are major twentieth-century artists, I felt their behavior and attitudes were pertinent to bring into this discussion. In that sense, the moral or immoral behavior of any artist is part of his or her overall makeup.

My question simply was : should we regard the moral behavior of the artist as pertinent to that person's art?

You have answered , in a way, where Ginsberg is concerned, by stating that he was " . . .nothing more than a pedophile . . ."

In fact, you have responded ( as have others on this thread) with just the sort of discussion I was hoping to prompt.


Zlatko

Was Allen Ginsberg still a memeber of NAMBLA right up until the end????
_________________
Aging Forum

Certainly I did not mean to offend readers who might misconstrue what I post as " represent (ing) the views of this internet channel . . "

Thanks for your reply, Zlatko. I appreciate your clarification but what I meant was the posts by the columnists, (in this case, Lightning Rod) do not necessarily represent the views of this website.

As I stated, personally, I can't separate the artist's lifestyle from the art. I don't know how people do that.

The topic is vital, yes, because pedophilia must be stopped. Children should not be sexually violated! It is a crime... as it should be.... and the more press Jackson's case gets, the better, whether he is, in fact, guilty or not.

Yes, we do like to see many topics discussed here, openly. Thank you! I do, however, have to keep some legalities in mind.

There is an internet organization called COPPA which has rules about age limitations for viewing certain material. So, for instance, I cannot allow porn photos (I wouldn't allow them anyway, though.) The other day, a new member posted a graphic porn photo of a group sex scene. I can't waste time with explanation when it comes to things like this. I saw the image and deleted it immediately, then moved the post to the Dumpster. Plus I replied to the thread, told the member graphic porn photos will not be aired on this site and let him know that if he posts another one, his membership will be deleted.

Openly discussing many topics is wonderful, but there are certain things we can't permit because 13-year-olds are permitted to be here -- such as pornography, links to porn sites, etc..... and in this case, I really didn't want a link to NAMBLA on the site. But the link didn't work, as I said. I'm happy you understand. I knew you would.

I wish I knew how to merge two threads together. If I did, I would combine the other thread in the Culture forum with this one. But I have no clue how to do it.

Thanks for your participation on this thread! Your insights and comments have been central to this topic.

As usual, Doreen:

You show a lot of good sense and restraint in your reply.

The only reason I explained my motives in the post was your use of the phrase "anybody else" to widen the definition beyond "columnists", such as LR.

The NAMBLA site is actually rather tame. I read all the content available there and none of it shows any photo, drawing or other graphic depicting any sex act of any sort. It does contain articles by both men and women advocating a re-assessment of the legal age for sexual activity between adults and minors. It presents this point of view under the umbrella of "civil rights" and "human liberation." It also refers to the point of view dominating the site as "revolutionary."

The COPPA ( what a perfect acronymn-- that's not "gangsta" talk is it? --just kidding) organization sounds interesting. I wonder what the reaction of such an organization might be to advocating sex between animals and humans as viewing material for thirteen-year-olds?

I ask such questions because of a reply I heard on a radio interview with Michael Caine a few years back. Caine was asked why the British permitted nudity in tv broadcasts-- on series programs, in movies and commercials. Why, the interviewer asked, did the Brits let sex into the home in this way?

Caine's witty reply was, "Because that's where it BELONGS-- in the home!" He went on to explain that, in his view, the family ought to be the primary regulator of a child's viewing, and that becoming accustomed to what was acceptable and not acceptable ought to be part of training a child's awakening moral sense. That, he felt, was best accomplished in the home.

In the US, anything having to do with children gets more attention than anything else. Witness the now long forgotten Elian Gonzalez case.

We are willing to blow other, "foreign" children to kingdom come, entirely rip away their social fabric and sense of security, so vital to growing up sane, and kill their parents before the frightened child's very eyes.

Yet, even hint at a whiff of child molestation, yet alone child rape in the US, and you have everyone more virulently enraged than a case of murder one.

The McMartin Preschool scandal and media feeding frenzy is a good example.

This Internet site gives a good deal of background on the case:


http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_mcmar.htm


The McMartin Preschool case prompted the longest trial in US history, and the most costly, at 15 million dollars. No indicted persons were found guilty as a result of the trial. But the lives of many adults and children were significantly affected.

While the prosecution of the case may have been well-intentioned, the techniques used to investigate the case's allegations and to question witnesses were naive and flawed at the deepest level.

But the revelation that over 95 percent of the public surveyed repeatedly before, during and after the case( in which all defendants were acquitted ) believed that those accused were guilty is revealing.

I bring up these matters, not to draw comparisons to Jackson, Polanski, or Ginsberg.

The actions and memberships and advocacies of these three are a separate matter. I mention the McMartin case merely to show what can happen when the mass media set about "raising the consciousness" of vast hosts of the credulous.

Pedophilia is wrong, in my view, and I included a link giving information on laws governing the legal age for sexual activity by state in one of my posts.

But it is possible to discuss pedophilia when it is the subject of, or touches on the lives of artists.

Vladimir Nabokov couldn't get "Lolita" published in the US in 1955, having to resort to a European press. Stanley Kubrick's 1962 film of Nabokov's novel dances around the edges of the pedophilic heart of the story's theme. Even Adrian Lyne's late nineties version couldn't get distributed in the US at first, and finally came out via HBO.

Lyne's film does depict the relationship between a twelve-year-old girl and a man in his forties, however, unlike James Mason and Sue Lyon's ( at age 16) earlier very restrained performance.

Lyne has also managed to capture the "demonic and haunted" tone of the work quite well.

I concur with the verdict of Nabokov's son Dmitri, brilliant and imperious watchdog of his father's work:

"a brilliant version of the novel for the screen."

But, as a society, we apparently haven't changed a great deal in fifty years in our view of Nabokov's "pedophilic-themed" work.

Here's an interesting web site and discussion of the three works, the novel and the two films of "Lolita":

http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/ ... olita.html




Zlatko

Zlatko - thank you for your post! As always, you have shared a lot of informative stuff.

Yeah, the COPPA name is pretty humorous, really. The acronym stands for "Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998." You can probably find more info about it than you care to know by doing a google search.

I just did a search and I was actually in error here. The reason this software provides a "13-year-old or older" click in order to register is because COPPA compliancy has to do with UNDER 13-years-old.

Still, I feel a certain responsibility as the webmaster of this site to make sure the site doesn't contain anything which I wouldn't want MY 13-year-old to have access to. That's just the mother in me, I guess. I do have a child who will be 13 in November. Her internet time is coming soon. I feel a little protective of OUR children.... meaning, the world's children.

I'd really like to change the registration to read 18 years or older. I'm going to look into how to do that.

Again, thanks for your thoroughly informative post.

I'm sort of baffled about the link to the NAMBLA site. You accessed it but the link doesn't work for me. I get a 404 message or some other error message. If it's a good link, let me know because I really would like to disable it.

Dear Doreen:


I just edited my post with the NAMBLA link in it and zapped the link. Look for yourself. It's nice that your software permits such edits. Some sites give you an error message and say you have to edit within half an hour or so or no dice.

If you'd like to remove the "Who We Are" statement I pasted in, or any other references to NAMBLA in that post, please feel perfectly free to do so.


Thanks for your reply above. The McMartin Case does make interesting reading.

I don't really feel we've changed much as a society since 1986-- I cite the "election" of Arnold as California Governor to show we've just gotten a little more looney.

Or for that matter, the election of DUBCO!



--Z

The entire world is much loonier now.
That's what I think, anyhow.

That wasn't intended to be a lousy poem... just happened to rhyme inadvertently.

thanks, Zlatko!

Hi all,

Doreen:

"When I found out that the NAMBLA organization existed several years ago, I became physically ill. I felt nauseous. It's enough to make a person lose her lunch. "

Yeah me too, I was taken back, just as I was the other day when I read that Ginsberg was a member(whole new interpretation now of his work for me..kinda creeps me out now)...however, I'm glad they have an organization that is out in the open, makes it easier to track and target predators. It used to be hidden and hush hush, whispered and hard to crack down on, now foolishly, they are trying to legalize man sex with pre-pubescent boys.... Same with the introduction of the internet, pedophiles seem to use it a lot, isn't a week goes by you don't here of some bust largely thanks to tracking them through the internet or a conviction based upon what was found on their hard drives...kinda a double edged sword...the net allows them to pass on kiddy porn material faster and more widespread, however, as a society we are now able to gauge the problem a little more accurately and have another tool in which to find these people and help put hinder sexual abuse against children...unfortunately, like most ills in society, I don't think it will ever totally be stopped.

"Openly discussing many topics is wonderful, but there are certain things we can't permit because 13-year-olds are permitted to be here -- such as pornography, links to porn sites, etc..... and in this case, I really didn't want a link to NAMBLA on the site. But the link didn't work, as I said. I'm happy you understand. I knew you would. "

I see your point, however in my opinion, there is very little difference between discussing NAMBLA openly and posting a link within a discussion about NAMBLA....its not like a thirteen year old can't find a link on their own to the website after reading about it, nor is it like the site is an advocate for the group. But hopefully any young person who comes across the NAMBLA site or discussions about NAMBLA, will have the sense to talk to their parents or someone trusted who can explain why the shit they're trying to do is soooo very very wrong.

Anyways, just thought I'd add a couple little remarks.