Sex, Lies and Society III: Nambla

 “NAMBLA Walks With Me.”

Allen Ginsberg, poet


The causes of paedophilia cannot be ignored and further demonised if we are to understand and take preventative measures within society. Similarly, we cannot go to the other extreme and claim paedophiles have human rights and liberties equal to the needs of the child. The child does not stalk the adult. There is agreement that there is indeed a difference between those who believe they “love”  children, wishing to protect them, nurture them while also indulging their sexual whims (paedophiles-pathological narcissists) and those that crave victims to feel powerful, engender fear, sexual gratification, domination and to inflict torture and sometimes death (child rapists/sexual psychopaths) – the province of those ensconced in most of Establishment institutions.

Above all, biological and emotional differences between a man and a boy, a man and a girl and a woman and a boy are present for a reason, as any person of barely average intelligence can grasp. Strangely, this appears to be a minor point for those intent on sexual relations with the young. The paralogistical term of “intergenerational relationships” has been coined for a number of years and is actively promoted by one of many, though particularly vocal, North American Man/Boy Love Association or NAMBLA whose goal is:

“… to end the extreme oppression of men and boys in mutually consensual relationships by building understanding and support for such relationships; educating the general public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love; cooperating with lesbian, gay, feminist, and other liberation movements; supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression.”

These highly manipulative concepts sit together with ideas of “ageism” rather than abuse, and which advocate freedom for all to choose what they do with their bodies. This can be viewed as a classic manoeuvre for pederasts, paedophiles and psychopaths to do as they please. The website is ridden with statements which say more about the need to justify sexual expression with teenagers and boys than it does about the freedom to choose. There is little evidence of love, rather an adult projection of physical desire that happily subsumes the child’s developmental stages into a body-centric and selfish consummation of self-love.

In other words, all that can be seen is a great deal of narcissistic out-pouring under the banner of liberalism and hedonistic freedom in order to justify the sexual expression of the adult towards the underage.

Benevolent and loving relationships are possible but there are reasons why a 40 year old man and a 14 year old may not have much in common in terms of experience, intellectual capacity and emotional maturity. There are psycho-biological and developmental reasons why a child must be allowed to grow into adulthood and to mature as a personality without the premature “flow” and undue stimulation of sex hormones. If there was real love would such a clamouring for sexual rights be an issue? Is this not evidence of the sexual act as paramount for the adult and taking precedence over the natural developmental stages of the child?

The age of the participants and the age of consent is still controversial. A 20 year-old man and a 16 year old for example is border line, but this is clearly a different case to the 35 year old and 12 year old, 40 to 10, 7 to 20. The fact that this issue has to be explained is disturbing in itself and is best encapsulated by a segment of text from South Park, the controversial T.V. animation series which satirised NAMBLA several years ago:

NAMBLA leader:  I’ve learned something today – our forefathers came to this country because they believed in an idea, an idea called freedom. They wanted to live in a place where groups couldn’t be prosecuted for their beliefs, where a person can live the way he chooses to live. You see us as being perverted because we’re different from you. People are afraid of us, because they don’t understand. And sometimes, it’s easier to persecute than to understand.

Kyle:  Dude … you have sex with children.nambla

NAMBLA leader:  We are human. Most of us didn’t even choose to be attracted to young boys, we were born that way. And if you can’t understand that, well, then I guess you’ll just have to put us away.

Kyle:  Dude … you have sex … with children.

Stan:  Yeah… you know, we believe in equality for everybody and tolerance and all that gay stuff, but … dude … F— you. [1]

NAMBLA are correct in that the law certainly needs to be far less ambiguous in determining what constitutes “abuse” and by whom. If an eighteen year-old “man” is genuinely in love with a 15 fifteen year old girl or boy, is this a crime punishable by imprisonment? Is this man to be placed on the sex offender register and sent to the State penitentiary along with violent child rapists? The case by case subtleties are not deemed necessary in our present appreciation of morals and values.

There are common sense limitations that are not seen as relevant by such associations as NAMBLA who reduce child abuse down to that of physical violence. Although of a different category that is important to note, perhaps even less harmful than violent and aggressive rape, the seduction of a child through “gentle” means is merely another form of coercion and will thus have effects and implications. It is a distortion of the complex mind ecology of the young. Studies that suggest sexual experience with children and adults can in the short term leave no negative effects is one example of this new move to see paedophilia as just another deviancy that should be allowed freedom of expression. [2]

Granted, though definitive data is “inconsistent” this does not mean that we should automatically assume that the assurances of paedophile advocates that child-sex is without harm. In earlier decades, trauma and obvious negative effects were not found. The overreaction and hysterical responses of parents was thought to be the cause in the minds of many, (who also frequently happened to be Kinsey followers). Consensual sex was found to be positive while non-consensual sex the opposite, with clear delineations of negative fallout in the child’s psyche. Either way, this does not preclude manipulation on the part of the adult to obtain what he wishes, regardless of the outcome.

Dr. David Finkelhor Director of the Crimes against Children Research Centre shows that there are studies which do indeed indicate delayed negative effects surfacing in adulthood. He explains it in the following way:

… A process in which a child’s sexuality (including sexual feelings and sexual attitudes) is shaped in a developmentally and interpersonally dysfunctional fashion as a result of the sexual abuse… Traumatic sexualisation can occur when a child is repeatedly rewarded by an offender for sexual behavior that is inappropriate to his or her level of development. It occurs through the exchange of affection, attention, privileges, and gifts for sexual behavior that a child learns sexual behavior as a strategy for manipulating others to get his or her other developmentally appropriate needs met. It occurs when certain parts of a child’s anatomy are fetishized and given distorted importance and meaning. It occurs through the misconceptions and confusion about sexual behavior and sexual morality that are transmitted to the child from the offender… Children who have been traumatically sexualized emerge from their experiences with inappropriate repertories of sexual behaviors, with confusions and misconceptions about their sexual self-concepts, and with unusual emotional associations to sexual activities.” [3]

Children, by definition are not consenting adults. Therefore, to suggest that sexual stimulation and expression of an erotic love to satisfy the adult’s desires, thus denying the child’s right to be a child, is still closer to a crime than anything else. Clearly, where cases of pederasty and genuine love may exist, and if there is indeed a loving relationship between an adult, then this love surely puts the other before one’s own needs. Until such time as the child can physically, mentally and emotionally match the adult’s, then this true love may be tested beyond the realm of the bio-chemical powers, where a strictly body-centric, adult preoccupation is not to be enforced upon the child, whatever the reciprocity.

To allow the free and natural sexual expression of children to occur in a supportive society, where sex is not reduced down to a product or a means to manipulate others seems to be a long way in the future. To encourage children to be sexually active when emotions are still forming and within the context of society as it stands, will more often than not, set up children for a big fall. Conversely, to be sexually repressive and guilty about their sensuality in such an ambivalent and fear-based culture is to exploit a natural curiosity about the senses and to deform the child’s spontaneous view into the wishes and desires of adults.

The idea of morals and ethics regarding the development of the child’s emotions is something that social science would like to place in a statistical test-tube as though data exists in a vacuum. Though apparently unfashionable in academic liberalism, a moral imperative does have a vital part to play in the development of child sexuality as Dr. Finkelhor explains:

“Ultimately, I do continue to believe that the prohibition on adult-child sexual contact is primarily a moral issue. While empirical findings have some relevance they are not the final arbiter. Some types of social relationships violate deeply held values and principles in our culture about equality and self-determination. Sex between adults and children is one of them. Evidence that certain children have positive experiences does not challenge these values, which have deep roots in our worldview.” [4]

It is also true that pre-school children are not pure white tablets of innocence, much as some would like to believe. They arrive with certain predispositions and a potent curiosity to learn and discover. They are walking sponges soaking up the tiniest emotional nuance. In this way perhaps, they do embody innocence. How far that is allowed to ferment and develop depends on adults as guardians and protectors who can facilitate a healthy curiosity about their sensuality rather than their sexuality at this developmental stage. The latter understanding naturally follows at a later juncture which requires the development of the correct set of emotional tools. These can only come from a guided understanding of the sensual world of which they are surely a part and without fear of being used and abused under cover of cross gender “rights” and “romance.”

NAMBLA not only seeks paedophile and pederast rights to effectively normalise pathology but they do this by infiltrating gay rights and setting themselves up as those fighting for sexual emancipation and civil liberties. Ponerised societies suggest that such movements stem not from a spiritual imperative for sexual freedom but to attempt to legitimize and civilise the indefensible. The help of well-meaning but sadly misguided academics misunderstand the very idea of human rights which is not about offering a panacea for sexual expression that may damage children in the process.

 


Notes

[1] From the animated T.V. series “South Park” quoted from ‘NAMBLA is … real?’ By Colin Megill, March 23 2005, dailycampus.com, University of Connecticut.
[2] ‘Psychological Correlates of Male Child and Adolescent Sexual Experiences with Adults: A Review of the Nonclinical Literature’ Robert Bauserman, Ph.D. and Bruce Rind, Ph.D Archives of Sexual behavior, 26-2, 1997, Psychology Department, 1012 East Hall, University of  Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48100.
[3] A Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse By David Finkelhor, Sage Publication: Newbury Park, 1986.
[4] p.45; Quoted from Paedophiles and Sexual Offences against Children by Dennis Howitt, Loughborough University, UK, Published by John Wiley & Sons, 1995.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s