Jump to content

Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by El C (talk | contribs) at 13:51, 15 July 2008 (No page is owned. Remove LGBT — figure it out here first, then return here with a polished formula. All this wavering reflects poorly on Wikipedia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Unsourced material, red links, and see also section

I removed some red links that didn't really seem like they would have their own article. I also removed an unsourced paragraph that was just added and removed 2 entries in the see also section that were already linked above. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that paragraph, Tom. I did several Google searches for both names, and came up zilch. Surprises me that the paragraph was allowed to stand so long with so many eyes watching the article. Good job. Jeffpw (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. --Tom (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

makes no sense

This makes no sense - if they are advocating to lower the legal age of consent, then it does not make sense that they advocate for adult male - under-age sex, it would not be underage if it were legal. Please make this article logical. I don't agree with the politics, but don't use this space to confuse the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.176.4 (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The protection date is expired

Somebody remove protection, the date on which it was supposed to be removed has already passed. 71.76.153.217 (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err...this article is not protected at all, though from the amount of vandalism it attracts, it might not be a bad idea <off to go ask for protection...> Jeffpw (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Include under Pedophilia category

Pedophilia seems like an appropriate category for this article. The page wont allow edits so I can't add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.6.153 (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV in the intro paragraph

Linking here from ACLU, I found POV in the intro paragraph. Saying NAMBLA takes a given position "...in spite of the fact that such relationships are seen as child sexual abuse..." is judgmental. I changed this to "Under current US law, such relationships are seen..." Chester320 (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible paragraph under Criminal Cases

The first paragraph under Criminal Cases ("A landmark case...") is a breathless, lurid account. Completely inappropriate and unsourced to boot. Removed it. I've moved it here for reinstatement if somebody wants to clean it up instead. Chester320 (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced, defamatory text deleted

This was a rather disgusting thing for us all to have missed. It was inserted on the 20th of last month by an IP editor. BLP violation, names an alledged child molestation victim, libelous, unsourced, ... having this in the article for that time was just horrible. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged this page for WP:BLP as BLP issues are a regular feature of this article. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text moved to talk

I find this all overly detailed and completely off-topic. NAMBLA was founded in 1978--nothing that happened in 1977 was a response to NAMBLA. The order of events is wrong--NAMBLA formed in response to Anita Bryant et al, chronologiaclly. If anything, NAMBLA's formation in 1978 in the political climate of the time is evidence of NAMBLA's total lack of facility with public relations/cultural tone deafness. The backstory re other groups tmi; not directly relevant. (Maybe some of it could be included, if summarized and the sources make a correlation between NAMBLA/other groups).-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"Immediately following the Stonewall riots, some U.S. and Canadian gay rights organizations advocated the abolition of age-of-consent laws, believing that gay liberation for minors implied the permission to engage in sexual relationships.[1] The Gay Activists Alliance (GAA), a group which splintered from the Gay Liberation Front in December of 1969, opposed age-of-consent laws and hosted a forum on the topic in 1976. In 1972 Chicago's Gay Activists Alliance and New York's Gay Activists Alliance jointly sponsored a conference that brought together gay rights activists from eighty-five different gay rights organizations and eighteen states.[2] At the conference these approximately 200 activists coalesced to form the National Coalition of Gay Organizations, and drafted and passed a "Gay Rights Platform" which called for the "repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent." The Canadian Lesbian and Gay Rights Coalition, also known as the National Gay Rights Coalition (NGRC), supported eliminating age-of-consent laws, as did Gay Alliance Toward Equality (GATE).[3]

The relative acceptance or indifference to opposition of the age-of-consent began to change at the same time as accusations that gays were child pornographers and child molesters became common. Only weeks apart in 1977 both Judianne Densen-Gerber, founder of the New York drug rehabilitation center Odyssey House, and former beauty queen Anita Bryant launched separate campaigns targeting gays. Densen-Gerber alleged that gays produced and sold child pornography on a massive scale, while Anita Bryant's "Save Our Children" campaign sought to portray all gays as child molesters. "The recruitment of our children," Bryant argued, "is absolutely necessary for the survival and growth of homosexuality." Bryant's campaign focusing on the alleged "recruitment" of boys by gay men succeeded in overturning a law that had protected civil rights for gays in Dade County, Florida. As a result, the age-of-consent issue became a hotly debated topic within the gay community, and disputes over the age of consent issue within and between gay rights groups — many of which directly or indirectly involved NAMBLA — began to occur on an increasingly frequent basis."

I've still yet to find a single source saying that the supposed NAMBLA logo depicted here is used by, or even originated from, that organization. A citation was added that linked to the home page of a fathers' rights organization, with nothing anywhere about NAMBLA. As best I can tell, the supposed logo originated on The Daily Show. Someone give a citation or let's take it down. --MQDuck 03:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found what is claimed to be a transcript of a Daily Show episode. It includes this:

>> Jon: THE NORTH AMERICAN MAN-BOY LOVE ASSOCIATION, OR NAMBLA.

I KNEW I'D GET IT RIGHT AT SOME POINT.

HOW MANY POINTS DOWN IN THE FOURTH QUARTER DO YOU HAVE TO BE BEFORE YOU

THROW THE "HAIL NAMBLA"?

THAT LOGO.

>> I WANT TO POINT THIS OUT. THAT IS NOT THE ACTUAL NAMBLA LOGO.

THE ACTUAL NAMBLA ORGANIZATION HAS A HARD TIME FINDING GRAPHIC DESIGN

--MQDuck 03:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't seriously proposing the Daily Show is a reliablesource? I don't know where the logo can be found now, but when I first edited this article several years ago the website was still up and it had the logo. Maybe it's still available in the Internet Archive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The logo is still on a few of their pages: http://www.nambla.org/readings.htm --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"You aren't seriously proposing the Daily Show is a reliablesource?" No, but I had a hunch that was created *by* that show. Anyway, case closed. --MQDuck 05:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion into category Modern pederasty? - request for comments

I am not an expert on Nambla, but I was under the impression that nambla was a pedophilia ("boylove" as i think they call themselves) organization wheras pederasty refers to a type relationship (sexual or non-sexual) between adolescent/post-puberty males and grown males. If nambla was more of an ephebophilia group I could see the connection here, but it seems a stretch to have a self-described boylove group into a pederasty category. --User0529 (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having no knowledge of the organisation, i can only speak generally. But this cat seems appropriate. The splitting of pedophilia into many different types confuses the issue to non-"experts". Historically pederasty has included boys of an age that today would be considered pedophilic. Also some boys go through puberty at 10 years, sex with one would be in both cats, no?Yobmod (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that pre-puberty the boys stayed with their mother or birth family, and didn't pair off into a pederastic relationship until (or after) they hit puberty. Non-experts (as you referred) branding anything under the age of 18 as pedophilia only confuses the issue and history, leading to people like (former US congressman) Mark Foley being called a pedophile for chasing 17-19 year old congressional pages (which is rediculous considering pedophilia actually means attraction to pre-pubescent children). --User0529 (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But this organisation is for "boylove", and i don't think they draw a strict line at puberty. an 11 year old boy is still a boy, but may be pubescent and sexually active. Hence the organisation is both pedophilic (with pre-pubescent) and pederastic (with pubescent).
Or do they have rules against sex with boys who are sexually developed and have started growing pubic hair etc?Yobmod (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to fuss and bother, but to include this article in the Pederasty (in my view), gives it a sense of respectability it does not warrant. Perhaps someone could ping Haiduc, and ask him to weigh in. He knows much more about the subject of Pederasty than most of us, and has done an excellent job of maintaining those articles. Jeffpw (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a note for Haiduc and generally defer to their take on these nuances and why they matter. Banjeboi 11:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffpw echoes my sentiments... if there were a pederasty community or activist group me thinks they might not want to have nambla lumped in with them. but like jeff said, i also am not going to fight over it. --User0529 (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This would seem to be fine. My hunch is those categories have lots of overlap anyway and many articles should correctly be listed in both. Banjeboi 10:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the NAMBLA people cross the line between the two categories (as well as a number of other lines), I have to agree with Yobmod that this organization is both pederastic and pedophilic. Thus it appears that it belongs in both categories. I have no objection to including it in "Modern pederasty," it is one of those unfortunate dead ends of the homosexuality spectrum that we have to document no matter how off the wall it may be. Haiduc (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removed RFC template----- may not agree, but am in a small minority here, deferring to Haiduc's judgement. --User0529 (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT tag (redux)

Squeakbox and other interested editors, editors have discussed inclusion of the LGBT tag before on this page; I would speculate that the reason there is even an "Explanation" line available as part of the WikiProject tag is due to this article (I couldn't find the discussion on it - tough to search the archives).
Prior and active discussions of the LGBT tag can be found at:

Related discussions are found in

The reason it clearly falls under Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) studies is due to the male/male sexual relationships inherent in NAMBLA. ZueJay (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the tag Whether anyone likes it or not NAMBLA has been a part of LGBT history if for no other reason the constant rejecting of their inclusion in pride parades, events, etc as well as those who oppose LGBT rights using NAMBLA as a wedge issue. The LGBT project tag simply states this article is within our scope. Banjeboi 22:57, 7 July 2008
Male/male relations is simply an inadequate explanation of NAMBLA, its like calling pedophiles who abuse young girls heterosexuals, I'll refactor. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the original tag. While imperfect, at least it stopped this silly fight from cropping up on a weekly basis. Jeffpw (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, do not revert war on the talk page. Jeffpw, you need to demonstrate far better that there's consensus for this rather polemical disclaimer (I looked at the link you provided, and a few people objected to it). I want to see that "it would be hypocritical" supported by many members —and nonmembers (they, too, can voice their opinion)— of the wikiproject, on the wikiproject's discussion, not here. El_C 13:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the current version of the tag, El C. It has been generally decided on the LGBT talk page that the tag sgiould stay. Squeak has taken it upon himself to remove it without discussion.
  1. ^ Warner, Tom. Never Going Back. (Toronto: University of Toronto, 2002), 120.
  2. ^ Armstrong, Elizabeth A. Forging Gay Identities. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2002), 100.
  3. ^ Smith, Miriam Catherine. Lesbian and Gay Rights in Canada. (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1999), 60-61.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association&oldid=225801912"