Allen Ginsberg's support of paedophile organisation NAMBLA

MakeEmLaugh

I was wondering if anyone here has any problem reconciling their admiration for Allen Ginsberg's work with his support for NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association. For those who aren't aware, NAMBLA, according to its own website believes "that differences in age do not preclude mutual, loving interaction between persons. NAMBLA is strongly opposed to age-of-consent laws and all other restrictions which deny men and boys the full enjoyment of their bodies and control over their own lives."

Allen Ginsberg is arguably the most famous member and defender of NAMBLA. In 1994, he published an essay titled "Thoughts on NAMBLA", in which he described it "as a forum for reform of those laws on youthful sexuality which members deem oppressive".

degrassinoel

holy hell, that's a real organisation? I thought it was just a gag from southpark

pickarooney

I can't see any creative writing angle to this (unless you made it up )
Sending this to Humanities.

Peregrinus

I don't particularly admire Ginsburg's work, but assume that I did. Should I admire it less because he held moral views with which I disagree?

And does this hold for all work, or just for literary work? If a NAMBLA member/supporter is acarpenter, say, does his carpentry become less good when I learn that he is a NAMBLA member/supporter?

MakeEmLaugh

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't particularly admire Ginsburg's work, but assume that I did. Should I admire it less because he held moral views with which I disagree?

And does this hold for all work, or just for literary work? If a NAMBLA member/supporter is acarpenter, say, does his carpentry become less good when I learn that he is a NAMBLA member/supporter?

I don't think the carpentry analogy works, because art serves a different function than furniture. But, as for the moral views vs. creative output, should you admire his work less? I don't know.

Should we admire the music of Gary Glitter less because of his purchasing and funding of child pornography? Certainly, I know no one who would openly admit to being a Gary Glitter fan since Glitter's secrets emerged several years ago.

Oryx

I think its true that attitudes such as this, which the majority of people would find abhorrent, do taint every other aspect of the persons life. Anyone who has been even accused of sexual abuse or particularly paedophilia becomes a pariah. It removes the validity of everything they have ever done. Im not sure why this is, but I think its the human tendency to want to distance ourselves from such activities.

Personally, I dont want to read the words of someone who holds such views. Would I sit in a chair made by a paedophile carpenter? Yeah its just a chair, but I would have a problem, rightly or wrongly, with buying such a chair from him. That probably seems slightly irrational, but generally we dont like to see 'bad' people prosper, and for me thats where it comes from.

seenitall

Roman Polanski.

I think he is a bl00dy genius of filmmaking, a real giant of cinema, I could barely express in words how much I admire his work.

Yet I found myself, buying a ticket for "The Ghost", with a distinct sense of queasiness about it (which is, incidentally - or not?, an entirely appropriate sensation around watching a typical Polanski film ).

Procrastastudy

There is a difference between paedophilia, which is sex with pre-pubescent children and someone into teenagers, ephebophilia. I find the former much worse than the latter personally, especially when you consider that different countries in europe take a different view on consent laws with Ireland being one of the most conservative. That said I'm a product of my own upbringing - being English - 14 seems to young and 18 seems too high - with 16, the age of consent in the UK being what I consider normal.

Curly Judge

Procrastastudy wrote: »

There is a difference between paedophilia, which is sex with pre-pubescent children and someone into teenagers, ephebophilia. I find the former much worse than the latter personally, especially when you consider that different countries in europe take a different view on consent laws with Ireland being one of the most conservative. That said I'm a product of my own upbringing - being English - 14 seems to young and 18 seems too high - with 16, the age of consent in the UK being what I consider normal.

Didn't one of our Presidential hopefulls lobby for the age to be reduced also?
Or is my memory playing tricks?

MakeEmLaugh

Procrastastudy wrote: »

There is a difference between paedophilia, which is sex with pre-pubescent children and someone into teenagers, ephebophilia. I find the former much worse than the latter personally, especially when you consider that different countries in europe take a different view on consent laws with Ireland being one of the most conservative. That said I'm a product of my own upbringing - being English - 14 seems to young and 18 seems too high - with 16, the age of consent in the UK being what I consider normal.

The Corinthian

Procrastastudy wrote: »

There is a difference between paedophilia, which is sex with pre-pubescent children and someone into teenagers, ephebophilia.

Paedophilia is a taboo that you'll typically find in almost all societies historically - I think the only possible exceptions were either in one or two pre-Colombian south American civilizations and in slavery, in which case the slave was principally a 'thing' (res, as the Romans would have classified them, for example), rather than a child.

Ephebophilia is a more modern concept - an inevitable result of people living longer and generally 'maturing' later in life. In the antiquity boys essentially reached adulthood by around 14, girls at 12 - pretty much just after you became sexually mature. In a World where your average life expectancy (excluding infant mortality) was 40, you had to grow up fast. As a result, attitudes twoards Ephebophilia (which according to Wikipedia means 15 to 19 year olds) tend to be far less harsh.

What interests me about this debate though is firstly how these taboos tend to exist in the first place, and secondly how some of them change over history. Some examples of social taboos include:

Paedophilia. As noted above a major taboo in pretty much every society, with practically no exceptions.

Cannibalism. Almost all societies have this taboo, with some notable exceptions that are almost always highly regulated and tied to religious ritual.

Homosexuality. Like it or not, this has typically been a taboo in most societies throughout history. It has been tolerated, or accepted, in some, but often using the most curious logic. For example, Greek pederasty was largely misogynistic in nature (i.e. only love for a man was pure, due to the inferiority of women).

Incest. A classic and strong taboo, adhered to in pretty much every society. The only exceptions to this particular rule have been driven by dynastic considerations, such as close cousins marrying to keep the farm in the family or the habit for Egyptian royalty to marry close relatives. Note that what defines incest has also changed over the years; nowadays we see it as something between family members and close relatives, however in the past, marrying your brother's widow would also have fallen into this definition.

Returning to homosexuality though, I'm old enough to remember when 'homophobia' was still largely the norm, and am sometimes amazed at how our ethical outlook has changed drastically over the last 25 years. Remember, a century ago, homosexuality was seen in not a dissimilar manner to paedophilia - were a Victorian to travel to the present day, his or her reaction to our attitudes to homosexuality would ours were we to travel to a hypothetical point in the future where NAMBLA succeed in changing attitudes and laws, making pederasty and paedophilia socially acceptable.

This is of course not to suggest that homosexuality is bad, or that paedophilia should be seen as good; only as an observation of the mutable nature of morality, especially in the last century that has appeared to have finally been able to overturn some of our oldest post-Neolithic taboos.

In this regard, I can't see NAMBLA or paedophiles changing the World for a very, very long time; however, I wouldn't be surprised if something consensual incest ends up being legalized and acceptable within our lifetimes. So as crazy as one may think NAMBLA are, there is method in their madness.

Zombrex

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

I was wondering if anyone here has any problem reconciling their admiration for Allen Ginsberg's work with his support for NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association. For those who aren't aware, NAMBLA, according to its own website believes "that differences in age do not preclude mutual, loving interaction between persons. NAMBLA is strongly opposed to age-of-consent laws and all other restrictions which deny men and boys the full enjoyment of their bodies and control over their own lives."

Allen Ginsberg is arguably the most famous member and defender of NAMBLA. In 1994, he published an essay titled "Thoughts on NAMBLA", in which he described it "as a forum for reform of those laws on youthful sexuality which members deem oppressive".

I think it is generally better not to admire people too much, merely the works or ideas that they produce. The former just leads to disappointment, as no one is perfect, must people are flawed in one way or another (to one degree or another).

Martin Luther King and JFK both were serial adulterers. That is a trait I find disgusting, but I can still appreciate the ideas Dr. King had, or the vision Kennedy spoke of in his speeches. Separate the idea from the man.

(Not that i know much about Ginsberg)

Curly Judge

Agreed!
A man, [usually it is a man] can be a sexual fool and yet be in other ways "great".
Sex with under age minors would be a complete no no however.
I can't, for the life of me, think of anybody who was a paedophile and also "great"?
Tiberius is the only one that springs to mind.

The Corinthian

Curly Judge wrote: »

Tiberius is the only one that springs to mind.

Allegedly. AFAIK, the only source for that particular Tiberian proclivity is Suetonius, who - were he alive today - would be a former News of the World journalist.

Curly Judge

The Corinthian wrote: »

Allegedly. AFAIK, the only source for that particular Tiberian proclivity is Suetonius, who - were he alive today - would be a former News of the World journalist.

I think I read about it in one of Robert Graves' "Claudius" novels.
I seem to remember something about a little love nest specially built near Capri.
Perhaps his research was based on a Suetonius expose?
I don't know.

Eliot Rosewater

Curly Judge wrote: »

I think I read about it in one of Robert Graves' "Claudius" novels.
I seem to remember something about a little love nest specially built near Capri.
Perhaps his research was based on a Suetonius expose?
I don't know.

I read that Suetonius' collection The Twelve Caesars was the primary source for I, Claudius. I actually own copy of Suetonius' work translated by Robert Graves!

Curly Judge

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I read that Suetonius' collection The Twelve Caesars was the primary source for I, Claudius. I actually own copy of Suetonius' work translated by Robert Graves!

Aren't you a dreadful man to be reading that Roman Tabloid smut?:)

Denerick

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I read that Suetonius' collection The Twelve Caesars was the primary source for I, Claudius. I actually own copy of Suetonius' work translated by Robert Graves!

You should read Tacitus, he's the real deal. Not that Seutonic sensationalism.

I think people with dreadful opinions or compulsions offer a unique perspective. And after all, is the purpose of literature, filmography and art not to capture the totality of the human experience? (Warts and all?)

The Corinthian

Denerick wrote: »

You should read Tacitus, he's the real deal. Not that Seutonic sensationalism.

Indeed, who'd trust the word of a man who was playing hide the salami with his employer's wife and who's other great works include the "Lives of Famous Whores"...

Procrastastudy

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed, who'd trust the word of a man who was playing hide the salami with his employer's wife and who's other great works include the "Lives of Famous Whores"...

My kinda guy...

Blisterman

I've often thought this. Does an artistic work exist independently of the person who created it? Probably not. A mediocre painting would attract considerably more interest if it was painted by Leonardo da Vinci, even if it was regarded as his worst work. Much of the attraction of Christy Brown's work relies on the viewer knowing that he had cerebral palsy, and painted with his foot.

Human beings are inherently going to experience a work of art through the filter of what they know of the creator.

johnwest288

degrassinoel wrote: »

holy hell, that's a real organisation? I thought it was just a gag from southpark

LOL well my god Me too I actually ASSUMED this was made up by the south park lads.... I just googled it..... IT BLOODY EXISTS

In my WILDEST dreams I would never have thought such an organisation exists!:eek:

Otto Skadelig

Ginsberg joined Nambla as a 'defence of free speech' not as support for the cause. Ginsberg choose the most controversial of groups to defend as to show that freedom of speech should be granted to all groups and causes no matter how objectionable.

donaghs

johnwest288 wrote: »

LOL well my god Me too I actually ASSUMED this was made up by the south park lads.... I just googled it..... IT BLOODY EXISTS

In my WILDEST dreams I would never have thought such an organisation exists!:eek:

A similar group the Paedophile Information Exchange emerged in the UK in the 1970s. Bizarre, but true. Feel uncomfortable even googling it!

Zombrex

donaghs wrote: »

A similar group the Paedophile Information Exchange emerged in the UK in the 1970s. Bizarre, but true. Feel uncomfortable even googling it!

It is unfortunate that many civil rights movements get co-opted by extreme views who think "Well I'm told I shouldn't do this even though I want to, so I must be oppressed, and oppression is wrong"

Not to derail to much, but this came up recently on a Freethoughts Blog where a guest blogger was basically arguing that a HIV positive person (or anyone with an STI) has no moral responsibility to inform their sexual partner of this status since it can cause embarrassment and possibly lead to not getting sex, and this is bigotry against HIV positive people

The blogger was bizarrely adamant that the HIV positive person shouldn't lie, which demonstrate a rather spectacular case of missing the wood for the trees, or semantic musical chairs, since the implication of her own post is that most people will believe if someone was HIV positive and about to engage in sex with them they you would inform you before hand, and if they haven't this implies you aren't. In other words the blogger is focusing on lying being bad then implies that facilitating a recognised falsehood isn't, which makes any claim to concern about dishonesty ring very hollow.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/crommunist/2012/12/05/hivaids-stigma-canadian-edition-lite/

The Corinthian

Zombrex wrote: »

It is unfortunate that many civil rights movements get co-opted by extreme views who think "Well I'm told I shouldn't do this even though I want to, so I must be oppressed, and oppression is wrong"

The reasoning behind libertarianism is a bit more complex than that in reality, but that does not mean that it cannot lead us to scenarios that are not what we originally wanted or expected.

For example, in terms of sexuality, we are told that sexual relations between two consenting individuals are acceptable. The thing is that the consenting bit is open to interpretation.

For example, groups such as NAMBLA will argue that the age of consent is arbitrary, culturally driven, and that it should be lowered. There's some validity in this argument as can be easily demonstrated by the differing ages of consent in different countries - for example, having sex with a sixteen year old in Ireland is a criminal offence, in the UK it's perfectly legal - although it should be pointed out that sex with prepubescents is illegal everywhere (at least in the West). Yet this too could be considered cultural rather than rational given differences that have historically existed in some societies or the Romeo and Juliet laws that allow for sex between children of similar ages.

It's a problem with libertarianism ultimately, in that it is open to interpretation that can lead to unforeseen scenarios that may fly in the face of 'conventional wisdom'. Best example of this is consensual incest - two adult family members (father and daughter) choose to have a sexual relationship, for example. Instinctively this causes us to be repulsed, yet it easily meets the above criteria of sexual relations between two consenting individuals.

And before one brings up the question of the potential offspring of such unions - if that is a valid objection, then by the same logic we would have to ban people with genetic diseases from having sex too.

Not to derail to much, but this came up recently on a Freethoughts Blog where a guest blogger was basically arguing that a HIV positive person (or anyone with an STI) has no moral responsibility to inform their sexual partner of this status since it can cause embarrassment and possibly lead to not getting sex, and this is bigotry against HIV positive people

This is related to consent again, because in witholding such information the person with whom they are having sex cannot give proper consent (after all, there are plenty of people who are knowingly in relationships with HIV-positive partners out there). Yet this opens up other simelar scenarios, such as a man witholding the fact that he's married, which would otherwise cause a woman to refuse a sexual relationship - she too cannot give proper consent.

So is that also rape? If not should your HIV example be considered immoral? If so, because of the health risks, what level of risk makes a difference?

Procrastastudy

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is related to consent again, because in witholding such information the person with whom they are having sex cannot give proper consent (after all, there are plenty of people who are knowingly in relationships with HIV-positive partners out there). Yet this opens up other simelar scenarios, such as a man witholding the fact that he's married, which would otherwise cause a woman to refuse a sexual relationship - she too cannot give proper consent.

So is that also rape? If not should your HIV example be considered immoral? If so, because of the health risks, what level of risk makes a difference?

Interesting jurisprudence on this from various common law courts. While it's pretty settled that lying about an attribute can't vitiate consent to the actual act the Canadian Courts found lying about HIV status could - I'm not sure if they've retrenched from that position.

The Corinthian

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Interesting jurisprudence on this from various common law courts. While it's pretty settled that lying about an attribute can't vitiate consent to the actual act the Canadian Courts found lying about HIV status could - I'm not sure if they've retrenched from that position.

Well there's the question of personal responsibility too. Say a man tells a woman he's had a vasectomy (or a woman tells a man she's on the pill) where this is untrue, and would have been an important factor in consent to have sex. To a degree one needs to consider the personal responsibility of the one giving consent - we might feel sympathy for them for being tricked, but we'd also probably feel that they should not have been so naieve either.

Similarly, if a person is willing to have sex, especially unprotected, with someone they may only know a short time, taking only their word that they're HIV negative, an element of the responsibility does fall upon them also.

After all, part of being able to consent is the implicit presumption that we have the capacity to do so maturely.

donaghs

The Corinthian wrote: »

The reasoning behind libertarianism is a bit more complex than that in reality, but that does not mean that it cannot lead us to scenarios that are not what we originally wanted or expected.

I dont think the previous poster was simply saying extremists could take the view that if they feel oppressed then they assume that their lifesyle/point of view is legitimate. Which is clearly wrong in the case of paedophilia.

Also I think that in the 1960s re-assessment of social mores, some people thought that ALL previous mores were wrong, and up for re-assesment. e.g. in the musical Hair, a less well known song called "Sodomy" lists "pederasty" alongside more regular adult sexual practices as one of the forbidden things which people should enjoy.

The Corinthian wrote: »

For example, groups such as NAMBLA will argue that the age of consent is arbitrary, culturally driven, and that it should be lowered. There's some validity in this argument as can be easily demonstrated by the differing ages of consent in different countries - for example, having sex with a sixteen year old in Ireland is a criminal offence, in the UK it's perfectly legal - although it should be pointed out that sex with prepubescents is illegal everywhere (at least in the West). Yet this too could be considered cultural rather than rational given differences that have historically existed in some societies or the Romeo and Juliet laws that allow for sex between children of similar ages.

I dont really believe that NAMBLA are interested in "opening a discussion" on the age of consent and cultural practices. and lets be honest, they certainly werent setup to facilitate "romeo and juliet" romances between younger people. They were set up to promote sexual relations between adults and younger people.

Ginsberg was wrong to lend any support to this group.

The Corinthian

donaghs wrote: »

I dont think the previous poster was simply saying extremists could take the view that if they feel oppressed then they assume that their lifesyle/point of view is legitimate. Which is clearly wrong in the case of paedophilia.

First of all, that's not really what I argued. Their arguments, based upon modern libertarian principles, are what they use to legitimise their point of view. Once legitimised, they become 'oppressed' because they are forbidden to practice the lifestyle associated with this point of view.

Secondly, how is it "clearly wrong"? As we know, many things were "clearly wrong" in the past, yet are perfectly acceptable today, such as homosexuality. If one follows libertarian logic, then pederasty or even paedophilia are only "clearly wrong" based upon our definition of (who may) consent, and this is one that can be (and repeatedly has been) redefined.

I dont really believe that NAMBLA are interested in "opening a discussion" on the age of consent and cultural practices.

I never suggested they were. However, they are seeking to use the basic principles of libertarianism to rationalize or justify their position, and one unfortunately has to admit that these principles do allow for such rationalisation.