From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Stereotyping
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:30:16 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <193241@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov>, pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
> In article <11727@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> > In article <193135@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov>, pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
> >> 
> >> No, Clayton, we don't "all know" that homosexuals are "severely damaged
> >> people".  All you are proving is that *you* are a severely damaged person.
> >> Get help, Clayton; you need psychological counselling badly.
> > 
> > I can see the conversation: "I know a group of people march in 
> > parades where they wear the most outrageous outfits, things that 
> > offend the vast majority of Americans.  They spend much of their 
> > time complaining about the unfairness of a society that doesn't 
> > approve of these outrageous displays that they put on in public.
> 
> Let me see, by some counts, the number of homosexuals in the United States
> are between 3% and 13% of the population.  Let's assume a rather conserva-
> tive 5% which means more than 10 million homosexuals.
> 
> Now how many people march in these various parades?  Certainly, it can be
> numbered in the thousands, at most.  Are these people representative of the

The S. F. parade frequently has tens of thousands, and hundreds of
thousands of spectators.  I understand it is the single largest
tourist draw that S.F. gets.  I suppose they all came from the Bible
Belt to watch because it's just so much fun to see everything you
stand for denigrated. :-)

> 10 million?  Not by any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> By most accounts, the gay pride parades are not so much a formal parade as
> an excuse to party.  The behavior in those parades is certainly no worse
> than I've seen at some typical fraternity parties in college.

Naked men whipping each other in the middle of a public street?
People simulating sex, while naked?  Men masturbating?

> By the way, are you basing your opinion on the parades based on what shows
> up on the evening news?  If so, then you're getting a distorted picture of
> what takes place along the parade route.  Or didn't you realize that the
> photographers love to show the most outrageous things they can?

The news coverage is actually pretty mild, compared to films that I've
seen that were taken at the same parades, but that would get a TV
station closed by the FCC if they showed it.

> As far as outrageous outfits, when was the last time you went to a punk
> rock or rap concert?  What about the "rage" parties (did I get the term
> right)?  If you see the way people dress as signs of mental illness, then
> you have some learning to do.

You aren't reading very carefully, are you?  Go read it again, at
the top of the posting.  If you spend most of your energy trying 
to offend people, don't complain about unfairness if you get told,
"I don't want to associate with homosexuals."  If we accept your
claims about "normal" homosexuals, maybe the biggest enemy that
you have is the people marching in the gay parades, enhancing
stereotypes.  Stephen Fetchit comes immediately to mind.

> As to your last sentence, that's the most laughable.  Since you have never
> attended a gay pride parade, how the hell do you know what people are
> saying?  According to what I've heard, they spend very little time at these
> parades talking about straights.  Outside of the parade, they don't talk
> about lack of society's approval per se, but rather this lack of approval
> manifesting itself in discrimination, gay bashing, violence, and even given
> force of law.  Discussing these topics is far from evidence of mental illness.

Read soc.motss.  It's got lots of discussions of the unfairness of
straight society not accepting homosexuality.  Oh yes, they keep
saying that to not accept them is a form of stupidity or mental
retardation.

> > "They complain about our society stereotyping them as sadomasochists, 
> > effeminate cross-dressers, and child molesters, in spite of the 
> > gay parades in which groups like Dykes on Bikes participate, men 
> > dress up in drag, men dress up in S&M attire, and groups such as 
> > the North American Man-Boy Love Association are welcome.
> 
> And there are heterosexual sadomasochists, heterosexual cross-dressers,
> and heterosexual child molesters.  So?  Have you ever been to a biker
> convention?  Would you claim that these people are representative of
> all people who ride motorcycles?  Or are representative of all heterosexuals?
> As far as society stereotyping them, well isn't that exactly what you've
> done?

Straight society makes its disapproval of S&M, TVs, and heterosexual
child molesters very clear.  Gay society can't seem to do that,
for some reason.

> > "They complain about our society stereotyping them as sex obssessed,
> > but many of their discussions in a public forum revolve around 
> > pornographic movie 'stars' and casual sex with strangers.
> 
> Ah, I see, those few hundred people who post to soc.motss are necessarily
> representative of the 10 million homosexuals out there.  Thanks for clari-
> fying that.  Now tell me, if I read ca.politics, what does that tell me
> about California politics and political life?  Nothing?  Thank you.
> 
> And what about the large number of postings to soc.motss that don't discuss
> sex with strangers?  Or pornographic movies?  Have you read the .sex groups
> recently, Clayton?  Hasn't it occurred to you that soc.motss has a number
> of purposes?  There is no specific .sex group for homosexuals, so the people

Wrong.  There is such a specific group.

> who post to soc.motss use it for postings about sex, political issues,
> "coming out" issues, etc.  Why don't you try thinking for a change?

Why don't read the trash that appears in soc.motss for a month, and
then come back and talk about how normal that crowd is.

> > "They insist that they don't support molestation, and yet a large
> > fraction of the group will engage in semantic games to show that 
> > adults having sex with kids as young as eight isn't 'molestation' 
> > but 'love.'
> 
> Interestingly, in all of the public debates I've seen with you, *you* are
> the one who keeps tossing ages like "eight" and "three" around.  The others,
> including Jeff Dauber, talk about adolescents who have gone through puberty.
> You, of course, refuse to even discuss the issue in any rational manner,
> resorting instead to the "child molesters" straw man.

Here's a statement from Ry Schwark:

$ What do you think?  I mean you couldn't possible survive the guilt unless
$ everybody said it was ok, could you?  I mean I fornicated with my 
$ upstairs neighbor at 8, so like I *know* people can't possibly do it
$ when people have awful ideas about it.  I mean look at me, I'm a quivering
$ blob of EVIL SEX-GUILT! stop me before I sin again!
$ 
$ 
$ Ry Schwark

Here's a posting that ought to convey what they are after pretty
well:

$ In <62364@cup.portal.com> Minotaur@cup.portal.com (Frank - Swilling) writes:
$ 
$ >Don't bother posting any notices to anyone from NAMBLA today.
$ >They've all gone out to see that new movie, "Honey, I Blew the Kid".
$ 
$ Now that's a mouthful.  :-)
$ 
$ Yours in Liberation,
$ 
$ Roy
$ -- 
$ Roy Radow		roy@panix.com         ...rutgers!cmcl2!panix!roy
$ North American Man/Boy Love Association -For a packet containing a sample
$ Bulletin, publications list and membership information send $1.00 postage
$ to: NAMBLA Info,  Dept.RR,  PO Box 174,  Midtown Station,  NYC NY  10018.

And of course, memorable postings from Jeff Dauber about how 12
year olds should be open season, though he agrees that younger might
be a problem:

$ Fuck you.  Don't you fucking dare tell me that I am doing a disservice
$ to homosexuality.  Get the fuck out of my sex life.  I have not taken
$ any shit about what I have done sexually since I became sexually active
$ at age 12.  Just because you do not approve of children having sex
$ does not make it wrong.  Get over your hang-ups, I know of many
$ situations where boys were involved in man-boy relationships which
$ were wonderful.

> Paul Bartholomew          |   "The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
I can make myself popular on USENET again -- all I have to say is that I'm not 
disturbed by the support for North American Man-Boy Love Association in the 
homosexual community.  Being popular at a child's expense isn't worth it.
Newsgroups: ca.politics,soc.motss,ba.politics