From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Guy at Sun who got fired for nasty pos
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:11:56 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <193194@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov>, pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
> In article <11702@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> > In article <192971@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov>, pdb059@ipl.jpl.nasa.gov (Paul Bartholomew) writes:
> >> 1.  The depth of your obsession.
> > 
> > The number of damaged people I know exceeds 20.  Some have partially
> > recovered from the damage, a great many seem like they aren't ever
> > going to recover.
> 
> I think your time would be better spent trying to persuade these people to
> seek professional help or going after the child molesters themselves instead
> of attacking people who have done nothing.  If I wasted my time attacking
> the heterosexual community because some women I know have been molested
> (which is true), I think everyone would agree that I'd be wasting my efforts.

If the heterosexual community was encouraging molestation, it wouldn't
be a waste of effort.

> >> 3.  The refusal to do the research on this subject that you have done on
> >> others that interest you (e.g., that posting on Nazi religion; other
> >> postings on the RKBA and early Constitutional history).
> > 
> > I have done some, and that research has been suggestive of a link
> > between child sexual abuse and adult homosexuality.  I don't claim
> > it's terribly impressive proof, but the more pieces of evidence
> > I've presented, the angrier the homosexual community has become.
> 
> I'd be fascinated to hear about the research you've done.  Please tell us
> which experts you have consulted and which articles/journals/books you've
> read so that we can establish your credentials for posting on these
> various subjects.  I'd also like something a little more concrete than
> "that research has been suggestive of a link between child sexual abuse
> and adult homosexuality".  For example, *what* is that link?  How many
> homosexuals were molested as children (compared to the number of hetero-
> sexuals who were molested as children)?  Were the majority of homosexuals
> molested as children?  Do the majority of children who were molested
> become homosexuals?  What about women who were molested as children?  Do
> they become lesbians?  You've talked about this "suggestion of a link"
> before but have never presented any evidence that backs it up.
> 
> What is your evidence that homosexuals are psychologically disturbed?  And
> that homosexuality is a form of mental illness?  What sources do you have
> for this conclusion?

I've already posted this several times over the last few months.
Not everyone has been pleased.  Others have agreed that there is
something worth looking into.

> >> 6,  The willingness to selectively interpret and edit other people's postings
> >> so that you can make outrageous claims.
> > 
> > Selectively interpret and edit?  No, in many cases I've simply let
> > the homosexual community shoot itself in the foot.
> 
> I've personally witnessed some of these interpretations that I'm referring to.
> Early in your crusade, some people actually tried to argue the issue of age
> of consent laws.  You invariably interpreted their postings as pro-NAMBLA
> and pro-child molestation and absolutely refused to argue the issue in a
> reasonable, rational manner.
> 
> I've also read your cross-postings from soc.motss and quite frankly, some
> of those postings simply didn't say what you said they did, and didn't
> support the conclusions you tried to draw from them.  As for selective editing,
> I'm thinking of things like Jeff Dauber's comment, "I support pedophiles,"
> which you quoted without giving us any of the context of the discussion.
> You claimed that this meant Jeff was in favor of NAMBLA, child molestation,
> and sex with 8 year olds.  When Jeff posted the full text of his posting,
> we found that it did not support your conclusions.

It certainly did mean that, and Jeff has since backed off of his
support for that.  But just so that you can see how poorly Bartholomew
is reading:

$ >======================================================================
$ 2) Your complaints are quite obviously rooted deeply in the
$ Amurrican belief that children are completely asexual until
$ the magic day they reach the arbitrary "Age of Consent" and
$ thence are permitted the glories of sex.  ***BULLSHIT***.
$  
$ Several people here have related personal accounts of being
$ sexual *well* before the legal age of consent -- but since
$ that doesn't fit in with the conclusion you have ALREADY
$ reached, and doesn't support your repressive agenda, you
$ ignore it.
$    
$ Molesting *ANYONE* is wrong -- but sex with a child who is
$ aware and consenting is not necessarily "molestation."
$    
$ Get a *LIFE*, asshole.
$ ======================================================================
$ WHAT I WOULD HAVE CONSENTED TO WHEN I WAS 13 YEARS OLD
$                (For Dave Rindos)
$ 
$ To be tied to a post in the shining snow, while
$ boys in white circle me with torches,
$ Owls sneer at my pain, whips
$ crack in the tinkling air, snakelike;
$ 
$ To be kidnapped by Russians, Gagarins, Yevtushenkos,
$ naked, without help, in the blue-iced steppe,
$ Laughingly bound, complicitly tortured,
$ till, broken with joy, I tell all;
$ 
$ To be spread-eagled on a rack, wrenched to pain,
$ by men who kiss me when I scream, kiss me
$ again as they turn again, kindly
$ kiss me in the clear light as I scream;
$ 
$ To that curly-haired boy,
$                           that one,
$                                     that blond one,
$ To strap me down and take me without pity,
$ His cool bright eyes staring through my head.
$ (That truly happened...)
$ 
$ -
$ 
$ Pitted and dulled, these profiles; then,
$ they were new-minted, crystal-sheened, frost bright.
$ But grey lines tugged; abandoned, the child
$ left for years the shining land,
$ 
$ And on my return, found many gates closed,
$ Ravines blocked with boulders, ways deserted
$ now overgrown beyond passing, castles once crowded
$ rotten, blank-windowed, impenetrable.  Grieving
$ 
$ I built, starting without foundations,
$ huts, lintels, cabins;  then towers
$ of desire, satiety, happiness in history
$ shared.  I am content.  Still,
$ 
$ at times, I wonder, and catch his eye,
$ my little ancestor; and when we hear
$ that children sleep, empty and unwanting,
$ We remember shining things, and smile.
$ 
$ ----
$ 
$ --John
$ --Who, as a boy, would have liked nothing better than
$ --to be pursued, vigorously and skillfully, for sodomy
$ ======================================================================
$ also, you've warped pederasty into child molestation.  pederasty is
$ different.  like slavery, child molestation doesn't involve the child's
$ free-will.  pederasty does.  in child mollestation, the child is abused. 
$ you won't find ANYONE supportive of child mollestation.  however, you
$ will find people supportive of pederasty.  NAMBLA sis supposed to be a
$ pederasty type organization not a child molestation organization. 
$ although i don't have any of their information, i'd believe this
$ assertion from the gay community before i'd believe it from a
$ fundamentalist.  gay people tend to view things more fairly in
$ terms of themselves in regard to their culture rather than their culture 
$ in terms of themselves.
$ ======================================================================
$ I don't know why, but you are still confusing consensual sex with 
$ youngsters with molestation. I agree that sex between adults and
$ prebusescent children is questionable. As for the "leer" business, 
$ ======================================================================
$ Huh? How is the classic pederastic relationsship exploitative
$ and child molesting?
$ ======================================================================
$ You should be aware, Cramer, that sex in connection with children
$ is a VERY touchy subject and that there is by no means any consensus
$ in the gay community on this matter. What angers me the most is your
$ ======================================================================
$ Also, a point for Scott Safier: Honey, if you're worried about the
$ effect the media's attention to NAMBLA will have, just what do you
$ think about *After The Ball*?  And please don't bother worrying too
$ much about NAMBLA and the media (quick warning to Pater Ursus
$ Vanilliaribus - get the hand-over-the-eyes ready... :-); although the
$ Leather Fairies have not yet gotten together enough people and energy
$ to float our own contingent in a gay parade, it's only a matter of
$ time - and the stuff we're likely to do, a sort of gay pagan SM
$ ecstatic shamanism takeoff of a standard Far Eastern festival whose
$ name I forget (sort of a non-Christian equivalent of the Feast of St.
$ Anthony), is *much* more telegenic - people making loads of noise and
$ dancing up the street with balls and fruit sewn to their chests and
$ backs and shoulders, and the Kavandi, which is a sort of portable
$ see-through variation on the Iron Maiden...
$ ======================================================================
$ In article <1991Aug14.145911.291@HQ.Ileaf.COM> ltaylor@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Laura Taylor) writes:
$ 
$ >i was molested by the guy next door at age 10, and was slicing parts of my
$ >body open with a razor blade at age 11. no i'm not stupid enough to let
$ >that happen to any of my kids whether they be girls or boys. over protecting
$ >them does not hurt them at all.  
$ 
$ I was having sex with my neighbor (male) at age 12.  I initiated it.
$ I had a lot of sex before I was legal.  I think it was wonderful.
$ Don't belittle my experience by telling me that it is stupid.  It
$ might not work for you. Fine, but do not tell me that it does not work
$ for everyone.
$ >you queers that defend the pedophiles and the boy scouts are doing a disservice
$ >to the rest of us. the boy scouts have a big problem on their hands, and i
$ >hope they resolve it soon before any more kids' lives are ruined. in the mean
$ >time do yourself a favor and don't associate yourself with that organization.
$ >you're making the rest of us queers who care about children look bad.
$ 
$ 
$ 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.
$ 
$ I do care about children.  I care that they do not get the same stupid
$ sexual hang-ups that ignorant parents such as yourself give them.
$  
$ 
$ I defend pedophiles.  I don't think that pedophilia is the cause of
$ the problem.  I think people's attitude towards sex, and pedophilia in
$ specific, is more of the problem.  If people didn't keep telling
$ children that sex was bad and wrong and evil and if they did tell
$ children how to be responsible concerning sex, I don't think it would
$ be so bad.  Look at most ancient societies where pedophilia was
$ practiced.  It was not harmful then.  However, with judeo-christian
$ morals in our world, suddenly sex is bad.
$ 
$ I agree that children under 12 are not ready for sex.  I also feel
$ that children under 16 certainly are.
$ ======================================================================
$ All this talk about NAMBLA and not much info... may I be so
$ bold as to contribute one of the smidgens of info I have heard
$ about their organization??
$ 
$ A BIG difference between a NAMBLA member and a child molester
$ is that NAMBLA is encouraging CONSENSUAL relationships between
$ men and boys. The difference between this and molestation is the
$ same as the difference between "making love" and rape.
$ 
$ Now, I'm not sure how much of this I swallow, because adults
$ are in such a tremedously powerful position relative to children
$ that the meaning of consent is somewhat blurred. However, I firmly
$ believe that it is possible for a 14 year old boy to have a positive,
$ caring and sexual relationship with an adult, if the adult handles
$ it well. I would have dearly loved to be in that position when I
$ was 14... but alas, it was not to be.
$ 
$ It is for these reasons that I refuse to judge man/boy relationships
$ by any single rule. They must be examined on a case by case 
$ basis to decide if they are positive or not. Perhaps if these
$ relationships could be out in the open, there would be less of
$ a chance of pathological ones forming? If children knew that it
$ was OK to have sex so long as they wanted it themselves, they would
$ be more willing to reveal when they have been molested and name the
$ perpetrator? Ha! dream on...
$ ======================================================================
$ In Portland, we've been dealing with the whole paedophilia issue
$ recently in the lesbigay community. A group of hatemongers are trying
$ to amend the Oregon constitution to read "Pedophilia, sadism,
$ masochism, homosexuality, bestiality and necrophilia are recognized by
$ this state as abnormal, unnatural and perverse conduct." This will be
$ a public referendum campaign.
$ 
$ The issue has come up in the "No on Hate" committee, a lesbigay
$ community organizing effort to fight the amendment. I've been to two
$ public meetings where the issue has come up. In the first meeting, the
$ subject of S&M came up and from there someone said "I dont want to
$ support paedophilia" and from there, a lot of paedophile bashing. At
$ some point a person I've known from Queer Nation (who I will call
$ "John", like on the QN mailing list) spoke up and said he was a boy
$ lover, and resented the bashing. The meeting quickly degenerated into
$ shouting, and nothing was resolved, but a lot of people were upset.
$ 
$ At the next meeting the issue of paedophilia was brought up
$ specifically on the floor, and a resolution was passed along the lines
$ of "No on Hate will not knowingly work for paedophile causes, or work
$ with people advocating paedophilia" or something similar. Paedophilia
$ in this case is legally defined, which unfortunately in Oregon is
$ anyone under 18 having sex.
$ ======================================================================
$ In article <14343@pt.cs.cmu.edu> scotts+@cs.cmu.edu (Scott Safier) writes:
$ >I do not think NAMBLA should be allowed to be represented in the 1993
$ >March. 
$ 
$ How can we, as an oppressed sexual minority, believe that we're in a position
$ to tell someone "this is not a valid way to express your love"?
$ ======================================================================
$ >1.  We are screwed up about sex.  Everyone carries their histories.  Sex
$ >    for most people is mixed up with conflict and emotional turmoil.  I
$ >    don't see how a person could justify dumping a child in that
$ >    quagmire.
$ 
$ Well, I think people need to give children a little more credit.  I
$ agree concerning pre-pubescent children, but I don't think that high
$ school kids are quite as clueless as they seem (hmm... looking at this
$ sentence I am not sure I agree with myself, but I'll leave it in
$ anyway).  I think that if they are given the proper information
$ concerning sex, it would not be as traumatic.
$ 
$ Also, I do not believe that it should be okay to molest children... I
$ am talking consensual relationships.
$ 
$ 
$ 
$ >I'm sure there are cases where it works out.  There are exceptionally
$ >together adults, there are incredibly resiliant children;  and there are
$ >extremely lucky situations.  But the risks are terrible.
$ 
$ Again, I think that relationships that are in the open are much less
$ risky than our current state of affairs.  Remember, homosexuality was
$ considered to be much more of a security risk when homosexuality was
$ shunned.  "Outing" was a terrible thing at the time.  I think the same
$ might hold true of relationships with underage people.  If someone was
$ having an open affair with a 14 year old, the reaction when they were
$ outed would be "yeah, so what?"
$ ======================================================================

> I don't read soc.motss, but I've been told by those who do that you go
> through their newsgroup with a fine-tooth comb, looking for ammunition
> for your crusade.

And there's never a shortage of it -- such as is reproduced above.

> >> 7.  The posting of intentionally inflammatory material for the sole purpose
> >> of attracting flames so that you can present yourself as the injured party.
> > 
> > I've been flamed for presenting, in full, postings from soc.motss.
> > There are a lot of homosexuals on USENET who keep insisting that they
> > are just like everyone else -- yet get very upset when I show, by
> > crossposting from soc.motss to talk.politics.misc, that this is
> > hardly true.
> 
> I have been told that soc.motss has as many as 50 postings a day.  You cross-
> post about 1 every couple of weeks or so.  What about the other 699 postings,
> Clayton?  What would they tell us about this homosexual community you dread
> so much?  Would it perhaps reveal that homosexuals are just like everyone
> else?  Would other readers of soc.motss care to comment on this?

Go read it for a while.  I find that a great many liberals don't want
to read soc.motss, I presume because they don't want their illusions
damaged.

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


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
When the government wins the War on Drugs, they are welcome to try their
gun control snake oil.
Newsgroups: ca.politics