# Should NAMBLA be treated different from other political groups **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 6, 2006, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677 "2006-06-06T22:18:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2006, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/141 "2006-06-13T23:44:43Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > The Rind studies are a bit more convincing; the trouble is that there’s such a wealth of other scientific data that suggests the opposite; what troubles me with regard to Rind et al. is that meta-analyses are often a bit questionable anyway, and this one has been roundly criticized on methodological grounds. Indeed it has, but Rind has addressed those criticisms, IMO convincingly. ---
**Author:** ![Alex\_Dubinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dbc845/32.png) [@Alex\_Dubinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alex_Dubinsky)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/142 "2006-06-14T03:22:41Z")
> [@tomdebb](#): > > given that I have never heard of any contact he had before his trauma was revealed (and you are _certainly_ unaware of any contact he had with other people) um > [@tomdebb](#): > > his behavior regarding other kids changed, (particularly, his behavior toward younger kids became more controlling and manipulative and took on sexual overtones that one does not see in kids who have not been abused) he obviously went to school (or had other contact with children and adults who looked after them). I am not stupid. But what is distressing is that you exhibit dishonesty by knowing, or at least having good reason to believe, that he had contact with other people, and then saying, or at least implying, that he did not! What the hell happened to your philosophical honor? > [@tomdebb](#): > > On the other hand, you are still making grand assertions based on your own hypothetical. There just HAD to be someone around to shame him into feeling bad. Sorry. I don’t buy it. No. I said that this is the prediction of my theory, and I explicitly said that if this prediction turns out wrong, my argument will be undermined. However, it seems to me that my prediction was not demonstrably wrong (which is why you’re making those attacks now). It would have been fine for you to admit that you have no evidence against it but that this point was still not decided with certainty. It would have been an accurate judgement, as we do not have the boy with us now. Yet, your policy is to yield no ground. Excalibur, stop being in denial! Stop fastforwarding to the future so that you can escape the discomfort of dealing with my argument now. Stop maintaining that you do not even have to take part in the debate! > [@Excalibre](#): > > Your arguments are thus: for a child to have sex with an adult is exactly analogous to masturbation (for which you have provided no evidence); the only emotional harm a child might suffer from sex with an adult is disappointment when their infatuation ends (a silly assertion in the light of the substantial research that has been cited - some even in this thread! - that proves otherwise, and an assertion for which you have provided no evidence); and that the only harm a child suffers from molestation is others’ social disapproval (a notion ridiculous even on its surface, as tomndebb has very fully explained; a notion that - again! - you have provided no evidence for. I’m noticing a pattern.) > > Your arguments have been roundly disproven. The fact that you don’t wish to acknowledge that fact doesn’t change it. Yes, very roughly, that is my argument. I’ll restate it to do it justice. Extensive research has been conducted which demonstrates that masturbating while watching people have explicit sex does not damage a kid. With this you seem to agree. The only difference between masturbation and sex with a partner are the emotional, personal components. With this you seem to agree as well. Two posts ago, I challenged you to explain in detail what other feeling can result from sex besides love/infatuation/heartbreak. You never answered! Answer me! I assert there are none, but I ask you to try to come up with other emotions too. You are not allowed to just tell me to “stop asserting” and feel that you’ve won! Moreover, I go on to postulate that the discrepancy in research results between solo-sex and partner-sex, a reason for which one is hard-pressed to find in the act itself, is caused by the social effects that enshroud child-adult sex (especially insestuous or homosexual sex, as it often turns out to be) in guilt and shame. Furthermore (and this is actually the more pressing point), children are far more sensitive to feelings of embarassement than are adults, to the point that adults just think they are silly. I remember a few incidents where I would be too afraid of embarassement to walk into a locker room (which was clearly marked with everything but the words MEN) without following a male. I remember being embarassed to the point where I had to go to the other side of the room when my parents would speak with their broken English. I remember I would be so profoundly embarassed by certain comic predicaments on TV that I had to either cover my eyes with a blanket or switch the channel, and it would happen countless times! Watching something on TV! Now, of course, I laugh at those memories (and I wonder if any of you have some to share as well). Yet I shudder to think how profoundly traumatized I would have been if I had to bear the shame of taking part in something that society would deem so much more perverse that being in a lady’s room, or not speaking english well, or being Urkel. > [@Excalibre](#): > > Look, dude, I’m sorry for your sake that you’re not familiar with the rules of actual argument; I’m sorry that you’re no doubt feeling heavily outclassed in this discussion. > … > you don’t seem to have the rhetorical or intellectual chops to back your claims in actual argument. Goddammit, if you don’t have anything intelligent to say, just stfu! I’ve had enough arguing with… no, you are not an idiot (as I can detect your intelligence from other threads)… you are a creationist. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/143 "2006-06-14T03:39:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Yet, your policy is to yield no ground. You are the one making the assertion that the only way a child would have ever suffered trauma was if he had been told to be ashamed of his actions. I see no reason to accept your hypothetical without more substance than your desire to have been futtered as a youth. As for my “dishonesty,” you are simply cherry-picking phrases out of context. The child was abused (my term). I have never seen any evidence that he had discussed his abuse with anyone prior to various school personnel noting a change in his personality and behavior and seeking intervention. Yes, he went to school and had “contact” with other kids, but having been a kid and having raised kids, I am well aware that kids do not discuss the “shame” of sexual behavior at that age. It is not a subject that comes up. In fact, the presence of such discussion among kids is one of the red flags for adults in schools and social work that abuse has occurred, since it is not a topic of conversation for kids. Contact in the sense that I used it indicated contact with people discussing the shame of sexual behavior, not contact with any human being in any context. Kids his age are liable to giggle and say “Ohh, you said a bad word” if they hear the word “butt.” They are unlikely to say “We find it reprehensible that you would commit fornication with a woman not your wife.” It is your assertion that children only feel shame or distress if they have been taught that their actions are shameful. I am simply not persuaded. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/144 "2006-06-14T03:48:03Z")
> [@Alex\_Dubinsky](#): > > if you don’t have anything intelligent to say, just stfu! Regardless what you have to say, please reserve the personal attacks for the **Pit**. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Alex\_Dubinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dbc845/32.png) [@Alex\_Dubinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alex_Dubinsky)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2006, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/145 "2006-06-14T05:37:59Z")
> [@](#): > > It is your assertion that children only feel shame or distress if they have been taught that their actions are shameful. I am simply not persuaded. Ok, you’ve finally answered one of my challenges. I’d like to post it up, and point attention to it. I understand that you’re saying that we can be ashamed out of instinct (which is not entirely unreasonable, if you consider the pattern of the use of clothes among societies). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677.md?page=7)