Just know that if you support Delany you're supporting the sexual abuse of children.
“I read the NAMBLA [Bulletin] fairly regularly and I think it is one of the most intelligent discussions of sexuality I’ve ever found. I think before you start judging what NAMBLA is about, expose yourself to it and see what it is really about. What the issues they are really talking about, and deal with what’s really there rather than this demonized notion of guys running about trying to screw little boys. I would have been so much happier as an adolescent if NAMBLA had been around when I was 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.” — Samuel R. Delany, June 25, 1994.
There's certainly more to be found, and it gets considerably worse. He's not the only one in that era's sci fi author peer group either. Moira Greyland's account of her childhood with Marion Zimmer Bradley, her mother, is harrowing.
Is "support" always transitive? To support someone is necessarily to support everything they support? What does "support" mean, anyway?
To read and enjoy a book by him necessarily means I'm "supporting" everything he has ever supported, including in the past?
Why would it work that way?
(This is not meant to say anything either way on whether Delany "supports the sexual abuse of children". I suppose that's another transitive property of support... if I 'support' Delany who 'supports' NAMBLA which 'supports'... )
Take NAMBLA out of the equation and Delany is still a man who promotes that man/boy sexual relationships aren't intrinsically abusive and should not be criminalized. There's nothing transitive about that.
He has not changed that opinion, nor is he ever going to. And yes, if you support his work then I'm going to look at you funny, just like if you had a painting by a certain German politician on your wall - and that goes double when you try to dissemble what his beliefs actually are.
This is pretty funny. Rail against browser boss Brendan Eich on HN for his anti gay marriage donations - all good. Rail against LGBTQ writer Samuel Delany on HN for his child rape advocacy - not good. Separation of art and artist, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, downvotes, etc.
I hypothesize that the negative response of a surprising number of readers is due to tripping some kind of pro-LGBTQ+ support mental programming rather than their taking a principled stand in favor of advocating the rape of little boys. Nevertheless whether it’s a principled stand or a knee jerk reaction, anyone who experiences a negative emotional response to opposing child rape, same sex or otherwise, has a serious problem and should get help.
What does "support Delany" mean? Imo you need to separate the art from the artist, and thus one can enjoy the art without necessarily aligning with the artist' views.
This was a statement Samuel Delany had well over two decades ago. Additionally it's clear Samuel Delany was himself a victim of child sexual assault if you knew anything else about him.
A lot of authors are deeply problematic. That doesn't mean you can't like their work unless a) their problematic views are baked into their work or b) they profit off their work and use that profit as a platform for their horrible views. Neither is the case here.
This is discussed in the article and while not a position I support, I think leaving out this detail does him a major disservice: "Yet he has refused to retract the comments—in part because of his own sexual experiences with men as an underage boy, which he refuses to characterize as abusive."
I find that overall hard to fully condemn the person for, vs to separate out those views from his work, as I've never seen anything about him personally acting that way himself with any boys. (Though you say there's more to be found,so... what is it?) I'm no doctor, but the "standard" media-presented look at a situation like that would probably be something like manifestations of trauma from those encounters at young ages combined with the other traumas of growing up gay in America at the time, which I largely file in the "bad but understandable and not actively harming others" bucket.
Reading this article, it makes me recall all the pop songs from the 80s which had lyrics like "...she's only seventeen!" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeen_(Winger_song)). I don't think Winger was a member of NAMBLA.
Equating someone that recommends some magazine, that then publishes a story about sex, to child sex abuse, is a bit of a stretch. Since you browsed HN, which had a link to an interview, with someone that read an article once about sex, does that make you a child sex abuser?
A lot of sci-fi authors have 'weird sex' stories. Not only was it the sixties, they are sci-fi authors in the sixties, writing about alien sex and all kinds of out of the box thinking.
I could just as easily say, don't vote Republican, they have a large percentage of sex abusers in office. Or, don't be Catholic.
The funny part is that it isn't homosexuality being public that's at fault for men being afraid to show platonic affection just because they might therefore be mistaken for being gay, it's the fault of there being a stigma against being gay, otherwise why would anyone care about being mistaken for being gay? It's such a disingenuous argument to blame gay people being accepted in society for men being afraid to do things that might make them look gay and not homophobia. It's basically the definition of victim blaming.
Interesting point, but I think it's not quite right. It's the fault of men thinking there's still a stigma against being gay. (Or perhaps feeling that there is.)
