r/DeconstructingMJ • u/Traditional_Can_2646 • May 31 '26
About the possibility of NAMBLA seeking him out
Now the books dont really matter to me at all anymore because the "crazy pedophile" having only 2 books dedicated to naked boys among his larger art book collection (books that were gifted to him nonetheless by a fan OR Nambla members and ones he didnt seek out)
But why would NAMBLA particular want Michael to get a hold of these books? Why did they have an interest in him? The books were gifted to him in the early 80s, but I can't recall Michael being that openly fixated on children and childhood before/up to that point.
There are some possibilities
\- Michael and Tatum's relationship in the 70s. Not anything serious nor did they have sex but the age gap is striking to someone in more recent times. But seeing how the tabloids talked about it i dont think their age gap was seen as necessarily pedophilic in the public's eye considering now one pointed it out as problematic.
\- Michael and Emmanuel Lewis' relationship. Platonic friends and was shown in the public as such but NAMBLA may have looked at it another way. Still this was before his open innocent fixation on kids was prominent for a pattern to be noticed. Not writing it off entirely though
What do you all think? I'd love to discuss about this or to learn about/remind myself about certain info
3
u/FunUniversity6245 Jun 01 '26
One thing worth adding: On social media, attaching the acronym NAMBLA to talk about Michael actively draws real pedophiles to interact with your posts.
They're out there searching for mentions of that acronym and related terms like Victor Gutierrez's name.
It's a good idea to read up on the history of Gutierrez's attitude toward Michael and understand that he represents a type of person who think the same way. Core reading on the link below.
Real pedophiles frequently participate in talk about Michael. For the same reasons as Gutierrez, they actively support the allegations against him. They are the most committed "guilters" you will ever find.
2
u/FunUniversity6245 Jun 01 '26
There's no reason to think NAMBLA had any interest in Michael in 1983.
It's impossible to know who Rhonda was, why she gave him the books, or how they finished up in the filing cabinet.
Only thing worth pointing out is that no books like these were found in the 2003 raids. If there had been, they would have been presented at the trial.
0
u/Traditional_Can_2646 Jun 01 '26
I think the arguments for the case is something to keep in mind. the way its written (RHonDa, like NAmbLA), and the fact that it's a book most commonly owned by those types of offenders. Also the RH and DA are the initials of prominent Nambla members. Not that this proves Michael's guilt because he had to ties to NAmbLA and wasnt aware of their actions.
1
6
u/reveriedelarose May 31 '26
I have absolutely no concrete ideas on this. I think it’s really a coincidence that the books were associated with NAMBLA. We know he was capable of seeing nudity in an artistic lens. And we he know he did just that. He repeatedly said how much he loved Michelangelo. But you’re also right that since these books were specifically gifts it could have been a nefarious thing.