On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:51:26 -0600, Cripto Maniac
<mail2news@dizum.com> wrote:
>What do you guys do with all these "boy" pictures posted here?
>Do you just use them for mastubaroty purposes? So all these boy pictures
>can be construed as soft "porn" in essence.
>
>For folks outside this NG, these pictures in their eyes are viewed as
>pornography albeit none of their private extremeties are exposed.
>
>
>Cripto
This has to be one of the silliest notions I've ever heard of. By this
logic, a picture of a pretty lady would have to be considered "soft
porn" -- as undoubtedly it will sexually attract any number of men
(and women) who are attracted to that kind of thing! By your logic,
any picture in the world must be "soft porn" because I can guarantee
you with a large degree of certainty that it is sexually attractive,
even arousing! In my time, I've seen people who get excited at
underwear catalogues, shoe catalogues and wildlife magazines. Okay, so
maybe the underwear catalogues can sometimes be considered softcore
porn! But pictures of shoes? Pictures of small animals?
The problem is not what small minds might think -- they are going to
hate us no matter what and call whatever we do wrong. The issue
remains legal definitions. Are you going to declare it illegal to take
pictures of children? -- and I mean any pictures; clearly the US
definition of child pornography are (at least in the US) and should be
illegal -- to produce. But did you know that in Canada it is illegal
to possess drawings that depict children who are obviously sexually
aroused or actively involved in sex? DRAWINGS! In the UK, a picture of
a fully-legal adult who is pretending or posing as a minor performing
a sexual is illegal? Yes, even adults who are just portraying minors
is illegal child pornography in the UK. Ask the poor director who was
convicted of producing illegal child pornography because an adult
actress -- who appeared in court for the defense and could clearly
prove that she was over 18 when the movie was made -- was portraying
an older teen minor in a sexual scene. A judge in Australia convicted
a man of possession of illegal child pornography because he had a
drawing depicting Bart Simpson -- a cartoon character! -- in a sexual
act. His rational as stated in his decision? He basically said, "Just
because they aren't real doesn't mean they aren't real." In Canada and
the UK and also, I think, Australia, it is illegal to have or produce
a story that depicts a minor involved in a sexual act. A STORY! Well,
a FICTIONAL STORY -- a true story might be incriminating evidence.
Even in the United States where such things have reportedly been
protected by the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech, these
stories have been attacked using obsolete laws about "obscenity,"
though to my knowledge, there have been NO successful convictions.
Meanwhile, in Japan, comic books depicting children involved in sexual
acts, rape, bestiality, all of the above and more are readily
available at corner newsstand kiosks. Keep in mind that Japan has some
of the lowest rates of rape and child sexual abuse in the world.
Interestingly enough, Japanese porn movies mask any visible penis or
vagina because it is illegal to show these. There are no such
prohibitions against showing breasts, balls, butts or even the anus,
though it's kind of funny to watch gay porn and see a pixled-out penis
going into an anus!
One of the strangest things about US child pornography laws is that
minors who have filmed or photographed themselves masturbating or in
sexual acts with other minors can be arrested and prosecuted for
producing child pornography! The saddest thing is that courts have
tried to prosecute some minor couples for "sexually molesting each
other" so that both of the parties involved are both victim and
perpetrator AT THE SAME DAMN TIME!
The truth is that many of the beautiful boys whose pictures appear in
this newsgroup do sexually arouse many of us, and I do assume that
some masturbate to these images. But why exactly is that a problem?
Wouldn't you rather men attracted to boys stay at home and masturbate
to pictures or videos or stories than out attempting to rape or rape
by seduction actual boys? Or do you think it should be illegal to
photograph anything that might turn somebody on?
-- 4s00th@hushmail.com
My email is always available for those looking for and willing to supply support in the effort to remain boy-lovers and not become child-molesters de jure if not de facto.
|
|