X-No-Archive: yes
On 17 Sep 2008 23:25:13 GMT, MxH <MxH@MX Homeworks> wrote:
> Who Are We?
> Boylove is a worldwide phenomenon that does not recognise
> the boundaries of gender, race, nationality, age, religious
> beliefs or philosophy. Boylove describes a special kind of
> relationship between human males. Boylove has always been
> with us, exists among us today and will always continue to
> exist.
> A boylover is commonly referred to as a "pedophile". Since
> boylovers can only speak for themselves, the feminists
> viewpoint cannot be expressed as part of this document. For
> the same reason you will not find a treatment about the love
> of women to boys, nor the love of men to girls as part of
> this discussion. The aim of this document is to explain the
> love between human males.
> As boylovers we distance ourselves from the current
> discussion about "child sexual abuse". We are not willing to
> participate in a confrontational discussion that does not
> even take into account the variety of sexual relationships
> between various age groups.
> This document represents the views of the author. The
> stereotype boylover does not exist. There are as many
> different opinions among boylovers, as there are men who
> love and admire boys.
> Who Should Read This Document?
> This document was written for all boylovers, their friends,
> their boyfriends and their girlfriends. Further, it was
> conceived for those children who have been, or may someday
> be confronted with this subject. It is aimed at parents,
> counselors, teachers and everyone whose life is touched,
> privately or professionally, by children. Hopefully, it will
> be read by some who deal with children, youths and boylovers
> as part of a therapy program. Finally, this document is a
> resource for those who may have kept an open mind and are
> genuinely interested in learning more about the difficult
> subject of "boylove".
> This document hopes to assist the reader in shaping his or
> her own opinion. While we are not hoping to gain any
> supporters for our opinions, we would like to be afforded
> the opportunity to submit our point-of-view to the current
> debate.
> Why Was This Document Published?
> The discourse about sexual contacts between different age
> groups, particularly those that take place between children
> and adults, has reached a dead-end. The parties on either
> side of the argument are no longer on speaking terms. Those
> who have taken it upon themselves to protect every boy from
> every boylover place the blame squarely on the boylover. To
> further their cause, these people do not bother to separate
> fiction and hearsay from the alleged facts. Their doctrine
> still nourishes from several centuries filled with repressive
> sexual standards. When child sexuality became taboo, the
> thought spread through our collective conscience that a child
> is simply not a sexual being. Sigmund Freud ventured past
> this taboo. Since that time, the attempt has been made to
> restrict the newly discovered sexuality of children by means
> of legislation. The imbalance of power which governes the
> relationship between adults and children was swiftly
> expanded to include the subject of sexuality. The adult
> members of our society mandate how a child is to cope with
> his or her own sexuality. The attempt to employ restricions
> and punishment as a means of child rearing often causes the
> child to experience serious conflicts. While may traumatise
> the child, it will certainly do nothing to further his or
> her natural development in the future. The discrepancy
> between the desire a child may experience and the
> restrictions placed upon these desires by society harms the
> natural and healthy development of his or her own sexuality.
> As a result, these children will suffer from some
> psychological damage even as adults.
> This document presents the opposing point of view. At the
> same time, it attempts to liberate children and adults from
> many false premises which govern our relationships and our
> sexuality. In view of the social and cultural position of a
> boylover, an attempt will be made to present his fundamental
> ethics - particularly the rights of the boy and the
> boylover's responsibilities.
> What Is Boylove?
> It is not possible to reduce or limit boylove by focusing
> only on the sexual aspects of an intergenerational
> relationship. Human sexuality plays the same part in a
> boylove relationship as it undoubtedly does in any
> relationship between human beings. Therefore it may not be
> present, only slightly present, or explicitly present in any
> given relationship. A relationship that is based on sexual
> contact alone is not really part of boylove, because this
> term includes far more than that.
> A boylover desires a friendly and close relationship with a
> boy. This relationship will not necessarily include any
> sexual intimacy, nor will it necessarily exclude it. A
> boylover's fascination focuses primarily on the "boyish"
> and "childish" traits that are particular to any boy. The
> physical traits of the boy and the boylover's sexual
> desires, which may or may not be present, are quite
> secondary to that fascination. A boylover will go to great
> lengths to protect a boy from negative influences, or any
> physical and emotional harm. Further, a boylover will not
> resort to threats nor will he show any signs of aggressive
> or even violent behavior as part of a relationship.
> The Boylove Relationship.
> In most cases is the attraction between the boylover and
> the boy is mutual. The boy is drawn to an adult who takes
> him seriously and treats him respectfully. The boylove
> relationship is void of the demeaning power struggles and
> restrictions which are customarily are part of any
> child/adult relationship. In a boylove relationship, the
> boy is afforded the chance to experience himself as a
> person. A person who may have and express his own opinion,
> without running the risk of having it cast aside as
> unqualified, or even "childish". His spirit, as well as
> his body, are seen as a whole. Not as something that is
> still in the process - a developmental stage on the way
> to adulthood.
> A child is commonly viewed as someone who needs to grow
> up in order to become a person. Society applies adult
> standards in order to shape and mould the child.
> Personality traits that may be considered undesirable or
> inconvenient are often removed in the process of child
> rearing and education.
> As part of a boylove relationship the older partner
> accepts and nourishes the spirit of the child. The
> boylover doesn't try to apply adult standards of
> behaviour in order force the boy's spirit to fit the
> mould. The boy experiences this acceptance of his own
> unique character as something very special and pleasant.
> He feels free to develop and grow, because his partner
> treasures his personality and takes it seriously.
> Although the adult partner is always in a position to
> exercise power over the child, the boylover tries to
> avoid any power struggles within the relationship.
> However, the boylover must be aware of the fact that an
> imbalance of power is present in any adult/child
> relationship. Therefore a situation may arise where he
> may need to raise this topic with his partner.
> What Are The Rights Of The Boy?
> First and foremost it is the right of the boy to develop
> his personality and his sexuality freely. This rule must
> govern every boylove relationship and it does. Any
> physical or psychological pressure inherently infringes
> upon this precious right. Further, any restrictions that
> may interfere with the development of his personality, or
> those that may prohibit him from experiencing his
> sexuality without restraints, may also be considered an
> infringement of his rights. It is the boylovers
> responsibility to shape the relationship in order to
> comply to the wishes and needs of the boy. It is also his
> responsibility to ask questions and listen carefully.
> Most importantly, the boylover must not interfere with
> the autonomous development of the boy.
> The boy has the right to be protected against physical
> or psychological abuse. It should also be considered a
> form of abuse when a boy is prohibited from exercising
> his rights to experience a loving relationship, or if he
> is not allowed to experience and develop his own
> sexuality. The rights of the boy should be respected in
> this regard, too.
> What Are Our Demands?
> We demand the freedom of individual sexuality for boys
> and for boylovers.
> We demand that current standards of sexuality are
> reconsidered. These standards infringe upon basic human
> rights, because they prohibit children and those who love
> them from even thinking about engaging in any sexual
> intimacy.
> We demand that any medical, psychological or religious
> notions which are preconceived against child sexuality,
> be exempted from a discussion about new sexual standards.
> We demand that children as well as boylovers be included
> in the current debate concerning sexuality between
> children and adults. At this point, the "experts" are
> people who have gained their knowledge about
> intergenerational relationships from books and
> statistics. It sounds incredible: there are people who
> are defending the best interests of an age group and
> they haven't even bothered to ask members of this age
> group if this representation is desirable, or in their
> best interests.
> We demand our freedom of speech in the media. The
> internet is being targeted as the forum for boylovers.
> We demand to be held to the same standards as every
> other participant in the internet: if there is nothing
> illegal being published on a "boylove site" then this
> site may not be shut down, or censored at will.
> We demand a forum for open communication between
> boylovers. A forum that is entirely free from repression.
> This discourse, support and a sense of community is
> important. It is a place to discuss sexual ethics and a
> forum that will be reached by boylovers from around the
> globe.
> We demand that society reconsiders the status of the
> child. This is our most important demand. Since children
> are not granted their own personality, and since they
> are not being taken seriously, there are "experts" who
> may represent their "best interests". And as long as we
> allow this representation to take place, children will
> be denied their right to develop their own personality,
> as well as their own sexuality.
> 1997 by jay_h
Lines broken and paragraph breaks inserted for readability;
a few small typographical errors also removed.
A much more readable HTML version may be seen at
www.prevent-abuse-now.com/pedoweb.htm
which also summarises the Scandalised Mum viewpoint; one
may also google 'jay_h boylove' for further (predominantly
dissenting) commentary.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ronin observes:
Making "demands" of those one cannot coerce is ludicrous.
Postulating the existence of inalienable individual "rights"
leads instantly to the problem of Conflict Of Rights: the
pretended "rights" of children conflict with the actual --
that is, enforced-by-the-neighbours -- Rights Of Parents.
Most notably, they conflict with the Rights of Mothers:
* to have, however base one's status in the wider world,
individuals below one in the pecking order;
* to have individuals whose behaviour may be arbitrarily
compelled, or arbitrarily punished, by whatever means,
within quite broad limits, may take one's fancy;
* to have individuals who may be induced or coerced to
participate in one's fantasies, however psychotic;
* to have an object for one's affections and attentions
that may not refuse them, no matter how unwelcome; and
* to have a context for physical affection which does
not involve the risk of becoming nastyfilthydisgusting
totallyunwanted sex-initiated-by-others.
Whether might *makes* right is a question for philosophers;
whether Might *enforces* Right is not.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|