Path: news.nzbot.com!spool1.sonic-news.com!news-out.sonic-news.com!iad.highwinds-media.com!feeder.news-service.com!news.alt.net!fictitious-path
From: jeanpauljesus <jeanpauljesus@heaven.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.prettyboy
Subject: Re: Reformatted for readability: 'Boylove Manifesto' (was: 'Re:
so how safe is giganews')
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:27:31 +0200 (CEST)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <gaudij$d6c$1@aioe.org>
References: <03426a1e$0$11391$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
<48d1a573.18586569@127.0.0.1>
NNTP-Posting-Host: WrLJfiSmp398VMr2gLqUcg.user.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-No-Archive: Yes
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.prettyboy:3505
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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.
Might unfortunately does enforce Right. It's called government. There
are usually conflicts between rights for any two rights you care to name,
and even if it is not obvious, then States usually are able to override
or compromise rights when it suits them one way or another. Rights may
be stated as absolute but the nature of power in human society means in
reality there are no absolute rights that cannot be compromised if
governments wish to do so eg capital punishment. What rights get enforced
and where are also subject to current societal mores, obsessions, and
media and public sympathy.
I agree the above manifesto is a tad utopian, as any statement of
principle usualy is, and I imagine the author probably knew that. We are
in no position to make demands at this time. I also imagine it was not
intended to say "there is no child abuse (sexual or otherwise)". Of
course children can be forced or coerced, just as adults can. The central
point, perhaps not clearly made, is that children do have sexuality and
are people, therefore should be entitled to make decisions about their
expression of sexuality. Just as with adults, this should not open the
door to being forced or harmed. Society allows children to make
decisions about quite dangerous things. But not about the expression of
sexuality, which in reality is now almost a totally forbidden area. So
all such contact between minors (a definition that keeps changing) and
older males is deemed harmful, whether it is or it isn't. And what we
have is a total ban, which means we, as boylovers, are pariahs. We can't
even come out.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|