+Grant <+Grant@grant.grant> wrote in news:Grant-me-that-0109081
@Grant.Grant:
> In article <48d1a573.18586569@127.0.0.1>, Ronin
> <nesScitur@husShmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> I agree with you.
>
> My wise friend posted about rights a few times. I thought it was good.
> I will try to remember it here simplified.
>
> *Desires* - Things we would like to have or experience. Some people
> confuse it with "Needs" or "Rights".
> *Needs* - Things we require for our survival. Some people confuse it
> with "Desires" and "Rights".
> *Rights* - Privileges that are granted individuals and groups by a
> higher authority, such as a religion or government. Sometimes confused
> with "Needs" or "Desires", and something some people assume we are
born
> with which we are not.
>
> My discussion.
> Rights are like any other finite resource such as land or money. The
> more somebody has the less somebody else has. For example if I have
the
> right to play loud music people around me loose the right to quiet
> because rights conflict. Thats why we have to go out and get them. We
> don't get any good rights for doing nothing.
>
> I think its interesting the word "right" means what it does in context
> of this thread. Its as if people took the opposite of the word "wrong"
> for this meaning in a bout of wishful thinking. We have Rights not
> because they are right, which we selfishly assume they are, but
because
> we demand them and fight for them. This is a neverending battle with
> forces in society which would take them away. As soon as we relax the
> struggle we start loosing rights.
>
But Grant, you didn't tell us what you think yet. Tell us what you
think, Grant, tell us how we must behave, tell us what you think about
us, the pedos. Come on, come on, Grant, don't tell me now that you
didn't take some efforts before in distancing yourself from any kind of
pedophile, boylover or similar emotion. Are you a "boylover", Grant? Are
you a pedo? I don't you would define yourself like that. So, what the
fuck are you doing here?
Tell me Grant-not, all this about saying people how to comport
themselves is like some kind of prerogative of heterosexual people. I
mean, it's like some kind of genetic privilege or something like that?
It occured to me now that you really think you are clever than us, just
that.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|