On 19 Sep 2008 11:16:02 -0500, Jerry <mail@mail.com> wrote:
>+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.
Please,
Gentlemen. I would implore you to cease such fratricidal banter.
Have we not enough windmills with which to joust?
Sincerely,
HMS Victor Victorian NP-g18
God Save the Queen!
God Preserve the Prince of Wales!
Rule Britannia!
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|