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: Jerry <mail@mail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.prettyboy
Subject: Re: Reformatted for readability: 'Boylove Manifesto' (was: 'Re: so how safe is giganews')
Date: 22 Sep 2008 17:19:12 -0500
Organization: any
Lines: 421
Message-ID: <Xns9B222E959EB0mailmailcom@216.40.28.74>
References: <03426a1e$0$11391$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> <48d1a573.18586569@127.0.0.1> <Grant-me-that-0109081@Grant.Grant> <Xns99B0B99DF5D48mailmailcom@216.40.28.76> <Grant-me-that-1909081@Grant.Grant>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
X-Original-Bytes: 21069
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.prettyboy:3561
+Grant <+Grant@grant.grant> wrote in
news:Grant-me-that-1909081@Grant.Grant:
> In article <Xns99B0B99DF5D48mailmailcom@216.40.28.76>, 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.
>
>
> (Sorry VV this guy needs help)
>
> Why do you think I am more clever? I am not. I think Morph would look
> more clever than me if he would stop being so crazy. Meph is much more
> clever than I am. They are much older than me too. Victor is very
> clever - much more than me. Ronin is more clever than anybody here. If
> only I could understand more of what he writes...
> If you feel less clever for some reason why not read some books
> instead of complaining about people who already did that?
> I posted my "discussion" I had with my father about rights. He is more
> clever than I am and a whole lot older LOL.
Again the typical y-not speech. It begins with a false question and
continues with an arse-kissing. How do they taste the shiny buttocks of
the enemy, all those asses together? Will they invite you now to their
party in the garden?
I'm grateful anyway, cause I was expecting nevertheless that other
recourse prefered by y-not, you know, the so called projection. I mean
that one of: "if you think I think I'm more clever it's because you
think you are more clever". Or perhaps one of his absurd sophisms.
Forgodshake, you depress the rocks.
> Jerry why do you post to me like this? What have I ever done to you so
> you hate me so much you have to lie about me? Everybody knows Morph is
Don't misunderstand me. I don't give a fuck about you. And I don't hate
you, cause hating consumes certain energy that I need for other
subjects, more important of course than your persona. But certainly you
are disgunting person to me, and therefore I dislike you. In fact,
hypocrite and egocentric are two words that I can't help associate with
you. And god knows that I have nothing against egocentrics, but for sure
I can't stand hypocrites.
> crazy about Y Not and sees him everywhere and doesn't know how to read
> my posts and doesn't care about being honest but why do *you* need to
> say I am him when I am not? Why didn't you read my posts where I said
> a lot of times I'm a BL and posted BL movies and pictures before?
reading you is wasting some pseudovaluable moments, but I'm quite sure
you never posted anything illegal, am I right?
> I don't tell you how to behave. I don't think it would do anybody any
> good no mater who did. If you think I did it and am Y Not because I
> reposted his security info then you have to think the same thing about
> Tommy (the founder of this group) and other people who reposted the
> same thing lots of times before I did.
Tommy this, Tommy that... we're not really going anywhere, aren't we?
> Victor replied to you and asked you to stop fighting (in more fancy
> words). Isn't that really telling you "how to comport" yourself and
> are you going to accuse him of being Y Not and telling you what to do
> now? Are you going to deny anybody is a BL who asks you to stop
> picking fights?
more deceptive questions. y-not's signature
but who the fuck do you believe you are talking to? a 10 yo kid?
Obviously not, or I would fuck myself more often
> I don't think so. I think you make all these
> complaints up just to start fights with *ME* and I don't know why but
> it won't work.
I do know why
> I think we BLs should *not* fight with each other. I think most people
> here believe this. Its obvious Morph doesn't believe this. Why do
> *you* believe BLs should fight with each other so much you have to try
> to make it happen?
in my definition of "we", you are not, so you just could try to return
me the favor
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|