On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:24:02 -0700, Grant wrote
(in article <Grant-me-that-2209081@Grant.Grant>):
> In article <Xns9B222E959EB0mailmailcom@216.40.28.74>, Jerry
> <mail@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> +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
>
> How can there be a false question? I never heard of those before. Is it
> some label you made up for questions you don't want to answer because
> you know the true answers would show you in a very bad light? There is
> something else too. People who do bad things really hate to answer
> questions why they do it.
>
>> 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 sure hope not! LOL
> Morph would only invite me to a hanging. Mine! LOL
> Mephi would paste me to a wall and throw proper British darts at me.
> I don't know what Victor would want with me if anything.
> Sorry Ronin I don't like sushi. LOL
>
> I don't think telling the truth about a persons qualities is a
> complement or an insult if it isn't meant that way which I didn't.
> Truth doesn't care how we feel about it.
>
> I think you missed something. Yes I do think they have clever
> arses/asses. I sure do. Doesn't have to mean they use them for any good
> does it? LOL
> Choices choices. We all have them. People can see our choices by how we
> act them out. Unprovoked mean tempered antagonistic lying (which you
> are kind enough to post here) comes from what kind of choices? Care to
> answer? LOL
> By the way "cleverness" isn't the same as intelligence or smartness or
> honesty. They could have some of those things or not. I didn't say.
> A worm can be clever in finding food but he's still a stupid disgusting
> worm. Not that I'm calling anybody here a worm. Really. LOL
>
>> 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.
>
> I'm almost glad your grateful. LOL
> There is a good reason I didn't do what Y Not does. I'm not him.
> Thank you for acknowledging it.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> Oh yes you do! Your writing to me aren't you? See? Theres proof. LOL
>
>> 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.
>
> So sit down? LOL
> Your expressing your opinion. I should care? Isn't that strange from a
> person who says expressing opinions here is a bad thing?
>
> Why do you think I'm a hypocrite? If you assume I'm other people then I
> could understand it, but you are wrong about that. Try it with just me
> Grant and what do you get? I don't think anything can change a negative
> opinion you have about somebody once you form it. Not any fact. Not
> even if it bit your nose off. Try to prove me wrong?
> I don't think so! LOL
>
>>
>>> 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?
>
> You must like being wrong you do it so often. I did post those things.
> PJK movies are illegal aren't they? People who know what I have done
> must think you are stupid or lying but you can't help what they think.
> They have opinions too. But you only care about yours right?
>
> Why do you care so much about if I posted anything illegal? Are you
> trying to entrap me? Get me arrested? Is this the way you think BLs
> should be to one another? Are *you* really a BL?
> Trolls are always trying to get posters to expose their security. Why
> do you want people to think your a troll?
>
>>
>>> 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?
>
> Not if you don't want to go. This is his group. You fight here you
> insult him. Why do you want to do that? To try to cause fights here?
> Thats the big question you are not brave enough to answer honestly.
>
>>
>>> 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
>
> There are no deceptive questions only deceptive answers. Thats why you
> won't answer the questions because you can't do it and look anything
> like a good honest person. That shouldn't stop you because you already
> don't like like one so now you should feel free to answer them.
> Other people asked questions of some posters and complained when they
> didn't get answers. A Oden/Lookin supporter (who hated Y Not)
> complained Mephi wouldn't answer his questions a month or so back.
> Didn't you see the post about that which said how ironic it was Y Not
> had the same problem with Mephi when he was attacking Y Not? Guess who
> posted that little note? LOL
>
> Sorry about the 10 year old thing. If you didn't write like one I
> wouldn't have written to that level to you. Some posters in a different
> group were talking about you (I think it was about you) and said you
> were French. I thought that could explain your very poor English
> writing so I tried to write simply for you to help you understand how
> clueless you were about me.
>
>>
>>> 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
>
> So do I now. You just want to try to provoke trouble because you like
> it.
> It couldn't be just to express your hateful opinions because you said
> expressing opinions is bad right?
>
>>
>>> 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
>
> If you want me to care about your opinions you sure aren't going about
> it the right way. LOL
> Same thing about favors. After you tell me exactly what favor you are
> asking. I can't find it in your post.
> If you don't post negative opinions and lies to me you won't get
> questions from me you don't like. Is your arse/ass clever enough to get
> that? Not going to answer that one either? LOL
>
>
Your mica-thin cover continues to crack exposing you ever more clearly for
all to see.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|