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
Newsgroups: alt.fan.prettyboy
Subject: Re: Friday Night Lights
From: TomBa <nobody@nowhere.com>
References: <8btvc51s9agfbk8vl9c9vus8hle3fm9kld@4ax.com> <4ad22804$0$320$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com> <111020091841113366%Mover@Watch-Me.com> <4ad3699b$0$271$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>
Organization: The FoRT
Message-ID: <Xns9CA282FA75A2Afort6789@207.246.207.167>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Date: 12 Oct 2009 19:52:32 GMT
Lines: 42
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4c21ecca.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=WXQ[=icKYe9UH[0COH:iH0L?0kYOcDh@:[oXeHOh\O5>dPV^A\D9O>9Z>jEnF8\a@;<@fcg8LGC5;D[HL?7]F9H1U6^DRb;TR80
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.prettyboy:7100
Uri <ail> wrote in news:4ad3699b$0$271$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com:
> * questioning myself, eating my magdalena, I came to consider that a
> common pedo is not eventyually attracted to women or men. But like it's
> not time to establish a line between true blood and mixed blood pedos,
I
> can suggest other questions. An advance, from my own harvest. The
> society brought us the word paedophile, and lately focused over it a
> well known ammount of negative connotations related to abuse. The
bright
> solution was to sieve the negative meanings with a new word: boylover.
> Boylover is a sweet word, phonetically weak, quite unpleasant to my
> ears, I must say. Who brought us such a term? I don't know. Who
accepted
> it? I don't know neither, weak people probably. Cause would a brave
> person turn his back on his own reflection just for social demands?
> What's a pedo just a pedo can say, and I guess, my dear people, that it
> is something to think about. Now my thoughts go deeper with no reward,
> and the night forest awaits my arrival... bye, bye lyric lovers
>
>
Actually, it was the Greeks that brought the word "peadohilia" to us; it
was from antiquity meant to be known from it's roots: "pedo"-child,
"phile"-love. I.E. one who "loves" a "child." That love need not be
sexual in nature (although it could be expressed that way too).
What society has brought is the corruption of the word to describe
someone that (sexually) abuses a child. What made love become abuse?
"BoyLover" was adopted as an equally descriptive term (more so because it
includes gender) in reaction to the corruption that the term peadophile
has experienced. I don't see it as phonetically weak, and if it's
unpleasant to your ears you might want to do some ear cleaning.
I'm a BoyLover, and a peadophile, and not ashamed of it. If you or anyone
else thinks that I would cause harm to a child, then that's your problem.
I haven't, and I won't. Regardless of your labels. Sorry to dissapoint
you!
--
TomBa NP-f36
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
|