HMS Victor Victorian <VictorVictorian@NBG.com> wrote in
news:21p3341saohs9r299epopjg7u6qtog5vph@4ax.com:
> Are Boylovers deluded into believing their are persecuted? If so, and
> if it can ever be demonstrated that persecution is justifiable, is
> such persecution justified?
>
> The premise of the Persecution Delusion camp is that Boylovers seek
> acceptance for loving boys from other historically-persecuted groups,
> all of whom certain individuals of the American colour would claim are
> no longer persecuted, that Boylovers depend on the acceptance of these
> groups as a cover to "allow them to have sex with children."
>
> That is a patent lie. Boylovers require no such support from anyone,
> and the social climate is such that no support would be given.
> Mainstream gay organizations have disavowed any support of Boylove
> organisations--not so much because they are categorically opposed to
> young relationships, but to protect themselves lend legitimacy to
> their own agenda by embracing a popular issue in the general society.
> Again, given the present social climate in Anglo-Protestant societies,
> this is completely understandable. I do not condemn them.
>
> Persecution is defined as the condition of being harassed or annoyed,
> to insure, grieve or afflict with intent to cause harm based on a
> belief or beliefs, so with reflection it is very clear that Boylovers
> are persecuted. Some would say, yes, they are but for justifiable
> reasons. Usually these reasons hinge on citation of heinous acts by a
> very small number of individuals who are labeled Boylovers by the
> persecutors.
>
> But aside from that observation, which has been statistically show to
> be accurate, in terms of wreaking abuse, I would gladly compare the
> population of Boylovers to any American population of male
> heterosexuals. You will find the incidences of violence and abuse
> towards both women and children far higher in the heterosexual male
> population across the boards than among a similar population of
> Boylovers.
>
> I regret that I cannot produce this equitable population of Boylovers,
> for they shall not step forward in order to be identified, and I do
> not blame them. Why could this possibly be? Again, society so
> stigmatises Boylove that all Boylovers understand their well-being,
> physical, financial, domestic and mental, would be severely
> compromised if their preferences were made know. Contrary to
> evidence, popular society clings (yes, even perhaps bitterly) to their
> belief that merely being sexually attracted to boys constitutes a real
> danger to children. Yet they are shunned, badgered, harassed, their
> property destroyed and even physically assaulted when their desires
> are simply suspected. They are "a danger to the children."
>
> There is no persuasive evidence for this position. The overwhelming
> majority of Boylovers fantasize, but never pursue the object of their
> desires, for a variety of reasons. Of those who have had emotional
> and sexual relationships with boys, the overwhelming number of them
> would never do anything to truly hurt their little friends. I think
> you will find comparable numbers among the heterosexual population,
> but probably not as laudable.
>
> Additionally, anyone who might appear to voice understanding or
> sympathy for the Boylover is equally hazardous. They run a real risk
> of being labeled by "society" as "paedophile enablers." Even the
> debate about Boylove and paedophilia has been suppressed by
> Judeo-Christian value-based NGOs, such as the Internet Watch
> Foundation.
>
> So, there will not be a statistically viable, comprehensive study
> simply because, in this time of hysteria, Boylovers will remain
> anonymous.
>
> I completely encourage them to do so, as I do, for however you wish to
> window-dress it, it is persecution of the most odious kind.
All you have proven is that "boylovers" are a bunch of chickenshit wimps
who are too scared to stand up for their beliefs. I refer you to Rosa
Parks, Miss Ruth Brown et al.
--
Look at that. The one, the only, the original, the stupid Naughty Boy is
back. Who said Usenet couldn't go further downhill?
|
|