On 14 Jul 2007 12:25:02 -0500, unkn <76636@m.com> wrote:
>HMS Victor Victorian <VictorVictorianREMOVE@hushmail.com> wrote in
>news:bi9b939lrjdfg6k7ptc2j4351rarihpvnv@4ax.com:
>
>> On 11 Jul 2007 13:18:12 -0500, unkn <76636@m.xcom> wrote:
>>
>>>I rescued a couple of questions you made in one of your earlier posts
>>>and over which I want to make some blood.
>>>
>>>you asked
>>>
>>>"Knowing the attitude of Western society regarding boylove and the
>>>potential harm that may come to the boy from that attitude, does a
>>>boylover then injure the child by the very act of intimacy?"
>>>
>>>And unfortunatelly, the answer, or at least my answer, is yes. The
>>>direct responsability of this society that you call (well called
>>>tyrannic, make indirect responsibles of us. Fucking unfair, isn't it.
>>>Grotesquely unfair, considering how society talk about us. So I want
>to
>>>focus over another of your questions:
>>>
>>>"What responsibility does the boylover have towards his society and
>its
>>>moral values, if any?"
>>>
>>>Cause I obviously don't know the answer to this one, I'll just try to
>>>comment what seem to have been the different positions in the groups
>>>during the last months.
>>>
>>>One person who left the groups not many time ago defended that our
>duty
>>>as boylovers was to hit fiercely the pillars of this society and its
>>>conceived moral. And he defended that it was necessary that we and our
>>>children take certain risks to get all the rights that Occident, or
>>>modern society, or Judeo-Christian society if you prefer, denied us.
>The
>>>fact that this point of view was actively offensive and to a great
>>>extent dangerous doesn't mean that I didn't understand it, or even
>share
>>>it a little. Nop, I suppose I'll never be brave enought to take on a
>>>idea like that, but it's true that somedays i think 'come, come,
>nuclear
>>>bomb', and that this world is so desperating that we should take the
>>>weapons one of these days... and things like that.
>>>
>>>You also watched Dudewiththehair to wave that sentence that seems to
>>>have become his flag. "The boys first" he said. I admit that this is a
>>>nice reflection. But I wonder, is the same nice than right? I mean, is
>>>not maybe a triumph of the 'common moral' if we set the boys
>necessities
>>>above ours? Is not a way to yield to the outside pressure? Don't
>>>misunderstand me, i know that boys are often more helpless and
>>>necessitous than we are but "If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you
>>>tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?". Can't
>we
>>>be equal than boys? Or is this a crazy idea? I don't know. Anyway, it
>>>seems that this resolution is the more similar to the truce (or future
>>>truce) we can pursue. And for this reason it's my favourite.
>>>
>>>The poster called lipschitz seems to be very happy feeling atraction
>to
>>>minors but not taking any action about it. He forgot to say, I guess,
>>>that he probably think that the relationships between adults and
>minors
>>>are nasty, or outrageous or impure. I'm sorry to say, and maybe
>disquiet
>>>some lea, that this is the only point of view that make me wanna throw
>>>up. It's so sensible, and loyal, and coward all at the same place... I
>>>really don't want to bend my arm in such a way.
>>>
>>>Anyway, as a epilogue, I have to say that society and LEA have now
>>>exactly what they want of us. We are in the 2007 no more than a bunch
>of
>>>disorganized people, many of us lurkers who will hide forever, and
>>>others, the self-proclaimed aristocracy of the bl usenet society (you
>>>know, the people with -lol- badges) who seem a little snob for my
>taste.
>>>I really don't see much hope. But well, this is just my opinion :P
>>>
>>>
>>>best regards
>>
>>
>> I shall be more brief here, as it is getting very late and I've got to
>> be up in two hours.
>>
>> Because society proclaims one thing right or one thing wrong does not
>> make it so, even if the consensus is overwhelming. Values once held
>> as sacred in societies have been overturned throughout the ages.
>>
>> Using rape as a legitimate weapon of war, once widely accepted, is now
>> reviled.
>>
>> Viewing women and children as chattel, once the norm, is now seen as
>> barbaric.
>>
>> Human slavery, so deeply ingrained and so fervently defended for all
>> economic, social and moral reasons in the United States, is now an
>> inconceivable evil.
>>
>> Given the humiliation, persecution and prejudice that boylovers and
>> the boys themselves suffer at the hands of modern society, I say this,
>> too, must be overturned and at last will be, unless we as modern
>> peoples wish to turn the clock back. Unfortunately, there is evidence
>> that this is actually happening, for a conservative refuge is the
>> enemy of progress.
>>
>> Lastly, there are organizations that represent the interest of
>> boylovers and have lobbied to overturn the more draconian laws on the
>> books. It is also understood that fighting such mindless outrage over
>> boylove is very dangerous, akin to an American negro man in 1920's
>> Mississippi daring to whistle in public at a white lady. That was,
>> then, an offense punishable by lynching.
>>
>> Now, of course, such a vile act is inconceivable. So you see, there
>> is some hope.
>>
>> Oh, and please do NOT vomit on the gallery floor. I'm in enough
>> trouble already, I fear.
>> God Save Her Majesty the Queen.
>> God Preserve the Prince of Wales.
>> Rule Britannia!
>>
>
>I understand very well your way of thinking, but my heart runs faster
>now and I have to differ. I guess I escaped a long time ago of the claws
>of what you call society or education and its sick guilt, but not of the
>captivity that this same society bring over us. I can't accept it. My
>shouts and cries will exist as long as I don't find a better way to
>combat. Your measured reasoning is something that I accepted before,
>nevertheless, during unquiet stages of my life like this one, being
>restless and feeling often miserable, I reserve the right to be angry
>and refuse the system. Even if this is just a mere demonstration of
>frustration, or even if it's putting myself in danger, I prefer to keep
>going with it. It'd be worst for me to feel like no more than a
>spectator of my life.
>
> About defeating society and make a way through its constrainer moral I
>could say something. Not fighting can be a wonderful choice, if you feel
>ok about it, I know. But when you don't feel good about it, when you
>feel that other people is making the choices for you, then something
>breaks in people like me, who are maybe a little arrogant. And if I
>don't find a way to defy this, if I don't find the valor to challenge, I
>can assure you that it feels like a dagger making its way to the heart.
>Maybe I don't have nothing better than cries and shouts now, but i also
>have hopes and expectatives. I recognise my actual lack of valor, but
>even if I'm doomed to receive a mortal stab by the dagger I mentioned
>before, I'm decided to discover it someday.
>
> I think I know the person who told you to be alert. This person maybe
>know the risks of the law, but it doesn't seem to me that he knows how
>much hurts this degradation I consider to suffer. Btw, excuse my
>english, I would like to use some expressions of my own language but I
>don't find a correct translation, so please fill my faults with your
>imagination.
>
> Well, all the preceding are no more than words in the wind, with a
>major or minor acceptation. I don't want to persuade anyone and I
>consider that taking risks is a personal prerogative. But what I do want
>is to make this question: if we are sane people, perfectly qualified to
>distinguish the good and the evil, is not our right to demand the
>absolut freedom in our lives, like many other people enjoy now? and if
>yes, is not our duty to fight for it, as far as possible, instead of
>surrender to the exigencies and restrictions of this.. world? Yeah, i
>know what many lea and moral advocates could think about it, that our
>personal freedom is a direct attack to the freedom of the children. His
>freedom I said?, no, a mistake, I meaned his dignity. Dignity,
>forgodshake, what a bunch of hypocrites, they prefer to watch the kids
>starved, drugged, fighting (or bullfighting), armed or paranoid before
>loving an adult. Such is the cruelty about the human dignity, when it's
>conceived by this big fat brain called civilization. Anyway, we don't
>fight for the love of unprivileged children, but for the love of anyone
>who can be responsible of his own emotions. And so the lances are
>raised. I also have hopes like you that in the future everything will be
>different, but, you know, waiting can be terrible.
>
>excuse my vehemence, I really don't have a better way to express myself
>best regards
Your points continue to be concise and well-spoken, from my humble
point of view. I would advise you, if I might be so bold, to know
what you really want and if your actions will make it so. Don't go
bashing your brains out against a stone wall. I can understand your
anger at the hypocracy of our self-appointed moral guardians. I do
sincerely believe that they would condemn a young orphan boy to scrape
through trash to survive in the sewers of St. Petersburg rather than
seeing him happy and healthy in the arms of a true boylover. But in
their own eyes they do not see this as cruel, that such a fate would
be far kinder than being "perverted".
This is not an unusual position. There was a family in the Old
American West who had learned their infant daughter had been kidnapped
by Apache Indians. They made attempts to have her ransomed, but
before they could, the American Army found the Apache and attacked
them. Of course, the girl was killed. The girl's uncle stated that
it was a blessing, that it was better she was in the loving arms of
Jesus than living a debased life among heathen savages.
Yes, he believed she was better dead, all because he either didn't
know or refused to believe that Apache families are loving, and would
have loved her and raised her as a daughter themselves. How very sad.
Police gangs actually shoot homeless boys in the streets of Rio de
Janiero, at night, as they sleep. Have you happened to have seen the
film Pixote? Very chilling.
So you see, our enlightened Occidental society hasn't changed very
much, at least ethically, in over one hundred years. It isn't worth
waiting for it to change. It won't. Instead, live your life to the
fullest and resent anyone who would tell you otherwise. And in your
own heart and mind, do no harm.
Channel your anger into something you feel is good. Help a boy. Help
a whole orphanage of boys. Give a poor boy a new shirt or shoes or a
coat. Volunteer at an assistance agency. Sponsor a child in Rwanda.
Give a gift, anonymously, to help a young lad in some way.
Of course, as caveat, it has been said, "No good deed goes
unpunished!" Ha! Particularly in this society!
My very best to you as always. Thanks for your visual and
philosophical contributions. Take care of yourself.
VV
God Save Her Majesty the Queen.
God Preserve the Prince of Wales.
Rule Britannia!
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|