Path: news.nzbot.com!spool1.sonic-news.com!news-out.sonic-news.com!not.news-service.com!not.alt.net!not.highwinds-media.com!s02-b76!textbe01-phx!hwmnpeer02.phx!hw-filter.phx!hwmnpeer01.phx!news.highwinds-media.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!news-in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!fe02.news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: HMS Victor Victorian <VV@19thCent.net>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.utb.naughty-boy
Subject: Re: Racism and Boy Lovers - TheBearFactsAgain.JPG
Organization: Her Majesty's Service
Reply-To: PrinceAlbert@RuleBritannia
Message-ID: <g2dd63tt7b20hp496grj9rg7cdijgse6kv@4ax.com>
References: <aro963lftj45qiqhforitnafpfrujciudn@4ax.com> <Xns994751CA5267Uzj92iya9wa@thisis.invalid> <pm5c635pnr5cqkb3m4qrnf319k3bg66usp@4ax.com> <myaddress-0CCE70.12405406062007@news.easynews.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
X-No-Archive: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 116
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:27:50 GMT
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.utb.naughty-boy:111
X-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:52:31 UTC (s02-b76)
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:40:46 GMT, the non <myaddress@server.co> wrote:
>In article <pm5c635pnr5cqkb3m4qrnf319k3bg66usp@4ax.com>,
> HMS Victor Victorian <VV@19thCent.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5 Jun 2007 17:32:02 -0500, "Spin NP-g04" <pc@his.spin> wrote:
>>
>> >HMS Victor Victorian <VV@19thCent.net> wrote in
>> >news:aro963lftj45qiqhforitnafpfrujciudn@4ax.com:
>> >
>> >> Having perused the various groups for about seven years now, I have
>> >> been struck by the implicit and sometimes explicit racism displayed.
>> >> Statistically it has been shown that most Boy Lovers frequenting
>> >> picture groups are white males, of European extraction. Invariably,
>> >> the most requested and cooed over collections are those depicting
>> >> white boys. The desirability then seems to spiral down based on the
>> >> saturation of skin colour--white to beige to tan to brown to chocolate
>> >> to black to jet. If you are indeed lovers of youth, how can you
>> >> justify such blatant bigotry?
>> >>
>> >> Simply the bare facts, my friends.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "That which is not just is not law"
>> >>
>> >> begin 644 TheBearFactsAgain.JPG
>> >>
>> >> Attachment decoded: TheBearFactsAgain.JPG
>> >> `
>> >> end
>> >
>> >I don't usually get into discussions in these groups, since that tends to
>> >provoke trolling. I'll make an exception this once.
>> >
>> >I doubt that what you describe has anything to do with racism. At least
>> >in most cases. I think it's a logical consequence of imprint with the
>> >looks of your own family, neighbours and friends. Imprint that starts
>> >from the moment you are born, and which is common to all living beings,
>> >human and animal. When you live in an environment where most people are
>> >white, then deep in your mind "white people" are what you associate with
>> >your own kind, and what you will most likely feel attracted to. Of course
>> >we're conscient being, and not animals. When we grow up most of us become
>> >aware and accept the diversity within the human species. But still, I'm
>> >sure that first imprint will always stick with us. That doesn't mean that
>> >people with other skin colors are deemed inferior.
>> >
>> >The black boy you posted is in my eyes extremely beautiful. Although I'm
>> >not black. But what does that physical attraction mean in fact? Nothing.
>> >It's superficial. Could I actually love or even like that boy? Maybe,
>> >maybe not. But that will have nothing to do with his color, but rather
>> >with his personality.
>> >
>> >Spin
>>
>> Thank you for your contribution. Your opinion is always welcome here,
>> for it is invariably well thought-out.
>>
>> Certainly you must concede that blatantly racist comments are often
>> the responses to some wonderful photography, such as the MTM models,
>> or the most recent exhibition here of JaySee's body of work, responses
>> made by individuals who have identified themselves as boy lovers.
>>
>> There is a strong tendency for an individual to be raised to believe
>> that his or her particular society, however it defines itself, is
>> superior to other societies. This is a circum-global phenomenon,
>> found in all cultures, from the smallest to the most complex. Often
>> this superiority is seen as not only social, but moral and genetic,
>> particularly in societies of some power. It was, not so long in the
>> past, inconceivable for a Brit of proper society to be romantically
>> involved with [and please excuse the term] a wog. They were not only
>> deemed as inferior culturally, but they were seen as both mentally
>> inferior and patently unattractive ... indeed ... ugly. The
>> expectations of human beauty have always been defined in racial terms,
>> to this very moment.
>>
>> Hence my question. Therefore, at what point does this "imprinting"
>> become racism, or are they one and the same? Could there be another
>> explanation?
>>
>> Again, thank you for your contribution.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> VV
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> God Save Her Majesty the Queen.
>> God Preserve the Prince of Wales.
>> Rule Britannia!
>
>There certainly have been (and are) attractive black people, boys or
>not. However, from the perspective of folks who frequent these groups,
>black people seldom photograph well. It may be as simple as that.
LOL!
And yet nude portraits of darker people have always been more widely
available than those of whites, particularly in the United States and
Britain. What a curious irony.
Yes, yes. In such cases, rampant underexposure [no pun intended] has
been the bane of net surfing. I've often pondered whether the lens
aperture was set for light, rather than dark faces, particularly in
black and white. Early photographs of African, American Indian,
Chinese, Maori, Pakastani and myriad other "peoples of colour" are
often ridiculously dark. Photographers who adjust this "preset
prejudice" into account have produced beautifully balanced portraits.
Can aperture be inherently racist?
Well, this is so much fluff, of course. Thank you for your thoughtful
and succinct contribution, Non.
|
|
){kind=link}