On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:15:32 +0200, pinocchio <nobody@nothing.net>
wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 03:28:25 GMT, HMS Victor Victorian
><VV@19thCent.net> wrote:
>
>>There is a belief, now widely held as truth, derived from an
>>interpretation of "normalcy" twisted by overtly repressive
>>Judeo-Christian values, that the act of showing intimate physical and
>>emotional affection by a man towards a boy does severe
>>psycho-emotional damage to the boy.
>>
>>This is patently false.
>>
>>A true BoyLover is not motivated by reproduction, but by nostalgia. He
>>seeks his own boyhood. He abhors and is incapable of harming a boy,
>>for he would be harming himself..
>>
>>With the Gallery's approbation, I should like to modestly present my
>>nostalgia.
>>
>>Thank you.
>>
>>VV
>>
>>God Save Her Majesty the Queen.
>>God Preserve the Prince of Wales.
>>Rule Britannia!
>
>Sometimes the word "true BoyLover" has a bad taste. Especially since
>the crazy Lord Roboboy is claiming it for his crazy suggestions.
>Boylove is also, if one can identify with the role as boy and the role
>of as man. In reallity and fantasy!
Any man who would purposely or negligently harm a boy, physically or
psychologically, for the sole purpose of satisfying his sexual urges
is not a BoyLover. Such a man is a rapist.
Yes, if I read you right, I too believe a man can simultaneously
identify as man/boy ... and converserly a boy can identify himself as
boy/man. Boys are not ignorant or stupid, though adults of Western
society tells them they are ... adults who have fallaciously embraced
the idea that becoming an adult makes one more knowledgeable,
responsible and wiser. It is a tragic comedy misinterpreted as drama,
I think.
Just my individual take on it.
God Save Her Majesty the Queen.
God Preserve the Prince of Wales.
Rule Britannia!
|
|
')){kind=link}