HMS Victor Victorian <VictorVictorian@NBG.com> wrote in
news:joh624hbfoeurctuh7kn5ceegkj9nvfqbq@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 23:26:08 +0000 (UTC), floppy@flop.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 05 May 2008 20:00:01 +0000, HMS Victor Victorian wrote:
>>
>>I'd assumed that guy had already been caught - apparently not. They
took
>>a long time to get on his case, those images have been around a while I
>>believe. And yes, the kids appeared to be having a ball by all
accounts.
>>
>>As I understand it, sexual contact between men and boys in certain
parts
>>of the Asia was traditionally considered more a matter for a joke than
>>a lynching, or so I have read. Silly old men chasing little boys.
>>
>>Boys couldn't get pregant, and different standards of what constitutes
>>"impurity" were/are applied to boy than the much more serious standards
>>applied to girls. Or it was institutionalized and sactioned in some
>>other places, such as those dancing boys in parts of Java.
>>
>>Then the NGOs arrived in Asia chasing overseas aid funding. First they
>>said: "you pedos say this culture tolerates and even understands your
>>desire to do stuff with little boys. Wrong! They do not tolerate it
at
>>all, it is frowned upon!". There was something very like this on the
>>ECPAT website in the late 1990s. Yet at the same time, they conceded
>>that child prostitution was always driven and sustained by local
demand;
>>sex tourism had and has a very small part to play economically in
>>thay business. But catching sex tourists gets a lot more headlines,
>>more headlines mean more beat up, more beat up means more funding
>>for NGOs. NGOs are businesses, not charities. Hence the claims on
>>the Inquisition website that NGOs in Cambodia are actively paying
>>taxi drivers and others to turn in customers interested in minors.
>>They have also bribed witnesses to otain convictions in that country
>>(some false withnesses have recanted and told about this).
>>
>>By the early 2000s. ECPAT had given up saying it wasn't really
tolerated.
>>Instead, they publically berated and *chastized* the people of Cambodia
>>for their "apathy" concerning sex with minors. In other words, it
>>seemed they actually didn't care very much after all! Many Cambodians
>>tolerated a certain amount of this activity, always had, in fact it
>>has been embedded throughout much of Asia in one form or another for
>>thousands of years. Then there's large parts of South Asia where men
>>have been loving boys for countless thousands of years.
>>
>>Thus ends another rant. Probably no-one except VV, the trolls and the
>>police are reading it.
>
> Quite correct. Please feel free to "rant on." It appears our
> honorary troll mascot for the Galleries has neglected to read your
> essay, which is understandable considering his cognitive preference
> for single syllable words.
>
> I find it curious that there is very little discussion regarding the
> history and ubiquitousness of Boy Love among western English speaking
> countries. Aside from certain references to Lewis Carroll, for
> example, there appears to be very little to be found regarding it.
> That Boy Lovers might, however lacking in discretion, may seek
> companionship on shores less radicalised is perfectly predictable, but
> I will state my deep suspicion that if Boy Lovers from western
> societies that so repress Boy Love, not to mention sexual expression
> in general, were NOT seeking this companionship abroad, these agencies
> would have considerably less concern as to what was going on in
> Bangkok [no pun intended]. There are paedophiles throughout the
> world, probably in every culture. So, pray tell, has anyone seen a
> desperate INTERPOL request to hunt down an individual from some
> non-western society? Yet no expense is apparently spared in dragging
> some bloody Brit or American before the bar.
>
> Damnable hypocrites, for they care less for the welfare of children
> than they do for restraining members of their own society.
>
> My best regards,
>
Didn't you say you found a new group to spam with kiddie porn, Vicky?
Did you lie to us? Or are you spamming several froups with kiddie porn,
idiot?
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
|