On 23 May 2008 16:23:30 GMT, white-magic <white-magic@remailed-it.com>
wrote:
>flopiness_dissimilated@hhhh.com wrote:
>>Whenever cornered on an actual point, such as any one of the myriad
>>contradictions
>>in the unyielding wall of antipedo discourse, they always just ignore it and
>>attack on another front. Children can give informed consent to something? Of
>>course they can, they are expected to on all sorts of serious matters, such as
>>whether to risk life and limb playing extremely dangerous full contact sports
>>(Ted could tell us about the lifelong injuries sustained by playing Australian
>>football, for example, but gridiron and rugby are probably almost as bad).
>>Then there's skateboards and climbing trees. More children are crippled or
>>killed every year through those activities (not to mention psychological trauma
>>of hospitalization and rehab) than anyone would dare acknowledge. There is
>>extreme social pressure for boys to play dangerous sports, much iof it from
>>those who are supposed to protect them. But they give their consent to play,
>>usually enjoy it too.
>>
>>Are we sure they understand the risks of dangerous sports? No, but we really
>>don't care. We feel the benefits of team sports outweigh the risks, though
>>they really do not in many cases.
>>
>>Do we understand the alleged risks of children being photographed naked? What
>>risks? Oh, that's right, YOU might make them feel ashamed, for what, having
>>bodies? And then there's the catchall (another hallmark) 'they're being
>>exploited!".
>>I know it is a waste of time typing anything in response to these bastards,
>>because they are not interested (or even capabale) of examining the actual
>>basis of their own position. They just believe they are right. As I said, when
>>cornered, they just deflect and come in on another line of attack. It is
>>extremely threatening to them, to the core, to even contemplate that they might
>>be wrong on any of their doctrinaire bollocks. I have experienced this also in
>>trying to discuss the whole antipedo paranoid pogrom with ordinary folk out
>>there in the world.. Even if intellectually they know I am right on these
>>points, the programming goes so deep that at some point they just can't take
>>it, and we're back to no grey areas. Black and white.
>>
>>Yet we are the ones who are supposed to be mired in "cognitive distortion"
>>(what they say you are doing when you disagree with them) and "a wall of
>>defences". The shoe fits just as well on the other foot.
>>
>>You're all body-hating, ideologically driven, bastards. Get fucked the lot of
>>you.
>
>I believe that this people who, so viscerally, are against boylovers have spent
>many years without contact with children and in addition have completely
>forgotten his childhood years.
>If my own experience says something it's that boys are exhibitionists by
>nature. Every summer, in the last eight years, I take to my own sons and a
>handful of friends of his age to camping in beaches, rivers or lakes. No one of
>us, by raising or by environment, are nudist, nevertheless systematically,
>since they was 7 years old until now that they have 15, they enjoyed each
>opportunity to free themselves of their clothes and to run or swim without
>textile impediments. They DEMAND be photographed on the nude and even turn
>those brief photographic sessions into joyful celebrations. Never, throughout
>the passage of the years, no one of them has been shamed or has asked to me to
>erase the photographs and videos of our excursions. By the contrary, sometimes
>they ask to review the images of previous years and they enjoy them.
>Let me to clarify that the images of they naked, although are, certainly, those
>that more laughter and commentaries provoke, are only an integral part of the
>avalanche of memories of the good time that they had.
>In summary: nobody is shaming, abusing or inflicting psychological wounds to
>these kids, only giving them the opportunity of some happy moments in their
>lives.
>
>white-magic
Of course, I must concur with both you, white-magic, and floppy
regarding the nature of our protagonists and the nature of boyhood.
Speaking for myself, I was raised in a rather repressive environment,
particularly regarding displays of affection between boys and,
subsequently between men, and of anything overtly sexual.
Nevertheless, my boyhood friends and I would oft' take a secret
opportunity to expose ourselves and explore with great interest,
curiosity, and certainly hilarity. We were forever flashing or
mooning one another, tugging away at it, using our erections as towel
racks, etc. etc. whenever the appropriate moment of privacy presented
itself.
Did I ever feel shame about comparing genitals with my
playmates--heavens no, because I was never caught by an adult (and
God-forbid it had been my mother!).
Did I, as a nine-year-old, ever feel guilt? Heavens yes! Why?
Because through the years I had been "taught" by adults--enculturated
thoroughly-- that indulging in such behaviour was "wicked" or
"perverse" or "bad"--even "evil"-- that I would be punished by God, or
perhaps Jesus (though I never believed Jesus would punish me--as my
great aunt once said, "Jesus loves you, but watch out for God.")
And these individuals presently, however poorly, attempting to lambast
Boylovers, are precisely the types (albeit fringe representatives
thereof) who taught me this guilt. They perpetuate this insanity
still, the swill of a perverse and sadly inhuman society.
My very best to you, and thank you for your contributions to The
Galleries.
PS: I did particularly enjoy NB's witty dissertation on the phonemic
principle of dissimilation--a good cautionary essay on the dangers of
depending on Wikipedia, I suppose.
Cheers,
Victor
God Save the Queen!
God Preserve the Prince of Wales!
Rule Britannia!
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
|