| Re: Do boylovers hurt boys? Yes, no, maybe ? |
EasyNews, UseNet made Ea .. |
| the non (myaddress@server.co) |
2007/06/27 23:40 |
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-b80!textbe01-phx!hwmnpeer02.phx!hw-filter.phx!hwmnpeer01.phx!hwmnpeer01.lga!news.highwinds-media.com!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!news3.google.com!out04b.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in01.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news-in-02.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!fe09.news.easynews.com.POSTED!myaddress
From: the non <myaddress@server.co>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.utb.naughty-boy
Subject: Re: Do boylovers hurt boys? Yes, no, maybe ?
References: <myaddress-2FD609.21114316062007@news.easynews.com> <4nl083p4hhstv7dlobtmdhr1kfa904ci6n@4ax.com> <84u083dpdp55ts39tgbac21q1q69qjg3fe@4ax.com> <myaddress-4F1F13.12210226062007@news.easynews.com> <63q283lcqt2d2k1vj21m5n4tp7il8ktmgq@4ax.com> <myaddress-5B31B1.20185727062007@news.easynews.com> <njd583ls0n488ua0g8kpdf2jnr7nu0p8e0@4ax.com>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X)
Message-ID: <myaddress-F857B9.07395928062007@news.easynews.com>
Lines: 142
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:40:13 GMT
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.utb.naughty-boy:166
X-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:37:08 UTC (s02-b80)
In article <njd583ls0n488ua0g8kpdf2jnr7nu0p8e0@4ax.com>,
HMS Victor Victorian <VV@19thCent.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:19:12 GMT, the non <myaddress@server.co> wrote:
>
> >snip
> >>
> >> Thanks for your contribution. I believe you have side stepped the
> >> intent of my question.
> >>
> >> 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 initmatacy?
> >>
> >> Certainly the guardians of social morality and mental health would
> >> answer resoundingly, "Yes!"
> >>
> >> What then say you?
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "That which is not just is not law"
> >
> >Since you ask, no. The guardians of social morality and mental health
> >do far more damage than any paedophile short of kidnap and aggravated
> >rape, and people who do that aren't paedophiles, they are kidnappers and
> >rapists.
> >
> >Since you are fond stories, let me tell a couple:
> >(1) a personal friend used to befriend runaways and homeless boys in a
> >major West Coast city. He would feed them, clothe them as necessary,
> >take care of medical and dental problems, and after several months (the
> >boys knowing all the time my friend's underlying orientation) they might
> >pose for his camera, if they were so inclined. No pressure. Some of
> >the even wanted to sleep with him (heavens to Murgatroid!). One of "his
> >boys", 14 then and now 18, was caught having sex with another 14yo
> >street kid, and the police threatened him with a rape charge unless the
> >gave up the name(s) of adult(s) with whom he had had sex. So the 18
> >year old named my friend, who was promptly arrested, eventually
> >convicted (of photographing minors) and sentenced to 10 years. The cops
> >filed Rape against the 18 year old anyway, and he jumped off a high
> >bridge. Who harmed whom?
> >
> >(2) Another pair of friends, who had no sexual contact until after age
> >18 (and then token experimentation), had a similar result. The man was
> >charged (and convicted) of possession of illegal porn, sentenced to 10
> >years. His friend, whom the police got wind of, was fragile, tended to
> >be depressive, and the police tried everything in their copybook to try
> >and get him to implicate the older friend in an illegal sex act (i.e.
> >under age). He couldn't because it didn't happen, and he wouldn't
> >fabricate. But the result of FBI "intensive interview" techniques were
> >so thoroughly devastating and demoralizin, destroying his self-esteem,
> >that he casually stepped out of a 16th story window after it was over.
> >
> >So re-read what I wrote, and understand that individuals have different
> >capabilities of understanding and perspective. Some people cannot have
> >a sexual relationship at age 25 (or even any age) without guilt, remorse
> >and emotional damage, while some (not any, not all, but some) boys can
> >place the experience in context at age twelve or younger. Follow
> >science, not the crackpot whims of your "guardians" and your mental
> >health professions, most of whom need intensive mental health therapy
> >themselves before they should ever think of addressing the problems of
> >others.
> >
> >Finally, please remember that "morality" is based upon tribal beliefs
> >and superstitions; it is not universal but reflective of whatever group
> >of nuts you happen to chose to belong to. Ethics, on the other hand, is
> >based upon kindness and fair play, and is universally applicable.
>
> Although I do not need to reread your previous and well-crafted
> statements, and I am skeptical as to your view of the source and role
> of "morality" and role of individual volition in choosing one's "group
> of nuts," please allow me to draw some tentative conclusions as to
> your position on this question.
>
> 1. An intimate relationship between a mature boylover and his little
> friend, in and of itself, and like other intimate relationships, can
> be constructive and rewarding for both, even if condemned and
> stigmatized by the moral values of the "greater society."
Exactly
>
> 2. The "greater society" and its moral and legal institutions do far
> greater damage to a boy discovered in such a relationship than is done
> by the boylover himself.
>
Exactly
> 3. Morality is an arbitrary set of values, rules and sanctions
> imposed by a culture on its individual members, whereas ethics
> represents a universal set of values that transcend culture.
Exactly
>
> 4. Provided that the boylover is acting ethically, society is the
> true offender. Acknowledging that social morality is at best
> arbitrary and variable, and that society invariably does more damage
> to a boy than a boylover does, the boylover is under no constraint to
> follow the dictates of that morality and is not culpable for the
> damage society might do to his little friend upon discovery of their
> intimacy.
Exactly
>
> 5. Hence a "true" or ethical boylover does his little friend no harm.
Exactly
>
> Now, a question.
>
> Obviously,many boylovers will have initmate relationships with boys
> irrespective of what their society values, sometimes at great risk to
> themselves and perhaps their paramours, as you put it. Some boylovers
> claim to abstain from intimacy, believing the existing social morality
> insures that harm will invariably be done.
>
> What responsibility does the boylover have towards his society and its
> moral values, if any?
Why should anyone have responsibility to an abstraction?
>
> Lastly, I should like to state that your two stories, like the one
> which I shared with Doc and that you must have read, absolutely
> horrified me. I was hardly "fond" of them, as you put it. I believe
> we are one on this subject, but I must take exception to that
> perceived sarcasm, which offended me.
>
Sorry, offense not intended. My obscure point is that these terrible
things happen all the time, wherein the LEA are willing to destroy the
innocent in order to make a bust, without regard to collateral damage.
Funny, that sounds almost like GWB!
> Again, I respectfully remain,
> Your Obedient Servant
>
> VV
|
|
|