On 11 Jul 2007 13:18:12 -0500, unkn <76636@m.xcom> wrote:
>I rescued a couple of questions you made in one of your earlier posts
>and over which I want to make some blood.
>
>you asked
>
>"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 intimacy?"
>
>And unfortunatelly, the answer, or at least my answer, is yes. The
>direct responsability of this society that you call (well called
>tyrannic, make indirect responsibles of us. Fucking unfair, isn't it.
>Grotesquely unfair, considering how society talk about us. So I want to
>focus over another of your questions:
>
>"What responsibility does the boylover have towards his society and its
>moral values, if any?"
>
>Cause I obviously don't know the answer to this one, I'll just try to
>comment what seem to have been the different positions in the groups
>during the last months.
>
>One person who left the groups not many time ago defended that our duty
>as boylovers was to hit fiercely the pillars of this society and its
>conceived moral. And he defended that it was necessary that we and our
>children take certain risks to get all the rights that Occident, or
>modern society, or Judeo-Christian society if you prefer, denied us. The
>fact that this point of view was actively offensive and to a great
>extent dangerous doesn't mean that I didn't understand it, or even share
>it a little. Nop, I suppose I'll never be brave enought to take on a
>idea like that, but it's true that somedays i think 'come, come, nuclear
>bomb', and that this world is so desperating that we should take the
>weapons one of these days... and things like that.
>
>You also watched Dudewiththehair to wave that sentence that seems to
>have become his flag. "The boys first" he said. I admit that this is a
>nice reflection. But I wonder, is the same nice than right? I mean, is
>not maybe a triumph of the 'common moral' if we set the boys necessities
>above ours? Is not a way to yield to the outside pressure? Don't
>misunderstand me, i know that boys are often more helpless and
>necessitous than we are but "If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you
>tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?". Can't we
>be equal than boys? Or is this a crazy idea? I don't know. Anyway, it
>seems that this resolution is the more similar to the truce (or future
>truce) we can pursue. And for this reason it's my favourite.
>
>The poster called lipschitz seems to be very happy feeling atraction to
>minors but not taking any action about it. He forgot to say, I guess,
>that he probably think that the relationships between adults and minors
>are nasty, or outrageous or impure. I'm sorry to say, and maybe disquiet
>some lea, that this is the only point of view that make me wanna throw
>up. It's so sensible, and loyal, and coward all at the same place... I
>really don't want to bend my arm in such a way.
>
>Anyway, as a epilogue, I have to say that society and LEA have now
>exactly what they want of us. We are in the 2007 no more than a bunch of
>disorganized people, many of us lurkers who will hide forever, and
>others, the self-proclaimed aristocracy of the bl usenet society (you
>know, the people with -lol- badges) who seem a little snob for my taste.
>I really don't see much hope. But well, this is just my opinion :P
>
>
>best regards
I shall be more brief here, as it is getting very late and I've got to
be up in two hours.
Because society proclaims one thing right or one thing wrong does not
make it so, even if the consensus is overwhelming. Values once held
as sacred in societies have been overturned throughout the ages.
Using rape as a legitimate weapon of war, once widely accepted, is now
reviled.
Viewing women and children as chattel, once the norm, is now seen as
barbaric.
Human slavery, so deeply ingrained and so fervently defended for all
economic, social and moral reasons in the United States, is now an
inconceivable evil.
Given the humiliation, persecution and prejudice that boylovers and
the boys themselves suffer at the hands of modern society, I say this,
too, must be overturned and at last will be, unless we as modern
peoples wish to turn the clock back. Unfortunately, there is evidence
that this is actually happening, for a conservative refuge is the
enemy of progress.
Lastly, there are organizations that represent the interest of
boylovers and have lobbied to overturn the more draconian laws on the
books. It is also understood that fighting such mindless outrage over
boylove is very dangerous, akin to an American negro man in 1920's
Mississippi daring to whistle in public at a white lady. That was,
then, an offense punishable by lynching.
Now, of course, such a vile act is inconceivable. So you see, there
is some hope.
Oh, and please do NOT vomit on the gallery floor. I'm in enough
trouble already, I fear.
God Save Her Majesty the Queen.
God Preserve the Prince of Wales.
Rule Britannia!
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|