In article <028pb3hssbi4uvton8fn6at9b8l53ou3uq@4ax.com>,
HMS Victor Victorian <VictorVictorianREMOVE@hushmail.com> wrote:
> I note that in another well-known and well-frequented group, now
> dormant in regards to BL on-topic material, that spattering from a
> seemingly endless spew going on in ASBL have repeated splashed onto
> the walls and floor of the place ... actually much like this place
> used to be before TnA renovated [tho' occasionally one detects a
> slight hint, just a slight hint, of malodorous residue]. Going there
> is very much like walking the streets Medievel London. One had to
> watch where one stepped below and where one walked above, that one
> should find one's fine feathered hat suddenly soaked with the
> contents of a chamber pot.
>
> Ah, yes. I miss those good old days, don't you?
>
> Ted seems to have launched some kind of social programme to reform, or
> at the very least warm. I wish him the best of luck with that
> Quixotic quest. It seems a troll named Ann wants to criminalize the
> nude photography of children, believing it sets off an irresistable
> need in the paedophiles' to go out and grab some young child and "have
> their way with him/her/it."
>
> First, why stop with nude photos? Why not outlaw anything that could
> be seen as suggestive--the famous Calvin Kline underwear row comes to
> mind--we could include anything that shows skin above the knees or
> below the neckline. Yes, it is true that little boy nipples and
> little girl nipples look the same--oh dear! How then can we
> differentiate without outlawing all nipples! Let it be done, I say!
> We wouldn't want to run the risk of setting off those raging hormones!
>
> Absolutely preposterous.
>
> Secondly, the very idea that paedophiles are incapable of controlling
> their emotions and urges is complete bullocks. [Oops, sorry] The
> community of boylovers is quite similar to the community of
> heterosexuals. Most boylovers admire from afar ... as do
> heterosexuals ... and perhaps like looking at pictures. Would either
> a boylover or a woman lover, if the opportunity presented itself for
> some "touching" or "close hugging" not take that opportunity? Well,
> some would and some would not. A boylover, like a woman lover, might
> very well want to get close to an attractive acquaintance ... to kiss,
> or touch, or fondle, or hug or grope, have quick sex, go to bed, live
> together for years and years, etc. Because this behavior is expected
> among woman lovers, it occurs often. Although it does happen with
> boylovers, it is less frequent for obvious reasons. But all in all,
> the vast majority of boylovers either avoid the relationship or keep
> it superficial. Heterosexuals, particularly heterosexual men who are
> known to see the sexual act as a peculiar combination of love,
> violence and domination, have demonstrated a propensity to do real
> violence to women--rape, torture and even murder. Concurrently, there
> is tiny number of boylovers who have the same murderous
> propensities. "Woman lovers" who commit these kinds of heinous acts
> are not lovers of women at all, but sadists. Men who claim themselves
> "boylovers" yet commit these kinds of horrible deeds are not lovers of
> boys at all, either. Fortunately, this kind of cruel individual is in
> the extreme minority in both populations, though I think a
> statistical comparison of the two might reflect better on the
> "paedophiles" than on the "heterosexuals".
>
> Hence, I dismiss the argument as entirely ludicrous.
>
> Now, I think I shall do some posting of pictures for a friend, who
> expressed some amazement that there are contemporary Flying Boy photos
> ... but just a little bit. I shouldn't wish to excite ... causing
> you all dear patrons to rush to the nearest park and ...
>
> Well, you understand, I'm sure.
>
> VV
>
>
>
> God Save Her Majesty the Queen.
> God Preserve the Prince of Wales.
> Rule Britannia!
If the attitude you describe prevails, then the natural, logical
extension is to prohibit posters of expensive automobiles, since a kid
with a poster of a Porsche or a Lamborghini is certainly an incipient
car thief, and the temptation must be quelled at once. What about food
ads or other pictures? They surely are the root cause of obesity, so
they must be stamped out, too. Perhaps the UK will simply solve all the
problems of society by adopting Sharia Law, and equip the multitude with
stones.
|
|