On 11 Aug 2007 09:08:13 -0500, unkn <76636@com> wrote:
> Hello and thank you again for the pics and for your words. I find the
>group a little more 'spicy' than the last time, lol. Cause I'm not very
>aware of the policies of the group, I'll only say that I enjoyed very
>much all the pics :P. Of course I liked your words too.
>
>
>
>HMS Victor Victorian <VictorVictorianREMOVE@hushmail.com> wrote in
>news:028pb3hssbi4uvton8fn6at9b8l53ou3uq@4ax.com:
>
>> 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".
>>
>
>
>
> Don't you think that there are a lot of people who wouldn't consent the
>revelation of such kind of statistics? Violent sex or even physical
>abuse statistics between 'pedophiles'. These reactionary bastards just
>want to keep going with their fears and tabus, and are uncapable to
>learn anything by themselves. They don't want anybody change his mind,
>or even worry about us. They have built a fence so tight around us that
>there is place for no more than one definition. Predator, paedophile,
>twisted, perverted, abuser, raper, boylover, they are all synonyms for
>them. Such a fierce campaign of hate over us it's abominable. They
>deserve a punishment for what they do. I hate them, these fuckers are
>making a very angry person of me. A lonely and angry sociopath.
>
> I've been reading a small bunch of posts that some George (btw with a
>style very similar to the 'cannibal' George from this group) made in one
>of the porn groups. Well, it seemed to be another of those long
>discussions about morality, ethics and possible relationships with
>minors. Nevertheless, I found there a word that called my attention:
>prostitution. Yep, prostitution I said! Because I allways considered to
>frequent places with this kind of activity (and being this an undone
>project) I was no less than interested in their exchange of ideas, that
>finished in silence, like many others. But apart from the discussion
>(that I don't desire to comment), and talking about me again, I have to
>say my opinion. And my opinion is that I wouldn't mind to begin to walk
>the 'Vogelfuetter' route this very day, if I could, and that many times
>I think in this like a real solution to my own afflictions. Do I
>scandalize anybody, or perhaps am I irritating some leas? Happy for
>this, as allways.
>Anyway I assume than the reality of such a kind of 'business' is
>surrounded by undesirable people, but if we manage to annul this kind of
>ambience, selling a body, even a young body, doesn't have to signify a
>loss of dignity, nor for the seller and neither for the client. If it's
>performed with AFFECTION and a satisfying transaction.. what's so
>despicable about trading with a body? is it less decent than working 8
>hours a day? ha-ha.. or perhaps we should think again that sex is
>something dirty, accepting those absurd rules from a world impregnated
>with religion.
>Somebody called prostitution a tool of oppression. I'm not that prude.
>In ideal or favorable circumstances it's just well earned money. Or
>that's just what I think. Perhaps anybody want to object...
>
>
>
>
>> 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
>
>
>
>good job T&A and HMSVV
>
>regards
Thank you for your thoughtful commentary. I understand your anger.
You must be careful to avoid doing anything that will compromise your
health, happiness and safety ... again I would urge you to not let
your rage work in favor of those who hate you.
As to prostitution, I shall not comment. I think that prostitution,
per se, has everything to do with sexual release and nothing to do
with love. Certainly, a boylover may enter a relationship that
involves both ... but, like prostitution, if it does not involve love,
then it is simply sexual relief--I understand that anatomically
accurate, inflateable plastic dolls of women are sold for that kind of
thing. God. Can you just picture it?
Again, regarding the stigma surrounding the act of prostitution, most
of our "morally superior" antagonists, given the preference, would
rather see a Romanian boy die of starvation and exposure in the sewers
that be fed, clothed and loved by a paedophile. This, indeed, is the
sacrifice they would inflict upon the child. Do you not find that
contemptable?
I do.
Take care of yourself, always, and never harm a chum.
God Save Her Majesty the Queen.
God Preserve the Prince of Wales.
Rule Britannia!
|
|