On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 15:32:41 GMT, the non <myaddress@server.co> wrote:
>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.
Yes, indeed! There is no END to the good that our DOGOODERS can DO!
Dropped your a line, BTW.
Cheers,
VV
God Save Her Majesty the Queen.
God Preserve the Prince of Wales.
Rule Britannia!
|
|