Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.utb.naughty-boy:6598
Path: news.nzbot.com!spool1.sonic-news.com!pull-news.sonic-news.com!news.glorb.com!news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
From: 4s00th <formerly_4s00th@hushmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.utb.naughty-boy
Subject: Re: Thanks Doc for sending the cops my way
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 02:01:33 -0400
Message-ID: <ni3c6957njeoddpmrcq929uqciu15g935m@4ax.com>
References: <0001HW.CE8AD25600B9E8D5B01029DF@news.easynews.com>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.20.32.1218
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 51
Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 5a659036.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=5P^3g^?AoB;hZ4>`7BGPo4L?0kYOcDh@:NBS:J@7If=?=H4TLma<=P;l9B_G1R=S=7>61>=MclH::DjWNbPEld<4iHMI?]I<CI6dcKQ;`EWPb8
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 12:45:10 -0700, Nootrac <not@this.mail> wrote:
>
>I hope your happy
I think you've got it wrong -- Doc is a lovely person. That he
disagreed with or disapproved of your post of ARTWORK would not have
resulted in him contacting the police. Now, if you had posted actual
pictures of boys being harmed or tortured, then Doc probably wouldn't
have been the ONLY ONE who would have sent the police your way,
especially if there were any thought that YOU were directly involved
in the boys being harmed or refused to prevent them from being harmed
for your or other's sexual gratification. But since you posted
artwork, the most you would have gotten from him is that he kill-filed
you; FTR, he probably will not see your original message because of
the kill-filter, but he may see my reply to you, which is a secondary
reason for me to reply to you.
In case you missed it, his objections to your post were that some of
them actually depicted boys being harmed while others depicted adults
manipulating boys for the purpose of their own sexual gratification.
Both of these things are antithical to the ideals of boy-love, though
certainly common enough in many pedophiles.
To explain the difference, while boy-lovers are sexually attracted to
boys the same way that pedophiles are, boy-lovers actually care about
the boys to whom they are attracted and put their needs (the boys'
needs, that is) ahead of their own desires. In most cases, that means
that a boy-lover never actually has sex with a boy because there are
just too many ways that such sexual involvement can cause harm to a
boy. Many of us have known boys who were willing to have sex with us,
but chose not to because we knew the boys were not feeling the same
kind of feelings that we were. Yeah, they were willing, but they were
willing only because they wanted to please us, not because they wanted
to have sex with us. More specifically, they loved us but not in a
sexual way. Boy-lovers are a subset of pedophiles. Unfortunately,
there are plenty of pedophiles who care only about their own desires
and are all too willing to manipulate boys to get what they want
without regard to how such things can harm a boy. And the bigger
problem for us as boy-lovers is that such people get big headlines and
make people think that all pedophiles are exactly like that; thus we
are condemned by their behaviors simply because we have some of the
same feelings that they do.
I hope this helps you understand a little more about why Doc objected
to your posts -- and what we are really about.
Sincerely,
Steve
-- l00sescrew@hushmail.com
|
|