Please enough moral bullshit
MATTI
few good website with some real content. Yes, I mean visuals. There
was very little response as I had figured would happen. There were a
few people who indicated that this was not an appropriate forum to
look for such materials, but I put the question to you, if you are BL
and are not interested in these materials, then you are a BS,
supporter and not a lover. I suggest that these people get out of
this forum and go coach a little league baseball team ot lead a group
of cub scouts and living in your own little private hell of not
acknowledging what you really want. CONTACT! Face up to it. Your
moral justifications are just to make you feel good about yourself,
where in reality you are just like me. I want to look! I look
because I dare not touch. It is a classic Catch 22. By looking I
feed the industry, but for me it is the lesser of 2 evils. If I did
what I really wanted to do and the skeletons in the closet had flesh
and blood, it would be even more evil. I do not consider myself
moral, but I have enough ethics to be honest with myself and others
like me. Get over yourselves, please.
If anyone know of a real site out there with real HC, I just want the
address, the http. I do not want to trade, I do not want to have a
blind chat, I just want to look, so that I do not touch. If you
cannot deal with this that too bad, I can.
MK
PS. Don't bother to send me anymore things with a virus attached, I
my be evil, but I am not stupid!
KILLERTOP OF THE UNKNOWN
Orion
>There were a few people who indicated that this was not an appropriate
>forum to look for such materials, but I put the question to you, if
>you are BL and are not interested in these materials, then you are a
>BS, supporter and not a lover.
If you don't understand what this forum is about then I suggest that
you read the FAQ before you start shooting off your mouth and making
an ass of yourself.
>I suggest that these people get out of this forum
Excuse me? Your going to come in here and just take over and tell those
that are here following the FAQ to get out? I don't think so.
>I do not consider myself moral, but I have enough ethics to be honest
>with myself and others like me. Get over yourselves, please.
No one condemed you for your practices and no one said that we did or
did not participate in them as well. We simply told you that we do NOT
trade that sort of info here in this group. It is obvious that you are
A real daanger to yourself and to young boys. If you are using these
pictures as a means of controling your urges then it is time for you
to be truthful with yourself and get help. It is only a matter of time
before you hurt some innocent young boy.
>If you cannot deal with this that too bad, I can.
I really don't think you have anything under control.
--
Orion
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of Truth"
-- Albert Einstein
Steve Ames
> I sent in a few threads indicating that I was interested in finding a
> few good website with some real content. Yes, I mean visuals. There
> was very little response as I had figured would happen. There were a
> few people who indicated that this was not an appropriate forum to
> look for such materials, but I put the question to you, if you are BL
> and are not interested in these materials, then you are a BS,
> supporter and not a lover. I suggest that these people get out of
> this forum and go coach a little league baseball team ot lead a group
> of cub scouts and living in your own little private hell of not
> acknowledging what you really want. CONTACT! Face up to it. Your
> moral justifications are just to make you feel good about yourself,
> where in reality you are just like me. I want to look!
You know MATTI you're the first boylover/pedophile that's posted here
that I've felt any sort of respect towards. You're a breath of fresh
air as compared to the rest of the over-the-hill denial ridden,
euphemism dependant, self justifying agenda minded lot here.
> I look
> because I dare not touch. It is a classic Catch 22. By looking I
> feed the industry, but for me it is the lesser of 2 evils.
Try a relationship within your own age group MATTI. Your sexual
interest in little boys is a sickness that will never bring you ay
real satisfaction or happiness n matter how many HC web sites you plug
into. And when/if you do find such materials try to imagine the kind
of hell those poor little boys are put through that will plague them
the rest of their lives (provided they're not snuffed after they get
too old) just so you can have something to give yourself a few minutes
of empty meaningless temporary pleasure.
> If I did
> what I really wanted to do and the skeletons in the closet had flesh
> and blood, it would be even more evil. I do not consider myself
> moral, but I have enough ethics to be honest with myself and others
> like me.
MATTI I can see in this post that you recognize that you are afflicted
with an illness. An illness that will eventually ruin your life and
perhaps the life of a child as well. Put a stop to it now before it's
too late.
> Get over yourselves, please.
It's too late for them MATTI. But there's still hope for you.
> If anyone know of a real site out there with real HC, I just want the
> address, the http.
Kiddie porn isn't going to give you what you really need MATTI. You
need a healthy relationship with another adult, that's what will fill
the emptiness that you feel and provide you with a long lasting high
that kiddie porn will never supply.
Take care MATTI.
S*
Secret Squirrel <ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net>
>You know MATTI you're the first boylover/pedophile that's posted here
>that I've felt any sort of respect towards. You're a breath of fresh
>air as compared to the rest of the over-the-hill denial ridden,
>euphemism dependant, self justifying agenda minded lot here.
No, you're the one being dishonest.
You see, if someone had really answered, then you'd
accuse them of being "boylusters", kiddie-porn
collectors. (Not that heterosexual men don't enjoy
porn, but, as we all know to your double standard,
that's "different").
Matt's question may be an honest one. Then again,
it sounds not-too-far-removed from what law
enforcement traps are like. It's really not
that terribly difficult to find pictures of boys,
naked or not, on the 'net. (Like try typing in "boy
pictures" on a search engine, for starters??).
I suggest you read Doctor Who's FAQ sometimes.
Secret Squirrel
Jonathan Swift
for some fresh meat. Guess his butt buddy Marshall is too old
Lex Dexter
> Excuse me? Your going to come in here and just take over?
Why not? That's what you tried to do.
LOL.
Steve Ames
<ssqu...@nottheremailer.net>)wrote
>On 28 Aug 2002 16:21:09 -0700 ,
>steve...@hotmail.com (Steve Ames)
> wrote
>>You know MATTI you're the first
>> boylover/pedophile that's posted here
>> that I've felt any sort of respect
>> towards. You're a breath of fresh air as
>> compared to the rest of the
>>over-the-hill denial ridden,
>> euphemism dependant, self justifying
>>agenda minded lot here.
>No, you're the one being dishonest.
>You see, if someone had really
> answered, then you'd accuse them of
> being "boylusters", kiddie-porn
> collectors.
He is a boyluster and a kiddie porn collector. When did I say he
wasn't?
What I said is that he's straight forward about it. As KT put it, "an
honest creep".
The rest of you are full of crap.
> (Not that heterosexual men
> don't enjoy porn, but, as we all know to
> your double standard, that's "different").
The topic here is kiddie porn Squirrel. Not adult heterosexual porn or
adult homosexual porn.
You really must get a grasp of the concept of just what an actual
double standard is before you erroneously accuse me of displaying one,
as you have just done for he umpteenth time.
>Matt's question may be an honest one.
MATTI's whole attitude regarding his pedophilia and interest in kiddie
porn is as I said; a breath of fresh air as
compared to the rest of the
over-the-hill denial ridden,
euphemism dependant, self justifying
agenda minded lot here.
> Then again, it sounds
> not-too-far-removed from what law
> enforcement traps are like. It's really not
> that terribly difficult to find pictures of
> boys, naked or not, on the 'net. (Like try
> typing in "boy pictures" on a search
> engine, for starters??).
The topic in this thread is, stay with me now, Hard Core Kiddie Porn
not candid pictures of kids at a nudie beach.
>I suggest you read Doctor Who's FAQ
> sometimes.
Is it in any way germain to the topic of this thread? Considering the
contents of your article I seriously doubt it.
S*
Secret Squirrel <ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net>
>squi...@echelon.alias.net (Secret Squirrel
><ssqu...@nottheremailer.net>)wrote
>
>>On 28 Aug 2002 16:21:09 -0700 ,
>>steve...@hotmail.com (Steve Ames)
>> wrote
>
>>>You know MATTI you're the first
>>> boylover/pedophile that's posted here
>>> that I've felt any sort of respect
>>> towards. You're a breath of fresh air as
>>> compared to the rest of the
>>>over-the-hill denial ridden,
>>> euphemism dependant, self justifying
>>>agenda minded lot here.
>
>>No, you're the one being dishonest.
>>You see, if someone had really
>> answered, then you'd accuse them of
>> being "boylusters", kiddie-porn
>> collectors.
>
>He is a boyluster and a kiddie porn collector. When did I say he
>wasn't?
>What I said is that he's straight forward about it. As KT put it, "an
>honest creep".
>The rest of you are full of crap.
IOW, when someone comes here who seemingly confirms
your prejudices about boylovers, you accept him as
"honest".
When the bulk don't, you say that they're "full
of crap".
Seems that someone here has a hard time being honest
with the data.
>> (Not that heterosexual men
>> don't enjoy porn, but, as we all know to
>> your double standard, that's "different").
>
>The topic here is kiddie porn Squirrel. Not adult
>heterosexual porn or adult homosexual porn.
>You really must get a grasp of the concept of just
>what an actual double standard is before you
>erroneously accuse me of displaying one,
>as you have just done for he umpteenth time.
Can you describe the objective differences then?
Funny, I recall that what is considered illegal
pornography and what has not, has always been decided
on the mores of the culture--which has varied from
place to place and time to time. What the culture
considered to be "immoral", "lewd", or "lavicious",
not on the material itself--because it's just
pictures. Or paintings. Or sculpture. Or drawings.
Or even literature.
Even today, there is no agreed-on definition of
child pornography. Are the man/boy stories on
alt.sex.stories child pornography? Should they be
made illegal?
It seems to me that a universally true definition of
pornography is that it's art (yes, art) designed
to stimulate someone sexually. By that definition
Camille Paglia was right when she labeled Donatello's
David as "the greatest work of child pornography ever
made." Because it sure is stimulating.
So, are you of mind to destroy it? Are you an art
destroyer?
(snip)
>> Then again, it sounds
>> not-too-far-removed from what law
>> enforcement traps are like. It's really not
>> that terribly difficult to find pictures of
>> boys, naked or not, on the 'net. (Like try
>> typing in "boy pictures" on a search
>> engine, for starters??).
>
>The topic in this thread is, stay with me now, Hard Core Kiddie Porn
>not candid pictures of kids at a nudie beach.
I was thinking of the former.
>>I suggest you read Doctor Who's FAQ
>> sometimes.
>
>Is it in any way germain to the topic of this thread? Considering the
>contents of your article I seriously doubt it.
From Dr. Who's Security and Encryption FAQ:
"For your own protection, never offer to trade any
illegal material, nor ever respond to those seeking it,
even anonymously".
Secret Squirrel
phaid the gambler
<ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
> Camille Paglia was right when she labeled Donatello's David as "the
> greatest work of child pornography ever made."
absolutely not! Carravagio's "victorious amour" which was 'painted for a
notoriously pedophile cardinal' and helped Carravagio to 'corner the
market in child pornography' in his time.
remind me again, where does "victorious amour" hang these days?
Lex Dexter
phaid the gambler <ph...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message news:<aku4ut$qlc$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Sounds like you dopes are grasping at more straws
again.
We all know the difference between some old painting of a nude woman
and a Penthouse photo.
And we know the difference between some old painting and child porn.
There is one thing you fellas need to take into consideration, he rest
of us aren't interested in molesting children, so we're not going to
see things in the same cockeyed way you nutcases do.
What seems to make sense to you is clear insanity to the rest of the
world.
You can't reason with us or get us to see things your way because you
are all totally flipped out.
Tom Ayers
ph...@localhost.localdomain says...
It's hard to argue with great masterpieces...
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/c/caravagg/06/index.html
Amor Victorious
1602-03
Oil on canvas, 156 x 113 cm
Staatliche Museen, Berlin
Jonathan Silverlight
<lex...@VolcanoMail.com> writes
>phaid the gambler <ph...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>news:<aku4ut$qlc$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 21:27:53 +0100, Secret Squirrel
>> <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Camille Paglia was right when she labeled Donatello's David as "the
>> > greatest work of child pornography ever made."
>>
>> absolutely not! Carravagio's "victorious amour" which was 'painted for a
>> notoriously pedophile cardinal' and helped Carravagio to 'corner the
>> market in child pornography' in his time.
>>
>>
>> remind me again, where does "victorious amour" hang these days?
>
>phaid the gambler <ph...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>news:<aku4ut$qlc$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 21:27:53 +0100, Secret Squirrel
>> <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Camille Paglia was right when she labeled Donatello's David as "the
>> > greatest work of child pornography ever made."
>>
>> absolutely not! Carravagio's "victorious amour" which was 'painted for a
>> notoriously pedophile cardinal' and helped Carravagio to 'corner the
>> market in child pornography' in his time.
>>
>>
>> remind me again, where does "victorious amour" hang these days?
>
s that the same as the "Victorious Cupid"? An article in the London
"Times" of the 17th August describes how an English traveller in 1650
was told that the subject "twas the body and face of his own boy or
servant that laid with him".
The article is about his "St John the Baptist" (1602), now in the
Capitoline Museum, Rome, which is one of the sexiest paintings I've ever
seen! Does anyone know if a reproduction is available online - or a
print for sale :-)
>Sounds like you dopes are grasping at more straws
>again.
>We all know the difference between some old painting of a nude woman
>and a Penthouse photo.
>And we know the difference between some old painting and child porn.
So do we, and in some cases it's not as big as you think! One of the
oldest works of art in existence shows two naked boys - the "Boxing
Boys" of Thera.
>
>There is one thing you fellas need to take into consideration, he rest
>of us aren't interested in molesting children, so we're not going to
>see things in the same cockeyed way you nutcases do.
>What seems to make sense to you is clear insanity to the rest of the
>world.
>You can't reason with us or get us to see things your way because you
>are all totally flipped out.
In that case, who was the painting intended for? And you might ask
yourself what sort of person buys the print of Anna Merritt's "Love
Locked Out" at the Tate Gallery in the UK.
Secret Squirrel
>Sounds like you dopes are grasping at more straws
>again.
>We all know the difference between some old painting of a nude woman
>and a Penthouse photo.
>And we know the difference between some old painting and child porn.
Have you seen Donatello's "David"? (No, not Michelangelo's)
I'm sure that if it were put up in a major American city
it would be labeled "child pornography".
Take a look:
<http://www.roanoke.edu/gst/DonDavid.htm>
Secret Squirrel
Secret Squirrel <ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net>
<ph...@localhost.localdomain> wrote
>On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 21:27:53 +0100, Secret Squirrel
><ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
>
>> Camille Paglia was right when she labeled Donatello's David as "the
>> greatest work of child pornography ever made."
>
>absolutely not! Carravagio's "victorious amour" which was 'painted for a
>notoriously pedophile cardinal' and helped Carravagio to 'corner the
>market in child pornography' in his time.
Oh, the mysteries of artistic taste! ;-)
Note, that despite Lex Dex's protests, both--if
painted or sculpted today--might have be prosecuted
as "child pornography" until the US Supreme Court
struck down the prohibition against virtual child
pornography.
Secret Squirrel
phaid the gambler
If we're talking art, anybody know where i can find a file of frederick,
lord leigton's 'the hit'? I've been loooking for that for years.
Iniquitous Of The Unknown
Secret Squirrel writes:
>Have you seen Donatello's "David"? (No, not
> Michelangelo's) I'm sure that if it were put up
> in a major American city it would be labeled
> "child pornography".
>Take a look:
><http://www.roanoke.edu/gst/DonDavid.htm>
I'll tell you what I see, it looks like one of those she-males. It's a
small breasted woman wearing a womans hat.
The only part of it that looks like bloke is it's willie.
Thanks for the binary link mate it was good for a laugh.
Secret Squirrel
(Iniquitous Of The Unknown) wrote
>Secret Squirrel writes:
That's quite deliberate. That was part of the mythos
behind classical boylove--the beauty of a young male
at an age when they still have some "feminine"
characteristics (smooth skin, no beard, etc.). The
Greeks would have simply told you that boys combined
the best of both men and women in one package.
Secret Squirrel
Steve Ames
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 15:57:38 -0700 (PDT) , Church 0f Sha...@webtv.net
It all sounds pretty bizarre and demented.
I'm glad the Greeks got their act together thousands of years ago and
haven't repeated such abnormal attitudes towards children.
S*
Secret Squirrel <ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net>
>Secret Squirrel <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote in message
>news:<4PJ1QP9537502.4508333333@anonymous.poster>...
>> That's quite deliberate. That was part of the mythos
>> behind classical boylove--the beauty of a young male
>> at an age when they still have some "feminine"
>> characteristics (smooth skin, no beard, etc.). The
>> Greeks would have simply told you that boys combined
>> the best of both men and women in one package.
>
>It all sounds pretty bizarre and demented.
Mr. Ethnocentric--shall I remind you that one very
important purpose behind getting an education is to
expand one's perspective beyond that of one's own
time and place and culture? It's not just to get a
piece of paper to go up on the wall behind your desk.
>I'm glad the Greeks got their act together thousands of years ago and
>haven't repeated such abnormal attitudes towards children.
Uh, Greece provides many of the important traditions
of culture. And despite the persecution of people like
yourself, the Greek appreciation of beauty continues
to this day. Just go to any art exhibit.
Secret Squirrel