More of my pain!
paul hannay
Mike
a boylover. I see the term boylover at least for me as a way to sugarcoat
what the driving force behind my feelings really is. I see my feelings for
boys exactly the same as a normal hetero sees with girls. An intense
physical attraction. Until you get to know the person whether it be a guy,
girl, man or woman you only have physical attraction to go on. The emotional
attachment is after the fact. I notice that some boylovers claim no sexual
attraction. I find that difficult to grasp. If it isn't sexually driven than
why don't they give girls equal time. Why not call it childlovers. Are girls
any less beautiful than boys?
Though the underlying force is the same for boylovers as it is with any
other type of attraction it dissipates as the boy ages (IN MOST CASES). The
relationship can't be the same as two adults would have and it doesn't last
a lifetime, (I don't want to hear anyone say that adults divorcing follows
the same lines because it doesn't). Thats the emotional and mental
attraction that dissipates not the physical one. I know I sound all negative
and all but I don't want to fool myself into thinking what I'm feeling is
any more than it is. Also let me make it completely clear that I would never
want to anything to hurt a child whether male or female. I would love to
love a boy without the sexual attraction as the underlying force. Until that
time I find it mostly an excuse. A good parent loves and nurtures their
children without a sexual attraction as the driving force (IN MOST CASES) I
say that because there is incest. I don't know if what I am is a product of
my enviornment or genetic. I believe it is biological the way normal
homosexuality is. But like homosexuality I believe it is also a genetic
flaw. It isn't curable. Nature threw us a curveball and we have to live with
it, and society has to live with it. We need to be accepted for who we are
so long as we don't act on it. Someone posted a response to my story the
other day and said we all deserve the electric chair. It hurt so bad and
just reinforced the fact that I will never be accepted in society if I am
open to what I am. But I will ask the haters, who by the way sure seem
interested to what we hafta say to always be lurking and posting to these
groups. Hmm, could they be denying their true feelings for boys by bashing
us. I guarantee it. Anyway, do you think we don't deserve to live just
because we were born with something that we didn't ask for? Lets kill all
the people of the world with genetic flaws including you bashers. You have
the flaw of no tolerance and understanding for those who are different from
you. Didn't say you hafta condone it. Just understand us a bit. We aren't
monsters. Though thats how society makes me feel.
Wow, didn't expect to type so much this time. I'm like the energizer
bunny. I keep going and going and going. :-)
Mike
With all the pain I still find time to smile. :-)
Senior Loco
ISpoilBoys
>I just want to elaborate on why I prefer to call myself a pedophile and not
>a boylover. I see the term boylover at least for me as a way to sugarcoat
>what the driving force behind my feelings really is. I see my feelings for
>boys exactly the same as a normal hetero sees with girls. An intense
>physical attraction. Until you get to know the person whether it be a guy,
>girl, man or woman you only have physical attraction to go on. The emotional
>attachment is after the fact. I notice that some boylovers claim no sexual
>attraction. I find that difficult to grasp. If it isn't sexually driven than
>why don't they give girls equal time. Why not call it childlovers. Are girls
>any less beautiful than boys?
Are you one of those "the-glass-is-half-empty" people? I don't deny
any of the points you make here, I just see them differently. I choose
the term "boy-lover" to remind me of what I want to be, what I need to
be; you choose "pedophile" to remind you of what you don't want to be.
Is the glass half-empty or half-full?
>Though the underlying force is the same for boylovers as it is with any
>other type of attraction it dissipates as the boy ages (IN MOST CASES). The
>relationship can't be the same as two adults would have and it doesn't last
>a lifetime, (I don't want to hear anyone say that adults divorcing follows
>the same lines because it doesn't). Thats the emotional and mental
>attraction that dissipates not the physical one. I know I sound all negative
>and all but I don't want to fool myself into thinking what I'm feeling is
>any more than it is.
I'm a little bit confused by what you're saying here; however, I will
point out that, though the physical attraction may dissipate, the
emotional bonds do not necessarily change. I can honestly say that I
love the men whom I worked with when they were boys as much as I ever
did -- I'm even still attracted to some of them. Maybe that would be
different if we had been involved sexually, but I don't think so. At
least, it would not be different for me.
>Also let me make it completely clear that I would never
>want to anything to hurt a child whether male or female. I would love to
>love a boy without the sexual attraction as the underlying force. Until that
>time I find it mostly an excuse. A good parent loves and nurtures their
>children without a sexual attraction as the driving force (IN MOST CASES) I
>say that because there is incest.
I'm not so certain that there isn't a bit of sexual attraction in
there. If you've ever watched a little girl manipulate her father,
you've got to wonder.
>I don't know if what I am is a product of
>my enviornment or genetic. I believe it is biological the way normal
>homosexuality is. But like homosexuality I believe it is also a genetic
>flaw. It isn't curable.
Here I must disagree. I do not believe that homosexuality is a genetic
flaw. And I am growing more and more certain that pedophilia is not a
genetic flaw, either. If this were the case, we would expect that both
would be decreasing over time as the trait is bred out of the species.
This does not appear to be happening.
If we look at it from the point of view of evolutionary adaptation,
then we see a different system. If the male reproductive strategy is
to have as many offspring as possible while the female strategy is to
find a supportive male who can take care of her and their offspring,
then pedophilia seems like a perfect compromise. The male would look
for a female as close to puberty as possible so that she can provide
as many offspring as possible over the course of her lifetime, while
the female would look for an established male who could provide
security and stability for the family. This is not genetic flaw, it is
genetic design and adaptation. And I believe that you will find many
examples of this paradigm in nature as well as in human society,
particularly in patriarchal societies.
To be honest, so far I've only been able to come up with one possible
explanation of homosexuality in this paradigm. And that would be as
fail-safe against a dead-end trait. This supposes that the potential
trait for homosexuality is almost always present but is only activated
in the presence of other, undesirable traits.
>Nature threw us a curveball and we have to live with
>it, and society has to live with it. We need to be accepted for who we are
>so long as we don't act on it. Someone posted a response to my story the
>other day and said we all deserve the electric chair. It hurt so bad and
>just reinforced the fact that I will never be accepted in society if I am
>open to what I am. But I will ask the haters, who by the way sure seem
>interested to what we hafta say to always be lurking and posting to these
>groups. Hmm, could they be denying their true feelings for boys by bashing
>us. I guarantee it. Anyway, do you think we don't deserve to live just
>because we were born with something that we didn't ask for? Lets kill all
>the people of the world with genetic flaws including you bashers. You have
>the flaw of no tolerance and understanding for those who are different from
>you. Didn't say you hafta condone it. Just understand us a bit. We aren't
>monsters. Though thats how society makes me feel.
I'm sorry that the response of an intolerant idiot hurt you so much.
Sometimes I still get angry when I see that type of thing -- which is
just another indication of how it gets under my skin sometimes! But I
know better! I am not an evil man, and I certainly do not deserve the
electric chair. I have worked, as a counselor, with genuine sexual
predators who do need to be kept away from potential victims, and the
differences between them and me are astoundingly great. I would hate
myself for doing the things they have done; they hate that they were
caught. They have no concept of the damage they have inflicted on
their victims, and do not understand why they are being punished. To
me, that same possibility of harm to others is enough to keep me from
attempting to start a sexual relationship, much less raping some poor
child.
You cannot judge someone by his feelings or impulses -- we'd all be
found sorely wanting in that area. I even hesitate to judge anyone by
their actions, because I understand that I cannot be sure how I would
react given their circumstances and background. So we must start out
with the proposition that people are good, but they sometimes make bad
decisions, and that the only one we truly have the right to judge is
ourselves. From this, we also must accept that no one else has the
right to judge us.
I know that I have made bad decisions in my life, but I have accepted
the responsibility for those decisions and had to live with the
consequences. I have impulses to make more bad decisions, but I hold
on in my resolve to do no harm to others. (Incidentally, I follow
Robert Heinlein's position that harming one's self is stupid, though
not necessarily wrong!) Therefor, I must accept the fact that I am a
good man. And that no one can gainsay me this.
> Wow, didn't expect to type so much this time. I'm like the energizer
>bunny. I keep going and going and going. :-)
>
>Mike
>
> With all the pain I still find time to smile. :-)
>
Well, I have to admit that one flaw I find that I have is that I enjoy
the sound of my own voice, or even reading my own words! But I hope
that what I've written here makes sense to you, and that you will find
comfort in my words. I hope that we all find the pain less and the
smile more often.
Spider Robinson wrote that pain shared is pain halved, but joy shared
is joy doubled.
ISpoilBoys
Mike
ISpoilBoys wrote in message <35cf3a64....@news.supernews.com>...
>On Mon, 10 Aug 1998 01:47:11 GMT, "Mike" <ask@me> wrote:
I may look at things a bit negative but I only can go with my feelings. That
is how I feel and thats what I wanted to make clear.
>I'm a little bit confused by what you're saying here; however, I will
>point out that, though the physical attraction may dissipate, the
>emotional bonds do not necessarily change.......I'm even still attracted to
>some of them
All I can say that I feel nothing physical for guys much past their early
teens.
Shouldn't a good relationship be complete and last a lifetime. I have
friends my age (non-boylovers of course) and the most I could ever feel for
them is brotherly love. Though in the case of them I don't even feel that
due to me lying to them about what I really am.
>I'm not so certain that there isn't a bit of sexual attraction in
>there. If you've ever watched a little girl manipulate her father,
>you've got to wonder.
Like I said (In MOST cases)
>Here I must disagree. I do not believe that homosexuality is a genetic
>flaw......If this were the case, we would expect that both
>would be decreasing over time as the trait is bred out of the species.
Maybe flaw is the wrong word to use. Whatever the reason behind it is, it
will never be completely if at all accepted in modern society and I'd bet
every paycheck till I die on that. We are a sexually repressed society and
even if that eases over time people will never accept adult/child
relationships, especially when the child is still in his prepubescent
stages. Homosexuality may never be completely accepted either. But at least
people are beginning to tolerate and understand it to a degree.
>If we look at it from the point of view of evolutionary adaptation,
>then we see a different system. If the male reproductive strategy is
>to have as many offspring as possible while the female strategy is to
>find a supportive male who can take care of her and their offspring,
>then pedophilia seems like a perfect compromise. The male would look
>for a female as close to puberty as possible so that she can provide
>as many offspring as possible over the course of her lifetime, while
>the female would look for an established male who could provide
>security and stability for the family. This is not genetic flaw, it is
>genetic design and adaptation. And I believe that you will find many
>examples of this paradigm in nature as well as in human society,
>particularly in patriarchal societies.
Notice you use the male/female approach. At least that follows basic natural
procreation.
>To be honest, so far I've only been able to come up with one possible
>explanation of homosexuality in this paradigm. And that would be as
>fail-safe against a dead-end trait. This supposes that the potential
>trait for homosexuality is almost always present but is only activated
>in the presence of other, undesirable traits.
What do you mean by it only is activated by other undesirable traits. Please
explain.
>......To me, that same possibility of harm to others is enough to keep me
>from attempting to start a sexual relationship, much less raping some poor
>child.
See so you agree that a sexual relationship could be emotionally damaging
even if it is consentual with the child. Obviously pure rape is damaging no
matter what the age.
>You cannot judge someone by his feelings or impulses -- we'd all be
>found sorely wanting in that area. I even hesitate to judge anyone by
>their actions, because I understand that I cannot be sure how I would
>react given their circumstances and background. So we must start out
>with the proposition that people are good, but they sometimes make bad
>decisions, and that the only one we truly have the right to judge is
>ourselves. From this, we also must accept that no one else has the
>right to judge us.
I agree
>I know that I have made bad decisions in my life, but I have accepted
>the responsibility for those decisions and had to live with the
>consequences. I have impulses to make more bad decisions, but I hold
>on in my resolve to do no harm to others. (Incidentally, I follow
>Robert Heinlein's position that harming one's self is stupid, though
>not necessarily wrong!) Therefor, I must accept the fact that I am a
>good man. And that no one can gainsay me this.
I agree
>.....I hope that what I've written here makes sense to you, and that you
will >find comfort in my words.
Some of it does and some doesn't. But thats what makes everyone an
individual. We don't all think or act in the same way. How boring that would
be. Though it certainly would take the pressure off being accepted. :-)
Mike
ISpoilBoys
>I may look at things a bit negative but I only can go with my feelings. That
>is how I feel and thats what I wanted to make clear.
I hope I didn't imply that you were wrong -- that wasn't my intention;
I only wanted to point out that there was another view point that you
might be missing.
>All I can say that I feel nothing physical for guys much past their early
>teens.
>Shouldn't a good relationship be complete and last a lifetime. I have
>friends my age (non-boylovers of course) and the most I could ever feel for
>them is brotherly love. Though in the case of them I don't even feel that
>due to me lying to them about what I really am.
But have you ever had the joy of watching a boy you genuinely love
grow into adulthood? You might find that it makes a difference. Or
possibly not -- I've had several affairs with adult partners, and I do
find some adults attractive. They do tend to look very boyish ....
I understand your feelings about relationships, though. I admit that I
can get very depressed thinking that even if I were to start a
relationship it wouldn't last very long past puberty. Don't I deserve
a relationship that will last a lifetime? But that's all pretty
hypothetical since I will not start such a relationship.
>>I'm not so certain that there isn't a bit of sexual attraction in
>>there. If you've ever watched a little girl manipulate her father,
>>you've got to wonder.
>
>Like I said (In MOST cases)
Actually, having observed this phenomenon over and over again, I would
guess that it's the rule, not the exception.
>Maybe flaw is the wrong word to use. Whatever the reason behind it is, it
>will never be completely if at all accepted in modern society and I'd bet
>every paycheck till I die on that. We are a sexually repressed society and
>even if that eases over time people will never accept adult/child
>relationships, especially when the child is still in his prepubescent
>stages. Homosexuality may never be completely accepted either. But at least
>people are beginning to tolerate and understand it to a degree.
I never said that it would be accepted, and I'm not even sure it
should be -- certainly not in the context of this repressed society.
However, never is a very long time, and there are plenty of historical
examples of boy love as an accepted practice.
>Notice you use the male/female approach. At least that follows basic natural
>procreation.
Sorry, but that's really the only way to look at evolution. But I
don't think it's that big of a stretch from attraction to pubescent
girls to attraction to pre- or pubescent boys. Nor can we ignore the
male's evolutionary imperative to have sex which contributes some; I
could easily see it as an example of stimulus generalization.
>>To be honest, so far I've only been able to come up with one possible
>>explanation of homosexuality in this paradigm. And that would be as
>>fail-safe against a dead-end trait. This supposes that the potential
>>trait for homosexuality is almost always present but is only activated
>>in the presence of other, undesirable traits.
>
>What do you mean by it only is activated by other undesirable traits. Please
>explain.
As I said, the reasoning here gets kind of iffy. But the idea is that
not all members of a species are meant to procreate; that some traits
are not supposed to be passed on to the next generation. So if we
assume that a person has one of these undesirable traits, then it
could be the trigger mechanism for a recessive homosexual trait, thus
nature attempts to insure that the original trait is not passed on.
Please note that I am not saying homosexuality is an undesirable
trait, only suggesting that it may be triggered by other traits that
ARE undesirable.
>See so you agree that a sexual relationship could be emotionally damaging
>even if it is consentual with the child. Obviously pure rape is damaging no
>matter what the age.
Of course I agree! While I have seen research indicating that an
adult/child relationship can have positive effects for the child, I
recognize that there is a tendency for perceived coercion even if the
child appears to be consenting. Then there's the damage that can be
done to the child if such a relationship is found out. And how do you
stress the need to keep the relationship secret without scaring or
shaming or threatening the child? I don't think it can be done. And I
think that is probably where the greatest harm from such relationships
comes -- not the sex itself, but the feeling of betrayal caused by the
need for secrecy. Or the betrayal of trust in the case of rape.
>Some of it does and some doesn't. But thats what makes everyone an
>individual. We don't all think or act in the same way. How boring that would
>be. Though it certainly would take the pressure off being accepted. :-)
>
>Mike
>
Too true, I fear. But my point is that I accept myself and love
myself; I don't need someone else to determine whether or not I'm a
good person. It also happens that my closest friends know and accept
that I am a boy lover. Of course, it's tough at parties when my date
asks for chocolate milk and wants to play Hi-Ho Cherry-O's! ;c{p
Sorry, couldn't resist! But they love me -- the fact that I'm a boy
lover is kind of coincidental. I can't speak to your friends, and I
know how hard it was for me to open up and trust them, but they had
already figured most of it out anyway, so it wasn't really that much
of a surprise.
We agree on a lot, but we are still separated by basic philosophy. I
draw my strength from some of the same things that you despair. Is the
glass half empty or half full?
ISpoilBoys
Heine
(ISpoilBoys) wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:38:23 GMT, "Mike" <ask@me> wrote:
>
>>I may look at things a bit negative but I only can go with my feelings. That
>>is how I feel and thats what I wanted to make clear.
>
>I hope I didn't imply that you were wrong -- that wasn't my intention;
>I only wanted to point out that there was another view point that you
>might be missing.
>
>>All I can say that I feel nothing physical for guys much past their early
>>teens.
I would like to enter this thread with perhaps still another
viewpoint. I find myself agreeing with both of you at different
times, and not at all on others. Here I agree with Mike that no
physical attraction is likely when the individual is much past the
early teens, tho there have been times I found a person even in the
mid-twenties attractive. However, at those times I found myself
wondering what he must have looked like at 14 or 15 and concluding it
would have been better.
These older guys are always very boyish if attractive in their
twenties.
I also want to point out here that the attraction is physical, not
intellectual or even emotional except in a "protective" motherly way.
The desire to not see the 'love object" hurt in any way can be
strong, but, and I emphasize this, only when there is a strong
physical desire present. If there is no physical desire, there is
also no desire to protect.
I find the use of the word "boy-lover" troublesome because I am not
sure what it is that anyone is talking about when the word "love" is
used.
For many people, "love" usually means sex, and thinking of boys as
"love objects" is upsetting to most people . Also, the word 'boy" is
pretty vague, especially on the Net. How many of us have gone to
sites that use the word "boys" only to find men old enough to be
fathers ?
For the sake of this NG I assume that "boy" is referring to young
males from about 16 on down to 8 or 9 or so and that anything younger
is "infants", "babies" and the like. Any over 16 or thereabouts are
young men. But for the general public and all the "pedophile-phobes"
that are so much in evidence nowadays, the "boy" in boy-lover refers
to the entire male agegroup from birth to the federal age of consent
cutoff point of eighteen years of age.
At eighteen, the male is legal and suddently of no concern to them
any more. Magic has taken place. The same individual at seventeen is
jail-bait and any adult over eighteen who shows a sexual interest is a
horrible, horrible person, but a year later...they're just gay...get a
life...don't be concerned with what consenting adults do in the
privacy of their own bedrooms, etc.,etc.
>>Shouldn't a good relationship be complete and last a lifetime. I have
>>friends my age (non-boylovers of course) and the most I could ever feel for
>>them is brotherly love. Though in the case of them I don't even feel that
>>due to me lying to them about what I really am.
>
I also have problem with the idea that strictly sexual attraction,
whether between adults, straights, gays or Pedos or whatever can be a
long term thing at all.
Especially for people attracted to a very small segment of the age
span of humans. Don't most pedophiles or boy-lovers have very limited
or specific ages that appeal to them? For some, eight is too late.
For others, nothing less than twelve and older than fourteen, and so
on. How many pedos or BL like all age groups in the gender of their
preference equally? Not what I have seen in the other NG that BL are
known to frequent.
BL seem to have some very fine-tuned tastes in love objects. And
within any age group the fine turning and selecting continues. How
many that are turned on to 13 to 14 year olds like darks as well as
blonds as well as freckled reds etc?
Boy love is a visual thing mostly isn't it? How many blind boy
lovers are there?
No joke. Does anyone know, especially the pedo-experts?
Are there any cops monitoring this NG that can answer how many
blind boylovers have been arrested nationwide in the past decade or
so?
I say arrested because all the law enforcement statistics and
therefore the knowledge base about pedophilia relys on the numbers
of arrested. I think it is a very relevant question.
If it can be demonstrated that the number of "always blind" boylovers
is not proportional to the number of boylovers with sight, then it can
be strongly assumed that a boys looks has a lot to do with this "love"
thing.
How many straight men in their twenties are attracted to fifty year
old women?? But when they reach the age of fifty, they are assumed to
be so attracted. How many straight men of fifty are attracted to 16
year old cheerleaders doing their stuff at the highschool football
game? No need to answer.
Sex is about youth and mother nature starts us out young. By the
onset of puberty at about 13 or so for boys, nature has made
reproduction possible and even likely in the next few years. Within
ten to fifteen years later, the females are mostly through having
kids, although the males in that age group are still in the game, and
their eyes are often on younger specimens, finding their youthful
physical charms hard to resist and just about impossible to ignore.
How many men who are fathers find themselves, like the President of
the USA, looking at younger stuff than they are married to, and often
getting into trouble? Mr. Clinton is not so unusual in his tastes.
He might be unusual in his acting on it so readily when he has so much
at stake. But there are many older folks out there looking at younger
boys and girls with more than "pure" thoughts.
They are not looking for long term relationships. They are looking
for satisfaction of sexual lust. I think there is much confusion in
general when people use the word "love" and really mean "lust". I
think the word "lust" should be more popular and if used when people
spoke about sexual subjects it would then leave the word "love" for
nonsexual emotions and feelings where sexual desires might be present
but not the dominant factor in a relationship.
>But have you ever had the joy of watching a boy you genuinely love
>grow into adulthood? You might find that it makes a difference. Or
>possibly not -- I've had several affairs with adult partners, and I do
>find some adults attractive. They do tend to look very boyish ....
>
>I understand your feelings about relationships, though. I admit that I
>can get very depressed thinking that even if I were to start a
>relationship it wouldn't last very long past puberty. Don't I deserve
>a relationship that will last a lifetime? But that's all pretty
>hypothetical since I will not start such a relationship.
>
I don't understand how a person who is called a "boy-lover" can
entertain the idea of a long term relationship that starts out at say
thirteen or so for the boy, and progresses until the boy is a man in
his thirtys or forties, a father and son sort of thing. My problem is
that after seventeen or so, the boy is no longer. He is a man, and
the boy-lover can't be a boy-lover still unless he finds new boys.
I have never loved a boy, but I have been physically attracted to a
few boys who had very particular traits and characteristics, all
physical, the personalities notwithstanding.
I have never had a sexual encounter with a boy. Not even when I was
one myself. I had opportunity but my upbringing was such that any
sexual expression except between husband and wife was forbidden and
considered dirty.
Only in later years, after I had a complete change of attitude due to
many different reasons, did I look back upon some of the situations I
had rejected and avoided when in my early to middle teens,and regret
not having participated at least enough to satisfy my curiosity.
Never was love a factor in what I felt for any other young male. And
my best friends--the ones I could most relate to intellectually and
emotionally have even to this day, been physically unappealing to me,
even bodering on what I consider ugly. I know that long term
intellectual relationships between any combination of genders is
possible since I have experienced them, but never was sex or lust
involved. Maybe I am very different from most people, but I can not
put lust and long lasting emotional bonding together, probably because
what I find sexually attractive is really like a hot-house flower in
full bloom, very shortlived.
It would be very nice indeed if the physical traits I find attractive
in a few boys in their early teens were available in men in their 30's
or 40's, but it is simply not so.
Incidently I am almost 60 years old. I have no memories of wonderful
boys I knew. I can at this point phantasize about two different ones
I knew for a month or two each, nearly thirty years ago, but I am
bewildered now when I think back to most of those guys I found
attractive in junior high and high school because I simply feel
nothing towards them now, the memory that is. They stirred me up
then, but thinking about them now is like thinking about a tree. Not
very exciting.
Very seldom do I see a boy today that really attracts me, and by now I
have had so much practice resisting their charms that there is almost
no chance anything could happen, even if they begged for it. If the
laws weren't what they are, I might reconsider. But folks,
pedophile-phobes are everywhere.
>>>I'm not so certain that there isn't a bit of sexual attraction in
>>>there. If you've ever watched a little girl manipulate her father,
>>>you've got to wonder.
>>
>>Like I said (In MOST cases)
>
>Actually, having observed this phenomenon over and over again, I would
>guess that it's the rule, not the exception.
>
I too think there can be a lustful sexual component between parents
and children, regardless of the gender of either.
>>>explanation of homosexuality in this paradigm. And that would be as
>>>fail-safe against a dead-end trait. This supposes that the potential
>>>trait for homosexuality is almost always present but is only activated
>>>in the presence of other, undesirable traits.
>>
>>What do you mean by it only is activated by other undesirable traits. Please
>>explain.
>
The idea of various sexual behaviors being explained as discouraging
the passing on of undesirable traits is one I have encountered before
and I don't have a problem with it. The problem in accepting it for
most who encounter it is probably the present difficulty in defining
what mother nature or evolution "decided"is undesirable to pass on.
We simply don't know enough yet about ourselves as animals in the
great scheme of things to be able to see the overall "plan" or
strategy old mother nature might be using.
We are all filled with traits, and until science can determine what
gene combinations cause what traits a lot better than they do at the
moment (tho they are getting much better at this lately) we are not in
a position to see that something like homosexuality or pedophilia or
whatever actually occurs mostly only when certain other "undesirable"
gene combinations are present and likely to be be detrimental to the
species as a whole.
Sort of like natural abortions which occur during pregnacy that are
the result of "flaws" in the embryo that mother nature would just
rather get rid of sooner than later.
The Homo and Pedo stuff could be for later problem solving.
One trouble is that some homos do reproduce children. I imagine that
a lot of pedophiles also reproduce. This makes mother natures use of
these behaviors a bit ineffecient, but hey...nothing's perfect.
>As I said, the reasoning here gets kind of iffy. But the idea is that
>not all members of a species are meant to procreate; that some traits
>are not supposed to be passed on to the next generation. So if we
>assume that a person has one of these undesirable traits, then it
>could be the trigger mechanism for a recessive homosexual trait, thus
>nature attempts to insure that the original trait is not passed on.
>
>Please note that I am not saying homosexuality is an undesirable
>trait, only suggesting that it may be triggered by other traits that
>ARE undesirable.
Further scientific research in genetics may confirm this idea.
Remember, what mother nature finds undesirable may be very desirable
to silly man and his society. And what man doesn't like may be mother
natures cup of tea. I wonder who is bigger. Mother nature or Man?
Man just cannot seem to get it in his little old head that he IS part
of mother nature, not separate from it, regardless of how much he
tries. We are not synthetic robots. And we are not gods, even
thought many would have us believe that they are indeed damned close.
We are mother nature produced animals with all the behaviors
associated with animals, civilization to the contrary notwithstanding.
>
>>See so you agree that a sexual relationship could be emotionally damaging
>>even if it is consentual with the child. Obviously pure rape is damaging no
>>matter what the age.
>
>Of course I agree! While I have seen research indicating that an
>adult/child relationship can have positive effects for the child, I
>recognize that there is a tendency for perceived coercion even if the
>child appears to be consenting. Then there's the damage that can be
>done to the child if such a relationship is found out. And how do you
>stress the need to keep the relationship secret without scaring or
>shaming or threatening the child? I don't think it can be done. And I
>think that is probably where the greatest harm from such relationships
>comes -- not the sex itself, but the feeling of betrayal caused by the
>need for secrecy. Or the betrayal of trust in the case of rape.
>
>>Some of it does and some doesn't. But thats what makes everyone an
>>individual. We don't all think or act in the same way. How boring that would
>>be. Though it certainly would take the pressure off being accepted. :-)
>>
>>Mike
>>
I don't approve of encouraging adults and children below the age of
16 or so to have any kind of serious sexual relations, but I also
don't approve of demonizing those who do, when the affair is
demonstrably consensual. But the way things are today in the USA,
even if the minor wants it, and may have initiated the encounter, the
law says the minor under the age of 18 is not wise enough to make a
valid decision about such things and therefore consent is impossible.
Heads must roll. Burn them at the stake....horrible horrible wicked
people...etc.
I also don't think that "playing doctor" should be equated with
outright forceable rape, but it is. Even if minors are involved in
an encounter and one of them is two or more years older than the
younger, society says that a horrible horrible life ruining event has
taken place and heads must roll. Crucify the 12 year old for
improper touch of the ten year old, whose life if horribly ruined.
Why the poor boy will need years of theropy by experts and
professionals to show him how ruined he is. But it wasn't his fault.
He was molested by a horrible pedophile person two years older than
him. Do you know this sort of thing is actually going on in the land
of the free right now? What madness is yet to come?
I wonder how many pedophilephobes know that research into monkeys
and various other members of the ape family, of which we are the
highest members, show that it is very common for the males of a group
to have sexual relations with nearly ALL other members of the group
whenever they get the urge, regardless of the gender or age of the
"victims".
>Too true, I fear. But my point is that I accept myself and love
>myself; I don't need someone else to determine whether or not I'm a
>good person. It also happens that my closest friends know and accept
>that I am a boy lover. Of course, it's tough at parties when my date
>asks for chocolate milk and wants to play Hi-Ho Cherry-O's! ;c{p
>
Hey, I like that........you must live in some other part of the world
than the USA, like twenty four out of every twenty five other people
do.
Realize tho, that considering yourself a good person or whatever is
not the final answer.
Very few Germans in the Third Reich thought of themselves as evil
monsters like so much of the rest of the world did. And once the ball
over there really started rolling, many a Jewish family who had had
good relations with non-Jewish families found themselves no longer
wecome at the social functions or anywhere else. Wouldn't even speak
to them on the street, except to say something threatening.
Do you realize that the Jewish doctors in Germany were targeted early
as child molesters?
Nazi laws made it a crime for non-Jewish Germans to go to Jewish
doctors because those doctors were notorious for molesting and
destroying the purity of the young German girls.
And the boys in the Hitler Youth were thoroughly briefed on what to
look for when on the prowl for trouble makers. They were to be
especially brutal when they cornered Jewish men who were suspected of
having molested girls or even worse tried to touch a boy, maybe even
another Hitler Youth.
All this was over sixty years ago and in another country. But the
same mind set is in this country folks.
It is unfortunate, but others are going to decide just how good a
person you are, and if you fall into what they percieve as the
boylover group you'd better enjoy the freedom you have now to speak in
these NG while they are here.
Just remember, the Gestapo is already on the job and has been for some
time. You know, the camps weren't activated until close to the end of
the Nazi reign of terror. They had to get names and addresses first,
and this was before computers. If I were a young person with a lot
of time left, I would not post anything on this subject. But I am
not, and don't have so much to loose by giving my opinion. It is a
shame that in America, the land of the free, people have to be very
careful nowadays about what they say and to whom they say it. I just
don't believe this is what Thomas Jefferson and the others had in mind
for the United States of America.
>Sorry, couldn't resist! But they love me -- the fact that I'm a boy
>lover is kind of coincidental. I can't speak to your friends, and I
>know how hard it was for me to open up and trust them, but they had
>already figured most of it out anyway, so it wasn't really that much
>of a surprise.
>
>We agree on a lot, but we are still separated by basic philosophy. I
>draw my strength from some of the same things that you despair. Is the
>glass half empty or half full?
>
>ISpoilBoys
What if your glass is a styro-foam cup with a crack in it?
Sorry this is so long. I probably won't post again.
I just got the urge suddenly, and at my age if you wait more than a
few minutes you tend to forget what the urge means.
I hope I did not offend or confuse anyone who might be desparate
enough to be reading in this NG, cops included and surely they are
among the most confused.
How terrible it must be to be a cop assigned to monitor a group like
this. Only a true vampire-hunter tracking down the wicked in order to
catch them asleep in their coffins so the wooden stake can be safely
driven before the sun goes down could be happy here.
NG like this one will not be around long probably. The
pedophilephobes will have their day just like the Nazis in Europe had
theirs with the Jews. It is inevitable. I am glad my time is short.
I feel like a Jew in Germany in 1932 watching Hitler Youth marching in
the streets shouting slogans and promising the clean everything up and
get rid of the trouble makers. Time to hide.
But I never even did anything with a minor.
Doesn't matter. I thought about it.
Thought crime will become a fact in the USA before this is over.
It is here now, but just doesn't have an official name. Pedophiles
will be the first targets, because no one likes those sickos.
They don't even like each other.
Easy targets. Fire at will.
RZ
I just read your response. I sit here and think of all the different
opinions that people have about sex. So many people justify the many
ways why they CAN have sex. People try and take away guns, drugs,
music, money.. etc.. but no one I know has tried to take away SEX>
What do I mean by this?
Men get mad at me when I tell them that casual sex, even though it is
consenting is wrong.
Wrong, because it isnt part of a long term relationship. Wrong because
men like to sleep with and experience many men. When I call them on
this, they get angry like I am taking away their fun. I personally
feel ( for me), that sex with too many people can dull the heart, and
increase the desire to have sex. Not good for understanding yourself,
and the other wonderful parts of a relationship.
Well, I am a gay 29 y/o. I have had no luck with men. Im a person who
wants to fdind meaning in a relatiopnship with a person. All the men
who wanted to be with me, want SEX. I am a person who puts sex at the
bottom of the list. All the men have left me.
Im still a virgin when it comes to sex with men.
As a 15 and 17 year old I had some "touching" experiences with my
younger cousins, but as far as sex I havent really done more than that.
I read the posts on this newsgroup because all the boys ive known
offered unconditional love from inside their heart. They hug, and stay
close, and tell you how they feel. Sex isnt the reason why they like
older guys, its the companionship, the older friend, and the security.
A man, wants sex, freedom, the ablity to choose someone else, and sexual
satisfaction. Very few that i have known can be gentle, or can overcome
the sex drive and be a friend with values that prove they will stay
around.
I cant say I accpet the points of view I read here. Some of them are
out of the question for me. I will respect what you all say, but I dont
have to like it.
I appreciate the people here who post regarding LOVE and CARING about
boys. Seeing the beauty of Childhood,and the innocence of a heart
undamaged by this sick world.
I wish you all luck.
Mike
ISpoilBoys wrote in message
>But have you ever had the joy of watching a boy you genuinely love
>grow into adulthood? You might find that it makes a difference. Or
>possibly not -- I've had several affairs with adult partners, and I do
>find some adults attractive. They do tend to look very boyish ....
I really never saw any of the boys I was attracted to grow into adulthood
other than some teen idols I was into back then. Looking at some of them
today like Ricky Schroder I can say that I have an odd attraction to seeing
him now. Not a sexual one, but I think seeing him so grownup and doing well
and remembering what is like as a kid is the attraction. I'm glad to see
things went well for him and I wish only good things for him. Though I never
really knew him other than what I saw of him on TV and in movies and
interviews I
guess you can say that there is a certain connection that stays with me even
though the physical one is gone.
As for adults that tend to look boyish such as Leonardo DiCaprio I guess
you can say I am attracted to him. Its not a strong one but because he looks
so young I do feel something. This goes for many guys in their teens and
20's. Basically if they look like a boy than their age doesn't matter to me.
>I understand your feelings about relationships, though. I admit that I
>can get very depressed thinking that even if I were to start a
>relationship it wouldn't last very long past puberty. Don't I deserve
>a relationship that will last a lifetime? But that's all pretty
>hypothetical since I will not start such a relationship.
I agree with you 100%
........
>I never said that it would be accepted, and I'm not even sure it
>should be -- certainly not in the context of this repressed society.
>However, never is a very long time, and there are plenty of historical
>examples of boy love as an accepted practice.
Society has changed and where a child is concerned people see them needing
protection and that seems to be stronger than ever. I don't see society
backing off from those feelings.
>....I don't think it's that big of a stretch from attraction to pubescent
>girls to attraction to pre- or pubescent boys. Nor can we ignore the
>male's evolutionary imperative to have sex which contributes some; I
>could easily see it as an example of stimulus generalization.
>As I said, the reasoning here gets kind of iffy. But the idea is that
>not all members of a species are meant to procreate; that some traits
>are not supposed to be passed on to the next generation. So if we
>assume that a person has one of these undesirable traits, then it
>could be the trigger mechanism for a recessive homosexual trait, thus
>nature attempts to insure that the original trait is not passed on.
Well with how I feel about the many traits I have, both physical as well as
mental than you have a point. :-)
I smile at what I just said but it is really just masking the pain I feel
about it.
>.....While I have seen research indicating that an
>adult/child relationship can have positive effects for the child, I
>recognize that there is a tendency for perceived coercion even if the
>child appears to be consenting. Then there's the damage that can be
>done to the child if such a relationship is found out. And how do you
>stress the need to keep the relationship secret without scaring or
>shaming or threatening the child? I don't think it can be done. And I
>think that is probably where the greatest harm from such relationships
>comes -- not the sex itself, but the feeling of betrayal caused by the
>need for secrecy. Or the betrayal of trust in the case of rape.
I totally agree. Heres the scenario
Joey: Mom guess what me and Tom (who is 5 years older than Joey) did today?
Mom: What honey?
Joey: We played doctor.
Mom: Did you have fun
Joey: Definitely, it was cool.
Mom: Well as long as you were careful.
Assuming Joey got similar responses from his friends and others he told he
really wouldn't feel ashamed. He wouldn't have anything to hide and
therefore it wouldn't eat him up inside during the course of his development
and life.
>
>>Some of it does and some doesn't. But thats what makes everyone an
>>individual. We don't all think or act in the same way. How boring that
would
>>be. Though it certainly would take the pressure off being accepted. :-)
>>
>>Mike
>>
>Too true, I fear. But my point is that I accept myself and love
>myself; I don't need someone else to determine whether or not I'm a
>good person. It also happens that my closest friends know and accept
>that I am a boy lover. Of course, it's tough at parties when my date
>asks for chocolate milk and wants to play Hi-Ho Cherry-O's! ;c{p
>
>Sorry, couldn't resist! But they love me -- the fact that I'm a boy
>lover is kind of coincidental. I can't speak to your friends, and I
>know how hard it was for me to open up and trust them, but they had
>already figured most of it out anyway, so it wasn't really that much
>of a surprise.
>
>We agree on a lot, but we are still separated by basic philosophy. I
>draw my strength from some of the same things that you despair. Is the
>glass half empty or half full?
I'm really on the fence on this one. I still lean toward empty though.
To the cops and other people against pedophiles that are monitoring and
reading this group, I would welcome your intelligent input to this and other
threads. I would like to see the views of people on the other side so to
speak. We need the help from both sides. Please only post if you are going
to take it seriously. I'm tired of seeing people posting and just wishing to
burn us at the stake and offering no intelligent comments. It shows a real
lack of openmindedness. You don't hafta agree with us but at least give a
mature reason why you don't.
Mike
Leo
<snip>
>I also have problem with the idea that strictly sexual attraction,
>whether between adults, straights, gays or Pedos or whatever can be a
>long term thing at all.
> Especially for people attracted to a very small segment of the age
>span of humans. Don't most pedophiles or boy-lovers have very limited
>or specific ages that appeal to them? For some, eight is too late.
>For others, nothing less than twelve and older than fourteen, and so
>on. How many pedos or BL like all age groups in the gender of their
>preference equally? Not what I have seen in the other NG that BL are
>known to frequent.
Is this true? Perhaps some boy-lovers have a rather narrow age-band that
they *prefer* but usually meeting a nice boy of some other age will be
enough to persuade them to go outside it.
> BL seem to have some very fine-tuned tastes in love objects. And
>within any age group the fine turning and selecting continues. How
>many that are turned on to 13 to 14 year olds like darks as well as
>blonds as well as freckled reds etc?
Please sir, me sir!
Again, in terms of ideal abstract preference, we may go for certain
particular physical types. But once we actually start getting to know real
boys, we may find we're not nearly so fussy. Haven't you had the experience
of thinking a boy was perhaps a bit plain on first meeting, and then
realising how attractive he was after you got to know him?
> Boy love is a visual thing mostly isn't it? How many blind boy
>lovers are there?
> No joke. Does anyone know, especially the pedo-experts?
It's mostly a visual thing because these days it's mostly quite hard to get
to know boys well, so looking is all that's left. That's the only reason.
> Are there any cops monitoring this NG that can answer how many
>blind boylovers have been arrested nationwide in the past decade or
>so?
> I say arrested because all the law enforcement statistics and
>therefore the knowledge base about pedophilia relys on the numbers
>of arrested. I think it is a very relevant question.
> If it can be demonstrated that the number of "always blind" boylovers
>is not proportional to the number of boylovers with sight, then it can
>be strongly assumed that a boys looks has a lot to do with this "love"
>thing.
Looks are a good first introduction. But voices are pretty nice, too. If I
was blind, I would still love to hear boys' voices.
> How many straight men in their twenties are attracted to fifty year
>old women?? But when they reach the age of fifty, they are assumed to
>be so attracted. How many straight men of fifty are attracted to 16
>year old cheerleaders doing their stuff at the highschool football
>game? No need to answer.
While youth is a visually attractive quality, I think you're wrong to
assume that adult-lovers only or overwhelmingly prefer youth. I know
several who don't, especially very young men who prefer mature women.
<snip>
>I don't understand how a person who is called a "boy-lover" can
>entertain the idea of a long term relationship that starts out at say
>thirteen or so for the boy, and progresses until the boy is a man in
>his thirtys or forties, a father and son sort of thing. My problem is
>that after seventeen or so, the boy is no longer. He is a man, and
>the boy-lover can't be a boy-lover still unless he finds new boys.
The sexuality 'boy-lover' can cause you to fall in love with boys. But it
doesn't cause you to fall out of love with them or reject them as soon as
they look like growing up. Even if the original motivation for it is
sexual, love is about more than sex. Also, your pigeonholing of sexualities
is a bit too neat. Just because you fancy men, or women, or whatever, that
doesn't stop you from being a boy-lover as well.
>I have never loved a boy,
That is sad ... but you still have time:-)
>but I have been physically attracted to a
>few boys who had very particular traits and characteristics, all
>physical, the personalities notwithstanding.
That is just a very first stage of boy-love.
> I have never had a sexual encounter with a boy. Not even when I was
>one myself. I had opportunity but my upbringing was such that any
>sexual expression except between husband and wife was forbidden and
>considered dirty.
>Only in later years, after I had a complete change of attitude due to
>many different reasons, did I look back upon some of the situations I
>had rejected and avoided when in my early to middle teens,and regret
>not having participated at least enough to satisfy my curiosity.
> Never was love a factor in what I felt for any other young male. And
>my best friends--the ones I could most relate to intellectually and
>emotionally have even to this day, been physically unappealing to me,
>even bodering on what I consider ugly. I know that long term
>intellectual relationships between any combination of genders is
>possible since I have experienced them, but never was sex or lust
>involved. Maybe I am very different from most people, but I can not
>put lust and long lasting emotional bonding together, probably because
>what I find sexually attractive is really like a hot-house flower in
>full bloom, very shortlived.
It may be fair to say that you're really lucky if you can get a physical
and an emotional and an intellectual bond all with a boy or any other one
person. Even two out of those three is pretty nice.
>It would be very nice indeed if the physical traits I find attractive
>in a few boys in their early teens were available in men in their 30's
>or 40's, but it is simply not so.
Life's a bitch, eh? Part of the problem is that because of the way
demographics are going in western countries, there is simply a huge glut of
boy-lovers compared with the number of boys. It means we're much more
likely to face some loneliness.
>Incidently I am almost 60 years old. I have no memories of wonderful
>boys I knew. I can at this point phantasize about two different ones
>I knew for a month or two each, nearly thirty years ago, but I am
>bewildered now when I think back to most of those guys I found
>attractive in junior high and high school because I simply feel
>nothing towards them now, the memory that is. They stirred me up
>then, but thinking about them now is like thinking about a tree. Not
>very exciting.
>Very seldom do I see a boy today that really attracts me, and by now I
>have had so much practice resisting their charms that there is almost
>no chance anything could happen, even if they begged for it. If the
>laws weren't what they are, I might reconsider. But folks,
>pedophile-phobes are everywhere.
This is all rather sad -- but you say you have good friends anyway. Getting
to know boys is not compulsory for boy lovers, and it's perfectly possible
to live a happy life without. And while that's a bit of a shame and a
waste, the fault is more society's than our own, for making it so
difficult.
<snip - homosexuality nature's way of limiting the spread of 'bad' genes>
I find that theory needlessly contrived and a bit heterosexist:-) I don't
see any great problem with the natural existence of non-reproductive
sexualities, if they helped with the cohesion of early human or
proto-human society.
Among the species most closely related to us humans are bonobo chimps, for
whom sex is most certainly not limited to reproduction. Males and males,
females and females, any other combination, any combination of ages,
they're happy to indulge in all, with great aplomb and frequency. Sex is
the cement for their society, and it is a reasonable hypothesis that it may
have been for early humans, too.
Not in exactly the same way of course. For bonobos, sex seems to be a
rather trivial experience, over in seconds, used in the way we might use a
handshake or a kiss. For humans it is evidently rather more intense
(apparently, and interestingly, more so than for any other animal), more of
a consummation for a friendship or relationship perhaps -- of course, we
have handshakes and kisses as well!
I can see this complex and instense sexuality as being a huge spur to the
development of human communication. Music and speech might have a common
origin in a love song. And this early human society, bound by a great
variety of sexualities, might have had a great collective advantage over
those more primitive animals that use sex only for reproduction. I suggest
that, while we do use sex for that, we also have another use for it,
equally important, equally valid.
>>As I said, the reasoning here gets kind of iffy. But the idea is that
>>not all members of a species are meant to procreate; that some traits
>>are not supposed to be passed on to the next generation. So if we
>>assume that a person has one of these undesirable traits, then it
>>could be the trigger mechanism for a recessive homosexual trait, thus
>>nature attempts to insure that the original trait is not passed on.
>>Please note that I am not saying homosexuality is an undesirable
>>trait, only suggesting that it may be triggered by other traits that
>>ARE undesirable.
>Further scientific research in genetics may confirm this idea.
>Remember, what mother nature finds undesirable may be very desirable
>to silly man and his society. And what man doesn't like may be mother
>natures cup of tea. I wonder who is bigger. Mother nature or Man?
Now that is silly. Because humanity is part of nature, whatever humanity
likes, it is natural for humanity to like.
>Man just cannot seem to get it in his little old head that he IS part
>of mother nature, not separate from it, regardless of how much he
>tries.
Interesting how you can say nearly the same thing as me and mean nearly the
opposite! :-)
>We are not synthetic robots. And we are not gods, even
>thought many would have us believe that they are indeed damned close.
>We are mother nature produced animals with all the behaviors
>associated with animals, civilization to the contrary notwithstanding.
There is nothing contrary to nature in civilisation. That *is* humanity's
nature.
<big snip>
>NG like this one will not be around long probably. The
>pedophilephobes will have their day just like the Nazis in Europe had
>theirs with the Jews. It is inevitable. I am glad my time is short.
>I feel like a Jew in Germany in 1932 watching Hitler Youth marching in
>the streets shouting slogans and promising the clean everything up and
>get rid of the trouble makers. Time to hide.
> But I never even did anything with a minor.
> Doesn't matter. I thought about it.
>Thought crime will become a fact in the USA before this is over.
> It is here now, but just doesn't have an official name. Pedophiles
>will be the first targets, because no one likes those sickos.
>They don't even like each other.
> Easy targets. Fire at will.
Pedophiles are easy targets, I agree: to call yourself that, in the English
speaking world anyway, is to hang a notice round your own neck saying
'please kick me'. But boy-lovers are only easy targets if we allow
ourselves to be.
I hope you are wrong about this group being short-lived. But to limit
boy-lovers to boy-love groups would anyway be a pitiful waste of the
potential of the internet.
In meatspace, people hate us and do us violence because they don't know us,
and their hatred prevents them from ever getting to know us. But on the
internet, that doesn't work. In an environment where violence is
impossible, we have a chance at last to let people find out what we really
are like. I am mainly active on other groups, such as uk.politics.misc and
uk.legal, and find I am broadly accepted and can easily deal with the
occasional flamer. I think others should spread out into other groups,
identifying as boy-lovers, and just let people see we're human after all.
I agree with you that things are going to get worse before they get better.
But I don't see the medium and long term future as bleak at all. I think
our time is shortly to come, thanks not least to the net.
Well, enough crazy optimism for today. See y'all about:-)
--
Leo left-libertarian humanist boy-lover
"To mistrust science and deny the validity of the scientific method is to
resign your job as a human. You'd better go look for work as a plant or
wild animal." --P.J. O'Rourke
Tom
says...
> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998 03:09:48 GMT, ISpoi...@supernews.com
> (ISpoilBoys) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 02:38:23 GMT, "Mike" <ask@me> wrote:
> >
> >>I may look at things a bit negative but I only can go with my feelings. That
> >>is how I feel and thats what I wanted to make clear.
> >
> >I hope I didn't imply that you were wrong -- that wasn't my intention;
> >I only wanted to point out that there was another view point that you
> >might be missing.
> >
> >>All I can say that I feel nothing physical for guys much past their early
> >>teens.
>
> I would like to enter this thread with perhaps still another
> viewpoint. I find myself agreeing with both of you at different
> times, and not at all on others. Here I agree with Mike that no
> physical attraction is likely when the individual is much past the
> early teens, tho there have been times I found a person even in the
> mid-twenties attractive. However, at those times I found myself
> wondering what he must have looked like at 14 or 15 and concluding it
> would have been better.
>
Not true, it counts on the individual. Many of us DO like young men
and older men as well, and some BLs have rare occasions when for ONE
person they CAN like them sexually into adulthood, for whatever
reasons, maybe because of the relationship they had with him growing
up, but it does happen, it just does not happen with all pedophiles.
> These older guys are always very boyish if attractive in their
> twenties.
>
> I also want to point out here that the attraction is physical, not
> intellectual or even emotional except in a "protective" motherly way.
>
> The desire to not see the 'love object" hurt in any way can be
> strong, but, and I emphasize this, only when there is a strong
> physical desire present. If there is no physical desire, there is
> also no desire to protect.
>
I hope you mean for you and not for all of us. We are all different,
and I am certainly not like that. I love boys for them being boys,
there is a sexual aspect too, to many but NOT all, but the love is
there none the less.
>
> I find the use of the word "boy-lover" troublesome because I am not
> sure what it is that anyone is talking about when the word "love" is
> used.
>
Love, like many "emotional" words, can mean different things to
different people, and even different things to the same person when
referring to different people or different situations with the same
people.
> For many people, "love" usually means sex, and thinking of boys as
> "love objects" is upsetting to most people . Also, the word 'boy" is
> pretty vague, especially on the Net. How many of us have gone to
> sites that use the word "boys" only to find men old enough to be
> fathers ?
>
I disagree. If love mainly meant sex to most people, then parents
would NEVER say they love their children, and we would not say things
like "I love chocolate ice cream." As for boy, in the gay world that
means one that is the submissive partner many times, or the younger
one, or one that "looks" younger, and even twinks. But just because
they use boy as well does not mean we should ALL use it that way. If
that were the case, then once again, parents and society would have to
find a new name for a male minor. I think you are projecting your own
beliefs onto all of us, pedophile or not. It would be better to ask
non pedophiles what they define love as, then what they define boy as,
trying not to give them the hint that you are referring to pedophilia.
Then ask them what they would think the two together would be, boy
love, or child love. I think in most cases you would get the response
that a boy is a male child, and love is emotional, sometimes in sexual
relationships too, like marriage, but mainly emotional, not sexual in
and of itself.
> For the sake of this NG I assume that "boy" is referring to young
> males from about 16 on down to 8 or 9 or so and that anything younger
> is "infants", "babies" and the like. Any over 16 or thereabouts are
> young men. But for the general public and all the "pedophile-phobes"
> that are so much in evidence nowadays, the "boy" in boy-lover refers
> to the entire male agegroup from birth to the federal age of consent
> cutoff point of eighteen years of age.
>
Boy refers to any male minor, from infancy to 18.
We are many, with many different likings and beliefs, so the
definition must be broad. However, some, to be more specific, use the
term teen lover, or teen boy lover, or preteen lover, or the Greek
words for them. But the term boy lover is very general, boys being
any male child up to 18, and love meaning we "mainly" emotionally
lover them, or else we would just call ourselves pedophiles, as
pedophile may or may not love the child they are sexually attracted
to, but a boy lover DOES emotionally love the boy he is "also"
sexually attracted to, but the love is NOT sexual, though that
component is there as well, just as in marriage, where the love is the
overwhelming component, or else the husband would be running around
with every good looking woman he sees. Lastly, some who call
themselves boy lovers are NOT sexually attracted even one bit to boys,
but they DO very DEEPLY love boys, emotionally only, so they call
themselves boy lovers, for that term fits them very well too.
> At eighteen, the male is legal and suddently of no concern to them
> any more. Magic has taken place. The same individual at seventeen is
> jail-bait and any adult over eighteen who shows a sexual interest is a
> horrible, horrible person, but a year later...they're just gay...get a
> life...don't be concerned with what consenting adults do in the
> privacy of their own bedrooms, etc.,etc.
>
I would like to point out that also that magic takes place at the very
SECOND the day at the location THEY are at changes to their 18th
birthday. We are not even talking a year here, but only ONE second.
If you had oral sex with a 17 yo boy BUT he turned 18 THAT night and
had anal sex with him that SAME night, in the SAME act of having sex
with him, say starting at 11:55 PM and ending at 12:30 am, then you
could LEGALLY be charged with molestation for the oral crime with a
minor, but NOT for the anal sex of the adult, of the SAME person only
minutes later. This is absolutely insane, but IS legal.
I also point out that if you took a 16 yo boy to all 50 states and had
sex with him in each state, it would be a crime in only "some" of
those states, not all, and it would be a Federal crime even in the
states that it is "legal" to do that with a 16yo, meaning that even
though the "state" says it is legal, the Feds say it is not and so
override that and prosecute you for it themselves, that is IF they can
find a way to do that, like claiming you crossed state lines to do it,
if you did cross state lines "to do it" that is.
> >>Shouldn't a good relationship be complete and last a lifetime. I have
> >>friends my age (non-boylovers of course) and the most I could ever feel for
> >>them is brotherly love. Though in the case of them I don't even feel that
> >>due to me lying to them about what I really am.
> >
> I also have problem with the idea that strictly sexual attraction,
> whether between adults, straights, gays or Pedos or whatever can be a
> long term thing at all.
>
Oh yes they can, very much so, but they may not be as "fulfilling" as
one that has love in it as well. Some perfectly straight people go
back to the same opposite sex adult for decades even, just for sex,
and in fact the word "fuck buddy" was the term used for that when I
was in the U.K., I lived there for two years, and many women would
openly talk about how they have had their fuck buddy for ten or even
20 years, on and off as they "needed" or wanted him. Their point was
that it was nice to have someone "just" to have sex with, and that
having NO emotional attachment or commitment to that person made it
all that much better.
>
> Especially for people attracted to a very small segment of the age
> span of humans. Don't most pedophiles or boy-lovers have very limited
> or specific ages that appeal to them? For some, eight is too late.
> For others, nothing less than twelve and older than fourteen, and so
> on. How many pedos or BL like all age groups in the gender of their
> preference equally? Not what I have seen in the other NG that BL are
> known to frequent.
>
Yes, that is common. For instance I mostly prefer boys 12 to 13,
sexually. (I point out that I have NEVER had sex with boys, that is
only my age of attraction) Now I still get attracted to boys outside
of that range, say from 8 to 16, but 12 to 13 is the age that drives
me absolutely nuts. However, I still like adult men and women
sexually too, and the attraction is NOT purely sexual, in fact I would
say it was about 30 percent sexual, and mostly emotional love, with a
lot of admiration for the beauty of a boy, the joy of watching them BE
a boy, play and all, and such things as well.
But I am only ONE person, it can and does vary "widely", and some like
ANY boy sexually, highly turned on by babies to late teens, and some
only like ONE year aged boy, or maybe only one trait boy (like say
freckled boys), or one race boy, and any mix in between, like say only
8 yo boys that are white and have blonde hair, for instance. I can
vary widely, just as heterosexual attractions vary widely.
Even still, some only have sexual attractions to boys, no adults at
all, but some DO have sexual attractions to adults, and that can vary
widely too, so if a man is gay AND a BL, then it is highly possible,
even very likely, that if the boy turns out to be gay, that the sexual
relationship could continue well into adulthood, maybe even for life.
Of course that last example is very rare, but it IS possible, it is
different for every person.
> BL seem to have some very fine-tuned tastes in love objects. And
> within any age group the fine turning and selecting continues. How
> many that are turned on to 13 to 14 year olds like darks as well as
> blonds as well as freckled reds etc?
>
> Boy love is a visual thing mostly isn't it? How many blind boy
> lovers are there?
>
I know of at least one. He is blind from birth, and he IS sexually
attracted to boys, but he cannot SEE them, and has no clue what they
would "look" like, just as he has no clue what ANY human would look
like. He says that the "voice" of a boy drives him nuts, sexually, as
well as the feel of his skin.
Now you could then move to blind AND deaf, but that is such a rare
percentage of the population, that it would be extremely rare, but I
do not think impossible. When open pedophiles are less then one
percent of the population, and deaf or blind people are also less than
one percent, that is one percent OF one percent, then if you make it
deaf AND blind, you are talking such a low percentage of people, that
one percent of them would mean maybe one in a century, if that much.
> No joke. Does anyone know, especially the pedo-experts?
>
> Are there any cops monitoring this NG that can answer how many
> blind boylovers have been arrested nationwide in the past decade or
> so?
>
> I say arrested because all the law enforcement statistics and
> therefore the knowledge base about pedophilia relys on the numbers
> of arrested. I think it is a very relevant question.
>
NO, arrests are no more relevant to gauge this then would be the
arrests of rapists of women to tell you the statistics of those men
attracted sexually to adult women. This is ridiculous to assume so,
but society does this assumption often, and judging us on those that
are the worse case examples or those that broke the law. This is VERY
scientifically flawed too, but even the most respected scientists
still use this method, for one thing, there is not data for just being
a pedophile, since we are FORCED to hide this aspect of ourselves, so
they ONLY have arrests in most cases to use for their figures, but it
still IS very flawed as a method to gauge pedophilia. For another
example, that would be like using those arrested for shoplifting as a
gauge for those that shop in stores or would like to shop in stores.
> If it can be demonstrated that the number of "always blind" boylovers
> is not proportional to the number of boylovers with sight, then it can
> be strongly assumed that a boys looks has a lot to do with this "love"
> thing.
>
>
Not true. For one thing, the numbers are SO low that you just do not
see it. There are millions of pedophiles in the world, and yet even
WE were ignored and unknown for a LONG time in recent society. With
the percentages of blind people, then the percentages of pedophiles
that are open and fully knowledgeable of that part of themselves in
society, you are talking less than one percent of less than one
percent, so these are extremely low numbers and therefore so rare as
to not be seen. But that does not mean it does not exist.
> How many straight men in their twenties are attracted to fifty year
> old women?? But when they reach the age of fifty, they are assumed to
> be so attracted. How many straight men of fifty are attracted to 16
> year old cheerleaders doing their stuff at the highschool football
> game? No need to answer.
>
Many men like older women, and many women like older men, and in that
case the age is always going to be higher than their age, except for a
few that are fixated with an "age" itself, and in that case, if they
are older, younger, or the same age, they will always like THAT age.
I liked 12 yo boys when I was 8, I also liked them when I was 12, and
I like them now. I also liked younger boys when I was a boy, so at 8
I liked 5 yo boys, but as I got older that liking also got older, and
it CONTINUES to get older too. When I was 25 I liked 18 and 19 yo
young men, but now I am 33 and I like men up to 28, but I STILL like
12 yo boys too. I have both a fixation of an age AND I like younger
men, both, and they react differently to changes in my own age, but
the nature of them are pretty solid.
> Sex is about youth and mother nature starts us out young. By the
> onset of puberty at about 13 or so for boys, nature has made
> reproduction possible and even likely in the next few years. Within
> ten to fifteen years later, the females are mostly through having
> kids, although the males in that age group are still in the game, and
> their eyes are often on younger specimens, finding their youthful
> physical charms hard to resist and just about impossible to ignore.
>
Some like younger ones for the vitality, innocence, purity, youth,
fertility, perceived virginity, vigor, tendency to be more sexual, and
so on and so on, and some like older ones for the maturity and
knowledge and guidance and what they can teach them, or for the
domineering, as some like to have that "fatherly" or motherly figure
as well. Some just have a fixation with the young or old, or any mix
of the above. It is NOT solely a tendency for the young, but a
tendency for the young is the large tendency, but many like older
partners too, many. When I was a boy, I wanted an OLDER man sexually,
because he had large genitals, I liked that the most, and because he
had "knowledge" that I WANTED, and I KNEW that he could teach me MANY
wonderful things about sex and having fun and enjoyment of it. Now I
am an adult and no longer have that want or need, but AS A BOY I had
that need and WANT, and I went to the men, on my own, to get it too.
I, as a boy, DID go to the men and came onto them, sexually, asking,
sometimes very directly, for sex, because I WANTED to learn about it
from an OLDER man, and I wanted to play sexually with huge genitals,
and they had both.
That last one is an example of the "temporary" need for an older mate,
not one that stays with us throughout life, and you can see this is
almost ALL boys, the gay boys look to older men, sexually, and the
straight boys look to older women, as many can attest to by just
remembering your young teen years and conversations with peers on this
area, and bi boys look to both older sexes sexually. This is VERY
normal, and the common way of things, and seen as not a problem and
expected, even encouraged by many ways, like on TV, MTV, magazines,
books, and so on, even just joking around or a father pointing out a
cute woman at the beach, or older brother pointing her out, and so on.
It is only when it is the adult looking BACK DOWN at the younger ones
that is is seen as wrong and unnatural, even though that SAME kid may
be the one ALSO looking up to that SAME adult sexually.
> How many men who are fathers find themselves, like the President of
> the USA, looking at younger stuff than they are married to, and often
> getting into trouble? Mr. Clinton is not so unusual in his tastes.
> He might be unusual in his acting on it so readily when he has so much
> at stake. But there are many older folks out there looking at younger
> boys and girls with more than "pure" thoughts.
>
What IS pure thoughts anyway? What you talk of is "natural" and
"normal" and it is ONLY society that has said it is otherwise. What
is natural is what comes "naturally" and the rest is the norm "of
society" of which changes to every society and even changes in time
too, and most times it goes against what comes naturally, for society
is also about control, like not taking your neighbor's computer
because you want it, or not feeling up that woman with HUGE breasts at
the beach, or not eating as much as you want, and so on and so on.
Too many people get these two mixed up, natural and societal, and
insist that what is societal is natural, when in fact the exact
opposite is the case and is proven before their own eyes, in their own
lives and feelings, but they don't seem to see this.
> They are not looking for long term relationships. They are looking
> for satisfaction of sexual lust. I think there is much confusion in
> general when people use the word "love" and really mean "lust". I
> think the word "lust" should be more popular and if used when people
> spoke about sexual subjects it would then leave the word "love" for
> nonsexual emotions and feelings where sexual desires might be present
> but not the dominant factor in a relationship.
>
I use lust very easily, when it fits, and yes, I DO lust after boys,
and women, and many men, but I ALSO "love" boys, and they are NOT the
same. I think it is you that is mixing this up, and reflecting your
mix up as how it is for others, when in fact only some also mix them
up, not all. Most DO and can see the difference. I know of many men
that openly talk about their "lust" for other women, and they do not
use "love" to describe them, except in statements like "I would love
to get my hands on her." but we all know that this is a different
love, more of a great want, and not the love of emotional bonding.
> >But have you ever had the joy of watching a boy you genuinely love
> >grow into adulthood? You might find that it makes a difference. Or
> >possibly not -- I've had several affairs with adult partners, and I do
> >find some adults attractive. They do tend to look very boyish ....
> >
> >I understand your feelings about relationships, though. I admit that I
> >can get very depressed thinking that even if I were to start a
> >relationship it wouldn't last very long past puberty. Don't I deserve
> >a relationship that will last a lifetime? But that's all pretty
> >hypothetical since I will not start such a relationship.
> >
>
> I don't understand how a person who is called a "boy-lover" can
> entertain the idea of a long term relationship that starts out at say
> thirteen or so for the boy, and progresses until the boy is a man in
> his thirtys or forties, a father and son sort of thing. My problem is
> that after seventeen or so, the boy is no longer. He is a man, and
> the boy-lover can't be a boy-lover still unless he finds new boys.
>
NOT true. One does NOT have to have boys to be a boy lover. I do not
even know the names of the boys that live around here, let alone
befriend them, and yet I still AM a boy lover, I just hold myself
back, for many reasons. And many "boys" I used to be very close to in
the past I am STILL very close friends with, a few I am STILL sexually
attracted to, some of them ARE in their 20s, I am 33 so I cannot have
any loved boys in their 30s yet, but as they get older, and into their
30s and 40s and so on, this will NOT change, I will STILL like them,
in all ways. It is just that I liked them "most" when they were boys
of 12 and 13. I also point out, again, that, as an adult, I have
NEVER had sex with an underage person.
> I have never loved a boy, but I have been physically attracted to a
> few boys who had very particular traits and characteristics, all
> physical, the personalities notwithstanding.
>
Then please do not reflect how YOU are with it with how the rest of
the world is. You could be a pedophile only, since you state you JUST
have the sexual attraction and NOT the emotions of love to go with it,
and that is not bad, a pedophile is NOT a bad thing, molestation,
rape, and abuse and use is bad, but not JUST having the attraction,
and not even acting on it if the boys are just as free and open about
it and wanting it, some DO just want the sex too, I was one of those
boys. However, there IS more danger of hurting the boy when it is
JUST the attraction and not the love as well. I DO feel though, from
your statements, that you DO have concerns for the boys, and their
well
being, and that is good. But please do not define boy love to be as
YOU think it is just because YOU yourself cannot "love" them. Instead
you may not be a boy "lover" but a good pedophile, a caring one, which
is also good, but you just do not "love" the boys is all, though you
DO care about them, there is a difference here.
> I have never had a sexual encounter with a boy. Not even when I was
> one myself. I had opportunity but my upbringing was such that any
> sexual expression except between husband and wife was forbidden and
> considered dirty.
That has been the case for most societies over most of humanity, and
the reason gay sex has been so much condemned, even today. Until JUST
recently, bastard used to be the WORST thing you could call a person,
which means born out of wedlock, but today it has lost it's meaning.
>
> Only in later years, after I had a complete change of attitude due to
> many different reasons, did I look back upon some of the situations I
> had rejected and avoided when in my early to middle teens,and regret
> not having participated at least enough to satisfy my curiosity.
>
Curiosity is a big part of all this, for both sides, the men and the
boys, and I myself still have a great deal of curiosity, since I never
had the sex with other boys. Sometimes I wonder how much IS sexual,
and how much is just plain curiosity, but curiosity of a sexual
nature, as well as normal curiosity of how the body is and stuff like
that, which CAN be sexual as well but not necessarily is solely
sexual.
> Never was love a factor in what I felt for any other young male. And
> my best friends--the ones I could most relate to intellectually and
> emotionally have even to this day, been physically unappealing to me,
> even bodering on what I consider ugly. I know that long term
> intellectual relationships between any combination of genders is
> possible since I have experienced them, but never was sex or lust
> involved. Maybe I am very different from most people, but I can not
> put lust and long lasting emotional bonding together, probably because
> what I find sexually attractive is really like a hot-house flower in
> full bloom, very shortlived.
>
As I said, you sound like you are not a boy lover but that you ARE a
good pedophile, one that cares about the boys but does not "love"
them. No offense, just telling it like it is, and nothing wrong in
that either, a boy lover is NOT any better than a pedophile, we just
have more of an attachment to the boys themselves, and hence why we
call ourselves boy lovers and not pedophiles. The name was not made
to avoid the name pedophile, but to be an extension of it, the name is
OLD, older than the societal hate of us, but it has become more
popular today among pedophiles who love boys "because" of the stigma
attached to pedophile.
> It would be very nice indeed if the physical traits I find attractive
> in a few boys in their early teens were available in men in their 30's
> or 40's, but it is simply not so.
>
For you, but for many of us those traits are still there, or at least
we see them, and I guess it also counts on which traits you are
talking of, there is more than just the physical here, many of us have
MORE of an interest in the "person" than in the body, even though we
like both. I for one would say that by FAR I am more interested in
the boy then the body of the boy, his personality, and that does stay
with him, it even improves with age.
>
> Incidently I am almost 60 years old. I have no memories of wonderful
> boys I knew. I can at this point phantasize about two different ones
> I knew for a month or two each, nearly thirty years ago, but I am
> bewildered now when I think back to most of those guys I found
> attractive in junior high and high school because I simply feel
> nothing towards them now, the memory that is. They stirred me up
> then, but thinking about them now is like thinking about a tree. Not
> very exciting.
>
>
> Very seldom do I see a boy today that really attracts me, and by now I
> have had so much practice resisting their charms that there is almost
> no chance anything could happen, even if they begged for it. If the
> laws weren't what they are, I might reconsider. But folks,
> pedophile-phobes are everywhere.
>
> >>>I'm not so certain that there isn't a bit of sexual attraction in
> >>>there. If you've ever watched a little girl manipulate her father,
> >>>you've got to wonder.
> >>
> >>Like I said (In MOST cases)
> >
> >Actually, having observed this phenomenon over and over again, I would
> >guess that it's the rule, not the exception.
> >
>
>
> I too think there can be a lustful sexual component between parents
> and children, regardless of the gender of either.
>
Yes, in all humanity, parents to kids, kids to the parents, brothers
to brothers, brothers to sisters, sisters to sisters, sisters to
brothers, all kinds of mixing the above, and cousins, aunts, uncles,
nephews, nieces, second cousins, in laws, stepchildren, and so on and
so on, and all kinds of ways of mixing the above.
I did an long post on this specifically, in reply to the one you are
also replying too, you can see my answer to this there, it is too long
to repeat here again, I had just posted it early this week too, so it
should still be on your server.
> One trouble is that some homos do reproduce children. I imagine that
> a lot of pedophiles also reproduce. This makes mother natures use of
> these behaviors a bit ineffecient, but hey...nothing's perfect.
>
> >As I said, the reasoning here gets kind of iffy. But the idea is that
> >not all members of a species are meant to procreate; that some traits
> >are not supposed to be passed on to the next generation. So if we
> >assume that a person has one of these undesirable traits, then it
> >could be the trigger mechanism for a recessive homosexual trait, thus
> >nature attempts to insure that the original trait is not passed on.
> >
> >Please note that I am not saying homosexuality is an undesirable
> >trait, only suggesting that it may be triggered by other traits that
> >ARE undesirable.
>
> Further scientific research in genetics may confirm this idea.
> Remember, what mother nature finds undesirable may be very desirable
> to silly man and his society. And what man doesn't like may be mother
> natures cup of tea. I wonder who is bigger. Mother nature or Man?
>
> Man just cannot seem to get it in his little old head that he IS part
> of mother nature, not separate from it, regardless of how much he
> tries. We are not synthetic robots. And we are not gods, even
> thought many would have us believe that they are indeed damned close.
> We are mother nature produced animals with all the behaviors
> associated with animals, civilization to the contrary notwithstanding.
>
Man wants to control everything, and thinks HE is the center of the
universe in many ways, or at least wants to be, but that simply is not
true, and it is delusions of grandeur. We are but a speck, if that
much, in the universe, just a speck that is self aware is all, but
only a speck.
This is the case for more than just pedophilia today, as the laws in
ALL areas, and shouting for change or vengeance, and the numerous law
suites can attest to.
> I also don't think that "playing doctor" should be equated with
> outright forceable rape, but it is. Even if minors are involved in
> an encounter and one of them is two or more years older than the
> younger, society says that a horrible horrible life ruining event has
> taken place and heads must roll. Crucify the 12 year old for
> improper touch of the ten year old, whose life if horribly ruined.
> Why the poor boy will need years of theropy by experts and
> professionals to show him how ruined he is. But it wasn't his fault.
> He was molested by a horrible pedophile person two years older than
> him. Do you know this sort of thing is actually going on in the land
> of the free right now? What madness is yet to come?
>
Worse than that, they are not prosecuting SAME age kids as young as 4
and 5 for "touching" a SAME AGE girl, in play, in ways that "adults"
do not like. In ALL cases it is the BOY that is prosecuted, for some
reason the girl is ALWAYS considered the victim no matter who started
it and no matter how much they BOTH were involved in it, and for this,
the boy ends up, sometimes before even school age, as a convicted
child molester, and that will be on his record for LIFE, because many
states now do not remove molestations from records of juveniles. In
Utah this came up recently, when several kids around ten and 11 years
old were found to be on the sex offender registry for child
molestation, and the acts had happened in PLAY with SAME AGED peers
when they were 5 and 6, and this information will follow with them for
LIFE, and ALL anyone will see is "child molester" and NOT the facts in
the case, which is really two kids, same age, playing doctor. The
system is totally out of control, and how is THIS helping the kids,
when the kids themselves are destroyed in it? It is only getting
worse too, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Nazi Germany maybe
not, but police state we are definitely in or heading into.
> I wonder how many pedophilephobes know that research into monkeys
> and various other members of the ape family, of which we are the
> highest members, show that it is very common for the males of a group
> to have sexual relations with nearly ALL other members of the group
> whenever they get the urge, regardless of the gender or age of the
> "victims".
>
I posted about this before, in this same thread, as I said above.
>
> >Too true, I fear. But my point is that I accept myself and love
> >myself; I don't need someone else to determine whether or not I'm a
> >good person. It also happens that my closest friends know and accept
> >that I am a boy lover. Of course, it's tough at parties when my date
> >asks for chocolate milk and wants to play Hi-Ho Cherry-O's! ;c{p
> >
>
> Hey, I like that........you must live in some other part of the world
> than the USA, like twenty four out of every twenty five other people
> do.
>
Oh no, you are threatening the US mentality of WE ARE THE WORLD here.
Don't tell me,,,,noooooooo,,,,,,you mean we "aren't?" Yeah, I know we
are not the world, but to most Americans we are the victors and
therefore the rulers of it, that the world should all kiss the
coattails of the US, and thank us for even existing, and that the rest
of the world is meaningless, the US is the only entity that matters or
exists. I personally do not believe this, but this IS the mentality
of many in the US, as you can see in how the US wants to "regulate"
the Internet, which is a WORLDWIDE medium. This would be like the US
trying to regulate Space, the oceans, the sky, and so on.
> Realize tho, that considering yourself a good person or whatever is
> not the final answer.
>
> Very few Germans in the Third Reich thought of themselves as evil
> monsters like so much of the rest of the world did. And once the ball
> over there really started rolling, many a Jewish family who had had
> good relations with non-Jewish families found themselves no longer
> wecome at the social functions or anywhere else. Wouldn't even speak
> to them on the street, except to say something threatening.
>
> Do you realize that the Jewish doctors in Germany were targeted early
> as child molesters?
>
> Nazi laws made it a crime for non-Jewish Germans to go to Jewish
> doctors because those doctors were notorious for molesting and
> destroying the purity of the young German girls.
>
> And the boys in the Hitler Youth were thoroughly briefed on what to
> look for when on the prowl for trouble makers. They were to be
> especially brutal when they cornered Jewish men who were suspected of
> having molested girls or even worse tried to touch a boy, maybe even
> another Hitler Youth.
>
> All this was over sixty years ago and in another country. But the
> same mind set is in this country folks.
>
I know full well about all this, and have posted in other areas MUCH
about this subject and now it fits with today's US. I don't think we
will fire up the ovens though, we won't be a Nazi state, as the
"image" of that is too well known and the US would NOT want to "look"
like the bad guys, no. So they would instead become a police state,
and change the names for the same things. Internment camps can become
"facilities" and "for everyone's protection" as well as to "help"
those poor misguided pedophiles. Gas chambers would instead be
"proper" legal punishment for crimes committed, and therefore not done
in the millions, but still done. We WILL lose our ability to be free,
so speak out freely, to defend ourselves, to our rights, to the
ability to go where we want and work in jobs we want to.
This is already happening in fact, we ARE barred from MANY places and
jobs, organizations, and so on, by JUST being a pedophile, and we ARE
tracked and "registered" now. Their problem is just in finding us
ALL, and that is the only thing keeping their "machine" from working
as it will work. When they come up with a simple test that all will
be forced to take, not like the plethysmograph (because too many
"normal" citizens would be offended by having to take that to weed out
the rest.), then they will be able to locate all of us, and THEN they
WILL act on it, registering and tracking us all, maybe even branding
us all somehow, maybe with technology, using an implanted chip maybe,
which would sound alarms if we got within 1/4 mile of a restricted
zone, and with kids wearing devices that would also alarm them if a
pedophile was close by. If things do not change, and I do not see any
change from this swing of the pendulum yet, it only seems to STILL be
getting worse, then you can BET that this WILL happen, it is just a
question of when and how, and I am sure that technology will be a KEY
player in it too.
> It is unfortunate, but others are going to decide just how good a
> person you are, and if you fall into what they percieve as the
> boylover group you'd better enjoy the freedom you have now to speak in
> these NG while they are here.
>
How very true, how very true.
I can also see them barring us from HAVING computers, VCRs, TVs, and
so on, so that the perceived "threat" will not only be quelled, but we
will not have the "advantages" like the rest of society does, and be
kept ignorant and in the dark, for those with the knowledge have the
power, and those kept ignorant and silent are much easier to control.
> Just remember, the Gestapo is already on the job and has been for some
> time. You know, the camps weren't activated until close to the end of
> the Nazi reign of terror. They had to get names and addresses first,
> and this was before computers. If I were a young person with a lot
> of time left, I would not post anything on this subject. But I am
> not, and don't have so much to loose by giving my opinion. It is a
> shame that in America, the land of the free, people have to be very
> careful nowadays about what they say and to whom they say it. I just
> don't believe this is what Thomas Jefferson and the others had in mind
> for the United States of America.
>
I know all this. And as I said, I do not think it will be a Nazi
state, but it WILL be a police state. It will not be camps, but it
may be restructured communities, moving us all to locations "away"
from their kids, like the ghettos of the Nazis regime. No gas
chambers by the millions, that would "look" too bad, but many WOULD be
killed by legal means, claiming crimes committed, they call it the
death penalty.
>
> >Sorry, couldn't resist! But they love me -- the fact that I'm a boy
> >lover is kind of coincidental. I can't speak to your friends, and I
> >know how hard it was for me to open up and trust them, but they had
> >already figured most of it out anyway, so it wasn't really that much
> >of a surprise.
> >
> >We agree on a lot, but we are still separated by basic philosophy. I
> >draw my strength from some of the same things that you despair. Is the
> >glass half empty or half full?
> >
> >ISpoilBoys
>
> What if your glass is a styro-foam cup with a crack in it?
>
> Sorry this is so long. I probably won't post again.
>
> I just got the urge suddenly, and at my age if you wait more than a
> few minutes you tend to forget what the urge means.
>
> I hope I did not offend or confuse anyone who might be desparate
> enough to be reading in this NG, cops included and surely they are
> among the most confused.
>
I often wonder how someone could have a job doing what they HATE most,
like trolling the KP newsgroups, downloading and viewing it all, when
they SO much HATE it and are disgusted by it. I also wonder if
because of that, if some either do NOT hate it, and use that as an
"excuse" to legally do it, or that in long term exposure that they get
to like it after all. For the rest, well that would definitely
explain their rage against us, since THEY force THEMSELVES to be
enraged and disgusted daily, no one forces them to do it, they do it
to themselves.
> How terrible it must be to be a cop assigned to monitor a group like
> this. Only a true vampire-hunter tracking down the wicked in order to
> catch them asleep in their coffins so the wooden stake can be safely
> driven before the sun goes down could be happy here.
>
See what I just said above on this one.
> NG like this one will not be around long probably. The
> pedophilephobes will have their day just like the Nazis in Europe had
> theirs with the Jews. It is inevitable. I am glad my time is short.
> I feel like a Jew in Germany in 1932 watching Hitler Youth marching in
> the streets shouting slogans and promising the clean everything up and
> get rid of the trouble makers. Time to hide.
>
I also wonder if the reason that most servers STILL keep the pedophile
newsgroups is NOT for free speech, but to find all of us on the net.
I have heard, from a reliable source IN the field, a BL too, but they
don't know it, that they ARE logging JUST reading of all the pedophile
newsgroups and ones that pedophiles mainly frequent, just logging, and
yes, even those JUST downloading it. This is real, and not an
assumption or conspiracy theory. I know, the resources to do that is
"immense", and they cannot "yet" do anything with that logging, they
are just doing it, for later use, and I am sure the government is
funding the expenses involved too. There was a recent meeting of
national large ISPs and news servers, AT&T and AOL was among the ones
I KNOW were there, by name, and they all agreed to do this for the
government. I don't know about the local carriers, the small mom and
pop ISPs, but the major national carriers, not all but most, are now
doing this. You can either believe me or not, but it does not change
what is now happening. I used to disbelieve it too, until I heard
this from too many sources that are reliable and are in that field,
and so are seeing this directly, some are the ones in some way
involved in doing it too, in small ways, like writing the programs to
do it or setting up the equipment or such. Then when the conference
took place of the national carriers and the government, this was the
final nail in that coffin of my disbelief.
> But I never even did anything with a minor.
>
> Doesn't matter. I thought about it.
>
You got that right, but not though as much as are that way. That you
have the urges is reason enough, facts do not matter after that, you
are a child molester, it does not even register that you did not even
have the sex and so could NOT have molested, they still see you and me
as child molesters and baby rapers and killers of children even. And
every Hollywood movie about this, and every news hype, only adds to
that image. We are all Jeffrey Dahlmers and John Wayne Gaceys to
them, and we are all making Sam Manzies too. Or haven't you heard,
that all pedophiles have over 200 victims of rape before we are
finally caught? Funny, I do not remember any, so I must have some
mental block to all those victims that I am supposed to have.
> Thought crime will become a fact in the USA before this is over.
>
Will? It IS already. I was put in jail for 3 years for what they
ASSUMED I did. The entire court was NOT what I did, it was ALL what
they insisted I did it "because" of, that I had sexual "intent" to
rape the boy. It never occurred to them that MAYBE it was what it
was, just my helping and mentoring boys, and making their lives
better. Once I admitted to being a pedophile to my superiors, I was
in the military at the time, I had put a lid on my own coffin. They
then took all the work I had done with kids, which was a LOT, and they
tried me on "intent" to rape and molest them. So I got 3 years in
jail for molestation, no parole either, and the fact is that I never
had sex with ANY boy in my fucking life. Such irony. And that IS a
thought crime.
> It is here now, but just doesn't have an official name. Pedophiles
> will be the first targets, because no one likes those sickos.
>
> They don't even like each other.
>
> Easy targets. Fire at will.
>
Yes, I also do not think it will "stop" with pedophile, but the fight
against us WILL fuel the Police State, and many others will follow.
Here is a quote, not exact, it is from memory, and I wish I could find
the source to it, so I could get the "exact" quote, but what I
remember though says it well anyway. I believe it is from a Holocaust
survivor of the Nazi era. I will end my post with this.
======================================================================
First they came for the criminals, but I did nothing for I was not a
criminal.
Then they came for the Jews, but I did nothing for I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the gays, but I did nothing for I was not gay.
Then they came for the Polish, but I did nothing for I was not a Pole.
Then they came for the Blacks, but I did nothing for I was not black.
Then they came for the Orientals, but I did nothing for I was not
oriental.
Then they came for the handicapped, but I did nothing for I had a
perfect and healthy body.
Then they came for the feeble minded, but I did nothing for I had an
excellent mind.
Then they came for those of different religions, but I did nothing for
I was of the state religion.
Then they came for the old, but I did nothing for I was not old.
Then they came for the orphaned, but I did nothing for I was an adult
and not an orphan.
Then they came for those that were not of their political party, but I
did nothing for I was of that party.
Then they came for ME, by then there was no one left to do anything
about it.
Tom
it in the headers, so I must assume it got lost when GTE's server went
down, so I am re-posting it now, sorry if this is a duplication, but I
did not spend over an hour on it for it never to be seen.
In article <35cf3a64....@news.supernews.com>,
ISpoi...@supernews.com says...
> On Mon, 10 Aug 1998 01:47:11 GMT, "Mike" <ask@me> wrote:
>
> >I just want to elaborate on why I prefer to call myself a pedophile and not
> >a boylover. I see the term boylover at least for me as a way to sugarcoat
> >what the driving force behind my feelings really is. I see my feelings for
> >boys exactly the same as a normal hetero sees with girls. An intense
> >physical attraction. Until you get to know the person whether it be a guy,
> >girl, man or woman you only have physical attraction to go on. The emotional
> >attachment is after the fact. I notice that some boylovers claim no sexual
> >attraction. I find that difficult to grasp. If it isn't sexually driven than
> >why don't they give girls equal time. Why not call it childlovers. Are girls
> >any less beautiful than boys?
>
> Are you one of those "the-glass-is-half-empty" people? I don't deny
> any of the points you make here, I just see them differently. I choose
> the term "boy-lover" to remind me of what I want to be, what I need to
> be; you choose "pedophile" to remind you of what you don't want to be.
> Is the glass half-empty or half-full?
>
Personally I use both terms. I use boy lover more when talking to
other boy lovers or those that know the boy love movement well, and I
use pedophile to the rest of the world, it saves me a lot of
explaining and makes communicating easier. To me it really means the
same thing, only that a boy lover has a "creed" of conduct and
purpose. Now you may say that I should then use boy lover because of
that creed and purpose, but I say that those who will hate us will
hate whichever term we use, so I prefer to keep it simple and not
argue a point that is pointless to argue to begin with. I could argue
till I am blue in the face or my fingers fall off from fatigue that I
"love" boys and would never harm them and the I would not sexually
"use" them, but to those that are against us, it falls on deaf ears.
But to talk to a boy lover or one that knows the movement well, to say
I am a boy lover fills many gaps at once, it says I am a pedophile, it
says I like boys specifically, and it says I love them and would never
do anything to harm them intentionally, and that I "respect" their
rights and their bodies and their wishes.
> >Though the underlying force is the same for boylovers as it is with any
> >other type of attraction it dissipates as the boy ages (IN MOST CASES). The
> >relationship can't be the same as two adults would have and it doesn't last
> >a lifetime, (I don't want to hear anyone say that adults divorcing follows
> >the same lines because it doesn't). Thats the emotional and mental
> >attraction that dissipates not the physical one. I know I sound all negative
> >and all but I don't want to fool myself into thinking what I'm feeling is
> >any more than it is.
>
> I'm a little bit confused by what you're saying here; however, I will
> point out that, though the physical attraction may dissipate, the
> emotional bonds do not necessarily change. I can honestly say that I
> love the men whom I worked with when they were boys as much as I ever
> did -- I'm even still attracted to some of them. Maybe that would be
> different if we had been involved sexually, but I don't think so. At
> least, it would not be different for me.
>
Not for all of us. I like men (in certain cases), women, and boys, so
I CAN love the boy into adulthood AND be his lifetime lover, IF he is
also into that and the situation and relationship is good for that to
flourish.
However, for those that are not gay, but just like boys only sexually,
I would say that although the "attraction" sexually ends, the
"relationship" and love does NOT end, and in fact can continue to grow
and nurture and become a new level even, maybe a better level, due to
the long bond made in the past. If you cannot have any interest in
boys once they past a certain age (notice I did not say will not),
then you may need to re-evaluate "why" you like boys, and if this is
more selfish and fulfilling gratifications then being for the boy and
out of love. That I do not think though would exclude you from being
a boy lover, just that you don't maintain relationships past a certain
age, for just as some adults can have mutual and "fun" sex "without"
any relationship, but it IS mutual consent with both parties
concerned, so can it be with boys I am sure, however that is very
risky in the world today in my opinion. If we were in a better
receptive society to inter-generational sex, like Holland say, then
that may be fine and dandy, but in the US that is treading on VERY
thin ice, and both parties could be heading for a very hard fall.
This is just my own opinion though, yours may vary.
> >Also let me make it completely clear that I would never
> >want to anything to hurt a child whether male or female. I would love to
> >love a boy without the sexual attraction as the underlying force. Until that
> >time I find it mostly an excuse. A good parent loves and nurtures their
> >children without a sexual attraction as the driving force (IN MOST CASES) I
> >say that because there is incest.
>
I then ask you, do you wish this because of the way "society" looks at
this issue, or because of how "you" look at this issue? Is it a
"need" to belong, fit in, be normal, be accepted, and free from
problems or frustrations of living like this in society that you wish
there not to be a sexual component? Is it because you don't like
having the frustration of that "need" to have the sex but NOT being
able to get it, even if it were allowed (because not all boys would be
into it even then) that drives this concern? I find that is what it
is for me. I also find that sexual and other abuses I suffered as a
child myself complicating the whole matter and confusing things is
another reason for me wishing I did not have to deal with it.
> I'm not so certain that there isn't a bit of sexual attraction in
> there. If you've ever watched a little girl manipulate her father,
> you've got to wonder.
>
I have not run much if any into what you claim here, both my sisters
were forcibly sexually active with my father, over most of our
childhoods, they did not want it, he forced it on them, and I saw much
of this in other families too. I have "heard" from others of how
their daughters came onto them, but most of them were sex offenders,
so this is questionable as to who was seeing what, and some of their
stories just TOO out there to believe, as well as full of holes.
Also, I think many may confuse "exploring" and testing "boundaries" as
coming onto the father.
If a girl "emulates" what she has learned from others or seen in
movies, maybe shaking her but in front of her father, is this a coming
onto him or just emulating and testing and having fun, and NOT all
that the "adult" "thinks" it is? I can attest to some of this, as I
was confused sexually from the events in my childhood, and I remember
once, in second grade I think, watching an old western on TV in which
the girl shook her booty and got a LOT of attention for that. Well I
was in "desperate" need for attention, so guess what I did, yup, I
shook my OWN booty, JUST like that, and it was VERY sexual, but my
"intentions" was NOT sexual, it was ONLY in emulating and looking for
attention. I remember this very vividly, including my intentions, why
I did it, what was going through my mind, and even practicing in front
of a mirror first. Be careful in jumping to conclusions to what
"seems" to be what a child is doing sexually, you could be right or
you could be VERY wrong, even for the same actions.
> >I don't know if what I am is a product of
> >my enviornment or genetic. I believe it is biological the way normal
> >homosexuality is. But like homosexuality I believe it is also a genetic
> >flaw. It isn't curable.
>
> Here I must disagree. I do not believe that homosexuality is a genetic
> flaw. And I am growing more and more certain that pedophilia is not a
> genetic flaw, either. If this were the case, we would expect that both
> would be decreasing over time as the trait is bred out of the species.
> This does not appear to be happening.
>
> If we look at it from the point of view of evolutionary adaptation,
> then we see a different system. If the male reproductive strategy is
> to have as many offspring as possible while the female strategy is to
> find a supportive male who can take care of her and their offspring,
> then pedophilia seems like a perfect compromise. The male would look
> for a female as close to puberty as possible so that she can provide
> as many offspring as possible over the course of her lifetime, while
> the female would look for an established male who could provide
> security and stability for the family. This is not genetic flaw, it is
> genetic design and adaptation. And I believe that you will find many
> examples of this paradigm in nature as well as in human society,
> particularly in patriarchal societies.
>
I disagree with both of you. I do not think it is genetic at all, nor
homosexuality, but I DO think it is something learned "early" on, and
programmed into the brain unintentionally, something that cannot be
erased either, and maybe has some components of mixed up signals too,
like maybe pheromones that are "supposed" to attract women instead
attracting men, just as we have learned that MANY things in the brain
are hormonal and MANY have gotten it's wires crossed in many people,
and most are easily curable with medication too, however this is not
the only answer. Maybe we might one day find a drug to fix the mixed
up signals in the brain on this, just as we did for depression, ADD,
hyperactivity, and so many other mental problems, but like I said, I
think a lot is "learned" behaviors too, ones that cannot be changed
once learned, and learned VERY early on, maybe even as a baby, but
again, I do not think it ends at this.
I also think that there is an inherent biological gratification in sex
alone, and therefore ALL types of sex FEELS good, and so the mind does
not care, it just LIKES it, period. This can be proven in even
monkeys, and almost all forms of animal life, homosexuality and what
we would call pedophilia, but to the animals it is JUST sex, and it
feels good. They go after the female when they are in heat, but most
males are "always" in heat, whereas the female has cycles, and so the
male uses "other" outlets in the meantime. As for choosing younger
partners, this can be "instinct" and not genetic, though you could
argue that instinct is genetic, though the jury is still out on that
one. It only makes sense, the younger ones have more hormones being
given out, have a higher metabolism rate and so more sexually active
or capable, better able to have healthy offspring and take care of and
protect them, and to start the moment of fertility only means more
likelihood of survival of the species.
This is found in ALL forms of life, not just animals, the younger
(healthier) is the "preferred" choice. Do bees go more after an old
withered rose or a newly formed one? Then there is the societal
element of beauty, and how the younger are seen as more "perfect" and
beautiful, and there has always been the attraction to virgins or all
types, or at least those that have not been used by a lot of other
mates. There may be a factor in mating here too, in that it is
preferred instinctively to have a mate to yourself and NOT share, and
so a mate that is older has had more mates and therefore "used" and
not as preferable. This could be due to the possibilities of her
being infertile or "used up" in the past, when we were just cave men,
it is hard to say, there is much we don't know and we are only
beginning to find out.
ONLY in the human race is going after the young considered wrong, so
pedophilia IS the NATURAL way, AS nature intended it to be, the
"preferred" choice, and it is society that has changed this, in the
human race, BUT the biological "instincts" are still there, they
cannot be removed anymore than fear of the dark can be removed from
the WHOLE race. Some overcome fear of the dark and some never do and
never can, they just get used to being in the dark and learning to
deal with it, maybe those are the equivalents of pedophiles in
society, those of us that CANNOT let go of that "instinct" no matter
how much we try or want to.
Then there is the first sexual awakenings and thoughts, and what JUST
proceeds them too, this is a major determining factor on what
orientation you get I think, as well as the buildup TO that, and I
don't think it as simple as a type of environment or a certain type of
situation, but there ARE definite indicators that certain environments
and certain situations CAN and DO have MORE instances by a greater
number of homosexuals, though there are those that defy all that and
are not gay or those that have the life that is supposed to be a good
inducement to being straight and yet they turned out gay, so it is
just not as simple as that, there are many variables involved, and I
think that environment and situations is only "part" of that. But I
also think that they are a significant part, one that either nurtures
the "instincts" we have or quenches those instincts instead. I also
think that lack of affection and nurturing has a major part in this,
as well as lack of one parent or good role model of both sexes.
So my analysis is this, and it is very complicated I know, but one
thing I am sure of, and that is once the brain has been programmed to
be this way that de-programing it is not possible without MAJOR
drastic changes, like say amnesia (in which the whole brain is erased
sort of and reprogrammed), or possibly deep hypnosis (deeper than we
have been able to go so far), and maybe with the help of some new drug
yet to come (like the ones the help for depression, ADD,
hyperactivity, schizophrenia, and so on), but drugs may only "help"
and I do not think they would be the "cure" in this case. However, in
the case of a pedophile that has "other" attractions as well, this may
help one day to divert interests more intensely into more accepted
areas, just like how a depressed person finally can find a balance
once on the drugs and not be so caught up in one train of thought all
the time. However, only time will tell, and these are only hypothesis
of my own.
> To be honest, so far I've only been able to come up with one possible
> explanation of homosexuality in this paradigm. And that would be as
> fail-safe against a dead-end trait. This supposes that the potential
> trait for homosexuality is almost always present but is only activated
> in the presence of other, undesirable traits.
>
As I said, homosexuality is present in ALL animal species, it IS
natural AND normal, it is just another sexual outlet to other species,
and a needed one for males when the females are in cycles in which
they are not willing to copulate. ONLY the human race has a problem
with gay sex, as far as animals are concerned, it feels good, and that
is all they care about and know.
> >Nature threw us a curveball and we have to live with
> >it, and society has to live with it. We need to be accepted for who we are
> >so long as we don't act on it. Someone posted a response to my story the
> >other day and said we all deserve the electric chair. It hurt so bad and
> >just reinforced the fact that I will never be accepted in society if I am
> >open to what I am. But I will ask the haters, who by the way sure seem
> >interested to what we hafta say to always be lurking and posting to these
> >groups. Hmm, could they be denying their true feelings for boys by bashing
> >us. I guarantee it. Anyway, do you think we don't deserve to live just
> >because we were born with something that we didn't ask for? Lets kill all
> >the people of the world with genetic flaws including you bashers. You have
> >the flaw of no tolerance and understanding for those who are different from
> >you. Didn't say you hafta condone it. Just understand us a bit. We aren't
> >monsters. Though thats how society makes me feel.
>
And some people still think that all black people should be slaves or
hung by the neck until dead. There are always bigots and those who
NEED to hate, and they will always be using the most "convenient" ones
to hate too. Give them as much credence as you do the KKK or the
Nazis. The problem though is when they get in power, as is what
happened in Nazi Germany, so let us hope that does NOT happen, but you
cannot rid the world of them, they have always been there and will
continue to be until God cleanses the world of them in the next
kingdom on Earth to come, as promised, we just don't know when is all.
> I'm sorry that the response of an intolerant idiot hurt you so much.
> Sometimes I still get angry when I see that type of thing -- which is
> just another indication of how it gets under my skin sometimes! But I
> know better! I am not an evil man, and I certainly do not deserve the
> electric chair. I have worked, as a counselor, with genuine sexual
> predators who do need to be kept away from potential victims, and the
> differences between them and me are astoundingly great. I would hate
> myself for doing the things they have done; they hate that they were
> caught. They have no concept of the damage they have inflicted on
> their victims, and do not understand why they are being punished. To
> me, that same possibility of harm to others is enough to keep me from
> attempting to start a sexual relationship, much less raping some poor
> child.
>
I have been in jail with many sex offenders, and in therapy I saw and
heard a lot, group therapy, but even MORE I heard "after" therapy, in
the cell block and work areas, even worse stuff, things they would
only deny in therapy. I know what you are talking of here, I know the
type, not all sex offenders are that way, but many are, and from my
own experience, the ones who raped adult women seem to be the MOST
fitting of that description too, they only cared that they got caught
and can never "understand" what everyone else's problem was with their
acts.
> You cannot judge someone by his feelings or impulses -- we'd all be
> found sorely wanting in that area. I even hesitate to judge anyone by
> their actions, because I understand that I cannot be sure how I would
> react given their circumstances and background. So we must start out
> with the proposition that people are good, but they sometimes make bad
> decisions, and that the only one we truly have the right to judge is
> ourselves. From this, we also must accept that no one else has the
> right to judge us.
>
I am pretty much the same way. I hold no judgements, but I AM human,
and being so, I make conclusions, call it judgements if you will, but
it is not "judgemental", it is not seeing me as better, not putting
them down at all, not placing anyone anywhere on the good/bad scale,
but more just seeing things as I see them, so yes I make judgements,
we ALL do, we cannot help that, we are all human and we NEED to make
sense of the world around us and those in it, but I don't "judge"
others, so it is the same word, but with two totally different
meanings, making this explanation a bit confusing, but I think, I
hope, you got it how I meant it.
I also see that I could "easily" be the person I am judging too. I
could be Jeffrey Dalmer, John Wayne Gacey, Charles Manson, and
similar, those people are not defined by their actions, but society
MAKES them defined by those actions. One of my counselors in jail was
once a counselor for Jeffrey Dalmer, and he told me just a bit about
him as a boy, he counseled him as a young teen, and I learned a lot in
that short bit about him, but mostly I learned he was only human, who
suffered a horrible and tormented childhood, and this was the results
of how he dealt with it.
Someone does not grow up with a "perfect" loving and caring childhood
and then suddenly go out and kidnap, rape, cut up, and eat young men
and boys, and people keep ignoring that, so they could just classify
those people as pure evil. He dealt with his life as best as he
could, and he was just a kid for Christ's sake, there was only so much
he could do and take, and he did not have the right help at the right
time, he made some bad decision, but he also did NOT see "other"
directions he could have taken, no one was there for him, not at the
right time and right situation that is, and so he went over the edge,
BIG time, and it is all history from there. I do not excuse his
actions, but I also don't condemn him either. I feel bad for those
hurt by him, but I also feel bad for him as well, no one was the
winner in this, and society and his parents, peers, and school has a
share of the blame, as well as him, he is not excused, but neither is
society, not in my eyes. How many bullies picking on him at school
had a part in MAKING him that way? How many reading this post today
was that bully at one time? (maybe not against him but against some
other kid that grew up so hurt by everyone that he flipped out and
hurt others)
I do not condemn those that commit atrocities because I know that I
could be them in the right situation, in fact I see a part of the dark
side of me in them, and although I have not yet acted on any of that
dark side, as most of us (for who here never had a bad thought in
their lives?), but that does not mean I am any better or that I would
never do it, no one knows what the future may bring, and even if I
never do such harm (which is most likely), that still does not mean I
am better. We all have the same capability for the same harm, so how
can I condemn them for what is partly inside of myself, for in
condemning them I would condemn myself with them, this is how I see
it.
> I know that I have made bad decisions in my life, but I have accepted
> the responsibility for those decisions and had to live with the
> consequences. I have impulses to make more bad decisions, but I hold
> on in my resolve to do no harm to others. (Incidentally, I follow
> Robert Heinlein's position that harming one's self is stupid, though
> not necessarily wrong!) Therefor, I must accept the fact that I am a
> good man. And that no one can gainsay me this.
>
Who among us has "not" made a mistake or acted rashly?
I see no hands, or I "should" see "no" hands.
We can only do our best, and no more, and we all make mistakes. I
prefer to embrace my mistakes and not condemn them either. This does
not mean I am happy for them or would want to repeat them, just that I
don't condemn them. You see, we learn MOST from the mistakes we make,
and I have gained MUCH from my own mistakes. Some mistakes were made
at a VERY high cost, a few at the cost of pain and hurt and loss by
others as well as myself, so I prefer not to have that great loss in
vain. I prefer to "learn" from those mistakes, but "more"
importantly, to "act" on what I learned, otherwise the lesson learned
is in vain still. This I need to do both for me and for those I hurt
in my life. I never intentioned to hurt anyone, but no one can live a
life and not hurt someone else in that life, it is a fate of humanity.
For those I hurt most, I have a "responsibility" to LEARN and ACT on
what occurred, and make that high payment for that lesson at least not
go to waste, making the wrong done even that much more wrong.
When you make a mistake, you can either cry over it, or you can pick
up the pieces and make what you can of it, and even embrace the lesson
in that mistake, no matter how painful, because the GOOD you get from
it, no matter how bad it was, is STILL good, and for that you should
rejoice. How many here can say that if you removed your worst
mistakes in life that your life would be any better? Remember that in
removing those "worse" mistakes you ALSO remove all you learned from
it too. So if your worst mistake was to hurt a child, that most
likely would mean you WOULD have gone on hurting children, it would be
inevitable, since no lesson was learned to keep you from doing it, and
maybe it would be even worse if it happened later on. In wishing a
mistake was not made, we neglect to realize that the mistakes are
"inevitable", and so we CANNOT avoid them, they WILL happen, and you
may be able to remove ONE mistake, but that mistake WILL be repeated,
just in another person in another time and place. So what is the
point in wishing it never happened? Isn't it better to embrace that
mistake and get what good you can from it instead, so it is not done
in vain?
> > Wow, didn't expect to type so much this time. I'm like the energizer
> >bunny. I keep going and going and going. :-)
> >
Apparently you have not experienced one of my 100k rants yet,
hehehehehe.
> >Mike
> >
> > With all the pain I still find time to smile. :-)
> >
Laughter in the midst of despair is the best medicine.
We NEED a smile in those worst of times the most.
> Well, I have to admit that one flaw I find that I have is that I enjoy
> the sound of my own voice, or even reading my own words! But I hope
> that what I've written here makes sense to you, and that you will find
> comfort in my words. I hope that we all find the pain less and the
> smile more often.
>
> Spider Robinson wrote that pain shared is pain halved, but joy shared
> is joy doubled.
>
> ISpoilBoys
>
I on the other hand HATE the sound of my own voice, or reading my own
words, but as you can see, I like to talk and write, and I like to
read what others write. I also don't like mirrors.
Anyway, this is more than enough to digest for all of you for now.
I know I was responding to two of you here, and I hope this does not
confuse the heck out of everyone.
Live well;
Tom
----------------------------------------------
We Do Not Inherit This World From Our Parents,
We BORROW It From Our Children.
(Quote Author Unknown)