list of newsgroups - PEDOPHILES
The name is Benjo
I know that for every group, listed below there are at least two for
straights. So, scum is everywhere! These kinda groups (no matter the
subject) all has to be removed!
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
"PURITANISM - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."
H.L. Mencken
Speedbyrd <Spee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3820753d...@news.uncensored-news.com...
> The below is one reason that the str8 world takes such a dim view of
> gays. They think we are ALL into this and THIS is one of the reasons
> I get so pissed off when minors post on our groups. Now look at this
> and tell me... it's ok!
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 18:47:34 -0100, Clemars Gold
> <Clemar...@offergserv.com> wrote:
>
> >to subscribe to these newsgroups, click on the High-Lighted
> >newsgroup name, if you get "no such newsgroup" error message,
> >just click on the next highlighted newsgroup name.
> >(newsgroups listed in random order)
> >
> >news:alt.binaries.erotica.boys
> >news:alt.binaries.pictures.boys
> >news:alt.binaries.pictures.boys.barefoot
> >news:alt.binaries.pictures.boys.d
> >news:alt.binaries.pictures.boys.retromod
> >news:alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.boys
> >news:alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.boysu
> >
> >news:alt.sex.young.boys
> >news:alt.pedophilia.boys
> >
> >news:alt.sex.boys
> >news:alt.sex.boysi
> >news:alt.sex.pedophelia.boys
> >news:alt.sex.pedophilia.boys
> >news:alt.sex.pedophilia.boyst
> >
> >news:alt.binaries.pictures.child.erotica.male
> >news:alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.child.male
> >
> >news:alt.bainaries.pictures.boys.barefoot
>
>
> The Speedbyrd®
>
> {}{}{} Posted via Uncensored-News.Com, http://www.uncensored-news.com
{}{}{}
> {}{}{}{} Only $8.95 A Month, - The Worlds Uncensored News Source {}{}{}{}
> {}{}{}{}{} Five News Servers with a BINARIES ONLY Server {}{}{}{}{}
The Programmer
Benjo? Speedbyrd?? You're both so damned scared of ideas, you both sound
like those same hetties you profess to despise. Chill out, dudes.
In my not-so-humble opinion, this whole pedophilia thing is blown way out of
proportion. A few homo and hettie men get their rocks off drooling over
naked pix of under-aged kiddies. So what? They're drooling over images,
nothing more. Better they sit in front of their monitors and get their rocks
off jerking off, instead of hunting the streets looking for the real thing.
And, stating, very self-righteously may I add, that pedos shouldn't be doing
what they do and that it's sick, isn't going to change anything. A sex
fantasy is a sex fantasy. If the thought of having sex, forced or otherwise,
with a minor (whatever a minor happens to be) turns a man on, no amount of
preaching is going to change that. A concept that most women, hettie and
homo, can't seem understand. We men, hettie and homo, are driven by sex
fantasies, pure and simple. That's not going to change, ever.
And, before you come back with the obvious cliche that looking at pictures
of naked minors is going to lead to raping minors, may I remind everyone,
that no one here is clairvoyant. No one knows what anyone is going to do.
So, no!, one fact does not necessarily lead to the other. That's as stupid
as saying because I like looking at pictures of nekkid men, every man on the
street is in danger of me raping him (though an awful lot of hettie men seem
to fear this happening to them... or, wish for it).
Remember that not so very long ago (like, maybe 20 or 25 years), we ALL were
considered perverts and mentally unbalanced, simply because we happen to be
turned on sexually by members of our own gender. And, in many parts of human
society, we are still shunned and spit at and condemned, simply because we
are who we are.
So, Benjo and Speedbyrd, before you spend so much time and energy looking
down your nose at men who happen to be sexually aroused by images of minors,
stop and think... isn't it better that they have a set of newsgroups to
which they can gravitate in peace, as opposed to gathering in school yards
and peeking through the bathroom windows of fifth and sixth graders?
Yes, I know... I'm going to get so flamed for this post, I'm gonna end up
resembling a Thanksgiving turkey. But, let me state for the record that,
personally, I do NOT like looking at images of minors. In fact, anything
under the age of about 35, and that isn't covered with a deep pile of fur,
doesn't hold my interest. I like MEN who look like MEN. Even Jack Radcliffe
and Steve Kelso can do with a little more body hair as far as I'm
concerned... though, I hasten to add!, were they to climb into my bed, I
certainly won't kick them out... at least not immediately... ::ahem::... (I
wonder if they're reading this?). If I liked men who look like women, I'd
chase after women and be finished. So, whatever else may be said, please
don't accuse me of being a pedophile.
Let the flaming commence... Speedbyrd? Benjo??
(btw... I only read the alt.personals.gay newsgroup on the route; so if you
want to reply, and you want me to see it, make sure you route it there)
--
The Programmer Has Spoken -- SO THERE!
The name is Benjo wrote in message <381a8b51$0$99...@reader2.casema.net>...
The name is Benjo
very clear, of course this didn't make me gay (before some bigot idiot
comes up with that nonsense).
But now, at the age of 47 I sometimes still have nightmares of what
happened. Being a pedophile, I guess that happens and I don't care. I
even don't care if a youngster (16 yr) has sex with someone who's older
(as long as there's nothing in it of preponderance, like teacher-pupil etc)
even if I think that at that age a too big difference in age is not all that
healthy. Let them experiment with someone about their own age.
However, pictures of young boys often are made while these youngsters
are more or less forced in it, and that I don't like. Don't exploit kids,
yeah they get to know sex soon enough, but let them be kids as long
as possible. You have your childhood only once in your lifetime!
And the above is written and said from the point of view of the child,
so they can find out all about their sexual preferences, with pedophiles
having sex with youngsters, I have the strong idea that it is the other way
around. It's all about their own interest and not about the interest of the
youngster involved.
It's a pity my English isn't that well to explain it as clear as I would
like it
to be, but maybe in general you do understand what I'm trying to say.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
"PURITANISM - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."
H.L. Mencken
The Programmer <som...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:XdDS3.4645$9H3....@news3.mia...
The Programmer
traumatic, and you went through a personal tragedy. You have my sympathy,
Benjo.
But... and not to diminish your own experience... that still doesn't give
you the right to crimminalize a whole class of people, because of what
happened to you. That would be like saying: I lost a limb or an eye in a
plane crash, so now I want to outlaw flying. Life just doesn't work that
way.
In my mind, I keep going back to all the witch hunts we homosexuals have had
to endure over the centuries, because the act of homosexuality offended the
'delicate morals' of the hettie majority. In fact, if you read your history,
people all over the world took a particular joy in torturing and killing us
long after laws banning cruel and unusual punishment went into effect. For
example, after the burning of witches and Jews was stopped in Spain, the
burning at the stake of homosexuals was gleefully continued.
Now, Benjo, you and Speedbyrd are advocating the exact same persecution of a
whole class of men, simply because they enjoy looking at pictures of minors
in the nude. And, at that point, I have to say, stop. Neither of you would
appreciate anyone discriminating against you due to your orientation. Yet,
both of you quite gleefully scream and shout about pedophilia, and how evil
it is. That just doesn't jibe in my mind.
As for the taking of these photos. Yes, I agree that forcing, otherwise
regular children, to pose nude is wrong. Especially since minors, unlike
adults, can't really defend themselves or "simply say no", as that anorexic
bitch Reagan liked to quip.
This assumes, of course, that one can define what a minor is. It's not 16
anymore. And, I can't truly agree that it is 12 either, since a twelve year
old *can* be tried as an adult here in the US. So, where is the cut off?
Kind of a gray area there, isn't it... But (!), for the sake of argument,
let's just set it, temporarily, at twelve. Anything older, is fine, but 12
and younger is taboo. OK so far??
Now, let's take a look at the throw away children on the streets of Rio in
Brazil, or Tegucigalpa, Honduras, shall we? Sniffing glue, brains slowly
rotting away, but, hey, helps deaden the pain of starvation, right? Doesn't
happen? Have you read the news paper today?? So, anyway, this nice sugar
daddie faggot offers the young boys food in exchange for them exposing
themselves in front of his camera. Remember that neither of the wonderfully
Catholic Honduran or Brazilian governments give a shit about these children.
They're throw away pieces of human flesh. If they manage to survive until
they're 17, they can be conscripted into the military, where they're raped
and beaten, and turned into abusers themselves... if they manage to survive.
So, now... they can obtain the nourishment their brains require to survive
by being used as gay sex objects by some rich white exploitative sugar
daddie pedophile, or they can remain in the filth infested gutters of the
largely uncaring cities in which they've been abandoned and slowly starve to
death.
Question is: is pedophilia really that bad? Or are we all guilty of a knee
jerk reaction to something that we've been brought up to think of as being
evil???
Let's think about this for a second here...
--
The Programmer Has Spoken -- SO THERE!
The name is Benjo wrote in message <381b14e9$0$11...@reader1.casema.net>...
>Listen! And listen carefully! I am abused as a kid and let me make this
>very clear, of course this didn't make me gay (before some bigot idiot
>comes up with that nonsense).
>
>But now, at the age of 47 I sometimes still have nightmares of what
>happened. Being a pedophile, I guess that happens and I don't care. I
>even don't care if a youngster (16 yr) has sex with someone who's older
>(as long as there's nothing in it of preponderance, like teacher-pupil
etc)
>even if I think that at that age a too big difference in age is not all
that
>healthy. Let them experiment with someone about their own age.
>
>However, pictures of young boys often are made while these youngsters
>are more or less forced in it, and that I don't like. Don't exploit kids,
>yeah they get to know sex soon enough, but let them be kids as long
>as possible. You have your childhood only once in your lifetime!
>
>And the above is written and said from the point of view of the child,
>so they can find out all about their sexual preferences, with pedophiles
>having sex with youngsters, I have the strong idea that it is the other way
>around. It's all about their own interest and not about the interest of the
>youngster involved.
>
>It's a pity my English isn't that well to explain it as clear as I would
>like it
>to be, but maybe in general you do understand what I'm trying to say.
>--
The name is Benjo
> OK, you were abused as a child by a pedophile. I can understand that. It
was
> traumatic, and you went through a personal tragedy. You have my sympathy,
> Benjo.
>
> But... and not to diminish your own experience... that still doesn't give
> you the right to crimminalize a whole class of people, because of what
> happened to you. That would be like saying: I lost a limb or an eye in a
> plane crash, so now I want to outlaw flying. Life just doesn't work that
> way.
I don't crimminalize all pedophiles. I already said that I know that I don't
care someone is pedophile, to me it is not even of any interest if they
are born that way or not (to me that's just as unimportant as the question
if gays are born that way, you just whatever you are).
> In my mind, I keep going back to all the witch hunts we homosexuals have
had
> to endure over the centuries, because the act of homosexuality offended
the
> 'delicate morals' of the hettie majority. In fact, if you read your
history,
> people all over the world took a particular joy in torturing and killing
us
> long after laws banning cruel and unusual punishment went into effect. For
> example, after the burning of witches and Jews was stopped in Spain, the
> burning at the stake of homosexuals was gleefully continued.
I agree totally.
> Now, Benjo, you and Speedbyrd are advocating the exact same persecution of
a
> whole class of men, simply because they enjoy looking at pictures of
minors
> in the nude. And, at that point, I have to say, stop. Neither of you would
> appreciate anyone discriminating against you due to your orientation. Yet,
> both of you quite gleefully scream and shout about pedophilia, and how
evil
> it is. That just doesn't jibe in my mind.
> As for the taking of these photos. Yes, I agree that forcing, otherwise
> regular children, to pose nude is wrong. Especially since minors, unlike
> adults, can't really defend themselves or "simply say no", as that
anorexic
> bitch Reagan liked to quip.
And THIS is my problem. I know that there are pedophiles (ok, bigots, now
just go ahead) and some are friends of mine, who never force a youngster to
anything (I'm convinced that is the majority of them). BUT, there are others
who
do and harm youngsters.
> This assumes, of course, that one can define what a minor is. It's not 16
> anymore. And, I can't truly agree that it is 12 either, since a twelve
year
> old *can* be tried as an adult here in the US. So, where is the cut off?
> Kind of a gray area there, isn't it... But (!), for the sake of argument,
> let's just set it, temporarily, at twelve. Anything older, is fine, but 12
> and younger is taboo. OK so far??
Let me explain something about the Dutch laws on this subject. The age
of consent is 16 years (for both homo- and heterosexual contacts).
Now, everybody knows that younger people have sex as well, it's just
a fact of life, so as long as a youngster between the age of 12 and 16
agrees to have sex, this is allowed. However, parents, a legal guardian
and the youngster him(her)self always have the right to complain and if
this happens the older man/woman will be prosecuted. I can perfectly
live with this law, let's face facts, a boy of 12 years old these days is a
lot
more mature than I was, back in 1964. Still, we always have to consider
the fact that a grown up has preponderate (I hope I spell this right),
especially
in situations as teacher-pupil, priest-altar boy ect ect.
How to solve this... I'm not sure (I have my doubts if the youngster dares
to complain, especially in certain situations).
As far as a 12 years old tried as an adult: fuckinng idiot! (But then, in
the
USA they even send retarted children of 14 years to the chair). There's
a long wrong in the USA.
> Now, let's take a look at the throw away children on the streets of Rio in
> Brazil, or Tegucigalpa, Honduras, shall we? Sniffing glue, brains slowly
> rotting away, but, hey, helps deaden the pain of starvation, right?
Doesn't
> happen? Have you read the news paper today?? So, anyway, this nice sugar
> daddie faggot offers the young boys food in exchange for them exposing
> themselves in front of his camera. Remember that neither of the
wonderfully
> Catholic Honduran or Brazilian governments give a shit about these
children.
> They're throw away pieces of human flesh. If they manage to survive until
> they're 17, they can be conscripted into the military, where they're raped
> and beaten, and turned into abusers themselves... if they manage to
survive.
> So, now... they can obtain the nourishment their brains require to survive
> by being used as gay sex objects by some rich white exploitative sugar
> daddie pedophile, or they can remain in the filth infested gutters of the
> largely uncaring cities in which they've been abandoned and slowly starve
to
> death.
Yes it happens, I agree. I know that heterosexual men have sex girls of 11,
12, 13 years old and infect these girls with the aids virus. I know that
these
girls at the same age have babies, also hiv positive. And why? Yes,
otherwise
they starve to death. My heart goes out to these girls and boys who have to
live this way (therefore me and my lover spend lots of money to projects in
the Third World, education, freedom of slavery, small businesses for the
mothers etc., as people who have enough, we simply owe it to the ones who
have less or nothing).
Do I blame these kids? Of course not. Do I blame the capitalist western
world
for the situation these kids have to live in? YES I DO.
Do I blame the low life shitheads, using the situation these kids have to
live in?
YES I DO! I don't give a fuck if this kinda filth has heterosexual or
homosexual
preferences, it's plain filth. Just give them the goddamn money, but don't
use them.
Even taking pictures in these situations is using the kids.
> Question is: is pedophilia really that bad? Or are we all guilty of a knee
> jerk reaction to something that we've been brought up to think of as being
> evil???
I hope I was clear enough in my answer.
The Programmer
>
>The Programmer <som...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
>news:caGS3.5023$9H3....@news3.mia...
>> OK, you were abused as a child by a pedophile. I can understand that. It
>was
>> traumatic, and you went through a personal tragedy. You have my sympathy,
>> Benjo.
>>
>> But... and not to diminish your own experience... that still doesn't give
>> you the right to crimminalize a whole class of people, because of what
>> happened to you. That would be like saying: I lost a limb or an eye in a
>> plane crash, so now I want to outlaw flying. Life just doesn't work that
>> way.
>
>I don't crimminalize all pedophiles. I already said that I know that I
don't
>care someone is pedophile, to me it is not even of any interest if they
>are born that way or not (to me that's just as unimportant as the question
>if gays are born that way, you just whatever you are).
>
>
>> In my mind, I keep going back to all the witch hunts we homosexuals have
>had
>> to endure over the centuries, because the act of homosexuality offended
>the
>> 'delicate morals' of the hettie majority. In fact, if you read your
>history,
>> people all over the world took a particular joy in torturing and killing
>us
>> long after laws banning cruel and unusual punishment went into effect.
For
>> example, after the burning of witches and Jews was stopped in Spain, the
>> burning at the stake of homosexuals was gleefully continued.
>
>I agree totally.
>
En nogmaals zijn we eens met mekaar...
>> Now, Benjo, you and Speedbyrd are advocating the exact same persecution
of
>a
>> whole class of men, simply because they enjoy looking at pictures of
>minors
>> in the nude. And, at that point, I have to say, stop. Neither of you
would
>> appreciate anyone discriminating against you due to your orientation.
Yet,
>> both of you quite gleefully scream and shout about pedophilia, and how
>evil
>> it is. That just doesn't jibe in my mind.
>
>> As for the taking of these photos. Yes, I agree that forcing, otherwise
>> regular children, to pose nude is wrong. Especially since minors, unlike
>> adults, can't really defend themselves or "simply say no", as that
>anorexic
>> bitch Reagan liked to quip.
>
>And THIS is my problem. I know that there are pedophiles (ok, bigots, now
>just go ahead) and some are friends of mine, who never force a youngster to
>anything (I'm convinced that is the majority of them). BUT, there are
others
>who
>do and harm youngsters.
>
Hier praten we over iemand die gewone kinderen dwingt naakte fotos te nemen,
ja? In zo'n gevaal, is dat wel 'n misdaad, in de zelfde streek als of de
volwassen 'n kind dwingt voor 'n aankomende trein te stappen. En 'r zijn
rechten in ieder land dit te behandelen. Heeft 'r niets met pedos te maken.
>> This assumes, of course, that one can define what a minor is. It's not 16
>> anymore. And, I can't truly agree that it is 12 either, since a twelve
>year
>> old *can* be tried as an adult here in the US. So, where is the cut off?
>> Kind of a gray area there, isn't it... But (!), for the sake of argument,
>> let's just set it, temporarily, at twelve. Anything older, is fine, but
12
>> and younger is taboo. OK so far??
>
>Let me explain something about the Dutch laws on this subject. The age
>of consent is 16 years (for both homo- and heterosexual contacts).
>Now, everybody knows that younger people have sex as well, it's just
>a fact of life, so as long as a youngster between the age of 12 and 16
>agrees to have sex, this is allowed. However, parents, a legal guardian
>and the youngster him(her)self always have the right to complain and if
>this happens the older man/woman will be prosecuted. I can perfectly
>live with this law, let's face facts, a boy of 12 years old these days is a
>lot
>more mature than I was, back in 1964. Still, we always have to consider
>the fact that a grown up has preponderate (I hope I spell this right),
>especially
>in situations as teacher-pupil, priest-altar boy ect ect.
>How to solve this... I'm not sure (I have my doubts if the youngster dares
>to complain, especially in certain situations).
>
Er zullen altijd situaties zijn waar de wet niet 100% werken kan. Maar te
zeggen omdat 'n man houdt er van om fotos van naakte kindren te zien heeft
ie automaatis vout, daarmee ben ik niet eens. Da's de zelfde gedachtengang
hetties hadden om homos onder te drukken voor eeuwen.
>As far as a 12 years old tried as an adult: fuckinng idiot! (But then, in
>the
>USA they even send retarted children of 14 years to the chair). There's
>a long wrong in the USA.
>
Ja, er zijn raare wetten hier in Amerika. Maar 'r zijn ook vreemde wetten in
Nederland. En, je moet herinneren dat veel van die gekke rechten hier in de
VS kwamen oorspronkelijk uit Europa.
Ahhh... misschien ben jij edelmoedig met je geld, maar ik betaal veels te
veel belasting hier in de VS om zo maar weg te geven. Vooral niet als we
over Honduras of Brazil te praten zijn. Heb je nooit van corruptie gehoort?
Meest wat je over geeft, gaat onmidelijk naar een of ander beambte toe.
Kinderen en hun ouders zien 'r nooit iets van. De heel charity ding is 'n
groot scam (ik heb geen idee wat de nederlands woord hiervoor is).
>> Question is: is pedophilia really that bad? Or are we all guilty of a
knee
>> jerk reaction to something that we've been brought up to think of as
being
>> evil???
>
>I hope I was clear enough in my answer.
>
Ja. En ik hoop dat ik even duidelijk was... alhoewel m'n nederlands, over de
jaren, slordig geworden is... ::blush::
The name is Benjo
> The name is Benjo wrote in message
<381b396e$0$11...@reader2.casema.net>...
> >
> >The Programmer <som...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
> >news:caGS3.5023$9H3....@news3.mia...
> Dus we zijn eens hiermee daan: 'n pedo is niet automaatis 'n misdadiger.
Helemaal, eerlijk gezegd zie ik iemand die een kind misbruikt en vermoord
niet als een pedo.
> >> As for the taking of these photos. Yes, I agree that forcing, otherwise
> >> regular children, to pose nude is wrong. Especially since minors,
unlike
> >> adults, can't really defend themselves or "simply say no", as that
> >anorexic
> >> bitch Reagan liked to quip.
> >
> >And THIS is my problem. I know that there are pedophiles (ok, bigots, now
> >just go ahead) and some are friends of mine, who never force a youngster
to
> >anything (I'm convinced that is the majority of them). BUT, there are
> others who do and harm youngsters.
> >
> Hier praten we over iemand die gewone kinderen dwingt naakte fotos te
nemen,
> ja? In zo'n gevaal, is dat wel 'n misdaad, in de zelfde streek als of de
> volwassen 'n kind dwingt voor 'n aankomende trein te stappen. En 'r zijn
> rechten in ieder land dit te behandelen. Heeft 'r niets met pedos te
maken.
Ja en nee. Als je gebruikt maakt van iemands slechte leefomstandigheden,
dwing je hem ook. Zo iemand zal natuurlijk "toestemmen" in het maken van
foto's, tja als je verrekt van de honger doe je veel voor wat eten.
Het zien is dan misschien wel niet fout, de omstandigheden waaronder
die foto's vaak worden gemaakt wel! Zoeits van wie zwijgt stemt toe, als
je weet hoe die foto's worden gemaakt en je wilt ze toch hebben, zien, op
klaar komen... ben je medeschuldig.
> >As far as a 12 years old tried as an adult: fuckinng idiot! (But then, in
> >the
> >USA they even send retarted children of 14 years to the chair). There's
> >a long wrong in the USA.
> >
> Ja, er zijn raare wetten hier in Amerika. Maar 'r zijn ook vreemde wetten
in
> Nederland. En, je moet herinneren dat veel van die gekke rechten hier in
de
> VS kwamen oorspronkelijk uit Europa.
Klopt, maar in Europa veranderen we sneller, en veel van die oude wetten
zijn hier al lang in onbruik. Amerika lijkt niet graag te veranderen.
Uiteraard heb ik over corruptie gehoord, daarom zoeken wij heel zorgvuldig
de organisaties uit waaraan we geld geven en die leggen ook verantwoording
af hoe het geld is besteed. En niets edelmoedig, wij vinden het onze plicht.
Tja, belasting betalen wij ook, maar als er geld is om zo'n kind te betalen
voor het maken van foto's.... dit klinkt niet overtuigend. Toch meer van
gebruik maken van de situatie of waar willen hebben voor je geld en niet
bereid zijn het zomaar weg te geven. Materialistisch, zoals het overgrote
deel van de westerse wereld in de USA in het bijzonder.
>
> >> Question is: is pedophilia really that bad? Or are we all guilty of a
> knee
> >> jerk reaction to something that we've been brought up to think of as
> being
> >> evil???
> >
> >I hope I was clear enough in my answer.
> >
> Ja. En ik hoop dat ik even duidelijk was... alhoewel m'n nederlands, over
de
> jaren, slordig geworden is... ::blush::
>
Dat valt wel mee. Overigens zal ik een volgende keer weer uithalen bij
zo'n verzoek om foto's, ik ken de achtergronden en zal het daar nooit
mee eens kunnen zijn, te meer omdat in mijn visie de kinderen worden
uitgebuit en misbruikt.
O ja, scam is oplichting in het Nederlands.
The Programmer
>
>> Dus we zijn eens hiermee daan: 'n pedo is niet automaatis 'n misdadiger.
>
>Helemaal, eerlijk gezegd zie ik iemand die een kind misbruikt en vermoord
>niet als een pedo.
>
pedos.
>
>> Hier praten we over iemand die gewone kinderen dwingt naakte fotos te
>nemen,
>> ja? In zo'n gevaal, is dat wel 'n misdaad, in de zelfde streek als of de
>> volwassen 'n kind dwingt voor 'n aankomende trein te stappen. En 'r zijn
>> rechten in ieder land dit te behandelen. Heeft 'r niets met pedos te
>maken.
>
>Ja en nee. Als je gebruikt maakt van iemands slechte leefomstandigheden,
>dwing je hem ook. Zo iemand zal natuurlijk "toestemmen" in het maken van
>foto's, tja als je verrekt van de honger doe je veel voor wat eten.
>
OK. Waar we'n 't hier over hebben zijn mannen die naakte fotos van kindren
willen zien. Niets meer. Als je vlees eet, wil je ook niet weten wat in 'n
slagerij gebeurt.
Ik kan wel begrijpen hoe volwassen kinderen dwingen kunnen om fotos te
nemen. Maar wat van fotos van naakte kinderen in gewoone toestanden? Zo als
fotos thuis in de badkamer... of buiten in zomers rond de zwembad... of,
weet ik veel waar nog meer. Ik hou 'r niet van om naakte kinderen te zien,
zo 't is moelijk voor mij om te zeggen. Maar er *zijn* situaties waar
kinderen niet gedwongen worden om naakte fotos te nemen. Wat met zo'n
toestand. Zijn zulke fotos ook off-limits??
>> >
>> Er zullen altijd situaties zijn waar de wet niet 100% werken kan. Maar te
>> zeggen omdat 'n man houdt er van om fotos van naakte kindren te zien
heeft
>> ie automaatis vout, daarmee ben ik niet eens. Da's de zelfde
gedachtengang
>> hetties hadden om homos onder te drukken voor eeuwen.
>
>Het zien is dan misschien wel niet fout, de omstandigheden waaronder
>die foto's vaak worden gemaakt wel! Zoeits van wie zwijgt stemt toe, als
>je weet hoe die foto's worden gemaakt en je wilt ze toch hebben, zien, op
>klaar komen... ben je medeschuldig.
>
Alweer: als je vlees eet, wil je niet weten wat in 'n slagerij gebeurt. Ik
kan begrijpen dat niet alle omstandigheden ideal zijn. Maar, zodra de foto
in circulatie staat, waar is 't problem dat bepaalde mannen ze zien willen?
En nog eens -- deze zelfde argumenten waren gebruikt om homos onder te
drukken! We moeten dat nooit vergeten.
>> Ja, er zijn raare wetten hier in Amerika. Maar 'r zijn ook vreemde wetten
>in
>> Nederland. En, je moet herinneren dat veel van die gekke rechten hier in
>de
>> VS kwamen oorspronkelijk uit Europa.
>
>Klopt, maar in Europa veranderen we sneller, en veel van die oude wetten
>zijn hier al lang in onbruik. Amerika lijkt niet graag te veranderen.
>
Veranderen hangt 'r van af als de meeste mensen van 'n nieuwe wet houden.
Hier, en in Canada, zijn de populatsie niet zo homogeen als in, b.v.,
Nederland. Als 'n wet eenmaal bestaat, blijft ie op de boeken voor 'n lange
tijd.
>> >
>> Ahhh... misschien ben jij edelmoedig met je geld, maar ik betaal veels te
>> veel belasting hier in de VS om zo maar weg te geven. Vooral niet als we
>> over Honduras of Brazil te praten zijn. Heb je nooit van corruptie
>gehoort?
>> Meest wat je over geeft, gaat onmidelijk naar een of ander beambte toe.
>> Kinderen en hun ouders zien 'r nooit iets van. De heel charity ding is 'n
>> groot scam (ik heb geen idee wat de nederlands woord hiervoor is).
>
>Uiteraard heb ik over corruptie gehoord, daarom zoeken wij heel zorgvuldig
>de organisaties uit waaraan we geld geven en die leggen ook verantwoording
>af hoe het geld is besteed. En niets edelmoedig, wij vinden het onze
plicht.
>
>Tja, belasting betalen wij ook, maar als er geld is om zo'n kind te betalen
>voor het maken van foto's.... dit klinkt niet overtuigend. Toch meer van
>gebruik maken van de situatie of waar willen hebben voor je geld en niet
>bereid zijn het zomaar weg te geven. Materialistisch, zoals het overgrote
>deel van de westerse wereld in de USA in het bijzonder.
>
Je houdt helemaal niet van Amerika, heh? LOL! :D
Ja, de VS is baldaadig materialistisch. Da's gegeven. Een paar hondert jaar
geleden waren Nederlandse burgers erg materialistisch ook. Misschien in
hondert jaar van nu, is 't hier weer verandert. Wie weet?
In ieder gevaal, wat ik van die charitable organizaties af weet, is dat de
meeste corrupt zijn. En ze krijgen geen rooie cent uit mijn tasje. Maar dat
is alleen mijn gevoel. De mensen in de VS denken niet zo gemeen... ::grin::
The point is, is 't zo erg om naakte fotos te nemen van die kinderen in
derde werld landen? Als je ze betaald met eten of kleding... of geld,
natuurlijk. En, nee, de meeste mensen (hier in Amerika, of in Nederland!)
gaan niet zomaar geld weg geven. Dat doe jij. Ieder ander wilt wat terug
krijgen. En je weet dat is waar.
>>
>> Ja. En ik hoop dat ik even duidelijk was... alhoewel m'n nederlands, over
>de
>> jaren, slordig geworden is... ::blush::
>>
>
>Dat valt wel mee. Overigens zal ik een volgende keer weer uithalen bij
>zo'n verzoek om foto's, ik ken de achtergronden en zal het daar nooit
>mee eens kunnen zijn, te meer omdat in mijn visie de kinderen worden
>uitgebuit en misbruikt.
>
Nou ja, je ziet in een richting, en ik zie 't anders. Ik volg zulke
verzoekingen gewoonelijk niet. De hele kwestie van naakte kinderen blijkt me
niet zo belangerijk. Ik wou alleen mijn mening deze keer klaar maken. Niets
meer... :)
>O ja, scam is oplichting in het Nederlands.
>
Bedankt... :)
Naughty Boy
wrote:
>It's all just an idea. That's it. Nothing more.
>
>Benjo? Speedbyrd?? You're both so damned scared of ideas, you both sound
>like those same hetties you profess to despise. Chill out, dudes.
>
>In my not-so-humble opinion, this whole pedophilia thing is blown way out of
>proportion. A few homo and hettie men get their rocks off drooling over
>naked pix of under-aged kiddies. So what? They're drooling over images,
>nothing more. Better they sit in front of their monitors and get their rocks
>off jerking off, instead of hunting the streets looking for the real thing.
Where do the pics come from? The pedos will have you believe they are
old European pics scanned from magazines. Or pics taken before the law
was toughened about photos of child sex. Or that the models are over
18. Or the best one - the children willingly participate in, or even
instigate, the photo sessions.
Most people know there is a shadowy manipulator behind the camera, and
sometimes the molester appears in the photos himself, carefully hiding
his identity (yet doing nothing to protect the child's). The look of
pain and terror on some of these children's faces show you how much
"fun" they are having.
>And, stating, very self-righteously may I add, that pedos shouldn't be doing
>what they do and that it's sick, isn't going to change anything. A sex
>fantasy is a sex fantasy. If the thought of having sex, forced or otherwise,
>with a minor (whatever a minor happens to be) turns a man on, no amount of
>preaching is going to change that. A concept that most women, hettie and
>homo, can't seem understand. We men, hettie and homo, are driven by sex
>fantasies, pure and simple. That's not going to change, ever.
How could a man get off on a fantasy of raping a child? How sick is
that?
>And, before you come back with the obvious cliche that looking at pictures
>of naked minors is going to lead to raping minors, may I remind everyone,
>that no one here is clairvoyant. No one knows what anyone is going to do.
>So, no!, one fact does not necessarily lead to the other. That's as stupid
>as saying because I like looking at pictures of nekkid men, every man on the
>street is in danger of me raping him (though an awful lot of hettie men seem
>to fear this happening to them... or, wish for it).
Please don't compare apples with oranges. Most men (and women) are not
as manipulable as children are, children are more likely to be
molested than adults.
>Remember that not so very long ago (like, maybe 20 or 25 years), we ALL were
>considered perverts and mentally unbalanced, simply because we happen to be
>turned on sexually by members of our own gender. And, in many parts of human
>society, we are still shunned and spit at and condemned, simply because we
>are who we are.
No-one here gives a toss about what consenting adults do with each
other.
>So, Benjo and Speedbyrd, before you spend so much time and energy looking
>down your nose at men who happen to be sexually aroused by images of minors,
>stop and think... isn't it better that they have a set of newsgroups to
>which they can gravitate in peace, as opposed to gathering in school yards
>and peeking through the bathroom windows of fifth and sixth graders?
They won't do that. The supposed anonymity of the net seals them in a
comfort zone they won't leave for fear of getting caught.
>Yes, I know... I'm going to get so flamed for this post, I'm gonna end up
>resembling a Thanksgiving turkey. But, let me state for the record that,
>personally, I do NOT like looking at images of minors. In fact, anything
>under the age of about 35, and that isn't covered with a deep pile of fur,
>doesn't hold my interest. I like MEN who look like MEN. Even Jack Radcliffe
>and Steve Kelso can do with a little more body hair as far as I'm
>concerned... though, I hasten to add!, were they to climb into my bed, I
>certainly won't kick them out... at least not immediately... ::ahem::... (I
>wonder if they're reading this?). If I liked men who look like women, I'd
>chase after women and be finished. So, whatever else may be said, please
>don't accuse me of being a pedophile.
>
>Let the flaming commence... Speedbyrd? Benjo??
>
>(btw... I only read the alt.personals.gay newsgroup on the route; so if you
>want to reply, and you want me to see it, make sure you route it there)
Please, do some research before posting next time.
The Programmer
>"The Programmer" <som...@somewhere.com> in alt.support.boy-lovers
>wrote:
>
>>It's all just an idea. That's it. Nothing more.
>>
>>Benjo? Speedbyrd?? You're both so damned scared of ideas, you both sound
>>like those same hetties you profess to despise. Chill out, dudes.
>>
>>In my not-so-humble opinion, this whole pedophilia thing is blown way out
of
>>proportion. A few homo and hettie men get their rocks off drooling over
>>naked pix of under-aged kiddies. So what? They're drooling over images,
>>nothing more. Better they sit in front of their monitors and get their
rocks
>>off jerking off, instead of hunting the streets looking for the real
thing.
>
>Where do the pics come from? The pedos will have you believe they are
>old European pics scanned from magazines. Or pics taken before the law
>was toughened about photos of child sex. Or that the models are over
>18. Or the best one - the children willingly participate in, or even
>instigate, the photo sessions.
>
>Most people know there is a shadowy manipulator behind the camera, and
>sometimes the molester appears in the photos himself, carefully hiding
>his identity (yet doing nothing to protect the child's). The look of
>pain and terror on some of these children's faces show you how much
>"fun" they are having.
>
consent or by forceful means. Just as there are some photos made by guards
of naked people in thrid world countries. Those aren't pornographic, they're
just sick.
But, regardless of a picture's origin, it's not up to you or me to judge
what other people (in this case, mostly men) may or may not see and enjoy.
And that's the whole point of this discussion. You and Speedbyrd and Benjo
object, and are trying to police, what other people may post/trade because
it offense your sensibilities. And I'm saying that you live in a glass
house. The exact same arguments that you have against pedophiles (that
they're sick or perverted or just wrong) can, and have been!, used against
all homosexuals.
>>And, stating, very self-righteously may I add, that pedos shouldn't be
doing
>>what they do and that it's sick, isn't going to change anything. A sex
>>fantasy is a sex fantasy. If the thought of having sex, forced or
otherwise,
>>with a minor (whatever a minor happens to be) turns a man on, no amount of
>>preaching is going to change that. A concept that most women, hettie and
>>homo, can't seem understand. We men, hettie and homo, are driven by sex
>>fantasies, pure and simple. That's not going to change, ever.
>
>How could a man get off on a fantasy of raping a child? How sick is
>that?
>
How could a man get off on a fantasy of pushing his hard cock up the rectum
of another man? How sick is that?
(as an aside: I always found it interesting that hetties never seemed to
find it objectionable that one woman would put her tongue inside the vagina
of another woman... well, not very objectionable)
>>And, before you come back with the obvious cliche that looking at pictures
>>of naked minors is going to lead to raping minors, may I remind everyone,
>>that no one here is clairvoyant. No one knows what anyone is going to do.
>>So, no!, one fact does not necessarily lead to the other. That's as stupid
>>as saying because I like looking at pictures of nekkid men, every man on
the
>>street is in danger of me raping him (though an awful lot of hettie men
seem
>>to fear this happening to them... or, wish for it).
>
>Please don't compare apples with oranges. Most men (and women) are not
>as manipulable as children are, children are more likely to be
>molested than adults.
>
True. But molesting a child and getting your rocks off looking at a naked
picture of one are completely separate issues. One has absolutely NOTHING to
do with the other. It's like these women's group that go around screaming
that hettie men drooling over the centerfold of Playboy is degrading to
women. Crap!
>>Remember that not so very long ago (like, maybe 20 or 25 years), we ALL
were
>>considered perverts and mentally unbalanced, simply because we happen to
be
>>turned on sexually by members of our own gender. And, in many parts of
human
>>society, we are still shunned and spit at and condemned, simply because we
>>are who we are.
>
>No-one here gives a toss about what consenting adults do with each
>other.
>
And no one here should give a toss what adults should be allowed to view.
And that's the hold point, isn't it? Certain individuals feel it's their
sacred duty to police others. Gleefully forgetting that they themselves can
be just as easily policed. And have been in the past.
>>So, Benjo and Speedbyrd, before you spend so much time and energy looking
>>down your nose at men who happen to be sexually aroused by images of
minors,
>>stop and think... isn't it better that they have a set of newsgroups to
>>which they can gravitate in peace, as opposed to gathering in school yards
>>and peeking through the bathroom windows of fifth and sixth graders?
>
>They won't do that. The supposed anonymity of the net seals them in a
>comfort zone they won't leave for fear of getting caught.
>
And so? Isn't that what the net is all about?? A comfort zone. I get to
drool over images of nekkid hairy bear daddies (nothing quite as gorgeous as
a nekkid hairy bear daddie!). Someone else get to drool over a video clip of
nekkid drag queens. Yet a third person gets to drool over a sound file of
two chipmonks getting it on (no accounting for taste). And, hey, there's a
guy polishing his knob, looking at two little boys, naked, splashing in a
pool.
Comfort zone. Get yourself some, guy.
>>Yes, I know... I'm going to get so flamed for this post, I'm gonna end up
>>resembling a Thanksgiving turkey. But, let me state for the record that,
>>personally, I do NOT like looking at images of minors. In fact, anything
>>under the age of about 35, and that isn't covered with a deep pile of fur,
>>doesn't hold my interest. I like MEN who look like MEN. Even Jack
Radcliffe
>>and Steve Kelso can do with a little more body hair as far as I'm
>>concerned... though, I hasten to add!, were they to climb into my bed, I
>>certainly won't kick them out... at least not immediately... ::ahem::...
(I
>>wonder if they're reading this?). If I liked men who look like women, I'd
>>chase after women and be finished. So, whatever else may be said, please
>>don't accuse me of being a pedophile.
>>
>>Let the flaming commence... Speedbyrd? Benjo??
>>
>>(btw... I only read the alt.personals.gay newsgroup on the route; so if
you
>>want to reply, and you want me to see it, make sure you route it there)
>
>Please, do some research before posting next time.
Yeah, right, sure... anything else Herr Kommesar?
The Programmer
>"The Programmer" <som...@somewhere.com> in alt.support.boy-lovers
>wrote:
>
>>Naughty Boy wrote in message <382bddba.4884752@newslimited>...
>>>
>>>sometimes the molester appears in the photos himself, carefully hiding
>>>his identity (yet doing nothing to protect the child's). The look of
>>>pain and terror on some of these children's faces show you how much
>>>"fun" they are having.
>>>
>>I admit that there are some photos that are made without the children's
>>consent or by forceful means. Just as there are some photos made by guards
>>of naked people in thrid world countries. Those aren't pornographic,
they're
>>just sick.
>>
>>But, regardless of a picture's origin, it's not up to you or me to judge
>>what other people (in this case, mostly men) may or may not see and enjoy.
>>And that's the whole point of this discussion. You and Speedbyrd and Benjo
>>object, and are trying to police, what other people may post/trade because
>>it offense your sensibilities. And I'm saying that you live in a glass
>>house. The exact same arguments that you have against pedophiles (that
>>they're sick or perverted or just wrong) can, and have been!, used against
>>all homosexuals.
>
>should be free to do, and what should be limited for children. Sure, a
>case can be made that homosexuality is wrong, but in the end it is two
>grown adults deciding what is best for them.
>
Hmmm... and you obviously have trouble realizing that people *are* free to
see whatever they wish to see, whether you want them to see it or not.
And, NB, darling? Homosexuality is NEVER wrong. No case can EVER be made for
that. Any more than a case can ever be made that heterosexuality is wrong.
So, may I suggest that you removed those thoughts from your brain
immediately.
>
>>>How could a man get off on a fantasy of raping a child? How sick is
>>>that?
>>>
>>How could a man get off on a fantasy of pushing his hard cock up the
rectum
>>of another man? How sick is that?
>
>Nothing sick about that, as long as both agree.
>
Your point being...?
>>(as an aside: I always found it interesting that hetties never seemed to
>>find it objectionable that one woman would put her tongue inside the
vagina
>>of another woman... well, not very objectionable)
>
>I don't care what two grown adults decide to do between themselves.
>
Again, your point being...?
>>>Please don't compare apples with oranges. Most men (and women) are not
>>>as manipulable as children are, children are more likely to be
>>>molested than adults.
>>>
>>True. But molesting a child and getting your rocks off looking at a naked
>>picture of one are completely separate issues. One has absolutely NOTHING
to
>>do with the other. It's like these women's group that go around screaming
>>that hettie men drooling over the centerfold of Playboy is degrading to
>>women. Crap!
>
>Once again you believe that these photos appear out of thin air. They
>don't. These are real children.
>
NB? You're so hung up on violent pictures of children, you don't seem to
realize that there are other, much more innocent pictures out there. In the
nude, yes, but not necessarily involving blood or sex. Just as not all
homoerotic photos of men are along the S/M vein.
Seems to me that you need to do some serious research into kiddie porn, my
man.
>
>>>No-one here gives a toss about what consenting adults do with each
>>>other.
>>>
>>And no one here should give a toss what adults should be allowed to view.
>>And that's the hold point, isn't it? Certain individuals feel it's their
>>sacred duty to police others. Gleefully forgetting that they themselves
can
>>be just as easily policed. And have been in the past.
>
>Children are unable to protect themselves from conniving adults. Hell
>even some adults can't protect themselves from conniving adults. The
>issue here though, is not the looking - it is the circumstances of the
>procurement of children for photo opportunities, and the subsequent
>distribution of those images, simply for the immature sexual fantasies
>of the Internet pedo. The child has been damaged once by the
>molestation, and damaged again by the distribution of the photos.
>
>When a woman poses for Playboy, she knows what she is doing, and
>getting paid for it.
>
Again... you're on that "I here to protect innocent little babies from the
advances of evil pedophiles" track. You do fancy yourself the great
'protector' don't you. Problem is, there's precious little to protect.
NB? This whole thread has to do with the right of gay pedophiles to view
whatever they want, without being constantly abused. Especially not by other
gay men, who're themselves ogling images of other nekkid men. It has nothing
to do with the fact that some pictures do depict violence against children,
any more than hettie men looking at pictures of nekkid women has anything to
do with the fact that there are pictures out there of women being raped...
for real.
Let's get that fact straight, OK?
>
>>And so? Isn't that what the net is all about?? A comfort zone. I get to
>>drool over images of nekkid hairy bear daddies (nothing quite as gorgeous
as
>>a nekkid hairy bear daddie!). Someone else get to drool over a video clip
of
>>nekkid drag queens. Yet a third person gets to drool over a sound file of
>>two chipmonks getting it on (no accounting for taste). And, hey, there's a
>>guy polishing his knob, looking at two little boys, naked, splashing in a
>>pool.
>>
>>Comfort zone. Get yourself some, guy.
>
>Uh, okay, you're talking about bathtime photos now. Same thing. Pics
>may have been taken innocently, yet become debased by being posted in
>pedophile newsgroups. There are other newsgroups where I would be
>happy for their pics to appear in, though. I certainly wouldn't like
>my kids associated with some of the shit in those pedo newsgroups,
>even though the photos convey nothing sexual at all.
>
As far as I'm concerned, I was talking about pictures of naked 'minors'
floating around in the newsgroups. And the fact that there are newsgroups
dedicated to the trading/posting of said image files. Whether they are
bathtime or running aroun the pool, or posing seductively, or being coerced
into sex acts. Viewing these images should not be censored, period.
As for pictures being 'debased'... that is such a relative term, I won't
wast time debating it.
>>>Please, do some research before posting next time.
>>Yeah, right, sure... anything else Herr Kommesar?
>
>You seem to be jumping all over the place. I am not against
>censorship, except when it comes to children being used and abused for
>a market which is totally wrong. When it comes to adults, I say
>anything consensual goes. You don't agree?
Actually, I'm not jumping anywhere. I'm right here, where I've been
throughout this entire thread. I may not bother being here much longer,
though...
And you're right when you say that you're not against censorship, NB. In
fact, from what I've seen thus far, I think you'd like to be appointed head
censor.Trouble is, in this newsgroup, censors have no real voice.
All I'd like to leave you with is this, NB... the same way that YOU can
scream about censoring others, others can turn right around and censor YOU.
So, be very careful what you wish for, and what you advocate. Be very, very
sure you know exactly what you're doing. And remember that many deposed
dictators were also very sure of what they wanted and what was best. Don't
allow yourself to get caught up hiding behind a veil of self-righteousness.
Things aren't always quite as simple or straightforward as they may seem.
The name is Benjo
I once again have to say that if a picture is taken in a situation that the
youngster is in need and a rich (mostly white) man offers him money
if the man is allowed to make such pictures, is dead wrong! That others
have not commit this crime (to me it's a crime) and therefore are allowed
to get off while looking at these pics is dead wrong!
I don't agree that these arguments are used in the past against gays,
however I'm convinced that children have to right to be protected. Even
the argument that any fucking church don't give a damn, the government
don't gibe a damn or who else who doesn't give a damn makes this right.
>
> >>And, stating, very self-righteously may I add, that pedos shouldn't be
> doing
> >>what they do and that it's sick, isn't going to change anything. A sex
> >>fantasy is a sex fantasy. If the thought of having sex, forced or
> otherwise,
> >>with a minor (whatever a minor happens to be) turns a man on, no amount
of
> >>preaching is going to change that. A concept that most women, hettie and
> >>homo, can't seem understand. We men, hettie and homo, are driven by sex
> >>fantasies, pure and simple. That's not going to change, ever.
Bullshit! You NEVER have the right to harm anyone! The excuse of being
man is ridicilous and very outdated.
> >How could a man get off on a fantasy of raping a child? How sick is
> >that?
> >
> How could a man get off on a fantasy of pushing his hard cock up the
rectum
> of another man? How sick is that?
>
> (as an aside: I always found it interesting that hetties never seemed to
> find it objectionable that one woman would put her tongue inside the
vagina
> of another woman... well, not very objectionable)
You know my position, if a youngster wants to have sex, and especailly if it
helps
him/her to discover his/her sexual preferences, that's ok, but the
initiative
is not the older person's. Next to that, here we talking about some totally
different, taking pictures for money if someone is starving to dead in my
view
is expliotation. And don't tell me that you can't everything for free and
that
you have to pay a price for everything. To me this is taking advantage of..
and the ones who commit these crimes must pay their price.
I made my point, in English and in Dutch, let me ad something to that.
I know, not all pedophiles are criminals, not all pedophiles kill children
(and I admit, sometimes it happens as they panic), but protecting children
is my main concern. I don't believe in naming and shaming, I don't believe
in jail for pedophiles. I don't think they can't be cured because in my
opinion
it's not a disease, just something you have (maybe born with).
But if they are a real threat to children something must be done. So the
persons who are really dangerous (repeatedly rape, forcing themselves
or other harmful things to children) they can be put on an island with a
fence,
built them houses, bars, stores and all what they need a human life.
Let them govern themselves as much as possible, but never let them
of that island. Don't treat them as animals, just as humans who have
no control over certain things. That's the best way to deal with them,
taking them out of society but not harm them.
Sadeness Part Deux
Little boys or little girls should not be brought into sexual situations,
even when they supposedly want to.
Yes gay people have been bombarded with reprimands, but gay adults have
their heads on straight and are able to make the decisions that are right
for themselves. That is why they (we) do not deserve it. But children are
easily swayed to do things they don't want to do and very easily make wrong
decisions about what they want or don't want. That is why they need adults
to make sure their lives progres without doing things that are not good for
them. That is why they need adults to make decisions. That is why the
anti-pedophile does not equal anti-gay.
The Programmer
so-called 'guardians' of public morality. And that's my whole point in this
argument. There should be no censorship, period.
Censorship has been used repeatedly over the centuries to repress that which
certain individuals not only didn't want to see themselves, but also that
which they didn't want others to see. The history books are replete with
examples of actions and ideas being considered 'forbidden' due to one warped
reasoning or another.
In this case it's pedophiles who're being persecuted, "in order to save the
children". Yeah, right, sure... the same children who're allowed to sniff
glue until their brains rot. The same children who're left unsupervised to
roam the streets and be killed by stray bullets. Just don't ever DARE take a
picture of them naked.
The other pet peeve of mine is the taboo people have against incest. Though
I'd never indulge myself, I don't understand why certain people get so upset
by the mere concept. Incest happens. Has always happened. It's part of
nature. Not what everyone may enjoy, but (!), it's a lot less objectionable
than, let's say, biological warfare.
Now, I'm probably going to get flamed by not only the anti-pedophiles, but
also the anti-incest crowd and the pro-war-machine group... ::sigh:: It's a
good thing that I'm a swishie gay queen... I can just lift up my skirt and
fart on all of them.
Human beings still have a long way to go when it comes to simply accepting
others for what they are, as opposed to what we expect them to be.
Secret Squirrel
>The below is one reason that the str8 world takes such a dim view of
>gays.
No, simple prejudice based upon history and culture will suffice.
Remember it was not ok 50 years ago for two adult men to have sex with
each other, according to the st8 world.
>They think we are ALL into this and THIS is one of the reasons
>I get so pissed off when minors post on our groups.
Most straights who object to gays DON'T think that adult gays
have sex with kids; their objections to gay sex comes ultimately
from the Bible.
And your objections about minors posting is simply because
you hate kids, that's becoming abundantly clear.
>Now look at this and tell me... it's ok!
I looked at the list. Remember like Benjo said, there are more for straights
than there are for gays.
What's more, I see the NATURE coming out---Human biology,
unrestrained by society and false morality by the new technology
of the internet. If you knew what bonobo chimpanzees do (you know,
the ones who share 97 % + of our DNA??) this wouldn't be suprising to
you at all. Chimps not only have same-sex sexual encounters frequently,
they also have adult-junvenile encounters.
The name is Benjo
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
"PURITANISM - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."
H.L. Mencken
Secret Squirrel <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:c0293b6a995555f6...@anonymous.poster...
Secret Squirrel
>All those ng's should be banned (straight & gay)!
The internet doesn't work that way. Try to ban alt.drugs.pot.cultivation
and the posts will just end up in rec.gardening. Try to ban the "pedo"
groups, and the posts will just end up in the mainstream "adult" groups,
or will end up in newly-created or empty groups.
In fact, something very much like this has already happened. In 1998,
New York attorney general Dennis Vacco (caught in a tight re-election
race) raided some New York ISPs in 1998 for child pornography on their
servers, in what was very likely a politically-motivated raid. What he
did was even illegal under the now-defunct CDA, which absolved ISPs
(as "carriers") for any content which happend to be on their servers.
The flap over this caused many US USENET providers to drop the
traditional "pedo" groups, such as alt.sex.pedophilia. And what happened?
The posters of those groups simply picked up shop and went into new
groups.
And as much as I know you hate child pornography, it actually is
a *help* to law enforcement to have it in concentrated in a relatively
few groups rather than have to track it down all over USENET.
That's another thing you may want to consider.
The name is Benjo
ISP's who pass on this filth will be prosecuted. Next to that, we
already had a case in which a guy who posted this crap was convicted.
That's the way to deal with it.
And let me tell you, if I can be of any help to shut down these ng's
or by filing a complain against someone who post it or an ISP
who passes it on, I sure will do that.
As far as kiddy porn concerns, for me the hunting season is open.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
"PURITANISM - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."
H.L. Mencken
Secret Squirrel <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:ef6d32fd6297dcbf...@anonymous.poster...
lt
fama...@casema.net "The name is Benjo" writes:
: In The Netherlands we are working on a new law, by that new law
: ISP's who pass on this filth will be prosecuted.
Not only would such a law be a gross attack on individual freedom, it
would also be impossible to enforce. Unless an ISP checks every message
in every group, they have no chance of ever knowing illegal material was
passing through their servers.
It would be akin to making the phone company liable if someone makes an
obscene call, or the Post Office responsible for what people write.
rgds
LAurence
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Save a child's life by recycling - www.cartridge-recycling.org.uk
===================================================================
->> This message produced entirely in DOS <<-
Speedbyrd®
>In article <38256b35$0$83...@reader2.casema.net>
> fama...@casema.net "The name is Benjo" writes:
>
>: In The Netherlands we are working on a new law, by that new law
>: ISP's who pass on this filth will be prosecuted.
>
>Not only would such a law be a gross attack on individual freedom, it
>would also be impossible to enforce. Unless an ISP checks every message
>in every group, they have no chance of ever knowing illegal material was
>passing through their servers.
>
>It would be akin to making the phone company liable if someone makes an
>obscene call, or the Post Office responsible for what people write.
>
>rgds
>LAurence
>
that's a very good point and shame on the Netherlands! Sex and drugs
are free and easy there, but they don't want smut on the Internet??
The name is Benjo
Speedbyrd® <spee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vj8nOM=JOW7Kc9y3W...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 08 Nov 99 17:19:32 GMT, l...@iapetus.demon.co.uk (lt) wrote:
>
> >In article <38256b35$0$83...@reader2.casema.net>
> > fama...@casema.net "The name is Benjo" writes:
> >
> >: In The Netherlands we are working on a new law, by that new law
> >: ISP's who pass on this filth will be prosecuted.
> >
> >Not only would such a law be a gross attack on individual freedom, it
> >would also be impossible to enforce. Unless an ISP checks every message
> >in every group, they have no chance of ever knowing illegal material was
> >passing through their servers.
It is not! Only a short time ago the law changed, till that time the
possession
of kiddy porn was allowed as long it was for personal use. Now it's not
allowed
at all anymore. Not for personal pleasure, not for sale, not to to exchange,
it
is forbidden, period. So they will start with to forbid ISP's to pass NG's
with
kiddyporn on. It is very likely that this law will be valid for all
countries of the
European Union, and as more and more countries will join the Union, in
short time kiddy porn will hard to get in Europe.
There are plans to forbid explicit hate NG's (like the white trash ones) as
well.
No, we don't want to take a man's freedom away to speak his mind, but as
it comes to preaching hate, as it comes to put down other people because
of their skincolor, regilion, sexual preference, gender or whatever, we will
not allow that to happen.
> >
> >It would be akin to making the phone company liable if someone makes an
> >obscene call, or the Post Office responsible for what people write.
> >
Of course not, I'm aware of the possibility that kiddyporn can be posted in
other NG's, as it soon as this happens, the sender will be punished, not the
ISP.
> >rgds
> >LAurence
> >
>
> that's a very good point and shame on the Netherlands! Sex and drugs
> are free and easy there, but they don't want smut on the Internet??
>
> The Speedbyrd® :>
Don't know Speedbyrd, if you are serious or just sarcastic. Let me short
point out some things.
Drugs: you are allowed here for own personal use to have 20 grams of
pot, heroin is not allowed. We do have certain programs for people who
are addicted, so they can change needles. This way there's no need to
share needles and aids victoms under drugusers are in The Netherlands
the lowest in the world.
Next to that there are some experimental programs to give registrated
users of heroin the stuff free (controlled by doctors and nurses), so they
can try to start a new life without the need to steal and rob. Because of
these programs, crime figures are dropping.
Sex: easy? Age of concent of gay and straight is 16. Prostitution is legal
now, with certain conditions and demands for prostitues (resting hours,
clean and safe enviroument etc). We don't spend lots of meoney on a
witchhunt on prostitues and customers, prostitues are not blackmailed
by the police and it will be a matter of time and these women and men
also will have the right to be payed as they are unemployed or ill, just
like the people in other jobs. This way they are not longer seen as
criminals
but as human beings, as they are.
Any question left, feel free to ask.
Secret Squirrel
>In The Netherlands we are working on a new law, by that new law
>ISP's who pass on this filth will be prosecuted. Next to that, we
>already had a case in which a guy who posted this crap was convicted.
>That's the way to deal with it.
>
>And let me tell you, if I can be of any help to shut down these ng's
>or by filing a complain against someone who post it or an ISP
>who passes it on, I sure will do that.
>
>As far as kiddy porn concerns, for me the hunting season is open.
If it's as you describe it, I'm sorry to hear that the normally
reasonable people of the Netherlands have uncharacteristically lost
their good sense.
I believe Canada has tried a similar law. I think that it's essentially
unenforced, as it's unenforceable.
Think of the whole Internet--Usenet, e-mail, FTP, the Web,
listservs, IRC, and Chat rooms. Think of the manpower by each
and every ISP would need to police that.
Let me give you an analogy. Essentially it's like telling a rancher
who has a 50,000 acre range, who can only afford three employees,
that if some trespasser(s) is using part of his land to grow marijuana,
he will go to jail--even if he is unaware of it being there.(And actually,
such situations do happen where I live).
You're essentially telling him that he has to either hire a not-
so-small army of employees just to police his ranch (and go
broke in the process), or go to jail. What a choice!
Personally, I agree with Camille Pagalia: pornography (including child
pornography) IS art, and should be regarded as such. I think that
the best protection for children lies in its legalization and regulation.
The worst facets of the child porn industry occur precisely because
when you make something criminal, you guarantee that criminals
will end up running it. Child actors in "mainstream" movies and TV
are both well compensated and protected; that should be a lesson.
Besides, there's another point--as we *should* know by now,
pornography is a sex substitute. Pedophiles sitting at home
masturbating to downloaded child pornography are not out looking
for "victims". If I thought that man-boy sex was a bad thing, I would
think that having boylovers using pornography as a sex substitute would
be preferable to them looking for sex in reality. The "mainstream"
view of this is completely inconsistent.
This probably makes me anathema to you, but so be it.
But even if I did agree with you about the inherent evils of child
pornography, I have yet to hear any proposal for getting rid of it
on the internet for which the "cure" wasn't worse than the "disease"
for other reasons.
The name is Benjo
Secret Squirrel <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:1e0158f8de4551dd...@anonymous.poster...
The name is Benjo
slowly they are pissing me of. Especially because of
their so called "excuses", it seems that everything
is allowed as long as they get what they want.
That in the process kids get hurt does not matter
to them, as least it's the impression they gave me.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
"PURITANISM - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."
H.L. Mencken
Naughty Boy <n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3834b77b.6136419@anonymousnews...
> "The name is Benjo" <fama...@casema.net> wrote:
>
> >Kiddy porn art? You are kidding me!
>
> These idiots will justify anything to get their warped fix, even child
> molesting.
The name is Benjo
> "The name is Benjo" <fama...@casema.net> wrote:
>
> >I have to agree, and as understanding as I try to be,
> >slowly they are pissing me of. Especially because of
> >their so called "excuses", it seems that everything
> >is allowed as long as they get what they want.
> >
> >That in the process kids get hurt does not matter
> >to them, as least it's the impression they gave me.
>
> met mijn slechte nederlands!).
Valt wel mee, is goed te begrijpen wat je bedoeld.
Secret Squirrel
>Kiddy porn art? You are kidding me!
Why not? The Greeks and Romans certainly would have understood.
The Greeks especially appreciated statues of naked adolescent boys.
It most certainly was part of their art.
Why do you assume that child pornography (or any other pornography,
for that matter) is incapable of being great art?
<< * BenjoŠ * >>
Secret Squirrel <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
Just like the pics, taken from a friend of mine was he was
abused at the age of 4 and found, years later on a BBS for
pedophiles. Get real!
Art, my ass!!
--
"PURITANISM - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."
H.L. Mencken
[Message by Benjo夜
Secret Squirrel
>SpeedbyrdŽ <spee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:vj8nOM=JOW7Kc9y3W...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 08 Nov 99 17:19:32 GMT, l...@iapetus.demon.co.uk (lt) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <38256b35$0$83...@reader2.casema.net>
>> > fama...@casema.net "The name is Benjo" writes:
>> >
>> >: In The Netherlands we are working on a new law, by that new law
>> >: ISP's who pass on this filth will be prosecuted.
>> >
>> >Not only would such a law be a gross attack on individual freedom, it
>> >would also be impossible to enforce. Unless an ISP checks every message
>> >in every group, they have no chance of ever knowing illegal material was
>> >passing through their servers.
>
>It is not! Only a short time ago the law changed, till that time the
>possession
>of kiddy porn was allowed as long it was for personal use. Now it's not
>allowed
>at all anymore. Not for personal pleasure, not for sale, not to to exchange,
>it
>is forbidden, period.
Still, what is the definition of child pornography now? I'll still bet its
a more liberal definition in Holland than it is in many other places.
>So they will start with to forbid ISP's to pass NG's
>with
>kiddyporn on. It is very likely that this law will be valid for all
>countries of the
>European Union, and as more and more countries will join the Union, in
>short time kiddy porn will hard to get in Europe.
No it won't. That was exactly what Vacco's action did--it got the
US servers to dump the child pornography NGs, resulting in them
going to empty NGs or creating new ones. And even if you periodically
update the list of banned NGs, then you still have listservs to deal
with--trading child pornography by e-mail, essentially. Plus you will
have spread it out all over the internet, which will exponentially increase
the difficulty for law enforcement in tracking down posters.
Let's say that the child pornography posters start posting in "adult"
sex groups after their groups are banned. What are you going to do?
Ban the "adult" sex groups too? Then where are THEY going to post?
>There are plans to forbid explicit hate NG's (like the white trash ones) as
>well.
>No, we don't want to take a man's freedom away to speak his mind, but as
>it comes to preaching hate, as it comes to put down other people because
>of their skincolor, regilion, sexual preference, gender or whatever, we will
>not allow that to happen.
Sorry, I can't agree. The way to fight bad speech is with good speech.
>> >
>> >It would be akin to making the phone company liable if someone makes an
>> >obscene call, or the Post Office responsible for what people write.
>> >
>
>Of course not, I'm aware of the possibility that kiddyporn can be posted in
>other NG's, as it soon as this happens, the sender will be punished, not the
>ISP.
Then it will be essentially the same as it is today. Despite what
Speedbyrd says, it is more difficult to trace posters than it is at
first glance. At least ones who know what they're doing. Some
have been doing it for years without being caught.
Of course, the reason for THAT could be because some of them
could be working for the FBI. :-)
Which does raise another point. When police forces traffic
child pornography in their "sting" operations in part of the global
War on Sex, isn't this a bit like handing out drugs to fight the
War on Drugs?
>> >rgds
>> >LAurence
>> >
>>
>> that's a very good point and shame on the Netherlands! Sex and drugs
>> are free and easy there, but they don't want smut on the Internet??
>>
>> The SpeedbyrdŽ :>
>
>
>Don't know Speedbyrd, if you are serious or just sarcastic. Let me short
>point out some things.
>
>Drugs: you are allowed here for own personal use to have 20 grams of
>pot, heroin is not allowed. We do have certain programs for people who
>are addicted, so they can change needles. This way there's no need to
>share needles and aids victoms under drugusers are in The Netherlands
>the lowest in the world.
>Next to that there are some experimental programs to give registrated
>users of heroin the stuff free (controlled by doctors and nurses), so they
>can try to start a new life without the need to steal and rob. Because of
>these programs, crime figures are dropping.
>
>Sex: easy? Age of concent of gay and straight is 16. Prostitution is legal
>now, with certain conditions and demands for prostitues (resting hours,
>clean and safe enviroument etc). We don't spend lots of meoney on a
>witchhunt on prostitues and customers, prostitues are not blackmailed
>by the police and it will be a matter of time and these women and men
>also will have the right to be payed as they are unemployed or ill, just
>like the people in other jobs. This way they are not longer seen as
>criminals
>but as human beings, as they are.
>
>Any question left, feel free to ask.
Benjo, the same reasoning that you used for both drugs and
prostitution applies to child pornography, too. When it's legal and
can be regulated, much of the evil presently associated with it
can be purged, or at least reduced.
<< * BenjoŠ * >>
Secret Squirrel <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> "The name is Benjo" <fama...@casema.net> wrote:
>
> >SpeedbyrdŽ <spee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:vj8nOM=JOW7Kc9y3W...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 08 Nov 99 17:19:32 GMT, l...@iapetus.demon.co.uk (lt) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <38256b35$0$83...@reader2.casema.net>
> >> > fama...@casema.net "The name is Benjo" writes:
> >> >
> >> >: In The Netherlands we are working on a new law, by that new law
> >> >: ISP's who pass on this filth will be prosecuted.
> >> >
> >> >Not only would such a law be a gross attack on individual freedom, it
> >> >would also be impossible to enforce. Unless an ISP checks every
message
> >> >in every group, they have no chance of ever knowing illegal material
was
> >> >passing through their servers.
> >
> >It is not! Only a short time ago the law changed, till that time the
> >possession
> >of kiddy porn was allowed as long it was for personal use. Now it's not
> >allowed
> >at all anymore. Not for personal pleasure, not for sale, not to to
exchange,
> >it
> >is forbidden, period.
>
> Still, what is the definition of child pornography now? I'll still bet its
> a more liberal definition in Holland than it is in many other places.
Everything under the age of 16 years is considered chuld pornography.
Maybe not that liberal, but I can live with it very well.
>
> >So they will start with to forbid ISP's to pass NG's
> >with
> >kiddyporn on. It is very likely that this law will be valid for all
> >countries of the
> >European Union, and as more and more countries will join the Union, in
> >short time kiddy porn will hard to get in Europe.
>
> No it won't. That was exactly what Vacco's action did--it got the
> US servers to dump the child pornography NGs, resulting in them
> going to empty NGs or creating new ones. And even if you periodically
> update the list of banned NGs, then you still have listservs to deal
> with--trading child pornography by e-mail, essentially. Plus you will
> have spread it out all over the internet, which will exponentially
increase
> the difficulty for law enforcement in tracking down posters.
>
> Let's say that the child pornography posters start posting in "adult"
> sex groups after their groups are banned. What are you going to do?
> Ban the "adult" sex groups too? Then where are THEY going to post?
I think that problem solves itself as most of the other posters don't like
it.
>
> >There are plans to forbid explicit hate NG's (like the white trash ones)
as
> >well.
> >No, we don't want to take a man's freedom away to speak his mind, but as
> >it comes to preaching hate, as it comes to put down other people because
> >of their skincolor, regilion, sexual preference, gender or whatever, we
will
> >not allow that to happen.
>
> Sorry, I can't agree. The way to fight bad speech is with good speech.
Yeah, but I heard of a kkk ralley in a neighberhood with old jewish
people who survived the camps, that's not bad speech. These things
can't be allowed.
>
> >> >
> >> >It would be akin to making the phone company liable if someone makes
an
> >> >obscene call, or the Post Office responsible for what people write.
> >> >
> >
> >Of course not, I'm aware of the possibility that kiddyporn can be posted
in
> >other NG's, as it soon as this happens, the sender will be punished, not
the
> >ISP.
>
> Then it will be essentially the same as it is today. Despite what
> Speedbyrd says, it is more difficult to trace posters than it is at
> first glance. At least ones who know what they're doing. Some
> have been doing it for years without being caught.
>
Maybe it's not easy, but it can be done.
No! Here are children involved. I've seen the most horrible kiddyporn
with children of 5, 6 and 7 years. I don't want to get graphic, but
believe me... you really can't make that filth legal.
--
"PURITANISM - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."
H.L. Mencken
[Message by BenjoŠ]
<< * BenjoŠ * >>
> "<< * Benjo© * >>" <fama...@casema.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Secret Squirrel <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> Why not? The Greeks and Romans certainly would have understood.
> >> The Greeks especially appreciated statues of naked adolescent boys.
> >> It most certainly was part of their art.
> >>
> >> Why do you assume that child pornography (or any other pornography,
> >> for that matter) is incapable of being great art?
> >
> >Just like the pics, taken from a friend of mine was he was
> >abused at the age of 4 and found, years later on a BBS for
> >pedophiles. Get real!
> >
> >Art, my ass!!
>
And that is exactly my problem with this filth. You are absolutely right.
--
"PURITANISM - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."
H.L. Mencken
[Message by Benjo©]
Secret Squirrel
>Secret Squirrel <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>news:307567e6b4aade54...@anonymous.poster...
>> "The name is Benjo" <fama...@casema.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Speedbyrd® <spee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:vj8nOM=JOW7Kc9y3W...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 08 Nov 99 17:19:32 GMT, l...@iapetus.demon.co.uk (lt) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <38256b35$0$83...@reader2.casema.net>
>> >> > fama...@casema.net "The name is Benjo" writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >: In The Netherlands we are working on a new law, by that new law
>> >> >: ISP's who pass on this filth will be prosecuted.
>> >> >
>> >> >Not only would such a law be a gross attack on individual freedom, it
>> >> >would also be impossible to enforce. Unless an ISP checks every
>message
>> >> >in every group, they have no chance of ever knowing illegal material
>was
>> >> >passing through their servers.
>> >
>> >It is not! Only a short time ago the law changed, till that time the
>> >possession
>> >of kiddy porn was allowed as long it was for personal use. Now it's not
>> >allowed
>> >at all anymore. Not for personal pleasure, not for sale, not to to
>exchange,
>> >it
>> >is forbidden, period.
>>
>> Still, what is the definition of child pornography now? I'll still bet its
>> a more liberal definition in Holland than it is in many other places.
>
>
>Everything under the age of 16 years is considered chuld pornography.
>Maybe not that liberal, but I can live with it very well.
That is more liberal than that in the US. And that's one of the problems
with making child pornography illegal, now that the internet is here--
the definition of what it is will inevitably vary from country to country.
As it stands now, someone posting from your country could be posting
things perfectly legal in Holland but considered "child pornography"
elsewhere. And vice versa. To me, this is another argument for its
legalization and regulation.
>> >So they will start with to forbid ISP's to pass NG's
>> >with
>> >kiddyporn on. It is very likely that this law will be valid for all
>> >countries of the
>> >European Union, and as more and more countries will join the Union, in
>> >short time kiddy porn will hard to get in Europe.
>>
>> No it won't. That was exactly what Vacco's action did--it got the
>> US servers to dump the child pornography NGs, resulting in them
>> going to empty NGs or creating new ones. And even if you periodically
>> update the list of banned NGs, then you still have listservs to deal
>> with--trading child pornography by e-mail, essentially. Plus you will
>> have spread it out all over the internet, which will exponentially
>increase
>> the difficulty for law enforcement in tracking down posters.
>>
>> Let's say that the child pornography posters start posting in "adult"
>> sex groups after their groups are banned. What are you going to do?
>> Ban the "adult" sex groups too? Then where are THEY going to post?
>
>I think that problem solves itself as most of the other posters don't like
>it.
Not true, at least in my experience. Now that the "pedo" groups are
back, there's less "child pornography" in groups that are devoted to
legal pornography, like alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.teen.male. Like
I said, the child porn posters will simply pack their bags and move
into other groups. And despite what Speedbyrd says, it's not easy
to make them "go away".
>>
>> >There are plans to forbid explicit hate NG's (like the white trash ones)
>as
>> >well.
>> >No, we don't want to take a man's freedom away to speak his mind, but as
>> >it comes to preaching hate, as it comes to put down other people because
>> >of their skincolor, regilion, sexual preference, gender or whatever, we
>will
>> >not allow that to happen.
>>
>> Sorry, I can't agree. The way to fight bad speech is with good speech.
>
>Yeah, but I heard of a kkk ralley in a neighberhood with old jewish
>people who survived the camps, that's not bad speech. These things
>can't be allowed.
It has been allowed in the US. Instead of banning it, groups
of people who are against the KKK and the neo-Nazis organize
counter-demonstrations on the same day. And it becomes readily
apparent that the KKK or the Nazis are outnumbered 50:1 or 100:1
in the community.
Look at it this way. Every time the KKK or Nazis organize a march,
this is an opportunity to remember the lynchings in the South and
the Holocaust, to remember WHY these groups are anathema to
decent human beings. And that opportunity should be seized.
>>
>> >> >
>> >> >It would be akin to making the phone company liable if someone makes
>an
>> >> >obscene call, or the Post Office responsible for what people write.
>> >> >
>> >
>> >Of course not, I'm aware of the possibility that kiddyporn can be posted
>in
>> >other NG's, as it soon as this happens, the sender will be punished, not
>the
>> >ISP.
>>
>> Then it will be essentially the same as it is today. Despite what
>> Speedbyrd says, it is more difficult to trace posters than it is at
>> first glance. At least ones who know what they're doing. Some
>> have been doing it for years without being caught.
>>
>
>Maybe it's not easy, but it can be done.
Again, some of them have been doing it for years. Apparently
it's not that easy. And then there's the scope of the problem--
the internet is vast. Not only is there Usenet, there's e-mail,
chat, and IRC. How are you really going to monitor all of that,
without massive "Big Brother" invasions of everyone's privacy?
>> Of course, the reason for THAT could be because some of them
>> could be working for the FBI. :-)
>>
>> Which does raise another point. When police forces traffic
>> child pornography in their "sting" operations in part of the global
>> War on Sex, isn't this a bit like handing out drugs to fight the
>> War on Drugs?
>>
>> >> >rgds
>> >> >LAurence
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> that's a very good point and shame on the Netherlands! Sex and drugs
>> >> are free and easy there, but they don't want smut on the Internet??
>> >>
>> >> The Speedbyrd® :>
Again, I believe that much of the evil can be reduced or eliminated
by legalization and regulation. And keep a sense of perspective--
there are a lot worse things that happen to the children in the world
than someone taking pictures of them naked.
<< * BenjoŠ * >>
Secret Squirrel <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
(lot deleted)
> Again, I believe that much of the evil can be reduced or eliminated
> by legalization and regulation. And keep a sense of perspective--
> there are a lot worse things that happen to the children in the world
> than someone taking pictures of them naked.
A lot of bad things can happen to children, and in fact a lot
of bad things happen right now to them.
In one of my earlier postings I wrote that a friend was mine was
abused as a child, from that pictures were taken. Years later he
found these pictures on a BBS for pedophiles. Have you any isea
what this did to him?
Not only I brought back al the memories at full force but then he
had to realize that it was there for grabs to everyone who was
interested in that filth.
The owner of that BBS was not the one who abused him, the men
who downloaded the pictures didn't abuse him either, that is...
never the less, you were all as quilty as the man who committed
the crimes. In cooperation with the police, we closed down that
BBS and the owner is in jail now for spreading kiddyporn.
I don't care how pictures are taken, by promising them food or
something else in third world countries, by making them feeling
important or what ever shit reason you can think of, it can hunt these
boys for years and years to come and in my view a child can't
see the consequences of "giving permission".
Just the very thought that we allow children to be used to "regulate"
this crap makes my skin crawl. In this situation regulation means
that there will be child (read lots of children) that are made victims,
just because of a group of people who have these needs.
You are never allowed to make anyone a victim of anything. And that
is my final word about the subject. It's evil, it's bad and it's unhealty
for children.
I sure hope we will change the law in The Netherlands, I hope it will
become a law in the rest of Europe and I've heard that if this happens,
Europe will make sure this law will be valid in the USA and everywhere
else also.
Don't say we can't do this, remember: there are laws in the USA that
forbid European busnisses to have commercial relations with Cuba, so
we Europeans can just do the same. And in this case it's more justified!
Speedbyrd®
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>Everything under the age of 16 years is considered chuld pornography.
>>Maybe not that liberal, but I can live with it very well.
>
>That is more liberal than that in the US. And that's one of the problems
>with making child pornography illegal, now that the internet is here--
>the definition of what it is will inevitably vary from country to country.
>As it stands now, someone posting from your country could be posting
>things perfectly legal in Holland but considered "child pornography"
>elsewhere. And vice versa. To me, this is another argument for its
>legalization and regulation.
I've seen few as desperate as you. You should be embarrassed to call
yourself 'civilized'. You DO call yourself that, don't you? And, as
usual, you are wrong in your assumptions.
The Speedbyrd® :>
______________________________________________________________
Secret Squirrel
>Secret Squirrel <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>news:1d6e47de01c8037f...@anonymous.poster...
>> "The name is Benjo" <fama...@casema.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Kiddy porn art? You are kidding me!
>>
>> Why not? The Greeks and Romans certainly would have understood.
>> The Greeks especially appreciated statues of naked adolescent boys.
>> It most certainly was part of their art.
>>
>> Why do you assume that child pornography (or any other pornography,
>> for that matter) is incapable of being great art?
>>
>>
>>
>
>Just like the pics, taken from a friend of mine was he was
>abused at the age of 4 and found, years later on a BBS for
>pedophiles. Get real!
Again, that's something that might be reduced if it were legalized
and regulated.
>
>Art, my ass!!
Yes, art. Not all art is great art, mind you--as any glance at the
dime-store romance novels will attest. But art, nonetheless.
Why not?
Secret Squirrel
>On 11 Nov 1999 15:11:28 -0000, Secret Squirrel
><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
>>>Everything under the age of 16 years is considered chuld pornography.
>>>Maybe not that liberal, but I can live with it very well.
>>
>>That is more liberal than that in the US. And that's one of the problems
>>with making child pornography illegal, now that the internet is here--
>>the definition of what it is will inevitably vary from country to country.
>>As it stands now, someone posting from your country could be posting
>>things perfectly legal in Holland but considered "child pornography"
>>elsewhere. And vice versa. To me, this is another argument for its
>>legalization and regulation.
>
>
>
>I've seen few as desperate as you. You should be embarrassed to call
>yourself 'civilized'.
Actually, if you knew anything about anthropology, you'd be
embarrassed to call yourself "civilized" too. But that's another
topic.
>You DO call yourself that, don't you? And, as usual, you are
>wrong in your assumptions.
And how am I wrong? WHY am I wrong?
I can be accused of some things, but questioning assumptions
is not one of them. You are among the most unquestioning people
I have seen on usenet. A gay man should not be like that.
Secret Squirrel
>Naughty Boy <n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:38360c64.6643432@anonymousnews...
>> "<< * BenjoŠ * >>" <fama...@casema.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Secret Squirrel <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>> >news:1d6e47de01c8037f...@anonymous.poster...
>> >> "The name is Benjo" <fama...@casema.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Kiddy porn art? You are kidding me!
>> >>
>> >> Why not? The Greeks and Romans certainly would have understood.
>> >> The Greeks especially appreciated statues of naked adolescent boys.
>> >> It most certainly was part of their art.
>> >>
>> >> Why do you assume that child pornography (or any other pornography,
>> >> for that matter) is incapable of being great art?
>> >
>> >Just like the pics, taken from a friend of mine was he was
>> >abused at the age of 4 and found, years later on a BBS for
>> >pedophiles. Get real!
>> >
>> >Art, my ass!!
>>
>> These pedos behave as if the children in the photos don't even exist.
>
>And that is exactly my problem with this filth. You are absolutely right.
Quite untrue. It's just that I see there are much more important
areas to "protect children". I see this as yet another instance where
adults are more interested in protecting their own false morality
than they are in protecting the real interests of children.
Plus, I believe that legalization would be the best way to protect
the children involved who are involved. You think that mainstream
child actors like Brad Renfro are "exploited"? It forms a complete
symmetry with the very reasons Holland has liberalized drug and
prostitution--some evils can be better mitigated through legalization
than prohibition.
<< * BenjoŠ * >>
Secret Squirrel <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
You better don't say this to any Dutchman, the majority would
kick your ass because of such a remark.
And I did notice that you still failed to address the harm that
can be done to children, or prove that no harm will done, I'm
you can't.
--
"PURITANISM - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."
H.L. Mencken
[Message by BenjoŠ]
<< * BenjoŠ * >>
concerning the guy's feelings. Pictures of your own
abuse and talking about something that might be
reduced? Get real!
So what's next? Selling pictures taken of women who
are raped? That will reduce rape? This crap really
makes me angry and the more I read it, the less
understandable I get.
--
"PURITANISM - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."
H.L. Mencken
[Message by Benjo©]
Secret Squirrel <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:075015f5a93b80a1...@anonymous.poster...
> "<< * Benjo© * >>" <fama...@casema.net> wrote:
>
> >Secret Squirrel <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> >news:1d6e47de01c8037f...@anonymous.poster...
> >> "The name is Benjo" <fama...@casema.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Kiddy porn art? You are kidding me!
> >>
> >> Why not? The Greeks and Romans certainly would have understood.
> >> The Greeks especially appreciated statues of naked adolescent boys.
> >> It most certainly was part of their art.
> >>
> >> Why do you assume that child pornography (or any other pornography,
> >> for that matter) is incapable of being great art?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Just like the pics, taken from a friend of mine was he was
> >abused at the age of 4 and found, years later on a BBS for
> >pedophiles. Get real!
>
The Programmer
Still out to reshape the planet in your image, huh, Benjo? I swear, you'd
make an excellent Puritan. Judgmental, unwavering, and, yes!, obviously
scared out of your mind that someone, somewhere, may be having fun.
Well, Benjo, m'n jongen, get real. Pedos have always been here, are here,
and always will be here. Whether you like it or not. Not unlike us homos.
We've always been here. We are here right now. And we always will be here.
Again, whether you Puritans like it or not. So, get used to it.
And, like Secret Squirrel said, and I've said: there are lots worse things
that can happen to a kid, than have its picture taken with its cloths off.
In fact, if it comes to a choice between slowly starving to death, and
having sex with an adult, hey, starving to death is a lot uglier. And,
unfortunately, that's just the way the world is. It's not fair, and it's not
nice, I agree. But then again, if the world was fair and nice, Matthew
Shepard won't have been beaten senseless and left to die out on a Wyoming
prairie. And his murderer won't be hailed as a hero in a prison today.
All I can say is: grow up, and get on with your life, boy. Save who you can,
but quit passing judgment on others. Especially since you live in a glass
house yourself. You sound like one of them self-righteous, uncompromising,
bible thumping jackasses, who goes around looking down your nose at
everyone.
--
The Programmer Has Spoken -- SO THERE!
<< * BenjoŠ * >> wrote in message <382c4ad2$0$19...@reader3.casema.net>...
>I noticed again that you failed to address anything
>concerning the guy's feelings. Pictures of your own
>abuse and talking about something that might be
>reduced? Get real!
>
>So what's next? Selling pictures taken of women who
>are raped? That will reduce rape? This crap really
>makes me angry and the more I read it, the less
>understandable I get.
>--
>"PURITANISM - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."
>H.L. Mencken
>[Message by BenjoŠ]
>
<< * BenjoŠ * >>
If it wasn't that sad, it would be a big laugh, defending your
sick and ill methods with just as evil other ones.
What a defense: sure I take that picture (sell and treat it
later) and get off as long as I give the boy a few bucks.
Look here.. a new mother Theresa is born.
And having fun? By abusing a kid? By taking nude pictures
from a kid that of course will agree if the choice is pictures
or starving to death. In my opinion that is no choice.
You know very well what my opinion is as pedophiles concerns,
I don't condemn them all, and I don't have a problem with sex
from lets say the age of 14.
But that is not what we are talking about here. Just see
that filthy story from one of your friends about a baby.
See the so called defense of another, reducing kiddyporn
by regulating it (that is, let's make 5 victims in stead of 10).
I'm sure you all understand me very well but it doesn't fit
your needs and urges, so you twist and turn to make wrong right.
--
"PURITANISM - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."
H.L. Mencken
[Message by BenjoŠ]
The Programmer <som...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:rh%W3.15095$Hk.1...@news1.mia...
The Programmer
thumpers, who walk around condemning those whom they refuse to understand.
You don't like pedophilia, so therefore it must be banned. And anyone who
dares to disagree, even in the slightest, is wrong and should be banned as
well.
I never said anything about abusing anyone. You're the one who keeps jumping
to that conclusion. That's like saying that all homoerotic material is
sadomasochistic in nature (and I'm sure that there are any number of
homophobic prohibitionists who *do* make that claim). But it's not true.
Just as the fact that not --all-- kiddy porn is abusive in nature. Far
from it.
The only thing I've said is that if people (men, actually) want to look at
pictures of naked children, no one --not me and certainly not you-- has
the right to tell them they can't. Trying to impose censorship is the
greatest wrong there can be. And I don't care how many so-called 'moral
laws' are broken because of the lack of censorship. The whole concept is
really very simple, even you should be able to understand it. You can see
and say whatever you wish, just don't try and dictate what I can see and
say. And don't try dictating what other people can see and say. And I know
that in Nederland, the government does NOT attempt to dictate what other
people can see and say (including pedophiles). Some Puritans like you may
*wish* that there were laws banning what others may see and say, but there
aren't any on the books. Here in the US, yes, but not in Nederland.
And your "let's say 14" argument just doesn't hold water, BOY (of, zullen we
JONGEN zeggen?). How about 12? Or eight. Maybe 16 would be better. Well, up
in Tallahassee, some idiot decided to make it 21. And, not too long ago, in
Suriname, I believe it was 35! Yes, a Dutch colony. Until the 1950s, a man
and women couldn't even marry, without their parents consent, until they
were 35. Stupid, right? Well, that's what happens when you've got
self-righteous Puritan dictators like Benjo running the show. And, I guess
that's why there's been should a back-lash against people like Benjo in The
Netherlands since the '70s. Dutch people just got sick 'n' tired of types
like him imposing his wants and desires upon everyone. Now, all he can do is
whimper and make little noises in these newsgroups. And, that's as it should
be.
But, considering that he's gay, he should know better than to spew forth his
offensive Puritan crap. The exact same arguments that he's using to oppress
pedophiles, were once used to oppress homosexuals. Evil, bad, nasty
arguments. And I think most people following this thread know this. Just
because, individually, we may not particularly like something, doesn't mean
we should unilaterally ban it. Remember, that's the way the nazis once
banned Jews and Gypsies in central Europe. Yes, Benjo... 1930s Duitsland --
de goe'e ou'e daggen, heh? You would've enjoyed living around that time...
:)
<< * BenjoŠ * >>
> Secret Squirrel <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
> >Benjo wrote:
> >
> >>Naughty Boy <n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:38360c64.6643432@anonymousnews...
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >Secret Squirrel <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> >>> >news:1d6e47de01c8037f...@anonymous.poster...
> >>> >> "The name is Benjo" <fama...@casema.net> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> >Kiddy porn art? You are kidding me!
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Why not? The Greeks and Romans certainly would have understood.
> >>> >> The Greeks especially appreciated statues of naked adolescent boys.
> >>> >> It most certainly was part of their art.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Why do you assume that child pornography (or any other pornography,
> >>> >> for that matter) is incapable of being great art?
> >>> >
> >>> >Just like the pics, taken from a friend of mine was he was
> >>> >abused at the age of 4 and found, years later on a BBS for
> >>> >pedophiles. Get real!
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> These pedos behave as if the children in the photos don't even exist.
> >>
> >>And that is exactly my problem with this filth. You are absolutely
right.
> >
> >Quite untrue. It's just that I see there are much more important
> >areas to "protect children". I see this as yet another instance where
> >adults are more interested in protecting their own false morality
> >than they are in protecting the real interests of children.
> >
> >Plus, I believe that legalization would be the best way to protect
> >the children involved who are involved. You think that mainstream
> >child actors like Brad Renfro are "exploited"? It forms a complete
> >symmetry with the very reasons Holland has liberalized drug and
> >prostitution--some evils can be better mitigated through legalization
> >than prohibition.
>
> drug and prostitution laws - here comes the important bit - relating
> to *adults*. Why don't you want to let children be children?
>
Let me ad something to that, it is now forbidden to sell cigarettes
to youngsters under 16 as well (for alcohol is already was the case).
In more and more areas the age of 16 is accepted, under that age
more and more is illegal or forbidden by law.
<< * BenjoŠ * >>
> I swear, Benjo, you ARE exactly like those stupid self-righteous bible
> thumpers, who walk around condemning those whom they refuse to understand.
> You don't like pedophilia, so therefore it must be banned. And anyone who
> dares to disagree, even in the slightest, is wrong and should be banned as
> well.
You didn't read my earlier postings or didn't understand them, too bad.
>
> I never said anything about abusing anyone. You're the one who keeps
jumping
> to that conclusion. That's like saying that all homoerotic material is
> sadomasochistic in nature (and I'm sure that there are any number of
> homophobic prohibitionists who *do* make that claim). But it's not true.
> Just as the fact that not --all-- kiddy porn is abusive in nature. Far
> from it.
No matter how pictures are taken, it IS abuse. These pics are often sold
or given to others, it happens all the time that these pics are to find on
the Internet or BBS's, what will this do to the youngster involved or to
people close to the youngster in later years? Next to that, I doubt very
much that any young kid is capable of seeing the consequences if he
agrees that pictures are taken.
>
> The only thing I've said is that if people (men, actually) want to look at
> pictures of naked children, no one --not me and certainly not you-- has
> the right to tell them they can't. Trying to impose censorship is the
> greatest wrong there can be. And I don't care how many so-called 'moral
> laws' are broken because of the lack of censorship. The whole concept is
> really very simple, even you should be able to understand it. You can see
> and say whatever you wish, just don't try and dictate what I can see and
> say. And don't try dictating what other people can see and say. And I know
> that in Nederland, the government does NOT attempt to dictate what other
> people can see and say (including pedophiles). Some Puritans like you may
> *wish* that there were laws banning what others may see and say, but there
> aren't any on the books. Here in the US, yes, but not in Nederland.
>
You are wrong. Your information is very outdated. By recent ruling of the
High Court of The Netherlands child pornography is illigal, even in the
privacy
of your own home. And let's see.. Mein Kampf is forbidden as well , just
like
selling nazi symbols. Just recently a judge forbid a play in which they said
The Holocaust never happend. A very right wing (neo nazi) party was recently
outlawed because of spreading hate. No, you can't do everything you want
in The Netherlands, and rightfully so.
> And your "let's say 14" argument just doesn't hold water, BOY (of, zullen
we
> JONGEN zeggen?). How about 12? Or eight. Maybe 16 would be better. Well,
up
> in Tallahassee, some idiot decided to make it 21. And, not too long ago,
in
> Suriname, I believe it was 35! Yes, a Dutch colony. Until the 1950s, a man
> and women couldn't even marry, without their parents consent, until they
> were 35. Stupid, right? Well, that's what happens when you've got
> self-righteous Puritan dictators like Benjo running the show. And, I guess
> that's why there's been should a back-lash against people like Benjo in
The
> Netherlands since the '70s. Dutch people just got sick 'n' tired of types
> like him imposing his wants and desires upon everyone. Now, all he can do
is
> whimper and make little noises in these newsgroups. And, that's as it
should
> be.
>
In the fifties you needed permission to marry till the age of 27 (it happend
to
my parents when they got married in 1952), at that time a married woman
also needed her husbands permission to spend money.
Surinam? It is an independent country since the 70's, and since the 50's
they
had their own government, so what are you talking about as colony?
And let's see, it was till the late 60's that interracial marriages were
forbidden
in several states in the USA.
This was about controlling adults and had to change, of course. And yes, in
the
70's a lot changed in The Netherlands, I marched with the women's lib for
the
right on abortion, I marched for gay rights and in anti-apratheid ralleys
and was
active in seceral left wing organisations to change a lot of things. But, we
are
still talking about adults here.
> But, considering that he's gay, he should know better than to spew forth
his
> offensive Puritan crap. The exact same arguments that he's using to
oppress
> pedophiles, were once used to oppress homosexuals. Evil, bad, nasty
> arguments. And I think most people following this thread know this. Just
> because, individually, we may not particularly like something, doesn't
mean
> we should unilaterally ban it. Remember, that's the way the nazis once
> banned Jews and Gypsies in central Europe. Yes, Benjo... 1930s
Duitsland --
> de goe'e ou'e daggen, heh? You would've enjoyed living around that time...
> :)
You really don't have to teach me about the 2nd World War, I have family
members who survived camps, I'm working with Gypsys, survivors and
relatives of people who were in Dachau, Auschwitz and other evil places.
Just the other day I spoke about child pornography and child abuse with one
of my Gypsy friends, let me say this, with all Gypsys went through, and
still have
to face, don't expect understanding whatsoever for your position from them.
Let me give you some advice, don't ever, and I say ever touch a Gypsy child,
don't ever use a Gypsy child to take pictures from, I know what they will do
to you if you ever should try so. And that my friend is not something very
pleasant.
<< * BenjoŠ * >>
Naughty Boy <naugh...@naughtyboy.com> wrote in message
news:38346012.3926762@newslimited...
> "The Programmer" <som...@somewhere.com> in alt.support.boy-lovers
> wrote:
>
> >I swear, Benjo, you ARE exactly like those stupid self-righteous bible
> >thumpers, who walk around condemning those whom they refuse to
understand.
> >You don't like pedophilia, so therefore it must be banned. And anyone who
> >dares to disagree, even in the slightest, is wrong and should be banned
as
> >well.
> >
jumping
> >to that conclusion. That's like saying that all homoerotic material is
> >sadomasochistic in nature (and I'm sure that there are any number of
> >homophobic prohibitionists who *do* make that claim). But it's not true.
> >Just as the fact that not --all-- kiddy porn is abusive in nature. Far
> >from it.
> >
at
> >pictures of naked children, no one --not me and certainly not you-- has
> >the right to tell them they can't. Trying to impose censorship is the
> >greatest wrong there can be. And I don't care how many so-called 'moral
> >laws' are broken because of the lack of censorship. The whole concept is
> >really very simple, even you should be able to understand it. You can see
> >and say whatever you wish, just don't try and dictate what I can see and
> >say. And don't try dictating what other people can see and say. And I
know
> >that in Nederland, the government does NOT attempt to dictate what other
> >people can see and say (including pedophiles). Some Puritans like you may
> >*wish* that there were laws banning what others may see and say, but
there
> >aren't any on the books. Here in the US, yes, but not in Nederland.
> >
we
> >JONGEN zeggen?). How about 12? Or eight. Maybe 16 would be better. Well,
up
> >in Tallahassee, some idiot decided to make it 21. And, not too long ago,
in
> >Suriname, I believe it was 35! Yes, a Dutch colony. Until the 1950s, a
man
> >and women couldn't even marry, without their parents consent, until they
> >were 35. Stupid, right? Well, that's what happens when you've got
> >self-righteous Puritan dictators like Benjo running the show. And, I
guess
> >that's why there's been should a back-lash against people like Benjo in
The
> >Netherlands since the '70s. Dutch people just got sick 'n' tired of types
> >like him imposing his wants and desires upon everyone. Now, all he can do
is
> >whimper and make little noises in these newsgroups. And, that's as it
should
> >be.
> >
his
> >offensive Puritan crap. The exact same arguments that he's using to
oppress
> >pedophiles, were once used to oppress homosexuals. Evil, bad, nasty
> >arguments. And I think most people following this thread know this. Just
> >because, individually, we may not particularly like something, doesn't
mean
> >we should unilaterally ban it. Remember, that's the way the nazis once
> >banned Jews and Gypsies in central Europe. Yes, Benjo... 1930s
Duitsland --
> >de goe'e ou'e daggen, heh? You would've enjoyed living around that
time...
> >:)
>
> registry for molesting a ten year old boy....
I am sorry for that boy, if this is true. Especially because in my opinion
the programmer is all about abuse (yeah taking advantage of a child
that is starving to death, give him a few bucks and do whatever you
want to do with such a boy). It makes my skin crawl.
--
"PURITANISM - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."
H.L. Mencken
[Message by Benjo夜
Secret Squirrel
> Haha. Yet again your bias has blinded you. Holland has liberalised
> drug and prostitution laws - here comes the important bit - relating
> to *adults*. Why don't you want to let children be children?
You're assuming that letting "children be children" means *mandating*
that they have a sex-free childhood. You're assuming that a sex-free
childhood is "normal" for humans. That's simply not consistent with
the evidence from biology, anthropology, or pyschology.
Anonymous
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
Anonymous
Secret Squirrel
>Secret Squirrel <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>news:43a28797f49ff1ce...@anonymous.poster...
>You better don't say this to any Dutchman, the majority would
>kick your ass because of such a remark.
And in the 19th century, during the era of slavery in the US,
Southerners who SAID that they believed in "liberty" and
"freedom" would have "kicked your ass" if you had started
talking to them about terminating slavery. Ever hear of what
they did to the abolitionist printer Elijah Lovejoy?
All that proves is that Hollanders, like everyone else, can
(unfortunately) be glaringly inconsistent about things.
>And I did notice that you still failed to address the harm that
>can be done to children, or prove that no harm will done, I'm
>you can't.
There's a simple rejoinder to that--if you grant freedom and
base *law* on the premise that one has to "prove" that _no _harm
will be done, then you'll inevitably end up with a Stalinist
society. No one will have the freedom to do *anything*.
Can you "prove" that legalizing drugs and prostitution will
cause "no harm" whatsoever? Again, be consistent!
A free society cannot operate that way. A free society must
be based upon the converse principle--that activities which
occur with the consent of all the parties involved must be *allowed*
unless one can "prove" by some set of objective criteria that they
cause harm, or have the potential of causing great harm.
And nowadays teenagers are putting "child pornography" on the
internet--they're putting pictures of **themselves** on the net.
I've seen some. Who's the "victim" here? Do you favor putting
them in jail?
Secret Squirrel
>I have to agree, and as understanding as I try to be,
Which, actually, I DO appreciate, despite our differences
in opinion...
>slowly they are pissing me of. Especially because of
>their so called "excuses", it seems that everything
>is allowed as long as they get what they want.
The greatest recent advances in human liberty all occurred
because some people believed that they had the right
to "get what they wanted". African-Americans were freed
from slavery, women got the right to vote, gays were
able to come out of the closet, and many other GOOD things
happened because these people refused to believe that
"getting what they wanted" was just being "selfish".
The people at the top of any hierarchy--those already
enjoying power and privilege--always want those at the
bottom to believe that their wanting to improve their lot in
life is just due to their being "selfish". Don't buy that lie.
>That in the process kids get hurt does not matter
>to them, as least it's the impression they gave me
Not true at all. Again, it's using the same logic which you
readily accept in the case of both drugs and prostitution.
<< * BenjoŠ * >>
it is totally irrelevant.
--
"PURITANISM - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."
H.L. Mencken
Secret Squirrel <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:d4fb66686b9de0b7...@anonymous.poster...
Secret Squirrel
>Secret Squirrel <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>news:e3b9b5d4146f326b...@anonymous.poster...
>
>(lot deleted)
>
>> Again, I believe that much of the evil can be reduced or eliminated
>> by legalization and regulation. And keep a sense of perspective--
>> there are a lot worse things that happen to the children in the world
>> than someone taking pictures of them naked.
>
>A lot of bad things can happen to children, and in fact a lot
>of bad things happen right now to them.
And most of them don't involve sex of any kind. Most of
them involve POWER, economic and political POWER.
Power excercised by those who have a financial stake
in the abuse. And the abuse itself is definable not just by
how someone 'feels' about it, but is measurable by criteria
which is objective--by things which everyone can agree no sane
person would want to experience. Like working in conditions akin
to slavery. Or being suffering from malnutrition, exposure,
and no health care. Or being "thown" away and being hunted
down and killed like dogs by police forces.
And all these things happen because of MONEY and POWER.
Good God, if we humans could only just suffer the problems which
arise from sex!!
>In one of my earlier postings I wrote that a friend was mine was
>abused as a child, from that pictures were taken. Years later he
>found these pictures on a BBS for pedophiles. Have you any isea
>what this did to him?
>
>Not only I brought back al the memories at full force but then he
>had to realize that it was there for grabs to everyone who was
>interested in that filth.
>
>The owner of that BBS was not the one who abused him, the men
>who downloaded the pictures didn't abuse him either, that is...
>never the less, you were all as quilty as the man who committed
>the crimes. In cooperation with the police, we closed down that
>BBS and the owner is in jail now for spreading kiddyporn.
>
>I don't care how pictures are taken, by promising them food or
>something else in third world countries, by making them feeling
>important or what ever shit reason you can think of, it can hunt these
>boys for years and years to come and in my view a child can't
>see the consequences of "giving permission".
>
>Just the very thought that we allow children to be used to "regulate"
>this crap makes my skin crawl. In this situation regulation means
>that there will be child (read lots of children) that are made victims,
>just because of a group of people who have these needs.
>
>You are never allowed to make anyone a victim of anything. And that
>is my final word about the subject. It's evil, it's bad and it's unhealty
>for children.
All you said here is "I hate child pornography". And I'm sorry,
words like "filth" and "crap" have no objective meaning--
obviously, there are people who must not think that it is "filth" and
"crap", else there would be no demand for it. And there are
underaged teens who are now putting pictures of themselves up
on the internet, who obviously don't think that they're being "victims".
Why should your judgement be enshrined in law above theirs?
I could say all the same things--and they have been
said--about prostitution and drugs. And I too could point to
people who've testified that their lives were ruined by it.
Former prostitutes have claimed that their bodies are "dirtied"
by feeling compelled to sell them on the streets. Drug
addicts too could talk about their feelings of worthlessness,
and about their physical pain too--for some of their pain
is based on human physiology, not on their emotional
reactions.
For that reason, I could think of better reasons for banning
drugs than banning child pornography. At least we can
talk objectively about the harm being done--the physical harm
being done to the bodies of drug addicts.
Yet you are willing to support drug legalization, on the basis
that it mitigates the worst aspects of drug use. Why
can't the same logic apply to child pornography?
>I sure hope we will change the law in The Netherlands, I hope it will
>become a law in the rest of Europe and I've heard that if this happens,
>Europe will make sure this law will be valid in the USA and everywhere
>else also.
European laws will not be valid in the US. For one thing, your law
will still be more liberal than that of the US. Nor will the law work,
if experience is any teacher. You're fighting human freedom. The
Sex War is the Drug War all over again.
>Don't say we can't do this, remember: there are laws in the USA that
>forbid European busnisses to have commercial relations with Cuba,
>so we Europeans can just do the same. And in this case it's more
>justified!
If that's true (and I don't know of the specifics) it's probably only
applies to European business who want to do business in the US.
That would be the only way the US could legally enforce such
a law--it can't make arrests in Holland, for instance. And it only works
because European businesses want the US market more than that of
Cuba. If that wasn't true, it would certainly fail. Finally, the number of
European businesses involved is relatively few, identifiable, and hence
controllable.
There's no comparison with that and the demand for "child
pornography" (however it's defined)--there's no financial incentive
for anyone to comply, the enforcement is problematical, and
the market is huge. To illustrate my point, Dutch porn makers
would still be exporting "child pornography" by US standards,
even under the new law.
(snip)
Secret Squirrel
> Naughty Boy wrote:
>
>> The Programmer is a member of NAMBLA and is on the sex offenders
>> registry for molesting a ten year old boy....
>
>I am sorry for that boy, if this is true. Especially because in my opinion
>the programmer is all about abuse (yeah taking advantage of a child
>that is starving to death, give him a few bucks and do whatever you
>want to do with such a boy). It makes my skin crawl.
Benjo, why do you assume what Naughty Boy posted about the
Programmer is true? I'd be highly suspicious about any personal
"fact" posted about someone else on a NG. (Like, did you ever
ask yourself how Naughty Boy might have *come* by this piece
of information?).
You may think me "beyond the pale" most (all?) of time, but I will tell you
one thing I have learned. People who agree with you do not become
paragons of virtue because of it. And conversely, people who
disagree with you are not demons. It all comes down to that
hard-to-define thing called "character".
<< * BenjoŠ * >>
Secret Squirrel <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> Benjo wrote:
>
> > Naughty Boy wrote:
> >
> >> The Programmer is a member of NAMBLA and is on the sex offenders
> >> registry for molesting a ten year old boy....
> >
> >I am sorry for that boy, if this is true. Especially because in my
opinion
> >the programmer is all about abuse (yeah taking advantage of a child
> >that is starving to death, give him a few bucks and do whatever you
> >want to do with such a boy). It makes my skin crawl.
>
> Benjo, why do you assume what Naughty Boy posted about the
> Programmer is true? I'd be highly suspicious about any personal
> "fact" posted about someone else on a NG. (Like, did you ever
> ask yourself how Naughty Boy might have *come* by this piece
> of information?).
Did I? I wrote IF this is true. Besides this, the programmer is an
evil person in my eyes, why? Just see what I wrote above.
>
> You may think me "beyond the pale" most (all?) of time, but I will tell
you
> one thing I have learned. People who agree with you do not become
> paragons of virtue because of it. And conversely, people who
> disagree with you are not demons. It all comes down to that
> hard-to-define thing called "character".
>
Yes, and the programmer has no character at all!
--
"PURITANISM - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."
H.L. Mencken
[Message by Benjo夜
The Programmer
<1b4a36c2b486646d...@anonymous.poster>...
>Benjo wrote:
>
>> Naughty Boy wrote:
>>
>>> The Programmer is a member of NAMBLA and is on the sex offenders
>>> registry for molesting a ten year old boy....
>>
>>I am sorry for that boy, if this is true. Especially because in my opinion
>>the programmer is all about abuse (yeah taking advantage of a child
>>that is starving to death, give him a few bucks and do whatever you
>>want to do with such a boy). It makes my skin crawl.
>
>Benjo, why do you assume what Naughty Boy posted about the
>Programmer is true? I'd be highly suspicious about any personal
>"fact" posted about someone else on a NG. (Like, did you ever
>ask yourself how Naughty Boy might have *come* by this piece
>of information?).
>
>one thing I have learned. People who agree with you do not become
>paragons of virtue because of it. And conversely, people who
>disagree with you are not demons. It all comes down to that
>hard-to-define thing called "character".
>
>
offenders registry"... and for what?, molesting a ten year old? LOL...
ROTFLMQAO!!! You people are REALLY starting to hallucinate now. You're so
wrapped up in your own sense of self-righteousness, I won't be surprised to
hear that you walk into walls. Get a life, Benjo.
And, btw... I *never* touch anything younger than 35, that isn't covered in
a deep pile of fur. I even have trouble 'getting it up' for mature twinks
(men in their fifties who haven't got much body hair). So, it's hardly
possible for me to 'molest' a ten year old... LOL, LOL, ROTFLOL! :)
As for being "all about abuse". You're stupid, you're ignorant, and you're
dumb. You're a complete jackass, who hasn't got the brains granted a
mentally retard duck. Yeah, right, abuse. Gekke idioot. Eet me marsch, ka
lul.
Secret Squirrel
>Secret Squirrel <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>news:1b4a36c2b486646d...@anonymous.poster...
>> Benjo wrote:
>>
>> > Naughty Boy wrote:
>> >
>> >> The Programmer is a member of NAMBLA and is on the sex offenders
>> >> registry for molesting a ten year old boy....
>> >
>> >I am sorry for that boy, if this is true. Especially because in my
>opinion
>> >the programmer is all about abuse (yeah taking advantage of a child
>> >that is starving to death, give him a few bucks and do whatever you
>> >want to do with such a boy). It makes my skin crawl.
>>
>> Benjo, why do you assume what Naughty Boy posted about the
>> Programmer is true? I'd be highly suspicious about any personal
>> "fact" posted about someone else on a NG. (Like, did you ever
>> ask yourself how Naughty Boy might have *come* by this piece
>> of information?).
>
>Did I? I wrote IF this is true. Besides this, the programmer is an
>evil person in my eyes, why? Just see what I wrote above.
True, you did write "If". And I saw it. But you also seemed predisposed
to believe what Naughty Boy wrote about the Programmer.
Now it appears quite possible that Naughty Boy is the type who will
create "facts" out of thin air when it's convenient for him.
I don't fault you too much for being predisposed to believe your allies
and think poorly of those who disagree with you. Everyone is that way,
me included. It's just that there are dangers in it, dangers that we should
be aware of. And be particularly careful about calling others "evil".
Some people truly are evil, but it generally requires more knowledge
about them than you get over Usenet.
<< * BenjoŠ * >>
Secret Squirrel <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
The whole case about taking advantage of a child, starving to death
makes that piece of shit an evil person to me.
IF to me means, IF it's true it's bad, good, terrible or whatever, IF
to means, I don't know IF it happened.
The two of us will always disagree, no doubt about that, but I must
say that I do respect you a lot more than some others here, especially
the ones who want to take advantage or get off by a fantasy story
about a baby.
Speedbyrd®
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Not in the case of you child predators.
lt
Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] "Secret Squirrel" writes:
: "The name is Benjo" <fama...@casema.net> wrote:
:
: >Kiddy porn art? You are kidding me!
:
: Why not? The Greeks and Romans certainly would have understood.
: The Greeks especially appreciated statues of naked adolescent boys.
: It most certainly was part of their art.
:
: Why do you assume that child pornography (or any other pornography,
: for that matter) is incapable of being great art?
Or for that matter, that Great Art is not child pornography?
Look in the Rijksmuseum, the National Gallery, the Louvre. Or for that
matter, Pompeii or the Cistine Chapel.
rgds
LAurence
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Save a child's life by recycling - www.cartridge-recycling.org.uk
===================================================================
->> This message produced entirely in DOS <<-
lt
naugh...@naughtyboy.com "Naughty Boy" writes:
: No Im not. Im saying let them experiment with their peers (after
: receiving lots & lots of sex education), but not letting so-called
: grown ups near them sexually.
This works both ways though - by preventing people over a certain age
become involved with those under a certain (the same?) age, you alos
prevent the younger people from becoming involved with the older, even
if they wish to do so.
What age limits do you envisage using for these restrictions?
: duh! No I dont. I say keep you big fat hairy sweaty pedophiles away
: from kids though.
What about small thin nonhairy nonsweaty paedophiles?
lt
: of your own home. And let's see.. Mein Kampf is forbidden as well , just
: like
: selling nazi symbols. Just recently a judge forbid a play in which they said
: The Holocaust never happend. A very right wing (neo nazi) party was recently
: outlawed because of spreading hate. No, you can't do everything you want
: in The Netherlands, and rightfully so.
They ban books and plays now? By eck.
<< * BenjoŠ * >>
lt <l...@iapetus.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:942717...@iapetus.demon.co.uk...
> In article <382d4165$0$29...@reader2.casema.net> < * BenjoŠ * "" writes:
>
> : of your own home. And let's see.. Mein Kampf is forbidden as well , just
> : like
> : selling nazi symbols. Just recently a judge forbid a play in which they
said
> : The Holocaust never happend. A very right wing (neo nazi) party was
recently
> : outlawed because of spreading hate. No, you can't do everything you want
> : in The Netherlands, and rightfully so.
>
>
>
>
>
> rgds
> LAurence
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Save a child's life by recycling - www.cartridge-recycling.org.uk
> ===================================================================
> ->> This message produced entirely in DOS <<-
>
I think that filthy book is the only that is forbidden. As far as plays go,
only a judge
can do that and only if such a play is a calling for hate. To say that the
Holocaust
never happened is a call for hate, after all, almost 100.000 Dutch Jews were
killed in the camps.
--
"PURITANISM - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."
H.L. Mencken
[Message by BenjoŠ]
The Programmer
>: like
>: selling nazi symbols. Just recently a judge forbid a play in which they
said
>: The Holocaust never happend. A very right wing (neo nazi) party was
recently
>: outlawed because of spreading hate. No, you can't do everything you want
>: in The Netherlands, and rightfully so.
>
>
>
bother listening to anything he has to say. Most of it is just nonsense.
The Netherlands is one of the most liberal countries in Europe. Neo-nazi and
right-wing garbage is openly available... as are homosexual art and hettie
sex stuff. It's all there. No one forbids anyone from doing anything. If the
Dutch police started putting laws in place forbidding freedom of expression,
there'd be all kinds of riots. Besides which, most of the Dutch police
themselves are extremely libral and open minded. They're not interested in
repressing anyone's freedom, period. And that includes pedophiliacs... if
that's the correct word.
>
>
>rgds
>LAurence
>
The Programmer
<26998-383...@storefull-148.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
U GUYS CAN BITCH AND MOAN TILL TE WORLD ENDS BUT TE FACT REMAINS THAT NO
MATTER WHAT THE LAW IS WE ALL KNOW CHILD PORN IS WRONG. MOST PEOPLE
WANT TO ARGUE THE AG BECAUSE THEY WANT THE RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITH A
CERTAIN AGE CHILD AND NO ONE CAN AGREE WHAT THAT AGE SHOULD BE.
PERSONAL OPINION IS 18. AT 18 U ARE OLD ENOUGH TO DECIDE FOR YOURSELF.
AT 12 IT MAY SOUND FUN BUT WHEN UR 18 U MIGHT LOOK BACK AT IT AS
SOMETHING U REGRET FOR LIFE BECAUSE U REALLY WERENT OLD ENOUGH TOMAKE
THAT DECISION. OR THE ONES WHO ARE FORCED AT A YOUNG AGE SUCH AS
MYSELF WHO WAS MOLESTED AT 4 BY MY BROTHER AND FOR MANY YEARS. WELL
MAYBE THEY CAN HELP SUPPORT THE PROFFESIONALS SUCH AS SHRINKS LIKE I DO
AT $110.00 AN HOUR JUST TO FIGURE OUT THAT ITS NOT THEIR FAULT AND
MAYBE IF LUCKY ENOUGH BE ABLE TO EVER TRUST ANYONE TO NOT HURT THEM
SEXUALLY LONG ENOUGH TO HAVE A CHANCE AT A RELATIONSHIP AND A LIFE.
MR? You were raped. And that's terrible. You need to get that settled with
your brother and your parents. That's something you're gonna have to work
your way through.
But, get one thing straight: being raped and having sex are two entirely
different things. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Rape is
an act of violence. Like murder, or being abused. Having sex is beautiful
and wonderful, and should be experienced by everyone.
What is being discussed here is whether people (mainly men, both homo and
hettie) should be allowed to look at photographs of naked children. And, as
an aside, what exactly can be defined as a child. At what age does a child
stop being a child, and become an adult.
My opinion is: whatever a person wants to look at, is fine by me. And I
think all reasonable people will agree with that statement. It is a free
world, and we are living in a free society (for the most part, anyway).
Besides which, most pedophilia is gentle in nature. Just pictures of naked
children, that's all. Heck, there are many nude pictures of me around the
place, taken when I was a child. The fact that people look at them hasn't
hurt me in any way. They're just pictures, nothing more.
There are, however, certain neo-puritan prohibitionist floating around who
stubbornly refuse to accept the fact that a free society is a free society.
They feel that they have the right to impose their personal beliefs upon
everyone else. Much in the way the Ayatollah felt that he could impose his
beliefs upon the people of Iran in the late 1970s. Unlike the Ayatollah,
however, these individuals don't have absolute power (I'm happy to say). All
they can do is squeak annoyingly, and buzz around the newsgroups. Which is
fine. I've found out who they are, and I've blocked their posts from being
downloaded unto my computer. And anyone else who's annoyed by them can quite
easily do the same. They will NOT prevent those who enjoy looking at
photographs of nude children from meeting and exchanging image files. Much
the same way none of the religious fanatix (see Normie The Nut) have never
been able to shut down any of the homosexual newsgroups... try as they
might. And I'm sure they have tried... and are still trying.
The next question is: at what age does a child stop being a child and become
an adult. Tough one, that. That's like asking when does a piece of art stop
being a piece of art, and become a piece of pornography. Impossible to tell
for sure. Depends on the time and the location. Some children are considered
minors until they're 21. Others, due to circumstances, become adults at the
age of seven. At this moment, there's a 13 year old boy who's been convicted
as an adult in Michigan. The kid barely knows what's going on, for Christ's
sake! You said 18... someone else says 12. I was precious, and knew quite a
lot about being an adult when I was eight, and would never have allowed
anyone to violate me sexually. I won't even attempt to put a blanket age out
there. It won't be enforceable anyway. Not on the internet.
<< * BenjoŠ * >>
facts straight before you write anything down. The
Netherlands have the name to be a liberal country and
in many ways it is, but not in all ways.
Why should I tell lies as you can find yourself how the
law is here, why should I make a fool of myself by telling
things that are not true?
And nest to that, who lives here anyway? Who reads Dutch
newspapers every day and who sees the Dutch television
with the news?
--
"PURITANISM - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."
H.L. Mencken
[Message by Benjo©]
The Programmer <som...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:YqlY3.5109$Pc6....@news2.mia...
> lt wrote in message <942717...@iapetus.demon.co.uk>...
> >In article <382d4165$0$29...@reader2.casema.net> < * Benjo© * "" writes:
> >
> >: of your own home. And let's see.. Mein Kampf is forbidden as well ,
just
> >: like
> >: selling nazi symbols. Just recently a judge forbid a play in which they
> said
> >: The Holocaust never happend. A very right wing (neo nazi) party was
> recently
> >: outlawed because of spreading hate. No, you can't do everything you
want
> >: in The Netherlands, and rightfully so.
> >
> >
Frogbutt
>In article <383df463.4178126@newslimited>
> naugh...@naughtyboy.com "Naughty Boy" writes:
>
>: No Im not. Im saying let them experiment with their peers (after
>: receiving lots & lots of sex education), but not letting so-called
>: grown ups near them sexually.
>
>This works both ways though - by preventing people over a certain age
>become involved with those under a certain (the same?) age, you alos
>prevent the younger people from becoming involved with the older, even
>if they wish to do so.
>
>What age limits do you envisage using for these restrictions?
>
>: duh! No I dont. I say keep you big fat hairy sweaty pedophiles away
>: from kids though.
>
>What about small thin nonhairy nonsweaty paedophiles?
They are shit sucking pigs too.
Secret Squirrel
>Secret Squirrel <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>news:ea215dc399d04ddd...@anonymous.poster...
>> Benjo wrote:
>>
>> >An adult man having sex with an 8 year old is sick, even if the
>> >boy wants to have sex. At that age a child needs to be a child.
>>
>> The unquestioned assumption from you is that a "child being
>> a child" means having *no sex*. Why?
>>
>> >I don't say wait till 18, but 8 is a whole different story. To me
>> >a child is abused as he/she has sex at that age.
>>
>> Sambian boys started fellating their seniors around age 7 or
>> so. And they were *proud* of it--swallowing semen in their
>> culture was what turned boys into men. The men they
>> fellated were incorporated into their genealogy. Moreover, it
>> was mandatory that they do this in order to grow up--every
>> boy *had* to do it.
>
>If this is true, first of all, how old are these seniors?
Late teens to twenties, as reported by Harris, who in turn cites Gilbert
Herdt. Men get married (to women) in their mid-twenties. A boy fellated
the young men to ingest as much semen as possible, and then became
a semen "donor" himself. Then he took a wife.
I have read in another source that the "donors" were older, but then again
what's the life expectancy among the Sambia? (See more below).
>Next to that
>every culture is different and in every culture there are good and
>bad things (I don't say this is bad in their culture). But you can't
>simply take one or two things from another culture and implement
>it into the culture you grow up in.
I agree. But the point was that Sambian boys weren't traumatized
by the sexual contact. There is nothing inherent in human nature
that makes sexual contact at that age traumatizing. If it were, we'd
see the damage in every culture--it would be universal. The very fact we
can point to exceptions in other cultures and times means that
damage is inflicted by what the kids are *taught*.
As for "bad" things in the Sambian culture (from our point of view)
they're certainly there--they're very warlike, with a homicide rate estimated
at 500 per 100,000 (America's is about 20 per 100,000 for comparison).
And possibly they are the world's worst male chauvinists. To give you
an idea, a man *shoots* his wife-to-be with a bow and arrow in the leg
to prove his unyielding mastery over her.
I don't know how much Western and government influence has changed
their way of life. I've read both accounts that use both present and past
tense verbs. Recently, I saw a TV account about them that showed a boy
and mentioned that this year he had just moved into the men's clubhouse.
Although the show did not mention this, the men's clubhouses were
where the homosexual acts occurred.
Before we condemn the Sambia, though, remember that our homicide
rates omit the deaths from war--if we were to include WWI and WWII
in our homicide rates, we might make the Sambians look like pacifists.
The standard explanation for their incessant warfare is that they're
under population pressure--food is scarce, even in their rain forest
enviroment, and they have to eat anything that *moves*. War acts
as an (unspoken) population control measure, not so much by the
deaths caused in battle, but by what correspondingly happens to
women.
Warfare in "primitive" cultures typically results in the status of
women going down the toilet. Boy babies become more valued than
girl babies, and when limitations exist on how many children can
be raised, girl babies are killed. Female infanticide also serves to
control population more--reproductively speaking, males are
superfluous, and cutting back on the number of females restricts
population growth more so than cutting back on an equal number
of males. Women also are more likely to be beaten, abused,
and even killed by men, who own a monopoly on violence and
weaponry and whose expertise in battle hardens them towards
the suffering of others.
In the case of the Sambia, they go further--they think that women
are a "polluting" influence and ban heterosexual intercourse at
various times of the year; which can be viewed as a further attempt
at population control. So their homosexual man-boy rites might be
viewed as a sexual "outlet" for men having to forgo heterosexual sex.
Also, keep in mind that there is an additional payoff--the man-boy
sex they have facilitates male-male bonding which has its payoff
on the battlefield. Keep in mind with the Sambia we are not talking
about "boylovers" per se--these are "heterosexuals" practicing
man-boy sex!! Other cultures that institutionalize man-boy love
(the Azande warrior-apprentice "marriages" and the ancient Greeks)
also did so because they saw similar payoffs in battlefield performance.
And also we are talking (primarily) about man-boy sex among
"heterosexuals".
In the US, there was this ridiculous debate about gays in the
military and how having them might "destroy morale". What's
both funny and sad about that debate is that other cultures saw
homosexuality as a positive benefit to achieving and maintaining
morale. It spoke volumes about how people don't know history.
Finally, keep in mind what I've said about the Sambia is from
a Western materialist, scientific, perspective. Certainly the
Sambians themselves wouldn't describe *why* they do what
they do in such terms.
>We have seen in the past how much is destroyed by doing so
>(especially by introducing parts of the western culture into others).
>
>
>> Yet Sambian boys weren't traumatized by their experience.
>> And you were.
>
>What happenend to me traumatized me because it was taken
>by force. Nothing was asked! Don't compare something from
>another culture to my experience.
Well, to be honest, and at the risk of offending you, no one
"asked" the Sambian boys either. Did anyone ask you if whether or
not you wanted to go to school? To them, the experience is something
very much akin to that. These boys were taught that this was necessary
for them to do in order to grow up and become men.
Again--I see *no evidence* to suggest that there is anything inherently
traumatic about an 8-year having sex. By and large, he or she will
respond in the way that the culture teaches them that they SHOULD
respond. If the culture tells them that it is "ok" or "not a big deal" then
they'll suffer no ill effects. If the culture tells them that this is the worst
possible thing that could ever have happened to them, then they'll live
out that prediction as well.
So, what is really the most humane thing to tell children? And
who is *really* responsible for the trauma that children in this culture
experience? The "molesters", or the people who go around screaming
about how evil this is and telling the children that this is a horrible,
horrible, thing?
Are you familiar with the children in the Salem witchcraft trials--
the convulsions and the "fits" that they threw when they saw the
accused witches? Who caused that? The "witches"? Or the judges,
churchmen, and scholars who pounded into those children the "fact"
that witches existed and were malevolent, powerful, beings with the
power to do such things?
>In some cultures women are just there for grabs, so... why not
>implement this into our culture, rapist will be glad I guess, I doubt
>that women are.
The status of women correlates inversely with the amount of
warfare, with cultures which practice "external" warfare being
a notable exception. The more warfare against your immediate
neighbors ("internal warfare"), the lower the status of women.
The Sambia are just one such example. Yanomami Indians and
other cultures that practice "internal warfare" typically gang-rape
their women and girl captives. And the "good" Yanomami Indian
husband "merely" beats his wife--the "bad" husband maims or kills her.
Cultures that practice "external warfare" (like the Cherokees or
Iroquois or Hurons did, where groups have enough social organization
to raid at long distances) the status of women rebounds. The
men on the long-distance raiding parties have to rely on someone to look
after things when they are away, so their women gain importance.
Still, they're not the equal of men.
In cultures which are not warlike, in the most "primitive" hunter-
collector groups that have not developed agriculture (i.e., the
closest to the "original" human condition that still exists)
the status of women is approximately on par with that of men.
The conclusion? If you're against rape, if you're against the
mistreatment of women, if you're for equality, then be against war.
>
>> Again, the question begs for an answer: why?
>>
>> The answer can only lie in that Sambian boys were taught
>> that this was a natural, expected, part of growing up. And
>> you were taught (like nearly everyone else in this culture) that
>> having sex as a child was the worst possible thing that could
>> happen to you.
>>
>> And children in both cultures merely acted out what they
>> were taught.
>>
>> So it follow that the real solution lies in telling kids that their
>> having sex is not a horrible thing that should be prohibited at
>> all costs? And to change the laws so that it reflects that reality?
>
>
>This way you will find in one or another culture something that
>justifies anything you want or need.
>
>Some examples: in several North African countries a part of their
>culture is to circumcise girls at a young age. In The Netherlands
>this is forbidden because we see this as mutilation, but we have
>a large group of people -born in these countries- living here.
>Just because it's a part of their culture, we have to allow it?
>
>In some Arab countries girls are not allowed to go to school
>after a certain age, in The Netherlands by law you have to go
>to school till your 15th birthday (of course there are exceptions)
>now.. do we have to allow these parents to keep their daughters
>at home, just because it's a part of their culture?
>
>For some countries it's a part of their culture to hunt whales,
>as we all know not a lot are left these days, so we have to allow
>that this hunt on whales continues, and that one day soon no wale
>is left?
>
>Chinese people believe (part of their culture) that bones of a tiger
>have medical powers, we all know that there are only a few tigers
>left and if nothing will be done within 10 years that animal doesn't
>exist anymore.
>
>These are only a few examples of things from other cultures, and
>I left out all the wrong doings by the western world (forcing the
>white culture) to former colonies and that way destroying the
>original culture.
I thought about how to answer this part, because the answer
would be VERY long. Suffice it to say that one must understand
*how* these things come about--Africans one day didn't just
decide one day to start practicing female circumcision on a whim,
nor Arabs to deny their girls education, nor Chinese to hunt tigers to
extinction. These are products of cultural evolution. And to some
degree, I think that they are predictable. They all owe their ultimate
origin to the resources available in those cultures and at what degree
of "intensification" that they are utilized. Hunter-collectors have
one overall type of social organization, agriculurialists another,
and industrial and post-industrial people yet others.
Look again about the explanation how warfare degraded the status
of women and you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about. Neither
war nor the mistreatment of women is part of "human nature"--as
I said, the most "primitive" peoples who haven't invented
agriculture don't practice it much or at all (there's some debate
of whether those few that do were "contaminated" by contact
with more "advanced" warlike peoples). War was created, or
at least made widespread, by agriculture and the domestication
of animals. This led to population increases which put neighboring
groups in competition for scarce resources. And it also led to
beaten wives and murdered baby girls.
And it's important to understand these things, to understand
human history, so that we don't fall into contradictions.
For example, someone who is all gung-ho and militarism and
war and yet deplores rape, violence against women, and infanticide
is really contradicting themselves. For the latter goes along
with the former.
Think of what I said about the Sambia and Yanomami and how
brutally they (and other cultures like them) treat women.
Secret Squirrel
>In article <1d6e47de01c8037f...@anonymous.poster>
> Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] "Secret Squirrel" writes:
>
>: "The name is Benjo" <fama...@casema.net> wrote:
>:
>: >Kiddy porn art? You are kidding me!
>:
>: Why not? The Greeks and Romans certainly would have understood.
>: The Greeks especially appreciated statues of naked adolescent boys.
>: It most certainly was part of their art.
>:
>: Why do you assume that child pornography (or any other pornography,
>: for that matter) is incapable of being great art?
>
>Or for that matter, that Great Art is not child pornography?
>
>Look in the Rijksmuseum, the National Gallery, the Louvre. Or for that
>matter, Pompeii or the Cistine Chapel.
Camille Paglia once remaked that Donatello's David was
the greatest work of child pornography every produced.
Any glance at any book on painting or sculpture will reveal
naked children---many in poses that could be regarded as
"sensuous". This is simply because they considered children
to be beautiful. Europeans should know this better than
anyone else.
Secret Squirrel
>In article <383df463.4178126@newslimited>
> naugh...@naughtyboy.com "Naughty Boy" writes:
>
>: No Im not. Im saying let them experiment with their peers (after
>: receiving lots & lots of sex education), but not letting so-called
>: grown ups near them sexually.
>
>This works both ways though - by preventing people over a certain age
>become involved with those under a certain (the same?) age, you alos
>prevent the younger people from becoming involved with the older, even
>if they wish to do so.
The "mainstream" view of how sexual attraction "should" work
for everybody is totally illogical, when one things about it. According
to the mainstream view, 14-year olds should find other teenagers beautiful,
and not 35 year olds. But when that person reaches 35, they should
find other thirty-somethings beautiful and not teenagers. HUH?
Why should one's ideal of beauty change as you get older?
And the "mainstream" world is inconsistent about this themselves.
Heterosexual men in the fifties gawk over 18-year old swimsuit models,
not centerfolds of their fellow fifty-year olds. There's a lot of hypocrisy
going on here.
I'm not saying that teenagers should be everyone's ideal of "beautiful"--
far from it. I'm for diversity, *real* diversity. Let everyone choose what
is beautiful for themselves.
But allowing real diversity and real choice, might mean that some
teens find will 40 year olds beautiful and vice versa, and allowing
both to act upon those feelings.
lt
: > They ban books and plays now? By eck.
: >
: I think that filthy book is the only that is forbidden.
I haven't read "Mein kampf" so I can't comment on its filth content. I
do, however, have very large misgivings about any attenpt to prevent me
finding out for myself.
: As far as plays go,
: only a judge
: can do that and only if such a play is a calling for hate.
If a particluar play, or book, can be found to be inciting hatred, then
that is another matter. There is though a world of diffrerence between
inciting hatred and putting forward an unpleasant view.
: To say that the
: Holocaust
: never happened is a call for hate, after all, almost 100.000 Dutch Jews were
: killed in the camps.
I wouldn't say it was a call for hate. I think there is sufficient
historical evidence for anyone who does so to simply look stupid.
<< * BenjoŠ * >>
<< * BenjoŠ * >>
lt <l...@iapetus.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:943310...@iapetus.demon.co.uk...
> In article <38311405$0$70...@reader3.casema.net> < * BenjoŠ * "" writes:
>
> : > They ban books and plays now? By eck.
> : >
> : I think that filthy book is the only that is forbidden.
>
> I haven't read "Mein kampf" so I can't comment on its filth content. I
> do, however, have very large misgivings about any attenpt to prevent me
> finding out for myself.
You don't have to read it to know the contents, if people would have
believe what was written in it, maybe the Holocaust never would happened.
>
> : As far as plays go,
> : only a judge
> : can do that and only if such a play is a calling for hate.
>
> If a particluar play, or book, can be found to be inciting hatred, then
> that is another matter. There is though a world of diffrerence between
> inciting hatred and putting forward an unpleasant view.
>
> : To say that the
> : Holocaust
> : never happened is a call for hate, after all, almost 100.000 Dutch Jews
were
> : killed in the camps.
>
> I wouldn't say it was a call for hate. I think there is sufficient
> historical evidence for anyone who does so to simply look stupid.
To say the Holocaust never happenend is forbidden in most West European
countries, it is seen as an insult to Jews, Gypsys and gays. The difference
with the USA is maybe because we in Western Europe had suffered during
the war, we have seen people taking to camps, they were our friends,
neighbors
and relatives. This never happened in the USA.
lt
som...@somewhere.com "The Programmer" writes:
: The Netherlands is one of the most liberal countries in Europe. Neo-nazi and
: right-wing garbage is openly available... as are homosexual art and hettie
: sex stuff. It's all there. No one forbids anyone from doing anything. If the
: Dutch police started putting laws in place forbidding freedom of expression,
: there'd be all kinds of riots. Besides which, most of the Dutch police
: themselves are extremely libral and open minded. They're not interested in
: repressing anyone's freedom, period. And that includes pedophiliacs... if
: that's the correct word.
Which doesn't explain the recent confiscation of the Brongersma
Foundation archives, a collection going back many years and largely
irreplacable.
<< * BenjoŠ * >>
--
"PURITANISM - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."
H.L. Mencken
lt <l...@iapetus.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:943396...@iapetus.demon.co.uk...
lt
: > I haven't read "Mein kampf" so I can't comment on its filth content. I
: > do, however, have very large misgivings about any attenpt to prevent me
: > finding out for myself.
:
: You don't have to read it to know the contents,
Of course I do. How else am I to find out what it says?
: > I wouldn't say it was a call for hate. I think there is sufficient
: > historical evidence for anyone who does so to simply look stupid.
:
: To say the Holocaust never happenend is forbidden in most West European
: countries,
Not in the UK, although I can't say I've ever heard anyone doing so.
I have an enormous problem with laws defining what may or may not be
said. If it is forbidden to deny the Holocaust, why can one deny the
Russian Revolution, the Spanish Inquisition, etc? I'm not for a minute
condoning any such attitude, and to do so would be absurd, but quite
legal.