Hey fundie bastards!
Nicole-o-matic
is a sin"? After all, heterosexuality is the cause of all the unwanted
children in the world. What if you and your children were harassed for
your "perverted lifestyle" of "disgusting heterosexual relations"? I
think it's time you examined yourselves, instead of glorifying
yourselves by judging other people as "wicked unbelievers" and such.
James Riske
Well faggot, being hetero is normal as proven throughout all of history
since the utter beginning of mankind and is reflected throughout nature,
everything from insects to cattle to bears and wolves heterosexuality is
the norm, always has been, always will be.
Filthy faggots will commonly post whatever findings they can get from
the far reaches of the internet to try and say that animals and insects
are faggots also but they fail to mention that it is of rare cases and
that many of the animals who engage in it have some sort of mental
imbalance, faggots wouldn't dare report that part of it!
Filthy faggots were considered mentally ill for hundreds of years in
many countries, only recently have some countries dropped faggotry from
their list of mental illnesses due to pressure put on them by the
liberal media.
If it wasn't for the liberals much of this world probably wouldn't even
tolerate the existence of filthy faggots and many countries would still
be offering a penalty of death for faggotry.
The good old days....
Crispy
> Well faggot, being hetero is normal as proven throughout all of history
> since the utter beginning of mankind and is reflected throughout nature,
> everything from insects to cattle to bears and wolves heterosexuality is
> the norm, always has been, always will be.
Of course it is. Heterosexuality is the only way for a species to
reproduce. Two males, or two females, are simply not equipped to make
children alone; it requires one male and one female.
> Filthy faggots will commonly post whatever findings they can get from
> the far reaches of the internet to try and say that animals and insects
> are faggots also but they fail to mention that it is of rare cases and
> that many of the animals who engage in it have some sort of mental
> imbalance, faggots wouldn't dare report that part of it!
Actually, it's not a mental imbalance at all; no more than any other
more 'normal' sexual deviation. I think it's more of a population
control mechanisim. Whenever disease and predators fail to control a
species' population, and the species starts overusing it's ecosystem,
nature finds a different way of controling the population.
Since there are very few animals that can beat a suitably outfited
human, other than other humans similarly outfitted, predators are no
longer able to control humanity's growth. And with the advent of
modern medicine there are only a few diseases or viruses, like E. Coli
or Cancer, that actually kill humans; again, with a few exceptions.
Hence, human growth is going almost compleatly un-checked; not even
Death can keep up, as ther are more humans born then die at any given
moment. And with the advance warning for natural disasters, Nature's
strongest weapon has been rendered almost entierly ineffective.
Homosexuality won't stop it, either; not alone. And with the increase
of attention that homosexuals recieve, I can only imagine that the
portion of the overall human population that is homosexual is growing.
Again; this is my explination, based off of events that I have
experienced, personally. I have no concrete data to back it up, except
my own research from being alive, and keeping my ears open for
information. I cannot defend this position scientifically, as I don't
have access to 'published' knowledge. But through my life experiences,
this is my personal explination for homosexuality.
> Filthy faggots were considered mentally ill for hundreds of years in
> many countries, only recently have some countries dropped faggotry from
> their list of mental illnesses due to pressure put on them by the
> liberal media.
> If it wasn't for the liberals much of this world probably wouldn't even
> tolerate the existence of filthy faggots and many countries would still
> be offering a penalty of death for faggotry.
I can only assume that the Liberals have so much power, because they
have the most numbers. This is America, the first country in existance
today that was founded on the concept of Democracy. That means that
it's ruled, in the most part, by the people. If the majority of the
Citizens of the United States didn't vote for it; it wouldn't have
passed.
Even if someone was bribed; if people who wanted homosexuals to be
remain a persecuted minority made thier bribes, then those who wanted
homosexuals to be considered as normal as the next person must have
made larger bribes; meaning they had access to more money, which,
again, might signify a larger percentage of the general population.
Also, people are starting to know more, then they did when homosexuals
were being excecuted for thier 'atrocious crimes'. It isn't 'liberal
pressure' that's 'making' countries refrain from persecuting
homosexuality; it's just the evolution of humanity towards greater
intelligence.
> The good old days....
Ahhh, yes. The good old days. Where intelligence was kept in the iron
grip of the Chruch. When you could eaisly get revenge on the
attractive young lass that turned down your advances by claiming you
saw her dancing with the devil. When you could, so simply, double your
land holdings, by plating a bit of dog fur in your neighbor's clothes,
and accuse him of being a werre-wolf. Back when everyone knew what the
Bell, Book, and Candle were for; and saw demonstrations of it on a
regular basis.
What glorious days! When the average joe never traveled more than five
miles from the place he was born. When the measles and the chicken pox
weere deadly ailments. Back when the person you worked yourself to
death for wasn't yourself, or your family; but the noble up in the
castle on the hill, who could bed your wife on your wedding night
without so much as a 'by your leave'.
Quite definatly the prime example of the 'good' old days.
Or; perhaps a little sooner? When, if you had blonde hair and blue
eyes, you could dress up in this schnazzy brown, red, and black
uniform; goosestep around everywhere you went; and burn books to your
little heart's content. When you could get back at the attractive
young lady who turned you down for sexual favors could quietly
dissappear, simply by putting a six-pointed star in her pocket. When
you could take care of your next door neighbors by getting them drunk,
and then putting them to bed with each other; I'll bet they'd toe your
line once they saw the inside of a gas chamber!
It's just such a pity that the 'liberals' banded together, and stopped
your leader; or he might just have taken over the world! Of ourse; he
was a pretty stupid guy. Opening war on three fronts, cutting back on
military research, and so on; but hey, everyone makes mistakes, right?
*wipes a tear* I can just smell the burnt almonds and gunsmoke. *sighs
happily* Good times. Good times.
Or, maybe that's still too old for you? Maybe you would've voted for
McCartney for President. Then all you'd have to do now, was circulate
a few e-mails tot he feds that all boy lovers are actually communists,
and you'd never hear from any of us 'filthy faggots' again.
Too bad the 'liberals' woke up, and stopped being afraid of a simple
color.
Good gracious, Jimmy. It seems that your ideal communities didn't last
that long, in the long run, eh? Maybe you're betting on a horse with a
broken leg?
It's the one labled 'common sense'. That one, there on the back hind
leg, on the bottom edge of the hoof. Right there, you can see it
eaisly from over here...
*watches as Jimmy goes flying*
Oh, dear... This isn't your horse after all. The red, white, and blue
hat should've tipped me off. Oh well. *goes off to watch the race*
James Riske
>James Riske <james_riske...@mail15.com> wrote in message news:<bklggm$o30$0...@pita.alt.net>...
>
>
>>Well faggot, being hetero is normal as proven throughout all of history
>>since the utter beginning of mankind and is reflected throughout nature,
>>everything from insects to cattle to bears and wolves heterosexuality is
>>the norm, always has been, always will be.
>>
>>
>
>Of course it is. Heterosexuality is the only way for a species to
>reproduce. Two males, or two females, are simply not equipped to make
>children alone; it requires one male and one female.
>
>
>
>>Filthy faggots will commonly post whatever findings they can get from
>>the far reaches of the internet to try and say that animals and insects
>>are faggots also but they fail to mention that it is of rare cases and
>>that many of the animals who engage in it have some sort of mental
>>imbalance, faggots wouldn't dare report that part of it!
>>
>>
>
>Actually, it's not a mental imbalance at all;
>
Cite clear, verifiable evidence to prove it.
Evasion, albeit any evasion at all will be evidence of yet another lie
by you Billyboy.
>no more than any other
>more 'normal' sexual deviation. I think it's more of a population
>control mechanisim. Whenever disease and predators fail to control a
>species' population, and the species starts overusing it's ecosystem,
>nature finds a different way of controling the population.
>
>
Now I have heard it all.
Billyboy, just end it, end it tonight, you are simply too stupid to even
share the same air as someone with an iq of 20.
>Since there are very few animals that can beat a suitably outfited
>human, other than other humans similarly outfitted, predators are no
>longer able to control humanity's growth. And with the advent of
>modern medicine there are only a few diseases or viruses, like E. Coli
>or Cancer, that actually kill humans; again, with a few exceptions.
>
>
My god....
Just end it Billy, it would be for your own good.
<snipped for sanity>
Crispy
> Crispy wrote:
>
> >
> >Of course it is. Heterosexuality is the only way for a species to
> >reproduce. Two males, or two females, are simply not equipped to make
> >children alone; it requires one male and one female.
> >
> >
>
> Cite clear, verifiable evidence to prove it.
> Evasion, albeit any evasion at all will be evidence of yet another lie
> by you Billyboy.
>
I can't. =) If you had bothered to read past where you snipped, you
would already know why. ^_~ My views of this are entierly my own
opinions, based off my own life experiences. I suppose I /could/ go
find the names of the several dozen textbooks, and give you page
numbers and so on, and get names of my teachers and old classmates,
and all the people I've heard say stuff on TV; but I don't have the
resources to collect it. ^_^; Not to mention that the list would be
entierly too long, with one or two impressions from each source. And I
doubt that the Muses accept phone calls. ;)
Now, I would ask you to cite clear, verifiable evidence to prove your
view. ^_^ If you can, then I would greatly appreciate being able to
read any such, and revise my own views, perhaps even to coincide a
little more with your own. =) If you can't, then all you're doing is
telling me to change what I think, simply because you tell me too; and
that's not going to happen anytime soon. ^_^
> >no more than any other
> >more 'normal' sexual deviation. I think it's more of a population
> >control mechanisim. Whenever disease and predators fail to control a
> >species' population, and the species starts overusing it's ecosystem,
> >nature finds a different way of controling the population.
> >
>
> Now I have heard it all.
> Billyboy, just end it, end it tonight, you are simply too stupid to even
> share the same air as someone with an iq of 20.
Why? Disagreement does not a simpleton make. ^_~ The inability to
fathom what others are saying does, however. >;-) But seriously; is my
hypothesis not as logically sound as the next? Perhaps a bit
far-fetched... but if God made the duck-billed platypus; then maybe he
decided to throw humanity a few curves as well. ^_~
> >Since there are very few animals that can beat a suitably outfited
> >human, other than other humans similarly outfitted, predators are no
> >longer able to control humanity's growth. And with the advent of
> >modern medicine there are only a few diseases or viruses, like E. Coli
> >or Cancer, that actually kill humans; again, with a few exceptions.
> >
> >
>
> My god....
> Just end it Billy, it would be for your own good.
>
Again, I must ask "Why"? 'Ending' myself would do me no good, at all.
Although, I think the statement might shed a little light on the
quality of your logic. ^_~~ Unless you wish to take a stace opposite
mine on the matter of humans not being predated or killed off by
things like cholera, smallpox, or polio.
> <snipped for sanity>
*places a hand over his chest* I'm hurt, Jimmy. You cut off one of my
more humorous rants. Of course; you took the rest of my argument
aginst your first opinion, and cut your second opinion entierly out of
the picture, along with my argument aginst it. I am truly sorry that
opposition to your ideas is bad for your sanity; it's amazing that
you've not yet gone insane. >=)
Bernard Hubbard
So Jimbo you admit to having an IQ of 20. How nice for you.
>
>>Since there are very few animals that can beat a suitably
>>outfited human, other than other humans similarly outfitted,
>>predators are no longer able to control humanity's growth. And
>>with the advent of modern medicine there are only a few diseases
>>or viruses, like E. Coli or Cancer, that actually kill humans;
>>again, with a few exceptions.
>>
>>
>
> My god....
> Just end it Billy, it would be for your own good.
>
> <snipped for sanity>
>
>
--
Bernard Hubbard
Australian, Gay, Green and Proud.
Death
"Bernard Hubbard" <bern...@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9401A318A3E8C...@203.134.67.67...
Where ole faggot, do you see him admitting his IQ ?
Yours was well known, another example was not necessary
Steven
"Nicole-o-matic" <blakcat_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a57d66c7.0309...@posting.google.com...
You couldn't come up with a better phrase than "unwanted children"? How
about "unplanned for" or "unexpected"?
James Riske
>
>>>
>>>
>>Now I have heard it all.
>>Billyboy, just end it, end it tonight, you are simply too stupid
>>to even share the same air as someone with an iq of 20.
>>
>>
>
>
>So Jimbo you admit to having an IQ of 20. How nice for you.
>
>
Filthy faggot Bernie Hubbard is a proven liar, I never made any such
admission.
Bernard Hubbard
news:Xns9401C268266D5....................@207.14.113.17:
> Bernard Hubbard <bern...@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9401A318A3E8C...@203.134.67.67:
> Bernard Hubbard is a liar.
>
What sort of an answer is that? And BTW I was talking to Jimbo
Riske and not you, fuckwit.
William J. Wolfe
Not surprising, seeing as how bernie is a self confessed shit eating
rectum reamer. Father's day would be a quiet affair at bernie's
residence. I can't imagine normal healthy young woman wanting to give
their filthy old poofter father too much close contact on father's
day.
Death
"William J. Wolfe" <w_j_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bc2c3b4d.03092...@posting.google.com...
From prof perverts past post I gathered his wife and kids left him because
of his getting
ass reamed by strangers in the roadside shithouses.
They feared him bringing home diseases and left him with shit on his lips.
William J. Wolfe
(SNIP)
> From prof perverts past post I gathered his wife and kids left him because
> of his getting
> ass reamed by strangers in the roadside shithouses.
> They feared him bringing home diseases and left him with shit on his lips.
It wasn't what he was doing that fucked the show. It was the age of his victims.
Bernard Hubbard
news:nmgdb.51318$8j.2...@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
Absolutely false. I was oversea when wifie emptied our joint bank
account and took off to The Netherlands with the kids to shack up
with a wife stealing cunt. I have not been able to trust any
female since. I was bisexual and having given up on trashy and
dishonest women I prefer men.
Bernard Hubbard
news:de56077.03092...@posting.google.com:
Yes and isn't it strange that the Conservative Right is in control
of the Federal Government. Thank you for confessing that Bu$h and
the Republicans got into power by chicanery.
>This is America, the first country
> in existance today that was founded on the concept of Democracy.
Utter bulshit. Ancient Greece was a democracy back in the BC Era.
Of modern societies try Iceland out for size. Their parliament was
founded between 1000 and 1100 CE.
> That means that it's ruled, in the most part, by the people. If
> the majority of the Citizens of the United States didn't vote
> for it; it wouldn't have passed.
But most people in the US voted for Gore, didn't they?
--
No One
> crisp...@hotmail.com (Crispy) wrote in
> news:de56077.03092...@posting.google.com:
>
>
> >This is America, the first country
> > in existance today that was founded on the concept of Democracy.
>
> Utter bulshit. Ancient Greece was a democracy back in the BC Era.
> Of modern societies try Iceland out for size. Their parliament was
> founded between 1000 and 1100 CE.
Actually, Greece wasn't that demoocratic (slaves weren't allowed to
vote, for instance.) Curiously, Iceland was fairly homophobic
until recently - public attitudes changed almost completely in only 10
years.
Americans, however, do in may cases have a pretty distorted view
of the world, not to mention history. This Crispy character
probably believed the propaganda he was taught in high school
or junior high school.
Bernard Hubbard
news:3F75BD2A...@aol.com:
> The truth shall set you free freaks.
>
>
> WWW
>
> Attachment decoded: untitled-2.txt
> --------------9AFACDF3DE6C35EAC5A65B98
> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
> <html>
> <head>
> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
> charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta name="GENERATOR"
> content="Mozilla/4.79 (Macintosh; U; PPC) [Netscape]">
> <title>The truth</title>
> </head>
> <body>
>
> <p>Newspaper Coverage Shows Anti-Homosexual Bias, Study Alleges
> <br>By Lawrence Morahan
> <br>CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
> <br>September 16, 2003
> <p>(CNSNews.com) - An examination of more than 1,300 newspaper
> reports on the
> <br>sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church has revealed the
> coverage <br>reinforced inaccurate and misleading stereotypes of
> homosexual men as child
> <br>abusers, a new study by a homosexual advocacy group says.
> <p>The linking of homosexuality and child sexual abuse in
> stories by Boston <br>Globe reporters during 2002 was not
> necessarily intentional, said <br>psychologists Dr. Glenda
> Russell and Nancy Kelly, authors of "Subtle <br>Stereotyping:
> The Media, Homosexuality and the Priest Sexual Abuse Scandal."
> <p>However, "Linkages don't have to be intentional to be
> harmful. The <br>stereotype of gay-man-as-pedophile gets used in
> many policy contexts to
> <br>justify discrimination and violence against gay people,"
> Russell, a senior
> <br>researcher with the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic
> Studies (IGLSS),
> <br>said in a release.
> <p>Independent social science research is quite clear that male
> homosexuals are
> <br>not more likely to commit child sexual abuse than
> non-homosexual men, <br>Russell asserted.
> <p>Russell's findings, however, are sharply at odds with the
> views of Robert <br>Knight, director of the Culture and Family
> Institute with Concerned Women
> <br>for America.
> <p>"Since one-third to one-half of all child molestations are
> committed by men
> <br>against boys, and homosexual men comprise less than 2
> percent of the <br>population. This means that the ratio of
> child molesters among homosexuals <br>is far, far higher than
> among the rest of the population," Knight said. <p>"This doesn't
> mean all homosexuals molest children, but it means that the
> <br>problem is far greater within the homosexual community, and
> the Catholic <br>scandal only underlines that point. More than
> 80 percent of the victims were
> <br>teenage boys molested by homosexual priests," Knight added.
> <p>The IGLSS report also criticized the news media's placement
> of stories <br>related to the priest sex abuse scandal alongside
> descriptions of other <br>inappropriate behaviors. The frequent
> emphasis of the victim's gender also
> <br>helped create a misleading association between homosexuality
> and abuse, the
> <br>report stated.
> <p>The IGLSS did not return calls seeking comment. In their
> report, however, <br>the authors urged journalists to exercise
> greater vigilance to eliminate <br>stereotyping and to consult
> with communication specialists when appropriate. <p>Knight also
> disputed the authors' findings of media bias in reporting on
> <br>homosexuals and crime as "an example of wishing something
> would go away that
> <br>is glaringly obvious.
> <p>"They're heavily into damage control because they know that
> the dark <br>underside of the Catholic sex scandal is the
> uncovering of the network of
> <br>gay priests in the seminaries and in the churches.
> <p>"As the Church cleans up its act, we hope people will realize
> this was a
> <br>homosexual problem, not a pedophile problem. After all, most
> of the victims
> <br>were teenagers, not small children," Knight said.
> </body>
> </html>
>
> Attachment decoded: The truth
> --------------9AFACDF3DE6C35EAC5A65B98--
Please refrain from posting HTML crap. Most newsreaders do not
handle HTML properly and your crazy messages don't get through to
serious readers.
Bernard Hubbard
news:bc2c3b4d.03092...@posting.google.com:
Mate, I have never cruised roadside shithouses, nor have I ever had
sex with anybody who was of illegal age. Nor have I ever had sex
with anybody who was not consenting. You with all your expert
knowledge of me, as you claim, should know that by now. BTW please
tell me if it is Rooty Hill or Blacktown. I want to send around my
nephews with their cricket bats.
Bernard Hubbard
> Bernard Hubbard <bern...@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9403992D6D84D...@203.134.67.67:
Oh God! Not that old chestnut again. Proof please. And I don't
mean some concocted story from one of your homophobic mates. I
want personal proof from you.
Death
"William J. Wolfe" <w_j_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bc2c3b4d.03092...@posting.google.com...
Little boys?
James Riske
Notice how Bernie evaded this thread, it is clear proof that Bernie is a
liar, Bernie has no choice but to evade this...
William J. Wolfe
> >
> >
>
> Absolutely false. I was oversea when wifie emptied our joint bank
> account and took off to The Netherlands with the kids to shack up
> with a wife stealing cunt.
What you mean, bernie shit eater, is your wife decided she didn't want
a shit stained dick poked up her guts and went off to be with a real
man.
I have not been able to trust any
> female since.
Translation of bernie's poofterbabble - I can't get it up for women, I
prefer a nice arsehole instead.
I was bisexual and having given up on trashy and
> dishonest women I prefer men.
Yeah, bernie, right, you keep believing that myth, bum boy.
William J. Wolfe
> w_j_...@hotmail.com (William J. Wolfe) wrote in
> news:bc2c3b4d.03092...@posting.google.com:
>
> > "Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
> > news:<nmgdb.51318$8j.2...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
> >
> > (SNIP)
> >
> >> From prof perverts past post I gathered his wife and kids left
> >> him because of his getting
> >> ass reamed by strangers in the roadside shithouses.
> >> They feared him bringing home diseases and left him with shit
> >> on his lips.
> >
> > It wasn't what he was doing that fucked the show. It was the age
> > of his victims.
> >
>
> Mate, I have never cruised roadside shithouses, nor have I ever had
> sex with anybody who was of illegal age. Nor have I ever had sex
> with anybody who was not consenting.
so you say bernie bum bandit. Your recordds say different.
You with all your expert
> knowledge of me, as you claim, should know that by now. BTW please
> tell me if it is Rooty Hill or Blacktown.
You fucking find out, POOFTER.
I want to send around my
> nephews with their cricket bats.
AAWWW, bernie, so you aren't MAN enough to visit me by yourself. You
gutless piss weak old shit eater.
James Riske
So noted...
tyronerie
of other inappropriate behaviors. The frequent emphasis of the
victim's gender also helped create a misleading association between
homosexuality and abuse, the report stated."
How could it be "misleading"? They were merely reporting the truth.
That the priests were molesting and abusing adolescent boys.
The fact that this means the priests were gay is just that....a fact.
Bernard Hubbard <bern...@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9404984A3F512...@203.134.67.67>...
William J. Wolfe
Collect your prize and go home!! More accurately, young teenagers.
maf 1029
Wolfe) wrote:
>so you say bernie <censored>. Your recordds say different.
>You <censored>find out, <censored>.
>
>
>AAWWW, bernie, so you aren't MAN enough to visit me by yourself. You
>gutless <censored> weak old <censored>eater.
My, my, my -- what a filthy mouth you have there.
And you perform cunilingus on your mother with that mouth?
(Your records say so.)
Bernard Hubbard
My nephews live close to you, I on the otherhand have to travel up
from Melbourne and my pension does not give me enough to spend on
Airfares.
Bernard Hubbard
news:bl706d$ve5$2...@pita.alt.net:
You didn't? Well who wrote the following if not you?
*Now I have heard it all.
Billyboy, just end it, end it tonight, you are simply too stupid to
even share the same air as someone with an iq of 20.*
The way you constructed the above quote you are implying that
Billyboy, no matter what his IQ, does not deserve to breathe the
same air as yourself who has an IQ of 20. If you did not need what
is implied the you should learn to construct sentenses properly.
You said it now wear it.
James Riske
>
>>>>So Jimbo you admit to having an IQ of 20. How nice for you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Filthy faggot Bernie Hubbard is a proven liar, I never made any
>>>such admission.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Notice how Bernie evaded this thread, it is clear proof that
>>Bernie is a liar, Bernie has no choice but to evade this...
>>
>
>
> You didn't? Well who wrote the following if not you?
>
> *Now I have heard it all.
> Billyboy, just end it, end it tonight, you are simply too stupid to
> even share the same air as someone with an iq of 20.*
>
> The way you constructed the above quote you are implying that
> Billyboy, no matter what his IQ, does not deserve to breathe the
> same air as yourself who has an IQ of 20. If you did not need what
> is implied the you should learn to construct sentenses properly.
> You said it now wear it.
>
Filthy faggot Bernie Hubbard is a proven liar, I never made any
admission to having an iq of 20.
Filthy faggot Bernie is also trying to give a lecture on forming proper
sentences and yet it is too stupid to use a spell checker.
So noted.
Keep showing us just how blatantly dishonest you can be filthy faggot by
trying to change the meaning of my words, that's what your kind does
when they find themselves backed into a corner, you were caught in a
flat-out lie and now you are trying to save face, again.
Filthy faggots do this on a daily basis on usenet, they simply cannot
stand it when someone has the balls to point them out for the filthy,
disgusting, immoral, abominable, piece of shit lying cowards that they
truly are.
And I'm certain this wont be the last time...
James Riske
>
>>>Mate, I have never cruised roadside shithouses, nor have I ever
>>>had sex with anybody who was of illegal age. Nor have I ever
>>>had sex with anybody who was not consenting.
>>
>>so you say bernie bum bandit. Your recordds say different.
>>
>> You with all your expert
>>
>>>knowledge of me, as you claim, should know that by now. BTW
>>>please tell me if it is Rooty Hill or Blacktown.
>>
>>You fucking find out, POOFTER.
>>
>> I want to send around my
>>
>>>nephews with their cricket bats.
>>
>>AAWWW, bernie, so you aren't MAN enough to visit me by yourself.
>>You gutless piss weak old shit eater.
>>
>
>
> My nephews live close to you, I on the otherhand have to travel up
> from Melbourne and my pension does not give me enough to spend on
> Airfares.
>
Obviously filthy lying shit-eater bernie must have been a failure in
life if it is too broke to travel from one side of ausie to another.
Must have been those doctor bills for the multiple venereal diseases
that it has caught ever since it chose to be a filthy faggot, ehh Bernie ?
hahaha
haha
William J. Wolfe
> On 28 Sep 2003 14:32:27 -0700, w_j_...@hotmail.com (William J.
> Wolfe) wrote:
>
>
> >so you say bernie <censored>. Your recordds say different.
>
> >You <censored>find out, <censored>.
> >
> >
> >AAWWW, bernie, so you aren't MAN enough to visit me by yourself. You
> >gutless <censored> weak old <censored>eater.
>
> My, my, my -- what a filthy mouth you have there.
Oh yeah, now that is fucking rich, coming from a shit eating rectum reaming POOFTER.
William J. Wolfe
>
> My nephews live close to you, I on the otherhand have to travel up
> from Melbourne and my pension does not give me enough to spend on
> Airfares.
Yeah, bernie bum boy, sure. Now bernie, this is where your stuopid
poofter lying catches up to you and bites you on the arse. In the past
you have made refernces to your alleged carrer, so why bernie, WHY do
you not have enough for a bus fare, bernie shit eater?
Anyway, bernie boy banger, whenever your pretty boys are ready, send
then around. Anything your fairy nephews have can be matched by what I
have.
Oh, IF, that is, FUCKING IF your wanker relations can ever find me.
William J. Wolfe
You got it. That and the multiple arsehole rcontructions when his ring
was too big to retain an extra-extra large butt plug.
>
> hahaha
>
> haha
ExtremeOne
"William J. Wolfe" <w_j_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > You got it.
That and the multiple arsehole rcontructions when his ring
> was too big to retain an extra-extra large butt plug.
You know this how POOFTER?
YOU FAG!
LOFL!
maf 1029
Wolfe) wrote:
>maf 1029 <maf...@xhotmailyz.com> wrote in message news:<i3nfnv43ol0j3j2bn...@4ax.com>...
>> On 28 Sep 2003 14:32:27 -0700, w_j_...@hotmail.com (William J.
>> Wolfe) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >so you say bernie <censored>. Your recordds say different.
>>
>> >You <censored>find out, <censored>.
>> >
>> >
>> >AAWWW, bernie, so you aren't MAN enough to visit me by yourself. You
>> >gutless <censored> weak old <censored>eater.
>>
>> My, my, my -- what a filthy mouth you have there.
>
>Oh yeah, now that is fucking rich,
Do you perform cunilingus on your mother with that mouth?
William J. Wolfe
So you say, bernie bum bandit. So, bernie shit eater, how "close" do
you believe yur nephew is to me? next door? Across the street?100
metres? 3 or more kilometres Do tell bernie fucked up t eh ars shit
dribbling homo.
I on the otherhand have to travel up
> from Melbourne and my pension does not give me enough to spend on
> Airfares.
Bernie butt fucker, you really are a dismal failure. You shit lickers
can find the time and money to make it to the poofter mardi gras but
you can't afford to see your nephews turn into bleeding corpsees. Too
bad, rectum reamer.
Steven
"tyronerie" <qert...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d09f0067.03092...@posting.google.com...
> "The IGLSS report also criticized the news media's placement of
> stories related to the priest sex abuse scandal alongside descriptions
> of other inappropriate behaviors. The frequent emphasis of the
> victim's gender also helped create a misleading association between
> homosexuality and abuse, the report stated."
>
> How could it be "misleading"? They were merely reporting the truth.
> That the priests were molesting and abusing adolescent boys.
>
> The fact that this means the priests were gay is just that....a fact.
Not all child molesters are gay, nor are all gays child molesters. Have you
ever thought that perhaps the reason that priests in the Catholic church
abuse boys is because of their being forbidden to have female mates? For, a
boy looks a lot like a girl. If these priests were simply homosexual, then
they would have sex with each other rather than boys. Boys don't look like
men: they're hairless, of smaller build, and come about as close to a
feminine (lacking breasts and genetalia of course) figure as these men have
access to. Their molestation of boys is likely a result of their being
forced to abstain from females, and has nothing to do with their being
homosexual.
Even if what statistics Dailey has pointed out are in fact correct (see
http://www.nhcornerstone.org/Homosexuality%20and%20Child%20Sexual%20Abuse.do
c), this does not neccessarily suggest that all gay people are pedophiles,
or wish to have sex with boys, or seek to have sex with boys. Further,
statistics are a funny thing. They often hinge on definitions. For example,
a pedophile is someone who actively seeks out sexual gratification via
children. What is a child? "son or daughter of any age". What is sexual
gratification? It could be considered as an unused desire. For these
Christians, thinking is nearly the same as doing. Old men lusting after
young women is considered ok, even normal, provided there is no genital
contact. An old man lusting after a young man, say 14, may be considered a
pedophile, even if there is no genital contact, but simply because he stands
out. He actually makes no effort at all to make his definitions clear, which
is something that is important for a legitamate statistical analysis. Like
I said earlier though, say that Dailey's conclusions are correct, and 1 in 4
desire contact (precisely, he states "self-reported attractions", which does
not suggest convictions, nor does it state what the confessors consider to
be boys: men are often referred to as boys), and say 1 in 10 actually plays
with a 15 year old boy (one of the targeted age groups that he does
identify). This does not mean that we have the right to imprison 9 innocent
men who are homosexuals, and 1 who is not. If all men who had looked at an
attractive 15 year old girl were considered pedophiles, regardless if they
acted on their feelings, then I have little doubt that the statistical
evidence suggesting homosexuals are more apt to pedophilic tendencies would
become normal.
Truth is a very difficult thing to come by. Words are not always clearly
defined the same among all people. I myself, at 15 years old, was strong
enough of mind and body to refuse any attempt by a homosexual to seduce, or
even rape me. Further, if a woman of say 30 years were to sexually molest
me, I would probably go around bragging about it to my friends, and she
would face no difficulties. Even fathers would likely say, "good going son!
I knew my boy was a stud!" Can you imagine if it was a same gendered affair?
Regardless of the circumstances, I imagine my father would say, "Who was it?
We're going to press charges/beat the shit out of him! He had to have forced
you! blah blah blah". Truth is a very selective thing.
Bernard Hubbard
Never been to the Sydney Mardi Gras, mate. I leave that to the
straights who like to *perve on poofters*. When was the last time
you marched with Fred Nile and prayed for rain on the parade?
Ralph
> Not all child molesters are gay, nor are all gays child molesters.
This is quite correct, child molesters come in all sexual
orientations; homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual et al.
The type of child molester who calls himself a "boylover" however
will claim that having sexual intercourse with little boys has always
been a integral component of male homosexuality.
>Have you
> ever thought that perhaps the reason that priests in the Catholic church
> abuse boys is because of their being forbidden to have female mates? For, a
> boy looks a lot like a girl. If these priests were simply homosexual, then
> they would have sex with each other rather than boys. Boys don't look like
> men: they're hairless, of smaller build, and come about as close to a
> feminine (lacking breasts and genetalia of course) figure as these men have
> access to. Their molestation of boys is likely a result of their being
> forced to abstain from females, and has nothing to do with their being
> homosexual.
This hypothesises in utterly absurd. Priests having sex with males,
especially little boys is just as forbidden, if not more so, than a
priest having sex with a woman.
Sex with a woman one is not married to is considered fornication, if
she's married it's considered adultery. Sex between two males however,
is considered to be an abomination.
Catholic priests are not having sex with little boys in order to keep
to their vows or to avoid breaking any rules.
Many men become priests as a cover for their not showing any carnal
interest in woman and never wanting to date one or get married. It's a
great way for a "boylover" to stay in the closet and simultaneously be
revered by family and friends in the process. And it's also a great
set up for a "boylover" to get at little boys, that's also why one
sees so many "boylovers" who are also teachers, coaches, boy scout
(and the like) leaders etc.
Ralph
William J. Wolfe
> > I on the otherhand have to travel up
> >> from Melbourne and my pension does not give me enough to spend
> >> on Airfares.
> >
> > Bernie butt fucker, you really are a dismal failure. You shit
> > lickers can find the time and money to make it to the poofter
> > mardi gras but you can't afford to see your nephews turn into
> > bleeding corpsees. Too bad, rectum reamer.
>
> Never been to the Sydney Mardi Gras, mate.
So you say, bernie shit eater, and for your fucking information,
POOFTER, I am not, never was and never will be the mate of a rectum
reaming shit eating filthy POOFTER.
I leave that to the
> straights who like to *perve on poofters*.
So you say, bernie bum bandit, but, bernie, you are a known liar and
filthy pervert. Sadly for you, bernie arse licker, nobody believes a
word of your bullshit.
Secret Squirrel
"Steven" <wordsworm@(erase)hotmail.com> wrote in
news:d12fb.34690$1M6.2...@wagner.videotron.net:
>
> "tyronerie" <qert...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:d09f0067.03092...@posting.google.com...
>> How could it be "misleading"? They were merely reporting
>> the truth. That the priests were molesting and abusing
>> adolescent boys.
>>
>> The fact that this means the priests were gay is just
>> that....a fact.
>
> Not all child molesters are gay, nor are all gays child
> molesters. Have you ever thought that perhaps the reason
> that priests in the Catholic church abuse boys is because
> of their being forbidden to have female mates? For, a boy
> looks a lot like a girl. If these priests were simply
> homosexual, then they would have sex with each other rather
> than boys. Boys don't look like men: they're hairless, of
> smaller build, and come about as close to a feminine
> (lacking breasts and genetalia of course) figure as these
> men have access to. Their molestation of boys is likely a
> result of their being forced to abstain from females, and
> has nothing to do with their being homosexual.
Don't you think it's a stretch to say that liking boys has
*nothing* to do with homosexuality, especially when much of
gay porn includes smallish 18-19 year old males who have had
their body hair trimmed as to look even younger?
Ethnographically speaking, boylove has always been considered
a subcategory of homosexuality--and one of the most common
categories to boot.
Mind you, I'm not saying all this to bash gays, but to simply
say that we should be for real tolerance, not pseudo-tolerance.
Boylove is with us because it's simply a part of human nature,
as is homosexuality in general. Any review of primate biology
and human cultures should make that loud and clear.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBP3y8AT/rA6+b3AyhAQFvRwf/e08UpfZOipuO436jbrNB9Qh0iI1dt9mq
6bZUabHXp22IXtQxHnYFgF2ov2wxgkZKDh5pD/ZfYGx6AFQtMS6oNZK7YzfNUPJ3
oAa3EK3zlUS4j0i6CluDuj//CjI6M1c9Mb0D663rYULu6VO127iU2O/VaK7CCHIE
jwfqu0+6uzTcrQ8m+Wjd3bKJphVYp1vbgaNMU4SRxwY9Gh1vtQOcI4cWTGTEHUn9
d7UhAlo/okgwBGM9EePIi2Q+AVURlGS5IqhmsipWmtdmQGkojJCT0ZkJiydfnJON
Q0F96VNdl3qDQeN/IxQDJQ6jQckJldpCgFS1fxq4DZfwZHdaGxxRug==
=ZOzI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
maf 1029
>Do you perform cunilingus on your mother with that mouth? I do my
>mother often, and she loves it!
Gross.
Bernard Hubbard
> Bernt out shit eater <bern...@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote in
And the same to you with brass fucking knobs on.
William J. Wolfe
>
> >
> >>>Mate, I have never cruised roadside shithouses, nor have I ever
> >>>had sex with anybody who was of illegal age. Nor have I ever
> >>>had sex with anybody who was not consenting.
> >>
> >>so you say bernie bum bandit. Your recordds say different.
> >>
> >> You with all your expert
> >>
> >>>knowledge of me, as you claim, should know that by now. BTW
> >>>please tell me if it is Rooty Hill or Blacktown.
> >>
> >>You fucking find out, POOFTER.
> >>
> >> I want to send around my
> >>
> >>>nephews with their cricket bats.
> >>
> >>AAWWW, bernie, so you aren't MAN enough to visit me by yourself.
> >>You gutless piss weak old shit eater.
> >>
> >
> >
> > My nephews live close to you, I on the otherhand have to travel up
> > from Melbourne and my pension does not give me enough to spend on
> > Airfares.
> >
>
>
> Obviously filthy lying shit-eater bernie must have been a failure in
> life if it is too broke to travel from one side of ausie to another.
Hardly one side to the other. About 560 miles, an easy day drive unles
you're a disese infested shit dribbling poofter like bernie bum bandit
would be.
>
> Must have been those doctor bills for the multiple venereal diseases
> that it has caught ever since it chose to be a filthy faggot, ehh Bernie ?
That and buying off parents when bernie was a prime boy fucker supect
in his school teacher days.
>
> hahaha
>
> haha
Steven
>
> This is quite correct, child molesters come in all sexual
> orientations; homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual et al.
> The type of child molester who calls himself a "boylover" however
> will claim that having sexual intercourse with little boys has always
> been a integral component of male homosexuality.
Where the hell do you get this kind of information?
>
> >Have you
> > ever thought that perhaps the reason that priests in the Catholic church
> > abuse boys is because of their being forbidden to have female mates?
For, a
> > boy looks a lot like a girl. If these priests were simply homosexual,
then
> > they would have sex with each other rather than boys. Boys don't look
like
> > men: they're hairless, of smaller build, and come about as close to a
> > feminine (lacking breasts and genetalia of course) figure as these men
have
> > access to. Their molestation of boys is likely a result of their being
> > forced to abstain from females, and has nothing to do with their being
> > homosexual.
>
> This hypothesises in utterly absurd. Priests having sex with males,
> especially little boys is just as forbidden, if not more so, than a
> priest having sex with a woman.
Yes, but since they have easier access to little boys, they are more apt to
use them. They generally keep nuns and priests apart. These places are a bit
like prisons. In prison, even heterosexuals will most likely experience a
homosexual experience.
> Sex with a woman one is not married to is considered fornication, if
> she's married it's considered adultery. Sex between two males however,
> is considered to be an abomination.
Most people do consider it to be an abomination. This is unfortunate, and is
a challenge that must be overcome. I hope, that like interracial marriage,
women's rights, and equal opportunity were once hopes, realized today. I
hope that we can look to a future where homosexuals are allowed all the
rights that are given to heterosexuals, as is their due.
> Catholic priests are not having sex with little boys in order to keep
> to their vows or to avoid breaking any rules.
They do it because they cannot resist their natures, the urge to mate is too
strong for them.
> Many men become priests as a cover for their not showing any carnal
> interest in woman and never wanting to date one or get married.
so you're saying that no one becomes a priest to serve God, and then happens
to slip his dong into another priest's? How come God doesn't tell the leader
of that religion (since they're in communion) what is going on? Do you think
that God thinks it ok, and not worth mentioning? Get rid of the fags outside
the church, but inside it's okay? This is some weird logic of yours.
>>It's a
> great way for a "boylover" to stay in the closet and simultaneously be
> revered by family and friends in the process. And it's also a great
> set up for a "boylover" to get at little boys, that's also why one
> sees so many "boylovers" who are also teachers, coaches, boy scout
> (and the like) leaders etc.
How do you make an exclusive case for homosexuals in this kind of conduct?
Steven
> *nothing* to do with homosexuality, especially when much of
> gay porn includes smallish 18-19 year old males who have had
> their body hair trimmed as to look even younger?
And heterosexual porn has smallish 18-19 year old females who have shaved
their body hair to look even younger. What is your point? Homosexuals are
not exclusive in this case.
>
> Ethnographically speaking, boylove has always been considered
> a subcategory of homosexuality--and one of the most common
> categories to boot.
Even our ancient masters, Plato/Socrates I have in mind, believed that there
should be age limits to sexual conduct.
> Mind you, I'm not saying all this to bash gays, but to simply
> say that we should be for real tolerance, not pseudo-tolerance.
> Boylove is with us because it's simply a part of human nature,
> as is homosexuality in general. Any review of primate biology
> and human cultures should make that loud and clear.
But how is boylove a phenomenon exclusive to homosexuals? How does this make
them unusual, or stand out, or unworthy of retaining rights enjoyed by the
heterosexual majority, and deny them to the homosexual minority?
Letao
Secret Squirrel <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
It's probably no less related to the desire heterosexual men have for
partners who shave their body hair and use makeup in an effort to make
themselves appear younger and more child-like, and thereby more
attractive, to the heterosexual men.
Ethnographically speaking, girllove has always been a subcategory of
heterosexuality--and one of the most common categories to boot. Just
look at the history of betrothals of child brides.
I'm not saying this to bash straights, but to simply say that we should
be for real tolerance, not pseudo-tolerance when it comes to
heterosexual men loving girls. It's simply part of human nature, as any
cursory review of primate biology and human culture should make
blatantly clear.
</sarcasm>
It's one thing to examine human sexuality as it exists and is manifest.
It's another to confuse what exists with what is good and/or appropriate
for children. What existed in the past, in different cultures and
different contexts, cannot be automatically said to be appropriate to
current cultural contexts.
Ralph
>ra...@aikorn.com wrote
> > > Not all child molesters are gay, nor are all gays child molesters.
> >
> > This is quite correct, child molesters come in all sexual
> > orientations; homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual et al.
> > The type of child molester who calls himself a "boylover" however
> > will claim that having sexual intercourse with little boys has always
> > been a integral component of male homosexuality.
>
> Where the hell do you get this kind of information?
From the five years I've spent in alt.support.boy-lovers off and on,
from a multitude of "boylovers" themselves.
> > >Have you
> > > ever thought that perhaps the reason that priests in the Catholic church
> > > abuse boys is because of their being forbidden to have female mates?
> For, a
> > > boy looks a lot like a girl. If these priests were simply homosexual,
> then
> > > they would have sex with each other rather than boys. Boys don't look
> like
> > > men: they're hairless, of smaller build, and come about as close to a
> > > feminine (lacking breasts and genetalia of course) figure as these men
> have
> > > access to. Their molestation of boys is likely a result of their being
> > > forced to abstain from females, and has nothing to do with their being
> > > homosexual.
> >
> > This hypothesises in utterly absurd. Priests having sex with males,
> > especially little boys is just as forbidden, if not more so, than a
> > priest having sex with a woman.
>
> Yes, but since they have easier access to little boys, they are more apt to
> use them. They generally keep nuns and priests apart. These places are a bit
> like prisons. In prison, even heterosexuals will most likely experience a
> homosexual experience.
Maybe you live near some sequestered monastery that's on an island.
Any Catholic priests I've ever known of in my lifetime were able to go
out in public and visit with the community, and in plain clothes.
"Boylover" priests molest choir boys for the same reasons "boylover"
troop leaders molest boy scouts or "boylover" teachers molest school
boys.
> > Sex with a woman one is not married to is considered fornication, if
> > she's married it's considered adultery. Sex between two males however,
> > is considered to be an abomination.
>
> Most people do consider it to be an abomination. This is unfortunate, and is
> a challenge that must be overcome.
The point is, no Catholic priest is having sex with little boys
because women are forbidden, that assertion is ludicrous.
> > Catholic priests are not having sex with little boys in order to keep
> > to their vows or to avoid breaking any rules.
>
> They do it because they cannot resist their natures, the urge to mate is too
> strong for them.
Society doesn't give a shit about the needs of these victimising
predators, we care more about protecting little boys who are being
victimized.
> > Many men become priests as a cover for their not showing any carnal
> > interest in woman and never wanting to date one or get married.
>
> so you're saying that no one becomes a priest to serve God, and then happens
> to slip his dong into another priest's?
Don't be an idiot, I said "boylovers" seek to become priests for the
reasons sited above.
>How come God doesn't tell the leader
> of that religion (since they're in communion) what is going on? Do you think
> that God thinks it ok, and not worth mentioning?
That's a question one supposes only God could answer. God according to
Catholic beliefs however, gave them a brain to figure things out for
themselves, it's up to them on how they use it.
> Get rid of the fags outside
> the church, but inside it's okay? This is some weird logic of yours.
That's not my logic you're spouting, but your own, as I never brought
God into this subject.
> >>It's a
> > great way for a "boylover" to stay in the closet and simultaneously be
> > revered by family and friends in the process. And it's also a great
> > set up for a "boylover" to get at little boys, that's also why one
> > sees so many "boylovers" who are also teachers, coaches, boy scout
> > (and the like) leaders etc.
>
> How do you make an exclusive case for homosexuals in this kind of conduct?
It's not an exclusive case for homosexuals.
I already made it clear that I don't consider the sexual molestation
of little boys to be exclusive to homosexuality.
Try to keep up Steven, I really hate it when I have to chew my cabbage
twice because someone isn't paying attention.
More logical reasoning and less emotional reaction would help you to
stay on track better as well.
Ralph
No One
> "Steven" <wordsworm@(erase)hotmail.com> wrote
> >ra...@aikorn.com wrote
>
> > > The type of child molester who calls himself a "boylover" however
> > > will claim that having sexual intercourse with little boys has always
> > > been a integral component of male homosexuality.
> >
> > Where the hell do you get this kind of information?
>
> From the five years I've spent in alt.support.boy-lovers off and on,
> from a multitude of "boylovers" themselves.
I've never been to driving school as a result of a ticket, due to a
lack of citations, but people who have tell me that you'll hear the
most amazing explanations of why a ticket was not really deserved.
If you are not completely making this up, my guess is that your
"friends" are trying to gain some respectability. And what are
*you* doing in that group, anyway?
PS. I've trimmed the newsgroups -- as far as I'm concerned any
group with the name 'boylovers' is one I don't want to post to
in any way, shape, or form.
Steven
> > > > Not all child molesters are gay, nor are all gays child molesters.
> > >
> > > This is quite correct, child molesters come in all sexual
> > > orientations; homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual et al.
> > > The type of child molester who calls himself a "boylover" however
> > > will claim that having sexual intercourse with little boys has always
> > > been a integral component of male homosexuality.
> >
> > Where the hell do you get this kind of information?
>
> From the five years I've spent in alt.support.boy-lovers off and on,
> from a multitude of "boylovers" themselves.
So you've studied a specific interest group and have decided that they
represent all gays? What kind of logic is that?
> Maybe you live near some sequestered monastery that's on an island.
> Any Catholic priests I've ever known of in my lifetime were able to go
> out in public and visit with the community, and in plain clothes.
> "Boylover" priests molest choir boys for the same reasons "boylover"
> troop leaders molest boy scouts or "boylover" teachers molest school
> boys.
You mean it is because of their position of power. Are you suggesting that
power corrupts? If this is the case, I'd tend to agree with you. But this is
a phenomenon that has nothing to do with gender preference, and is a human
trait rather than a homosexual one (exclusively that is).
> The point is, no Catholic priest is having sex with little boys
> because women are forbidden, that assertion is ludicrous.
How often do you think Catholic priests and nuns get together singly?
> Society doesn't give a shit about the needs of these victimising
> predators, we care more about protecting little boys who are being
> victimized.
Perhaps if society cared about the "victimizing predators", we can stop the
problem at the source. There is no better weapon against an enemy than
friendship, caring, and understanding. Predators are people too.
> Don't be an idiot, I said "boylovers" seek to become priests for the
> reasons sited above.
And where is God when these people win their appointments to become priests
for his church? At any rate, you may not be religious, so perhaps this is a
futile argument. Nonetheless, I think you'd have a tough time finding
evidence to support this statement (which means that I don't believe you).
>
> That's a question one supposes only God could answer. God according to
> Catholic beliefs however, gave them a brain to figure things out for
> themselves, it's up to them on how they use it.
Now that is a load of crap. All these religious fanatics believe that
they're in communion with God (which is an indication of pschizophrenia, and
this is why there isn't an all knowing deity saving young boys).
>
> > Get rid of the fags outside
> > the church, but inside it's okay? This is some weird logic of yours.
>
> That's not my logic you're spouting, but your own, as I never brought
> God into this subject.
True, it's just that I find it that most people who hate homosexuals use God
as a counterargument.
> > How do you make an exclusive case for homosexuals in this kind of
conduct?
>
> It's not an exclusive case for homosexuals.
> I already made it clear that I don't consider the sexual molestation
> of little boys to be exclusive to homosexuality.
Well then, I can't disagree here.
> Try to keep up Steven, I really hate it when I have to chew my cabbage
> twice because someone isn't paying attention.
Well, if this is the worst thing that happens to you today, count yourself a
lucky man.
> More logical reasoning and less emotional reaction would help you to
> stay on track better as well.
The same can be said for everyone, including yourself (some things are
universal). Unfortunately, these are human faults.
So, do you believe that homosexuality should be permitted, and condoned by
the government via giving them the right to marry?
p.s., I've not been cruising boy-lovers, I'm answering through
alt.politics.homosexuality.
Secret Squirrel
"Steven" <wordsworm@(erase)hotmail.com> wrote in
news:7Dwfb.55813$yV2.8...@weber.videotron.net:
>> Don't you think it's a stretch to say that liking boys has
>> *nothing* to do with homosexuality, especially when much
>> of gay porn includes smallish 18-19 year old males who
>> have had their body hair trimmed as to look even younger?
>
> And heterosexual porn has smallish 18-19 year old females
> who have shaved their body hair to look even younger. What
> is your point? Homosexuals are not exclusive in this case.
I didn't claim that homosexuals were. Pedosexuality, along
with what we call heterosexuality and homosexuality, is
simply part of human nature. We're all mixes of these three
sexualities. The adjectives "heterosexual", "homosexual"
and "pedosexual" we use simply were one drive predominates
in a person or thing.
Our closest primate cousins sex-wise--bonobo chimpanzees,
who share with humans the unique trait of continuous
female sexual receptivity (bonobos, like humans, don't
have "mating seasons"), also practice homosexuality
and pedosexuality. Moreover, bonobo males also will share
their food with youngsters, something that common chimp
males don't do. Bonobo society can be described as a
constant series of exchanges--sex for sex, and sex for
food, all which serves to serve to smooth over conflicts
and keep things peaceful. And it works--while common
chimps, baboons, and orang-utans occasionally kill one
another, a bonobo has never been observed killing another
bonobo, either in captivity or in the wild. They quite
literally make love and not war.
So the bottom line is: I believe that humans are
inherently pedosexual because pedosexuality gets
human adults, particulary human males, interested in the
welfare of human young. Kids are "cute" because of
pedosexuality and the "good father" comes home every
night and hugs his kids because he's part "pedophile",
just as what we call "homosexuality" exists to strenghten
same-sex relationships. Like in bonobos, there's at
least a latent sexual attraction underlying all of this--
which is also why people in this society at least get
all hysterical when anyone suggests that there is an
element of homosexuality in, say, football players
or an element of pedosexuality in the adult who loves
and takes care of children.
Now, you may legitimately ask: since we humans share
with peaceful bonobos this pansexuality, and it's an axiom
that similar traits in similar species probably exist to
serve similar ends, Then why do humans practice war? The
answer lies that human cultural evolution (contrasted with
our biological evolutionary heritage) favored war once
human populations grew large enough to undergo population
stress, especially since the Neolithic revolution 12,000
years ago (what Jared Diamond and others have called
"humanity's worst mistake"). War became a "solution"
for cultures under population stress, and with war came
states, organized religions, increasing (and largely female)
infanticide, male domination over women, increased sexual
repression, ruling elites and oppressed commoners or slaves,
and a lot of other really ugly things. War was hardly a
pleasant "solution" to the problem of human population
stress, and indeed it takes a LOT of brutalization and
desensitization to turn young males into warriors, but
once *one* society turned to war as a solution to its
population problem, all of its neighbors had to follow
suit or be exteriminated. War is ubiquitous for reasons
relating to our *cultural* history as humans; it is
actually contradictory to our *biological* natures that
is exhibited by our bonobo-like sexuality. Deep down,
we're not "killer apes" at all, but horny chimps.
>> Ethnographically speaking, boylove has always been
>> considered a subcategory of homosexuality--and one of the
>> most common categories to boot.
>
> Even our ancient masters, Plato/Socrates I have in mind,
> believed that there should be age limits to sexual conduct.
But they vary all over the place, suggesting that these are
merely the artificial creations of the culture in question.
Among the Eastern Highland Papua New Guinea peoples, who
believe that that boys need to have sex with men to avoid
becoming effeminate, boys start having sex with their elders
at 6 or 7. Among Cherokees and many other Native American
peoples, it was said that boys were "experts" at homosexual
conduct by age 13 or 14 or so; and sometimes this would
involve relationships with elder males. In the Greco-Roman-
Mediterraen world, boys were considered beautiful from the
onset of puberty until the growth of body and facial hair.
Until recently, under Western pressure, Thailand had *no*
age of consent for boys, and even looking at the age of
consent for various Western states it varies all over the
place--from 21 to as young as 12. Also when you look at
cultures which allow it, there is no traumatization or
guilt or angst at all--Sambian men from New Guinea who had
homosexual sex with elders from age 6 or 7 onwards, when
queried by Gilbert Herdt, recall their boyhood liasions
with the fond remembrances of the pleasures of youth,
sort of the way that we recall our boyhood baseball games
and camping trips. Age limits are all cultural creations,
there's nothing inherently biological about them at all.
(Note too: most of the Catholic church scandals, insofar
as I've heard, have involved teenagers, where in many cases
the sex itself would have been completely legal in other
countries, which is why much of the world wonder why the
US has gone besonkers on this subject. True, these scandals
would have still involved a misuse of office and an abuse
of trust, but it would have been more on par with a priest
who was having sex with one of his adult female parishoners).
>> Mind you, I'm not saying all this to bash gays, but to
>> simply say that we should be for real tolerance, not
>> pseudo-tolerance. Boylove is with us because it's simply a
>> part of human nature, as is homosexuality in general. Any
>> review of primate biology and human cultures should make
>> that loud and clear.
>
> But how is boylove a phenomenon exclusive to homosexuals?
> How does this make them unusual, or stand out, or unworthy
> of retaining rights enjoyed by the heterosexual majority,
> and deny them to the homosexual minority?
"Boylove" has generally a term applied to adult male lovers
of boys; although there are females who like boys too they
don't usually come to mind in the genre. Most of the
opposition to boylovers come from those who are vociferously
anti-homosexual in general, who believe that homosexuality
is some "disease" that can be "caught" by youngsters; just
witness the trolls in alt.support.boy-lovers.
The last gasp of the old puritanical sexual repression is
concerning pedosexuality. Deep down, the people who would like
to go back to the "good ole days" of both heterosexual
repression and homosexual persecution realize that humans
ARE like bonobos, that our pansexuality runs so deep that if
you miss out the opportunity to drill into youngsters' heads
sexual repression and sexaphobia and prejudice (sex is "bad
touching"; masturbation is a sin and will turn you insane,
same-sex contact is something that only despised "queers"
do, etc., etc., etc.) then the game's over; they won't listen
to that garbage as adults. Unfortunately likewise, too-many
pseudo-"progressives" suffer under the same fallacy, that
you can teach youngsters' sexual repression and then have
them grow up into sexually comfortable and well-adjusted
adults. That won't happen either.
The truth is, until we can at last accept, that with
modern methods of birth control and proper education of
disease prevention, that sex is essentially *harmless* and
has far fewer adverse consequences, than say driving an
automobile, and as such it's *not* some big, involved
"deal" that society must bless and regulate in order to
legitimize, that no one's sexual freedom will be secure.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBP34NgT/rA6+b3AyhAQG//wgAhdMngtlFaBAnUAymEMUXS0ZvY0r0KK47
RPZmlcle26Ar6rqkRVlkPf9mo4ze+B4R7LtGt5jAYuVmmWwc8BhDVfH2yq1Giyoa
AXRmbwu4pbMzhX0X9gcnPrfVBZpDMZQbAEEfuTg7jCPyZkWMI7nCEnP5/3vcD5ZH
nVVYg6wQTm/l1Za5MPHku1tAI2eSwPLhTJFIcAoW/RD2AiwFDUzF5NqhNDsJ++7u
JbUZzyEZah43H5KY2BXDXlU+2BcWoprQP0kNlBOTCfAgX4IHh2ahxWUlyy/VbrMs
4u7htEkIc7+XzmOpY4nxlBddXmjzfxfMljVnnwps+U/gRKZh6zy+Ew==
=6Wpi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Secret Squirrel
Letao <le...@fire.and.fishing.net> wrote in
news:letao-E638A5....@netnews.attbi.com:
What is "appropriate for children" is just culturespeak,
mindless doubleplusgoodspeak and kowtowing to current
social norms. Once it was "appropriate" to own slaves,
hold women to be second-class people, and persecute gays.
OTH, why not use more objective criteria? Why not judge
actions by their material, measurable, veriable consequences?
By that standard, the only thing likely to result from sex
or any kind, irregardless of gender or age, properly done,
is orgasms.
> What existed in
> the past, in different cultures and different contexts,
> cannot be automatically said to be appropriate to current
> cultural contexts.
But they are likely truer to our biological heritage. Why is
it necessary to wage war against human sexual biology?
It's somewhat normal now to persecute gays and hold them
as second-class citizens; that's what society deems
"appropriate". You buy into that too?
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBP34NgT/rA6+b3AyhAQED7gf8C5/Zb1PMTYv6xSAm2nfhq6VLxAJFvpwD
fQQQILQsFgVaFTvWqAndWq0SaNKCVkrGg9U2fWyXcBRDOIPjoRB22oJRv3/hk7Nl
2HMyreo/XvKoxaeSmB5deOi5Fszync2xswgBxgiFQ7b3w25TO73qSETWDtqLCJl9
xriyNV77wABz+uHjIF7ErnjPBOu1iOrU0lAO3DyoOBhb1BE6uNKOd3FB1qk3/Xso
J1QMWb2ybGBd4ruC6Kk9a36RZvvFH2/6a2mgfC+PZl5MUmBuP0Gqb5SJhrxBwer7
9nOKVtWwdkWe0ua8f66jTwMJYrTcy//hOtmrdqo5dq5Z9W77DqxMJA==
=p8IM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Death
"Bernard Hubbard" <bern...@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote in message
news:Xns940A907572E4C...@203.134.67.67...
Letao
Secret Squirrel <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Letao <le...@fire.and.fishing.net> wrote in
> news:letao-E638A5....@netnews.attbi.com:
>
> > In article <9PQWNUAK37897.8079282407@Gilgamesh-frog.org>,
> > Secret Squirrel <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
>
> > </sarcasm>
> >
> > It's one thing to examine human sexuality as it exists and
> > is manifest. It's another to confuse what exists with what
> > is good and/or appropriate for children.
>
> What is "appropriate for children" is just culturespeak,
> mindless doubleplusgoodspeak and kowtowing to current
> social norms. Once it was "appropriate" to own slaves,
> hold women to be second-class people, and persecute gays.
And right now, it is appropriate to protect children from sexual
predators and sexual activity they are unable to understand as would an
adult. There may be some future time when sex is considered by a
culture to be appropriate for children. That time is not here and not
now. And I'm not holding my breath.
> OTH, why not use more objective criteria? Why not judge
> actions by their material, measurable, veriable consequences?
> By that standard, the only thing likely to result from sex
> or any kind, irregardless of gender or age, properly done,
> is orgasms.
Depends on what you're looking for when you're doing the measuring,
doesn't it? If you're interested in measuring psychological reactions
and subsequent behavior changes, then you'd have criteria for taking and
analyzing those measurements.
> > What existed in
> > the past, in different cultures and different contexts,
> > cannot be automatically said to be appropriate to current
> > cultural contexts.
>
> But they are likely truer to our biological heritage. Why is
> it necessary to wage war against human sexual biology?
Each culture does it differently; and not all cultures wage war against
biology. In the North American culture, it is considered appropriate
for young teens to wait before engaging in sex, generally speaking. In
the Pacific Island culture where I lived for eight years, it was
considered appropriate for a young teen girl who had entered puberty to
be deflowered by someone older than herself, but still within the same
culturally-appropriate age classification, which was approximately up to
30 years of age. Many in North America would consider the sexual
practices of the islanders shocking if not offensive.
> It's somewhat normal now to persecute gays and hold them
> as second-class citizens; that's what society deems
> "appropriate". You buy into that too?
Obviously not. But I recognize the difference between an adult and a
child. I consider adults able to make their own informed choices.
Children are much less capable of doing the same.
Death
That explains why prof perv is broke
William J. Wolfe
You, bernie shit eter, are making noises like a whipped and beaten
rectum reaming arse licking poofter, POOFTER.
Bernard Hubbard
> James Riske <james...@REMOVETHISmail15.com> wrote in message
Shit you have a vivid if faulty imagimation wolfie. I am not and
have never been a school teacher. Why don't you use your police
contacts Oh Superior Security CUNTsultant and find out what I
actually did for all those years at Melbourne University. It
shouldn't be to hard. I will actually give you the faculty name
for starters. It was the School of Commerce and Economics. Your
police mates may also be able to tell you a little about the
history of the Commerce Building and why you can see the internal
levels which don't match up with the external features.
Bernard Hubbard
news:2WBMMPFP378...@Gilgamesh-frog.org:
No wonder you call yourself *Secret Squirrel* as your logic is the
most *Squirrely* I have ever come across. Grow up.
--
William J. Wolfe
Well done, you stupid old poofter. You see, bernie shit eater, You
have so many times in the past try to make out that I am telling lies
about you and your sordid perversions. Now, bernie rectum reamer, I am
letting you tell your own story. Next, shit for brains, we will watch
as you reveal your criminal history to us.
Stay stupid, you slimey shit stanied old poofter. Yeah, fucking wanker
ecomomics. We all know about that waste of space crap, ya brain dead
left wing wanker.
Death
"Bernard Hubbard" <bern...@iprimus.light.au.com
>
> Shit you have a vivid if faulty imagimation wolfie. I am not and
> have never been a school teacher. Why don't you use your police
> contacts Oh Superior Security CUNTsultant and find out what I
> actually did for all those years at Melbourne University. It
> shouldn't be to hard. I will actually give you the faculty name
> for starters. It was the School of Commerce and Economics.
Lets see, you were not a student or a teacher, yet you hung around school,
um.................pervert?
the last time we had this discussion you were a tutor at home, am I missing
parts of a story here or
are you making it up as you go?
Secret Squirrel
"Steven" <wordsworm@(erase)hotmail.com> wrote in
news:p3Gfb.60067$1M6.1...@wagner.videotron.net:
(Ralph? wrote)
>> It's not an exclusive case for homosexuals.
>> I already made it clear that I don't consider the sexual
>> molestation of little boys to be exclusive to
>> homosexuality.
>
> Well then, I can't disagree here.
Yet, Ralph and Steve Ames on alt.support.boy-lovers readily
embrace in their "crusade" as compatriots the worst racists
and homophobes and neo-Nazis, people like Death! and Riske
and Wiliger and others. He's glad to link arm-in-arm with
them to sing the Horst Wessel song. They *NEVER* take issue
with any racist or homophobe there, never even trying to
meekly correct them.
That says something, doesn't it?
Steven: Ralph is NOT your friend, judging by who he allies
with. We boylovers, OTH, are your friends and DO support
gay rights (of all kinds). Don't be misled.
> p.s., I've not been cruising boy-lovers, I'm answering
> through alt.politics.homosexuality.
Feel welcome to drop in.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBP39fAT/rA6+b3AyhAQHvdQgAr+CDlKcy1Mmz8WtFfvteOIEz+y+PRbAi
fPt6Guvu9zIk6ASu7Etxh1QHI0szMB1+39j82ZYHrSAsCTgziyOoylYlm7oWyMFn
vSRUmJf3qD9yuln4QB1Nb80ElX1xvnfgz+gI0XDqiHTYeQNLUqLeAnoDSRtQJ8mo
8ZT50kfsAmd78OqdA4vsYhdkaZuk9ALEWhaMxTrxTA/bIIh7xTqqo2kGD04ItCgX
CXjj7LDXdthdEzPpAq+pGLA8j0AP69u68lUwjSntGEJEJluJKQJivjlzYzfhXBic
+hhbZJOYw9jY8Z11stBvmKS9CJGYccod6ltmcQ96YaFRVVIFurCr5A==
=BmhV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Work Work Work
healthy and perfectly okay for adults like yourself to engage in sex
with BABY boys. Or that it is normal for people to engage in sex with
animals.Even other boy lovers think you and your kind are sick. No
wonder anyone with any normal decency would never want to be associated
with you and your sick beliefs.
Secret Squirrel
Bernard Hubbard <bern...@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote in
news:Xns940BBB9EECC93...@203.134.67.67:
> Secret Squirrel <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote in
> news:2WBMMPFP378...@Gilgamesh-frog.org:
>> So the bottom line is: I believe that humans are
>> inherently pedosexual because pedosexuality gets
>> human adults, particulary human males, interested in the
>> welfare of human young. Kids are "cute" because of
>> pedosexuality and the "good father" comes home every
>> night and hugs his kids because he's part "pedophile",
>
>
>
> No wonder you call yourself *Secret Squirrel*
"Secret Squirrel", for your information, is the moniker that
was given to me on alt.support.boy-lovers, where I've been
posting for the past 5 years or so, as it was the name of
the German remailer that I habitually used as the last one
in the chain. That remailer is now gone, until the new Type
III protocol gets ironed out, and I've asked the regulars if
I should change it, but they say they're happy for me to keep
it as it is.
> as your logic
> is the most *Squirrely* I have ever come across. Grow up.
Then it should be most easy for you to point out the flaws
therein, right?
I can give you lots and lots of reading material if you
so choose, if you want to further your education. Most of
what I post is from mainstream academia, you can go read it
all yourself, All I am doing here is to put 2 + 2 + 2
together, and show you that from biology/anthropology/
history/psychology it presents a coherent whole. Boylove
is just a facet of homosexuality; take any gay studies
class and you'll see that, and moreover what you're
calling "pedophilia" exists because it's natural for it
to exist--just like homosexuality is natural in humans.
Maybe you'd like a quote from Bruce Bagemilh, who published
a ground-breaking study on animal homosexuality a year or two
ago:
"One of the most significant results to emerge from the
study of human *homosexuality* (my emphasis) over the past
few decades is the enormous variety of forms that this
activity takes. From pederasty or "boy love" in ancient
Greece, to ritualized homosexual initiation in New Guinea,
to butch-femme lesbian relationships, to situational
homosexuality in prisons, to contemporary gay North American
couples--*homosexuality* (my emphasis) has assumed many
guises acros history, cultures, and social situations".
- ----
Note that two of the above examples (Greece and New
Guinea) deal with man/boy sexuality. Yet in scholarly
studies this is NOT called "pedophilia" but classified
rightly under the general rubric of *homosexuality*.
Boylove is just another flavor of homosexuality; it
was recognized as that back in the Stonewall days.
Or to put it from a gay rights publication I still have:
"...In the past twenty years, our movement has lost
sight of its *diversity*. Our movement has forgotten that
it is made up of drag queens, butch lesbians, s/m leather
boys, vegetarians, day-glo hippies, radical faeries,
separatist lesbians, *boy lovers* (my emphasis), queer
anarchists, witches, queer punks, pagans, and everyone
else who is most concerned with being oneself. Let's
remind everyone of who we are, and what we stand for.
Our visibility can help create a consciousness for a new,
more radical culture that fucking loves diversity, and
loves *fucking* diversity."
As Camille Paglia says, gay rights is all just another
facet of human rights; trying to transform society to
tolerate and accept real human freedom, not just trying
to get accepted by the powers-that-be. You should keep
that in mind.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBP39fAT/rA6+b3AyhAQH9TAf/aXHx/U55it9P9nbawc3cmbDBryRR2ggQ
LfYR/bP1ynhEpMLEd1a85hN9gZztCePzmxGDJa6dg8zPcD2Qw4oA6apUY47CacG4
hJwS9hr86r5q0fpd7r/bfO9RwCHw8fcifxS4jzUElvKYhknSjfhFROe1L40yQ1/M
3YJ2KovISafeidE3lX2w8/KxyOJoxBo4A4144bNF7KFpq4ZGB37IqRLLSXyGNVa+
BQp/510gu/lH7hWHBJnPGRkcMOIvxrOndwXnpd/NJSKX66ejvgaKGoKOHAzhQGRl
g4GuaalIFlTZ2YDMl3uVOCD+I1zF2zYoO87ycn5SyvzX2PkAmByC/Q==
=gydz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Secret Squirrel
Letao <le...@fire.and.fishing.net> wrote in
news:letao-3D2EAD....@netnews.attbi.com:
Broken up my response into sub-parts. Part I:
> In article <IKIXNFFU3789...@Gilgamesh-frog.org>,
> Secret Squirrel <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
>> > It's one thing to examine human sexuality as it exists
>> > and is manifest. It's another to confuse what exists
>> > with what is good and/or appropriate for children.
>>
>> What is "appropriate for children" is just culturespeak,
>> mindless doubleplusgoodspeak and kowtowing to current
>> social norms. Once it was "appropriate" to own slaves,
>> hold women to be second-class people, and persecute gays.
>
> And right now, it is appropriate to protect children from
> sexual predators
If you're talking about the Ted Bundys of the world, then
I'm all for that. But that's not you're talking about, no?
You're talking about activities the kids freely consent
to doing, if I understand you correctly. (Note too: it's
the sexaphobic US, which teaches its kids that sex is "bad
touching", that seems to produce the most Ted Bundys and
John Wayne Gacys).
Would you like someone prohibiting your sexuality, as was
once done, to "protect" you and society? Are you willing
to fall under the same arbitrary judgement? There are plenty
here who would leap at the opportunity to apply the same
socially "appropriate" standards you're using to *you*.
You've just opened the door for them.
> and sexual activity they are unable to
> understand as would an adult.
What's there to understand about an orgasm? Did nature
screw up? Human children are BORN sexual, a toddler can
have an orgasm. If sex-for-children were so harmful, if
you were correct, then we'd not be like bonobos at all--
we'd be born non-responsive until age 18 or so. We've
had seven million years of evolutionary separation for
that to happen--plenty of time. Yet it hasn't. Why?
The only answer which makes any sense is that kids
engaging in sex in prehistory offered humans at best an
evolutionary advantage (group cohesion; again bonobos)
or at worst it was neutral. If it were harmful, natural
selection would have taken care of it.
So it short, nature didn't apparently "think" that it
was necessary for kids to have some big, heavy,
"understanding" about sex before engaging in it. That's
a lie that adults tell themselves in order to justify
repressing childhood sexuality.
> There may be some future
> time when sex is considered by a culture to be appropriate
> for children. That time is not here and not now. And I'm
> not holding my breath.
Our current cultural trajectory has cross-currents in it.
In one way you're right, we are prolonging childhood (note
during the Monica Lewinsky affair how Lewinsky, a 23-year
old, was viewed by some as almost a victimized, helpless,
"child"). This is due to the current mode of production
that the First World is in, where to earn a living and to
support offspring one (particularly to support them well)
one must first undergo years and years of specialized
training.
But sometimes I think there's another reason we're trying
to extend neotony. And that's mere self-interest; as the
populations in the First World age, oldsters have in their
self-interest to deny prospects and activities to the young
in order to reserve them for themselves; to cut out the
competition under the guise of "protection". We deny kids
the ability to do lots of things that they have demonstrated
in the past that they're perfectly capable of doing.
Remember Robin Graham c. 1970, who at the age of 15 sailed
a small boat (_Dove) around the world solo? Can you imagine
a 15-year old being allowed to do that today? And are you
also going to justify laws that says a 15-year olds who can
sail a boat around the world can't possibly "handle" sex
and orgasms?.
The last current against childhood sexual freedom are the
increasing spread of English being as the world language,
and the cultural "memes" that come with it. Note that the
anti-pedo hysteria was kicked off in the US by the religious
right, and spread through the English language to "infect"
other English-speaking countries the most quickly--the UK,
Hubbard's Australia, and the rest of the old British
commonwealth. Countries where English is not widely used,
especially Far Eastern countries like Thailand, have a hard
time understanding what the fuss is all about. As English
continues to be more widely used, the values carried within
it (and if you're sharp you'll detect the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis at work here) will spread as well.
OTH, thankfully there are also powerful trends at work FOR
childhood sexual freedom. First there's contraception and
birth control techniques; the original reason why human
cultures taught sexual repression was as part of a population
control strategy. While humans, like bonobos, have always
used sex more for its social implications than for its
reproductive one, cheap and widely available birth control
methods means at last the two have been effectively decoupled.
This means that although we as a society may have a
legitimate reason in wanting to prolong the age until
people have kids until they've absorbed the necessary
education and training, there is no corresponding need to
prevent them from having orgasms with whomever they choose.
The second is the internet, which allows kids to explore
sexuality away from the prying eyes of "authorities" (and
gives them a truer picture of sexual variety of its
manifestations than the milquetoast proclamations of
said "authorities"). Kids are logging on the internet and
talking about you-know-what, much to the horror of parents
and teachers and government officials.
Which brings us to the last point: the sexual freedom
that most adults demand for themselves. Bernard and Steven
and you can't go around telling the world how great sex
is, you can't have it being broadcasted on TV and rapped
out in song, and then expect kids to not to want to
participate too. Already some "child pornography" is
being posted on the 'net of kids who are posting *self-
pictures*, which really screws up the victimization
rationale used as a reason for its prohibition (like,
are they the "evil pornographer" or the "innocent
victim"?). Too many liberals suffer under the illusion
that it's possible to have sexually liberated adults
and sexually repressed kids, Conservatives, despite their
many faults and misperceptions, at least have this part
right: if you want to repress sexuality, if you want to
keep kids sex-free, then you have to do it across the
board, and adults have to go back into the closet about
their sexuality too.
And most adults I know aren't about to cashier *their*
sexual and artistic freedom, or demand that all pornography
sites be blocked, or whatnot. So this trend will continue.
And eventually, the kids will be free. I predict that the
collapse of this repression, when it happens, will be with
astonishing suddenness, just like how the USSR seemed so
strong and so invincible and yet, poof!, in a few years
it was gone. Because our system of sexual repression of
kids is rotting away, like the Soviet state, from the
inside. Already you have the first intellectual doubters:
Paglia, Levine, the meta-analysis by Rind et. al, etc.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBP39fAT/rA6+b3AyhAQETYAgAjQdACpI5FWW8LYYuY2wwbElOykGcIZKU
kpCQHTi1BG3uhqIyv/SUh1Tl+ZkdMvMUCSCCvQCXv8M63xgLtYAm36HAGSn8tMFi
wvVg7oXZq+xiyv/VOoQ58wOjVNSYclwrXoQ6RqSKPcgJPvEz6+Z3Bntd0PnpEau/
a2tNh9D5WICu6HkBfymuMe9ToHLC8o3IfX0O83iSroCp5dixg4uf3wZmRSy72FJ8
s3859FTTtTIgJKRH9Pu2mnnkVZqcO26BrkYUg8YrleyjJBjfduSs4KSceX+hIucn
wO7/fLtyT7CpiP7u3ZJIinwumwFzq3hyu6CBJ4KD9bhDCDCLi5semQ==
=y7wZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Secret Squirrel
Letao <le...@fire.and.fishing.net> wrote in
news:letao-3D2EAD....@netnews.attbi.com:
Broken up my response into sub-parts. Part III:
> In article <IKIXNFFU3789...@Gilgamesh-frog.org>,
> Secret Squirrel <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
>> > What existed in
>> > the past, in different cultures and different contexts,
>> > cannot be automatically said to be appropriate to
>> > current cultural contexts.
>>
>> But they are likely truer to our biological heritage. Why
>> is it necessary to wage war against human sexual biology?
>
> Each culture does it differently; and not all cultures wage
> war against biology. In the North American culture, it is
> considered appropriate for young teens to wait before
> engaging in sex, generally speaking. In the Pacific Island
> culture where I lived for eight years, it was considered
> appropriate for a young teen girl who had entered puberty
> to be deflowered by someone older than herself, but still
> within the same culturally-appropriate age classification,
> which was approximately up to 30 years of age. Many in
> North America would consider the sexual practices of the
> islanders shocking if not offensive.
But what we should be talking about is *objective reality*,
not simply applying a type of cultural moral relativism.
Unless you're also going to say that slavery is "right" if
the culture allows it. Or that the Aztecs were "right" in
killing and eating prisoners of war because they believed
appeasing the gods prevented them from destroying the world,
and so by doing so they were doing *everyone* a favor. Or
that the great witchcraft persecution of the 16th century,
which killed half a million people and justified it by
thinking that by burning people alive that they were
doing everyone a favor, the "witch" included, was also
"right".
You can judge whether something is either hurtful or
helpful by measuring whether or not someone is materially
harmed or helped by it, or whether they find it painful
or pleasurable. In all the examples I gave above slavery,
torture/cannibalism, and buring people alive fail that
test as being "good", no matter what the culture said
about it at the time. OTH, someone having sex with someone
of their choosing and consent, practicing acts of their
choosing and consent, is almost never "bad"; and in
the overwhelming majority of cases it's "good".
>> It's somewhat normal now to persecute gays and hold them
>> as second-class citizens; that's what society deems
>> "appropriate". You buy into that too?
>
> Obviously not. But I recognize the difference between an
> adult and a child. I consider adults able to make their
> own informed choices. Children are much less capable of
> doing the same.
Why? Again, why did nature equip kids as ready-for-sex if
they were not supposed to do it? That would seem very odd.
Are you saying that natural selection screwed up when it
came to humans, equiping them with instincts and responses
that would result if followed ?
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBP39fAT/rA6+b3AyhAQFJSAf+Imsbfk+NOrwgBNbfz4rnm/5cWZOycMiV
xJf8bhKYJnwGuJZaAghGvrqn2OgIuB2gMtEf0bnkX9RtchGgKF+fUqCZ5zByIRo7
8/PxC91RQ1VtRkMilpqLPEHrocAl6cb8QRTm0ma1LbQoOJTZ5JjTW9CpoQUVQk5Y
JDwFZ0w25WurwACsloMCcdZMTol5nzOTs14bw9z1Qtrzy5EcG8KWuIWMbry4uhdX
9mWz2sBj9EH/8HcYvYdgC5C3rS7MmGsVvkkZ6dp7Eit5XMwfgC6hzhf18/tilBmw
LM/HRgXI2L22OT6RGTZHwJHk6ChThnsyZoMmOtgoqzW6JrdcjfkdfA==
=35k1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ralph
>ra...@aikorn.com wrote:
>>"Steven"
>> <wordsworm@(erase)hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
> > > > > Not all child molesters are gay, nor are all gays child molesters.
> > > >
> > > > This is quite correct, child molesters come in all sexual
> > > > orientations; homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual et al.
> > > > The type of child molester who calls himself a "boylover" however
> > > > will claim that having sexual intercourse with little boys has always
> > > > been a integral component of male homosexuality.
> > >
> > > Where the hell do you get this kind of information?
> >
> > From the five years I've spent in alt.support.boy-lovers off and on,
> > from a multitude of "boylovers" themselves.
>
> So you've studied a specific interest group and have decided that they
> represent all gays? What kind of logic is that?
Steven, are you really this thick headed, or are you just stringing me
along?
If you'll look up you'll see that you wrote:
----------
>Not all child molesters are gay, nor are
>all gays child molesters.
------------
To which I replied:
-------------
>>This is quite correct, child molesters
>>come in all sexual orientations;
>> homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual et
>> al.
------------
If you study this real carefully you'll see that I'm agreeing with
you.
First of all, this is a cross posted thread in case you didn't realize
that, and I'm responding from alt.support.boy-lovers.
Secondly, I'm not speaking out against homosexuals or against same sex
marriages or against same sex couples adopting children.
I focus I one subject when posting here in alt.support.boy-lovers;
which is pathological adult pedophile child molesters that seek to
seduce little boys into deeply romantic and sexual relationships, and
who call themselves "boylovers". It is they, not I, who make the
assurtion that "having sexual intercourse with little boys has always
been a integral component of male homosexuality".
It is the plan of the "boylover" movement to ride the coattails of gay
liberation and to try and have child molestation be accepted as a
supposed part of gay liberation.
> > Maybe you live near some sequestered monastery that's on an island.
> > Any Catholic priests I've ever known of in my lifetime were able to go
> > out in public and visit with the community, and in plain clothes.
> > "Boylover" priests molest choir boys for the same reasons "boylover"
> > troop leaders molest boy scouts or "boylover" teachers molest school
> > boys.
>
> You mean it is because of their position of power. Are you suggesting that
> power corrupts?
Actually I'm suggesting that pedophiles take these positions because
it gives them access to little boys. And yes, the fact that they have
authority over these little boys is obviously to their advantage. As
far as authority or "power" as you put it corrupting predatory
pedophiles, it's a foregone conclusion they were corrupt before having
received their position of authority which they had every intention of
abusing from the very beginning.
>If this is the case, I'd tend to agree with
you. But this is
> a phenomenon that has nothing to do with gender preference, and is a human
> trait rather than a homosexual one (exclusively that is).
I'll give you a third and final replay of my original statement to
you:
------------
>>This is quite correct, child molesters
>> come in all sexual
>>orientations; homosexual, heterosexual,
>> bisexual et al.
------------------
> > The point is, no Catholic priest is
having sex with little boys
> > because women are forbidden, that assertion is ludicrous.
>
> How often do you think Catholic priests and nuns get together singly?
Like I said Steven, priests are allowed to roam freely within their
community and therefore don't need to to rely upon nuns or alter boys
or choir boys to find someone to have sex with.
"Boylover" pedophiles however who become priests to gain access to
choir or alter boys whom they are in authority over and can spend time
alone with without their parents really knowing about it or
questioning it (until recently that is)
do mostly go after those boys.
However, "boylover" priests have been known to fondle little boys
while at a parishioners home, or to molest little boys in hospital
beds.
> > Society doesn't give a shit about the needs of these victimising
> > predators, we care more about protecting little boys who are being
> > victimized.
>
> Perhaps if society cared about the "victimizing predators", we can stop the
> problem at the source. There is no better weapon against an enemy than
> friendship, caring, and understanding.
No Steven, we stop the problem at the source by educating parents and
children regarding these predators.
>Predators are people too.
So are those who commit violent rape and murder, so were the Nazis, so
were those who beat Matthew Shepard to death, what's your point?
> > Don't be an idiot, I said "boylovers" seek to become priests for the
> > reasons sited above.
>
> And where is God when these people win their appointments to become priests
> for his church? At any rate, you may not be religious, so perhaps this is a
> futile argument. Nonetheless, I think you'd have a tough time finding
> evidence to support this statement (which means that I don't believe you).
>
> >
> > That's a question one supposes only God could answer. God according to
> > Catholic beliefs however, gave them a brain to figure things out for
> > themselves, it's up to them on how they use it.
>
> Now that is a load of crap. All these religious fanatics believe that
> they're in communion with God (which is an indication of pschizophrenia,
In the case of Lay Preacher Crispy Bill Goodrich, I agree.
[inside asbl joke]
> and
> this is why there isn't an all knowing deity saving young boys).
Those who happen to monitor the activities of pedophiles whether those
pedophiles be priests or of some other vocation, need to start using
their brains and realize what is obviously occurring, and thus put a
stop to it.
> >
> > > Get rid of the fags outside
> > > the church, but inside it's okay? This is some weird logic of yours.
> >
> > That's not my logic you're spouting, but your own, as I never brought
> > God into this subject.
>
> True, it's just that I find it that most people who hate homosexuals use God
> as a counterargument.
Are you saying that you automatically jumped to the conclusion that I
"hate homosexuals"?
> > > How do you make an exclusive case for homosexuals in this kind of
> conduct?
> >
> > It's not an exclusive case for homosexuals.
> > I already made it clear that I don't consider the sexual molestation
> > of little boys to be exclusive to homosexuality.
>
> Well then, I can't disagree here.
>
> > Try to keep up Steven, I really hate it when I have to chew my cabbage
> > twice because someone isn't paying attention.
>
> Well, if this is the worst thing that happens to you today, count yourself a
> lucky man.
It's happing to you, not me.
> > More logical reasoning and less emotional reaction would help you to
> > stay on track better as well.
>
> The same can be said for everyone, including yourself (some things are
> universal). Unfortunately, these are human faults.
Experience has taught me that the best way to debate someone in usenet
is to keep a cool head, and very carefully read what he other person
is actually saying.
> So, do you believe that homosexuality should be permitted, and condoned by
> the government via giving them the right to marry?
If you scroll up you'll already see my statements regarding this
matter.
> p.s., I've not been cruising boy-lovers, I'm answering through
> alt.politics.homosexuality.
That's obviously where some of your confusion began. Like I suggested,
read very carefully, including what all groups the thread you're
responding to is going.
I find this important personally as some of the threads I've responded
to in alt.support.boy-lovers, were also cross posted to hardcore
kiddie porn groups. I wouldn't want my name in a group like that even
though I'm the opposition, therefore I cut those depraved groups out
before posting.
So tell me Steven, what exactly is your opinion regarding "boylovers"?
Ralph
Secret Squirrel
Letao <le...@fire.and.fishing.net> wrote in
news:letao-3D2EAD....@netnews.attbi.com:
Broken up my response into sub-parts. Part III:
> In article <IKIXNFFU3789...@Gilgamesh-frog.org>,
> Secret Squirrel <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
>> > What existed in
>> > the past, in different cultures and different contexts,
>> > cannot be automatically said to be appropriate to
>> > current cultural contexts.
>>
>> But they are likely truer to our biological heritage. Why
>> is it necessary to wage war against human sexual biology?
>
> Each culture does it differently; and not all cultures wage
> war against biology. In the North American culture, it is
> considered appropriate for young teens to wait before
> engaging in sex, generally speaking. In the Pacific Island
> culture where I lived for eight years, it was considered
> appropriate for a young teen girl who had entered puberty
> to be deflowered by someone older than herself, but still
> within the same culturally-appropriate age classification,
> which was approximately up to 30 years of age. Many in
> North America would consider the sexual practices of the
> islanders shocking if not offensive.
But what we should be talking about is *objective reality*,
not simply applying a type of cultural moral relativism.
Unless you're also going to say that slavery is "right" if
the culture allows it. Or that the Aztecs were "right" in
killing and eating prisoners of war because they believed
appeasing the gods prevented them from destroying the world,
and so by doing so they were doing *everyone* a favor. Or
that the great witchcraft persecution of the 16th century,
which killed half a million people and justified it by
thinking that by burning people alive that they were
doing everyone a favor, the "witch" included, was also
"right".
You can judge whether something is either hurtful or
helpful by measuring whether or not someone is materially
harmed or helped by it, or whether they find it painful
or pleasurable. In all the examples I gave above slavery,
torture/cannibalism, and buring people alive fail that
test as being "good", no matter what the culture said
about it at the time. OTH, someone having sex with someone
of their choosing and consent, practicing acts of their
choosing and consent, is almost never "bad"; and in
the overwhelming majority of cases it's "good".
>> It's somewhat normal now to persecute gays and hold them
>> as second-class citizens; that's what society deems
>> "appropriate". You buy into that too?
>
> Obviously not. But I recognize the difference between an
> adult and a child. I consider adults able to make their
> own informed choices. Children are much less capable of
> doing the same.
Why? Again, why did nature equip kids as ready-for-sex if
they were not supposed to do it? That would seem very odd.
Are you saying that natural selection screwed up when it
came to humans, equiping them with instincts and responses
that would result in harm if followed ?
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBP39fAT/rA6+b3AyhAQHNmwf/YTlwv19jjDmL5VXLKmFTOqgNPW/q6Vi1
pquzJBwO+bZlvfCpyjSTt5EVL4CH2Uv+CS0DVLwaipReZv26Lu+OpS9ttJdtzsA8
KJDt5jzddGI9oEm3T4DSsTPwUZmzjdxzm5Ex9iadbwHGQ7dHTsyYZpYvxfBHqf1R
8MyRxQpF3RS8RvRJL51g5utj9TAR9h4F8tWFEP2hslE5IR+CsFvCjRlxKjlNlkr8
h78BzyWihSf/pZrpTJklKuI4fFAoPcmoq7fDnaX5h5wCZAI1uTR9zcZ9Hl+K4Ix1
ek5xKqe7MEnM8QGplqFHtUa1FC9eLQi+B5fNpP9gv+UtDOUYGXfFTg==
=Gc+V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Secret Squirrel
Letao <le...@fire.and.fishing.net> wrote in
news:letao-3D2EAD....@netnews.attbi.com:
Broken up my response into sub-parts. Part II:
> In article <IKIXNFFU3789...@Gilgamesh-frog.org>,
> Secret Squirrel <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
>> OTH, why not use more objective criteria? Why not judge
>> actions by their material, measurable, veriable
>> consequences? By that standard, the only thing likely to
>> result from sex or any kind, irregardless of gender or
>> age, properly done, is orgasms.
>
> Depends on what you're looking for when you're doing the
> measuring, doesn't it? If you're interested in measuring
> psychological reactions and subsequent behavior changes,
> then you'd have criteria for taking and analyzing those
> measurements.
Are you familiar then with the meta-analysis by Bruce
Rind, Robert Bausserman, and Philip Tromovitch , the best
work of that kind, that found that in the majority of such
experiences that the participants, now adults, said that
there was either *no harm* or (heaven forbid) that the
experience was a *positive one* in their lives?
Here is a URL if you want to start reading:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Rind+meta-analysis+group:alt.s
upport.boy-lovers+author:Orion&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=2002072621
2416.17724.qmail%40nym.alias.net&rnum=9>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Rind+meta-analysis+group:alt.s
upport.boy-lovers+author:Orion&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=2002072221
4408.5218.qmail%40nym.alias.net&rnum=1>
Mind you, before you start regarding psychology to *too
high* a regard, that psychology has published more
bad science than perhaps any other field, especially
where human sexuality was concerned. Until 1973 gays
were considered "sick", and before then it took until
Kinsey and the 1940s before the profession admitted that
masturbation didn't cause insanity. Where human sexuality
is concerned, mainstream psychology has had a sorry
history of being middle-class morality masquerading as
science.
The chief problems with these earlier studies that had
"proved" gays were sick that masturbation caused one to
go insane was the populations used for these studies,
i.e., prison and clinical populations. You go to a insane
asylum and you see the inmates masturbating, and voilia!,
they're there because their masturbating caused them to
go insane, see? Ditto for gays pre-Stonewall--the only
admitted gays who most researchers saw were the miserable
ones who had sought out their "help". And this is what
the Rind et. al meta-analysis tried to correct: instead
of learning about about "pedophilia" and adult-child
sexual liasions from clinical or prison populations, they
sought them out in the general public. And they found out
that, especially where there was no coercion involved and
outside of incestuous liasions, a surprising number of
respondents recorded that their childhoold sexual liasions
with adults were either "neutral" or "positive" factors in
their lives.
Needlless to say, the Rind et. al team got vociferously
attacked, with the following groups leading the charge:
The Family Research Council, Dr. Laura, NARTH (the quacks
who claim to "cure" homosexuals), etc. Need I say more
about boylove and mainstream homosexuals being in the
same fight together?
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBP39fAT/rA6+b3AyhAQGpQwf+JyGnRy4mzU8nT+0llVOR1xPwVI2ogQkO
sLCUKcmmEoAglF0fTdyH3MtyEiMy8EVxG+Oq3B1jzWLfKbtWDkrUUL29qVQ7BiQg
YXLXCAiNQ432QQoOE35WIEyKl0ri+lt22mOnymDY6Nf3gHWRaRlsT4e+gKPVNamD
7IiQiRgGX58RDwgfMlMJKX6FjHfXJS4QepS5Cj+V+hbVkSDuwbP/a4+VPmL3LZYh
PZs+CfOxaTuXbHBhL7YZo456XKn812ju6DMsszxE3pLPOOsUfpktL6sDb3JEk4vv
Gws4jPGIRb6fiZsicw/fFbitJKop6aZSPl88q4lz6B3IqCGVqj4LFA==
=ZXKs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jack Rudd
> "Bernard Hubbard" <bern...@iprimus.light.au.com
> >
> > Shit you have a vivid if faulty imagimation wolfie. I am not and
> > have never been a school teacher. Why don't you use your police
> > contacts Oh Superior Security CUNTsultant and find out what I
> > actually did for all those years at Melbourne University. It
> > shouldn't be to hard. I will actually give you the faculty name
> > for starters. It was the School of Commerce and Economics.
>
> Lets see, you were not a student or a teacher, yet you hung around school,
> um.................pervert?
>
Jack Rudd
No One
> Letao <le...@fire.and.fishing.net> wrote in
> news:letao-3D2EAD....@netnews.attbi.com:
>
> > Obviously not. But I recognize the difference between an
> > adult and a child. I consider adults able to make their
> > own informed choices. Children are much less capable of
> > doing the same.
>
> Why? Again, why did nature equip kids as ready-for-sex if
> they were not supposed to do it? That would seem very odd.
People became "ready for sex" at a later age under relatively recently
due to poorer living conditions. Life spans were far shorter as well,
and childhood mortality rates were high. The result is that they had
to start reproducing as soon as they were able for the survival of the
species. BTW, the parents often aranged the marriages and had to give
approval.
In the Pacific Islands, the relatively loose attitudes towards sex
reflected their isolation and had the advantage of spreading the gene
pool around. Hence the custom of providing women for visitors from
other islands.
None of this applies in our current situation.
Bernard Hubbard
news:_SVfb.42408$k17....@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
Darling Body Snatcher. I have never tutored at home. I was until
recently a lecturer and tutor in statistics in the School of
Economics and Commerce at the University of Melbourne. If you are
too stupid to tell a University School from a grade or high school,
you need to go back to school again you fuckwitted cunt.
Death
"Jack Rudd" <jackru...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b64489b2.03100...@posting.google.com...
Death
"Bernard Hubbard" <bern...@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote in message
news:Xns940C9A64E783F...@203.134.67.67...
> "Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in
> news:_SVfb.42408$k17....@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
>
> >
> > "Bernard Hubbard" <bern...@iprimus.light.au.com
> >>
> >> Shit you have a vivid if faulty imagimation wolfie. I am not
> >> and have never been a school teacher. Why don't you use your
> >> police contacts Oh Superior Security CUNTsultant and find out
> >> what I actually did for all those years at Melbourne
> >> University. It shouldn't be to hard. I will actually give you
> >> the faculty name for starters. It was the School of Commerce
> >> and Economics.
> >
> > Lets see, you were not a student or a teacher, yet you hung
> > around school, um.................pervert?
> >
> > the last time we had this discussion you were a tutor at home,
> > am I missing parts of a story here or
> > are you making it up as you go?
> >
> >
> >
>
> Darling Body Snatcher. I have never tutored at home.
I will look this up later. That is when I gave you the nic, Prof. That
is how I remember the event.
William J. Wolfe
> "Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in
> news:_SVfb.42408$k17....@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
>
> >
> > "Bernard Hubbard" <bern...@iprimus.light.au.com
> >>
> >> Shit you have a vivid if faulty imagimation wolfie. I am not
> >> and have never been a school teacher. Why don't you use your
> >> police contacts Oh Superior Security CUNTsultant and find out
> >> what I actually did for all those years at Melbourne
> >> University. It shouldn't be to hard. I will actually give you
> >> the faculty name for starters. It was the School of Commerce
> >> and Economics.
> >
> > Lets see, you were not a student or a teacher, yet you hung
> > around school, um.................pervert?
> >
> > the last time we had this discussion you were a tutor at home,
> > am I missing parts of a story here or
> > are you making it up as you go?
> >
> >
> >
>
> Darling Body Snatcher. I have never tutored at home.
Not oficially, right, bernie bum bandit.?
I was until
> recently a lecturer and tutor in statistics in the School of
> Economics and Commerce at the University of Melbourne.
Not all that recent, you senile old turd.
If you are
> too stupid to tell a University School from a grade or high school,
> you need to go back to school again you fuckwitted cunt.
Noe bernie, you really do need to watch your choice of words. Could it
be, bernie rectum reamer, that you are losing your grip on everything,
including your sanity? must be all those diseases and infections
finally getting to your demented brain.
Bernard Hubbard
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Bernard Hubbard <bern...@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote in
> news:Xns940BBB9EECC93...@203.134.67.67:
>
>> Secret Squirrel <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote in
>> news:2WBMMPFP378...@Gilgamesh-frog.org:
>
>>> So the bottom line is: I believe that humans are
>>> inherently pedosexual because pedosexuality gets
>>> human adults, particulary human males, interested in the
>>> welfare of human young. Kids are "cute" because of
>>> pedosexuality and the "good father" comes home every
>>> night and hugs his kids because he's part "pedophile",
>>
>>
>>
>> No wonder you call yourself *Secret Squirrel*
>
> "Secret Squirrel", for your information, is the moniker that
> was given to me on alt.support.boy-lovers,
A poster to alt.support.boy-lovers eh.
PLONK
--
Laurence Taylor
>
> A poster to alt.support.boy-lovers eh.
>
> PLONK
As you yourself are doing.
--
rgds
LAurence
... This statement is false.
begin the search for better software
Secret Squirrel
Bernard Hubbard <bern...@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote in
news:Xns940DC17A3F97B...@203.134.67.67:
> Secret Squirrel <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote in
> news:DQ49XQ8W3789...@Gilgamesh-frog.org:
>> "Secret Squirrel", for your information, is the moniker
>> that was given to me on alt.support.boy-lovers,
> A poster to alt.support.boy-lovers eh.
Not paying attention to headers?
> PLONK
Shows how much tolerance a "proud, gay" man who claims to
be an anarchist has for someone who's essentially *on the
same side*, eh?
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBP4ICAT/rA6+b3AyhAQG5Kgf/ZY/NrlP3UE7ONhOGgt8QMFb9ejPl6xL0
+aSb3IdtpQgwGByoULIKYkGB5DoWbB1Y2/9u2TaXq2AFQuRFWm1LkDTIL3W5kVAP
hkZL7PtoeegIZcxE2Cc7eFIuBICla0XkNo4CtZ8VwzkF+PJDhFTZATgDS95kFKVt
wThkvrc0CE5duR0nz3FsRjrQ4YXrn/f64OCF49skV3rrlKfObEqrL8eNq0c5M9Ns
WIW2vzaWuzOjASH1JfouZRImodmSr8essaQSpAm4oOvfSic019wMCj5niHoFyMH/
ofVsV2fu5PEVOef+edRxgT2GgHyObiPHc/XG8MJ6i8tLPnbG1HWy7g==
=XrOe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Fritz
> Nicole-o-matic wrote:
>
> >What if people held up signs at YOUR events that said "heterosexuality
> >is a sin"? After all, heterosexuality is the cause of all the unwanted
> >children in the world. What if you and your children were harassed for
> >your "perverted lifestyle" of "disgusting heterosexual relations"? I
> >think it's time you examined yourselves, instead of glorifying
> >yourselves by judging other people as "wicked unbelievers" and such.
> >
> >
>
> Well faggot, being hetero is normal as proven throughout all of history
> since the utter beginning of mankind and is reflected throughout nature,
> everything from insects to cattle to bears and wolves heterosexuality is
> the norm, always has been, always will be.
Homosexuals are produced by two normal heterosexuals, so homosexuals
must be normal too.
> Filthy faggots will commonly post whatever findings they can get from
> the far reaches of the internet to try and say that animals and insects
> are faggots also but they fail to mention that it is of rare cases and
> that many of the animals who engage in it have some sort of mental
> imbalance, faggots wouldn't dare report that part of it!
You have some proof of this ?
> Filthy faggots were considered mentally ill for hundreds of years in
> many countries, only recently have some countries dropped faggotry from
> their list of mental illnesses due to pressure put on them by the
> liberal media.
> If it wasn't for the liberals much of this world probably wouldn't even
> tolerate the existence of filthy faggots and many countries would still
> be offering a penalty of death for faggotry.
>
> The good old days....
Thank you for your opinions, now go and stick you head back
up your anus, thus rendering yourself back in the 'good old days.'
--
Fritz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Taking back my freedom of conscience.
Letao
Secret Squirrel <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Letao <le...@fire.and.fishing.net> wrote in
> news:letao-3D2EAD....@netnews.attbi.com:
>
> Broken up my response into sub-parts. Part I:
>
> > In article <IKIXNFFU3789...@Gilgamesh-frog.org>,
> > Secret Squirrel <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
>
> >> > It's one thing to examine human sexuality as it exists
> >> > and is manifest. It's another to confuse what exists
> >> > with what is good and/or appropriate for children.
> >>
> >> What is "appropriate for children" is just culturespeak,
> >> mindless doubleplusgoodspeak and kowtowing to current
> >> social norms. Once it was "appropriate" to own slaves,
> >> hold women to be second-class people, and persecute gays.
> >
> > And right now, it is appropriate to protect children from
> > sexual predators
>
> If you're talking about the Ted Bundys of the world, then
> I'm all for that. But that's not you're talking about, no?
> You're talking about activities the kids freely consent
> to doing, if I understand you correctly.
No, I don't think you do understand me correctly. I don't think I'm
understanding you correctly, either.
The context of our conversation, as I understood it was adult-child sex.
I consider a child to be prepubescent. There was an implication that
child also referred to post-pubescent young teen, which was implied,
although no age was specified.
I understood you to be talking about adult-child sex, including those
who were young post-pubescent teens. The reason I inferred this is
because of your use of the word, "pedosexuality," which, given your
knowledge of the terminology involved, implied adult-child sex. If
you'd used the word, "ephebophilia," as I'm almost certain you would
have if that's what you were referring to, I would have understood your
comments differently.
So, which is it that you are talking about? Adults having sex with
prepubescent children, or post-pubescent young teens, or both?
> Would you like someone prohibiting your sexuality, as was
> once done, to "protect" you and society? Are you willing
> to fall under the same arbitrary judgement? There are plenty
> here who would leap at the opportunity to apply the same
> socially "appropriate" standards you're using to *you*.
> You've just opened the door for them.
Bullshit. There are a great many things we prevent children from doing.
Some because it's for their own protection. Some because we, as adults,
understand that children are not capable of complex reasoning or
understanding the conseqences of their actions. Children are not adults
and are not capable of taking responsibility for the choices we adults
make and take responsibility for on a daily basis.
> > and sexual activity they are unable to
> > understand as would an adult.
>
> What's there to understand about an orgasm?
Sex is not solely or simply an orgasm. If that's your main concern,
then nobody is stopping children from masturbating. There's no need to
involve an adult into the equation.
> Did nature
> screw up? Human children are BORN sexual, a toddler can
> have an orgasm.
Human children are born with sexual organs. A child's capacity for
having an orgasm does not automatically imply that there should be some
adult there helping them to achieve it.
> If sex-for-children were so harmful, if
> you were correct, then we'd not be like bonobos at all--
> we'd be born non-responsive until age 18 or so. We've
> had seven million years of evolutionary separation for
> that to happen--plenty of time. Yet it hasn't. Why?
We're not bonobos. We're human. We exist within a human cultural
context which often finds itself at odds with "nature." We don't exist
within a bonobo culture.
> The only answer which makes any sense is that kids
> engaging in sex in prehistory offered humans at best an
> evolutionary advantage (group cohesion; again bonobos)
> or at worst it was neutral. If it were harmful, natural
> selection would have taken care of it.
Culture is our evolutionary advantage. Culture adapts to environment.
And as you point out, our current environment requires lots of training
and a delay of many things that wouldn't be delayed if we lived without
culture.
> So it short, nature didn't apparently "think" that it
> was necessary for kids to have some big, heavy,
> "understanding" about sex before engaging in it. That's
> a lie that adults tell themselves in order to justify
> repressing childhood sexuality.
You've made a huge and presumptuous leap regarding human prehistory and
its application to a modern context. It's basically a lie you're
telling yourself in order to justify exploitation of a child's sexual
organs.
[snip]
> As English
> continues to be more widely used, the values carried within
> it (and if you're sharp you'll detect the Sapir-Whorf
> hypothesis at work here) will spread as well.
The S-W hypothesis is wrong.
[snip]
> Which brings us to the last point: the sexual freedom
> that most adults demand for themselves. Bernard and Steven
> and you can't go around telling the world how great sex
> is, you can't have it being broadcasted on TV and rapped
> out in song, and then expect kids to not to want to
> participate too.
Children want to do all kinds of things adults do. They want to imitate
adults in many ways. We don't always let them.
[snip to end]
To address a point in your other post:
The difficulty I'm having is your presumption that I'm against any type
of sexual activity among teens, younger or older, or even sex play
between children. I'm not necessarily disapproving of such activity,
with a couple caveats: 1) that the activity be between peers, not
adults-teens, teens-children, adult-children; and 2) that those engaging
in sex play or sexual activity be able to understand what it is they are
doing and that mutual consent and willingness are factors in their
behavior.
Personally, I think it healthy for teens to engage in sex play among
themselves, so long as they are being responsible towards themselves and
their partners. It's part of growing into adulthood. I think sex play
among children is also natural and an expression of a healthy curiosity.
I don't however consider the crossing of peer boundaries acceptable or
tolerable at these young ages, especially by an adult. Adults have
their own peers and do not need to engage children in sexual activity.
The *potential for abuse or manipulation by an adult is simply too easy
for the adult to accomplish. There may be some adults who have
convinced themselves that they're not manipulating the situation or
abusing the young person, but I think they should be taking a long and
contemplative look at themselves, and seek therapy to help them figure
it out if needed. No adult should be engaging in sexual activity with a
child.
At what ages do I draw the boundaries? I would certainly draw one at
pre- and post-pubescence. I would probably draw one from pubescence to
fifteen, and then at age fifteen consider a maximum of three years
difference in age. At age eighteen, they are an adult and can do what
they please with other adults, or if they're involved with someone
younger, respect the three year difference.
Work Work Work
your sick type.The type that says it is normal to have sex with baby
boys. The type that says it is normal to have sex with animals.
Work Work Work
managed to live.
curtsybear
> You are not normal but a serious biological mistake that unfortunately has
> managed to live.
Your daily mantra should be confined to your time in front of the mirror,
as repeating it here is patently embarassing to you and your non-forking
family tree.
--
Curtis at Sieber dot Com
"Jesus' mom had at least SIX more kids after Jesus was born - which
certain pagans tend to ignore - and she's so busy enjoying her heavenly
rewards that she don't care about people's problems in Mexico." Lurlean
Tucker insists that all foreign problems were caused by overpopulation
in 0 AD.
wolfington
<bern...@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote:
>Secret Squirrel <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote in
>news:DQ49XQ8W3789...@Gilgamesh-frog.org:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> Bernard Hubbard <bern...@iprimus.light.au.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns940BBB9EECC93...@203.134.67.67:
>>
>>> Secret Squirrel <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote in
>>> news:2WBMMPFP378...@Gilgamesh-frog.org:
>>
>>>> So the bottom line is: I believe that humans are
>>>> inherently pedosexual because pedosexuality gets
>>>> human adults, particulary human males, interested in the
>>>> welfare of human young. Kids are "cute" because of
>>>> pedosexuality and the "good father" comes home every
>>>> night and hugs his kids because he's part "pedophile",
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No wonder you call yourself *Secret Squirrel*
>>
>> "Secret Squirrel", for your information, is the moniker that
>> was given to me on alt.support.boy-lovers,
>A poster to alt.support.boy-lovers eh.
>
>PLONK
I hate to spoil your day but several of the people reading
your ongoing war are subscribers to that newsgroup.
If absolute power corrupts absolutly,
does absolute powerlessness make you Pure?
Harry Shearer
ZKL
Hash: SHA1
"Letao" <le...@fire.and.fishing.net> wrote in message
news:letao-6C8224....@netnews.attbi.com...
on the 6 of this month i hears an interview on the public radio network in
australia, the Australian Broadcasting network, program was run by tony
delroy.
the person interviewed was a psychiatrist,he stated that puberty now stars
at 8 years of age, every 1 in 6 children are affected, he stated that these
children who have hit puberty are not children or adults and must be
treated differently.
from what i can understand from this childhood ends at puberty
can any one comment on this.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
iQA/AwUBP4LGuGxDorXQSg6YEQJMlwCgsIjNNfwdTWJCrHdYruEecv6pyX0AoMIS
liGJz2S88wI7/Sa/nBLKFVuP
=VwDv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Work Work Work
Light Templar
Do the world a favor and drop over dead you filthy bigot. The cause is not
relevant
"Work Work Work" <W...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3F8364FC...@aol.com...
Fritz
> You are not normal but a serious biological mistake that unfortunately has
> managed to live.
Well thank you for your opinion, but a small amount of research
on your part, will quickly reveal that you haven't the slightest
idea what you're talking about.
Letao
"ZKL" <alf...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> on the 6 of this month i hears an interview on the public radio network in
> australia, the Australian Broadcasting network, program was run by tony
> delroy.
>
> the person interviewed was a psychiatrist,he stated that puberty now stars
> at 8 years of age, every 1 in 6 children are affected, he stated that these
> children who have hit puberty are not children or adults and must be
> treated differently.
>
> from what i can understand from this childhood ends at puberty
>
> can any one comment on this.
Certainly there are some children who are hitting puberty early, but I
don't think it is but a very small minority. And I would agree with the
psychiatrist about not treating them as adults. I'm not sure what it
means to "not treat them like children," however. And childhood is a
social construct, not a biological one. It is determined by cultural
consensus, not biology.
curtsybear
> Do the world a favor and die of aids soon you filthy fag.
Ladies first.
--
Curtis at Sieber dot Com
"Sunshine Tanner murdered my husband's baby under pressure from
devil-worshipping lesbians. They will all pay!" -- evidently, there's
some sort of monetary deposit to use Bernadette's boy-toys
Secret Squirrel
Letao <le...@fire.and.fishing.net> wrote in
news:letao-6C8224....@netnews.attbi.com:
> In article <P3VMS0FT3789...@Gilgamesh-frog.org>,
> Secret Squirrel <ssqu...@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
Don't have much time for today, only a partial response.
Both.
I didn't make the distinction, perhaps because society
doesn't make the distinction. In the US, a 17-year old,
who is clearly not pre-pubescent, is considered still
a "child" (w/some qualifications) in regards to sex.
Most of the case of "pedophilia" in the recent Catholic
Church scandals I'm aware of involved teenagers, yet
it didn't mitigate the outcry, or the public perception,
one little bit.
I also refuse to fall into the trap of saying "I'm
OK, you're not" in regards to boylovers who are attracted
to teens as opposed to those who are attracted to
preteens. Just as I am telling so-called "mainstream"
gays not to persecute boylovers, but to stand up for what
is right. Freedom isn't secure until it's for everyone.
The last person I had sex with recently was a twentysomething.
I do have "young friends" below the age of 18 who I'm not
having sex with, but right now all my sexual encounters are
legal. But I'm not going to start persecuting others who
aren't as "catholic" (pardon the pun) as I am in their
sexual tastes.
>> Would you like someone prohibiting your sexuality, as was
>> once done, to "protect" you and society? Are you willing
>> to fall under the same arbitrary judgement? There are
>> plenty here who would leap at the opportunity to apply the
>> same socially "appropriate" standards you're using to
>> *you*. You've just opened the door for them.
>
> Bullshit. There are a great many things we prevent
> children from doing. Some because it's for their own
> protection. Some because we, as adults, understand that
> children are not capable of complex reasoning or
> understanding the conseqences of their actions. Children
> are not adults and are not capable of taking responsibility
> for the choices we adults make and take responsibility for
> on a daily basis.
On general terms, I have no problems with that statement.
However, the problem is, to truly evaluate the danger of
an act, one must use criteria which are reasonably "objective",
which is measurable and verifiable. The criteria that we use
to prohibit adult-child sexuality simply isn't objective; not
by a long shot.
And when you say you're williing to ban something using
ethnocentric, involuted, self-referencing criteria, then you
*are* opening the door to those who would use ethnocentric,
involuted, and self-referencing criteria against *you*--the
Falwells and the Dobsens and the D. James Kennedys.
Moreover, you must realize that in the bad ole pre-Stonewall
days, when gays were "sick", prohibiting free expressions
of their sexuality was also something "done for their own
good"--after all, it was a "mental illness", now wasn't it?
You must be very careful when doing "something for their own
protection", because most of the time the "protecting" is not
really being done to protect "them" at all, but to protect
a belief system. It was that way with gays, and it's that
way now with all forms of childhood sexuality.
How can you justify banning something that, objectively
speaking (even with the threat of venereal diseases) is
probably less harmful than playing baseball (if you've
ever seen a kid who accidentally has been hit on the head
with a baseball bat you realize what I mean). It's certainly
less dangerous than them riding around in automobiles, which
kill and cripple thousands of kids annually. Going abroad,
kids in many European countries are brought up around the
common use of a drug--alcohol--and even imbibing it early,
even though studies on animals and human epidemiological
data strongly suggest that early consumption of alcohol
raises the chances of alcohol dependence later in life
(and indeed, such countries like France have 2-3 times
the alcoholism rates as the US). And alcohol dependence is
is a deadly disease.
You can see why maybe we don't use objective criteria in
making these evaluations--it sure steps on a lot of toes,
now doesn't it?
I don't claim there aren't -any- dangers in adult-child
sexualility. But even the best data in this culture (the
Rind et. al meta-analysis) also suggests that there can
be also good that result from it, just like adult-adult
sexual relationships can be both bad and good. The proper
way to handle the problem associated with the lesser
experience of children, IMHO, would be to take a cue from
those cultures that did encourage it---to remove all the
age-of-consent laws from the books, but then to maintain,
strengthen, and enforce laws against "corrupting a minor".
The cultures which encouraged man-boy sexuality didn't do
so if they thought that the man was a bad influence on the
boy--indeed, they fully expected him to be a *good*
influence. This was done with the family's approval.
A boylover who encouraged his young friend to drop out
of school, get involved with criminal activity, take
drugs/alcohol/smoke, etc., would not be a good influence
and indeed should be prosecuted to the fullest extent
of the law--but not for the sex per se. (Note too; in
my experience, the most problematic kind of "man/boy"
relationships that I saw in my gay bar days was the
case of the 20-something with the teenager, for the
very reasons above--many 20-somethings don't have their
heads screwed on very well. What's funny, is that this
is the very case where people would be more likely to
make an exception to the rule and look the other way,
when they shouldn't).
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBP4NTgT/rA6+b3AyhAQFNDwf9GISf+LU86qOxN/5H97CHuf+cF5rlrtLz
Ld9eg9c8hcWTXr2/hvNCBofjXGDTTXX2vfm/3rNixA8K63ra6sepLaQ5jYk53LD4
sotARVhewfn3jYp/U5tHd62Y0eVFEU+3JBV5j5BLsaCIKiV+cUos4UMasH7i/DkM
uTTYTEaoJVq168FfcwE3WtiZnE2EyijUPTJbaH6vJ477WJwTjAnJ8YE3vfyz+G+T
ysPK97NEL68e0MhRqkigI+YJlmyMaFYDdVUH8WWqwUm5WyYwj00OwcJYgEIpyE1j
6J0VBoyiCOKEgHLxPQjCPAacPxbsrpX7KjwaJF7YsPdDWhbZ1h6tlQ==
=xQTZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kobus Mostert
KM
"Fritz" <fsm...@bcfjeupl.net> wrote in message
news:3F83C571...@bcfjeupl.net...
:
:
Fritz
> And you do? Whyzz dat?
Probably because I'm gay, and I've been dealing with the
subject a good deal longer.
Death
> must be normal too.
>
point?
you think you are normal because your mum didn't coathanger your ass ?
Private Citizen
It's not about love, it's about sex. Crude sex at best. 37% of homo's eat
their partners feces, drink contaminated enema water, and insert foreign
objects into their rectums including live animals. And they dare call that
"love"? Homosexuality is a mental disorder. That's the only reason fags can
perform the crude sex acts they do. It's also the reason that the person
most likely to murder another fag is their "lover". The good news is that
there is a cure for fags; AIDS.
"Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
news:tV1hb.21270$Sn1....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Dennis Kemmerer
news:NZ2hb.70144$%h1.49905@sccrnsc02...
> Faggotry, normal? Next they'll want us to believe it's all about "love".
> It's not about love, it's about sex. Crude sex at best. 37% of homo's eat
> their partners feces, drink contaminated enema water, and insert foreign
> objects into their rectums including live animals. And they dare call that
> "love"? Homosexuality is a mental disorder. That's the only reason fags
can
> perform the crude sex acts they do. It's also the reason that the person
> most likely to murder another fag is their "lover". The good news is that
> there is a cure for fags; AIDS.
Isn't there another newsgroup for odd sexual fantasies?
[plonk]
Death
"Dennis Kemmerer" <d...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:bm2jkg$i1qbf$1...@ID-120990.news.uni-berlin.de...
Steven
> posting for the past 5 years or so, as it was the name of
> the German remailer that I habitually used as the last one
> in the chain. That remailer is now gone, until the new Type
> III protocol gets ironed out, and I've asked the regulars if
> I should change it, but they say they're happy for me to keep
> it as it is.
It makes me think of secret santa... c'mon Squirrel, give us a 'ho-ho-ho' or
something to the effect. I hate to say it man, I think I saw one of your
kind flat as a pancake on the road today as I rode my bicycle to school. My
condolences.