First, where did you get the idea people won't let me near their sons? My biggest problem is quite the opposite. I have too many parents wanting me to take their sons under my wing. I have to choose those I feel most able to help without upsetting the families of those I turn away. I just don't have the time or spare cash to help them all.
Second, where did you get the idea that Fox News is the limit of Murdoch's influence? Perhaps you might like to visit newscorp's website and see just how many outlets for news and current affairs that company does operate. Then you might like to check the share registers and see just how much cross shareholdings Murdoch and Conrad Black have in each other's companies. You'll have to dig, though. They try not to make it too obvious. Oh, and in the all important demographic that includes young parents, Fox News is the highest rated news network in the USA.
I'll bet you aren't even aware that apart from academic circles, the word paedophile (pedophile) wasn't even known until the Murdoch Press began plastering it all over their front pages.
As for your comment that parents don't want their kids sexually abused, that is totally laughable in the light of official statistics in your own country that show that more than 50% of kids who are sexually abused are abused by their own parent and when it comes to all forms of child abuse, the number goes up to 90%. Only in the US do kids as young as 9 get tried as an adult and stuck on a sex offender's register for life for playing "doctor" with the kid next door. In civilised countries this kind of bullshit doesn't happen.
A little example of the delusion you idiots suffer under. In the USA, the chances of your child drowning in a backyard swimming pool is about 1 in 2000, the chances of you running over your own child in the driveway, 1 in 1000, the chances of your child being abducted and raped by a stranger, 1 in 1,000,000. 93% of all child sexual abuse is carried out by a family member or close, long time family friend. I could supply links to that data, but I'm not going to. Do your own research. I suggest you start with the FBI's website.
Another common claim made by people who love to scream about stranger danger is that paedophiles can't be cured and will keep on raping kids ad infinitum unless they are kept locked up indefinitely. According to the FBI, sex offenders generally have the lowest recidivism rate of any classification of criminal at just 13% and child sex offenders as a sub-group come in at 7%. Of course, the screamers make a big issue of the fact that 7% also happens to be the proportion of child sexual abuse that can actually be attributed to paedophiles. They conveniently overlook the fact that most of those re-offenders are part of the 93% non-paedophile offenders who are reunited with the child upon their release from prison and simply pick up where they left off.
If you really want to debate the subject of paedophilia with me, I recommend you do some actual research first, instead of just parroting that which you hear on the nightly news or Dateline, because that's all your trumpeted "context" is. Your love of grabbing "sound bites" out of context is typical of gutter journalists and politicians, not those in any way interested in serious debate. My posts, when taken as a whole make the context very clear.
Now you are taking my initial comments completely out of context. Why am I not surprised? This thread is about the term "minor attracted adults". The phrase "I love boys" as I used it means precisely what it says. Nothing more and nothing less. "Cultural" context is meaningless. The phrase is an unambiguous statement of fact.
This comment; "the very people that tend to actually be the creepy guy we worry about having around kids" demonstrates just how brainwashed you are by the mainstream media. What makes you think anyone would regard me as creepy? In days gone by before the Murdoch press began the beat up about paedophiles, I was one of those men who gave up hours and hours of his free time to help run organisations for boys, such as Boy Scouts, Police and Citizens Youth Clubs and the like. Before the hysteria began, those organisations welcomed my participation, despite that I was single and frequently developed very close personal relationships with particularly troubled boys. When I had kids of my own, I was welcomed into such organisations. Now, however, because I again live alone, and despite the considerable number of certificates of appreciation I have adorning my walls, none of those organisations will let me near them, simply because I do live alone. Is it any wonder today's youth are a bunch of disrespectful troublemakers? Positive male role models are no longer to be found in modern English speaking countries.
I was given to believe that slashdotters were more intelligent than the average drongo, but it seems I have been misled...
What part of the statement "I love boys" do you not understand? Especially when whatever ambiguity that may exist is pretty effectively removed by the additional statement that I am not a child molester. Do you have a problem with accepting that it is possible to love another without actually have sex with them? If so, then I guess that speaks far more of your character (or lack thereof), than of mine.
Personally I don't like either term. MAA is to wishy-washy, and to most people the word pedophile (paedophile) means a child molester, because they are either too lazy or too stupid to use a dictionary.
I am a boylover. I love boys. Not adolescents, not teens and not young (or old) men. Mind you, once the bond is established, it remains until he decides to break it, if he wants to. I still have close contact with some of my former boys who are now in their 20's and 30's.
I am not, have never been and will never be a child molester. Believe me or don't as you wish. What others think of me worries me not one whit.
There is absolutely nothing illegal at Free Spirits or Boychat. The only photos on the site are non-porn photos of the person posting when he was a boy or teen himself. All posted links are checked and if the link to illegal material, they are removed. The site also supports https.
A lot of non-boylovers read there regularly, hoping to find something to bring the boards down, but in 10 years on the net, they never have...
Wow, such perspicasity... A person has 300 photos therefore there are 300 kids who are his victims. Did he take all of the photo's? For example Justin Berry himself posted thousands of illegal pics of himself on the internet, and many other kids do likewise. How are they victims of the person who chooses foolishly to amass a small collection of them? That is simply not logical.
The situation with reference to child pornography is consistantly grossly overstated by the press and officialdom, as can by shown by searching any or all search engines for such. As for it being a multi-billion dollar p/a industry, that is absolute nonsense. What CP may be found is mostly produced in Russia and eastern Europe countries and features kids who are child prostitutes because they have no other way to live. There are far worse atrocities being committed around the world against kids than having their photo taken while being paid to have sex, but they are ignored by the press for political expediency.
Those who claim to be so concerned about kids' welfare would do well to put some effort and funds into addressing the real issues.
But the AoC laws don't in any way protect kids in way shape or form from anything whatsoever. Not from abuse, nor from having to give evidence in a trial. What those laws are doing is making criminals of kids as young as 10 who are placed on a sex offenders register for LIFE.
Also quite often the child is happy with the relationship, so the destruction of that relationship causes substantial mental trauma. If a relationship, even a sexual relationship, between an adult and a child is not abusive or coercive, who is being hurt?
Most of the time, even for quite young kids, genuinely consensual sexual interaction is educational, not harmful. In many instances it's even beneficial, especially for a child who comes from an abusive home and needs to feel wanted.
I think the general "public" (including here) don't see the scale of the problem. How many of you would be aware that in most western countries you could be convicted of distributing child porn if you upload to photobucket a photo of your toddler showing his/her bare backside or genitals...
A simple challenge for those who believe child porn is all over the net; google the term "naked boys" and see how many pages of links you have to plough through before you find a site that actually has a pic of a naked boy under the age of 16 on it. Betcha don't find one...
When a sub-group in any society is vilified and ostracised they will always organise and form a community. It's human nature. You want us off the net, the solution is simple, remove stupid age of consent laws based upon the erroneous assumption that no-one under the age of 18 is interested in sex. It's utter baloney and everyone knows it. Age of consent laws are about control, not protection.
When you have the ridiculous situation of pre-schoolers being carted away in handcuffs by police simply for engaging in a bit of mutual exploration in the washroom, you know things have gotten out of hand, and this is happening now in the US in particular.
The idea that a child has no interest in sex is a myth, as anyone who is honest with themselves and has any recollection of their own childhood will admit. While there are unscrupulous people (men and women) who will abuse the trust of a child to coerce or force them to have sex, that is rape. The age of the victim is irrelevant. Age of consent laws are plainly ridiculous and unnecessary. If a child wants to explore their sexuality with an older person, why shouldn't they?
Rape is rape, regardless of age, and those who commit rape deserve to be punished. Those who do so repeatedly deserve to be severely punished, but lets all be honest instead of deluding ourselves that all kids are completely sexually naive. Just think back to your own childhood.
Slashdot Mirror
First, where did you get the idea people won't let me near their sons? My biggest problem is quite the opposite. I have too many parents wanting me to take their sons under my wing. I have to choose those I feel most able to help without upsetting the families of those I turn away. I just don't have the time or spare cash to help them all.
Second, where did you get the idea that Fox News is the limit of Murdoch's influence? Perhaps you might like to visit newscorp's website and see just how many outlets for news and current affairs that company does operate. Then you might like to check the share registers and see just how much cross shareholdings Murdoch and Conrad Black have in each other's companies. You'll have to dig, though. They try not to make it too obvious. Oh, and in the all important demographic that includes young parents, Fox News is the highest rated news network in the USA.
I'll bet you aren't even aware that apart from academic circles, the word paedophile (pedophile) wasn't even known until the Murdoch Press began plastering it all over their front pages.
As for your comment that parents don't want their kids sexually abused, that is totally laughable in the light of official statistics in your own country that show that more than 50% of kids who are sexually abused are abused by their own parent and when it comes to all forms of child abuse, the number goes up to 90%. Only in the US do kids as young as 9 get tried as an adult and stuck on a sex offender's register for life for playing "doctor" with the kid next door. In civilised countries this kind of bullshit doesn't happen.
A little example of the delusion you idiots suffer under. In the USA, the chances of your child drowning in a backyard swimming pool is about 1 in 2000, the chances of you running over your own child in the driveway, 1 in 1000, the chances of your child being abducted and raped by a stranger, 1 in 1,000,000. 93% of all child sexual abuse is carried out by a family member or close, long time family friend. I could supply links to that data, but I'm not going to. Do your own research. I suggest you start with the FBI's website.
Another common claim made by people who love to scream about stranger danger is that paedophiles can't be cured and will keep on raping kids ad infinitum unless they are kept locked up indefinitely. According to the FBI, sex offenders generally have the lowest recidivism rate of any classification of criminal at just 13% and child sex offenders as a sub-group come in at 7%. Of course, the screamers make a big issue of the fact that 7% also happens to be the proportion of child sexual abuse that can actually be attributed to paedophiles. They conveniently overlook the fact that most of those re-offenders are part of the 93% non-paedophile offenders who are reunited with the child upon their release from prison and simply pick up where they left off.
If you really want to debate the subject of paedophilia with me, I recommend you do some actual research first, instead of just parroting that which you hear on the nightly news or Dateline, because that's all your trumpeted "context" is. Your love of grabbing "sound bites" out of context is typical of gutter journalists and politicians, not those in any way interested in serious debate. My posts, when taken as a whole make the context very clear.
Now you are taking my initial comments completely out of context. Why am I not surprised? This thread is about the term "minor attracted adults". The phrase "I love boys" as I used it means precisely what it says. Nothing more and nothing less. "Cultural" context is meaningless. The phrase is an unambiguous statement of fact.
This comment; "the very people that tend to actually be the creepy guy we worry about having around kids" demonstrates just how brainwashed you are by the mainstream media. What makes you think anyone would regard me as creepy? In days gone by before the Murdoch press began the beat up about paedophiles, I was one of those men who gave up hours and hours of his free time to help run organisations for boys, such as Boy Scouts, Police and Citizens Youth Clubs and the like. Before the hysteria began, those organisations welcomed my participation, despite that I was single and frequently developed very close personal relationships with particularly troubled boys. When I had kids of my own, I was welcomed into such organisations. Now, however, because I again live alone, and despite the considerable number of certificates of appreciation I have adorning my walls, none of those organisations will let me near them, simply because I do live alone. Is it any wonder today's youth are a bunch of disrespectful troublemakers? Positive male role models are no longer to be found in modern English speaking countries.
I was given to believe that slashdotters were more intelligent than the average drongo, but it seems I have been misled...
What part of the statement "I love boys" do you not understand? Especially when whatever ambiguity that may exist is pretty effectively removed by the additional statement that I am not a child molester. Do you have a problem with accepting that it is possible to love another without actually have sex with them? If so, then I guess that speaks far more of your character (or lack thereof), than of mine.
Personally I don't like either term. MAA is to wishy-washy, and to most people the word pedophile (paedophile) means a child molester, because they are either too lazy or too stupid to use a dictionary.
I am a boylover. I love boys. Not adolescents, not teens and not young (or old) men. Mind you, once the bond is established, it remains until he decides to break it, if he wants to. I still have close contact with some of my former boys who are now in their 20's and 30's.
I am not, have never been and will never be a child molester. Believe me or don't as you wish. What others think of me worries me not one whit.
How's that for calling a spade a bloody shovel?
There is absolutely nothing illegal at Free Spirits or Boychat. The only photos on the site are non-porn photos of the person posting when he was a boy or teen himself. All posted links are checked and if the link to illegal material, they are removed. The site also supports https.
A lot of non-boylovers read there regularly, hoping to find something to bring the boards down, but in 10 years on the net, they never have...
https://wwwboychat.org/
Wow, such perspicasity... A person has 300 photos therefore there are 300 kids who are his victims. Did he take all of the photo's? For example Justin Berry himself posted thousands of illegal pics of himself on the internet, and many other kids do likewise. How are they victims of the person who chooses foolishly to amass a small collection of them? That is simply not logical.
The situation with reference to child pornography is consistantly grossly overstated by the press and officialdom, as can by shown by searching any or all search engines for such. As for it being a multi-billion dollar p/a industry, that is absolute nonsense. What CP may be found is mostly produced in Russia and eastern Europe countries and features kids who are child prostitutes because they have no other way to live. There are far worse atrocities being committed around the world against kids than having their photo taken while being paid to have sex, but they are ignored by the press for political expediency.
Those who claim to be so concerned about kids' welfare would do well to put some effort and funds into addressing the real issues.
But the AoC laws don't in any way protect kids in way shape or form from anything whatsoever. Not from abuse, nor from having to give evidence in a trial. What those laws are doing is making criminals of kids as young as 10 who are placed on a sex offenders register for LIFE. Also quite often the child is happy with the relationship, so the destruction of that relationship causes substantial mental trauma. If a relationship, even a sexual relationship, between an adult and a child is not abusive or coercive, who is being hurt? Most of the time, even for quite young kids, genuinely consensual sexual interaction is educational, not harmful. In many instances it's even beneficial, especially for a child who comes from an abusive home and needs to feel wanted.
I think the general "public" (including here) don't see the scale of the problem. How many of you would be aware that in most western countries you could be convicted of distributing child porn if you upload to photobucket a photo of your toddler showing his/her bare backside or genitals... A simple challenge for those who believe child porn is all over the net; google the term "naked boys" and see how many pages of links you have to plough through before you find a site that actually has a pic of a naked boy under the age of 16 on it. Betcha don't find one...
When a sub-group in any society is vilified and ostracised they will always organise and form a community. It's human nature. You want us off the net, the solution is simple, remove stupid age of consent laws based upon the erroneous assumption that no-one under the age of 18 is interested in sex. It's utter baloney and everyone knows it. Age of consent laws are about control, not protection.
When you have the ridiculous situation of pre-schoolers being carted away in handcuffs by police simply for engaging in a bit of mutual exploration in the washroom, you know things have gotten out of hand, and this is happening now in the US in particular.
The idea that a child has no interest in sex is a myth, as anyone who is honest with themselves and has any recollection of their own childhood will admit. While there are unscrupulous people (men and women) who will abuse the trust of a child to coerce or force them to have sex, that is rape. The age of the victim is irrelevant. Age of consent laws are plainly ridiculous and unnecessary. If a child wants to explore their sexuality with an older person, why shouldn't they?
Rape is rape, regardless of age, and those who commit rape deserve to be punished. Those who do so repeatedly deserve to be severely punished, but lets all be honest instead of deluding ourselves that all kids are completely sexually naive. Just think back to your own childhood.