I am very offended by the B**love post

[faithmd 14]

<p>Do I not understand what boylove means? I wish this post would be taken off if it means sex between men and boys . That is too much for me.</p> <p>edie</p>

From wiki:

A childlover is a non-sadistic pedophile or ephebophile, though the term may also encompass people who are not primarily attracted to children, or those whose attraction to children is only romantic. The terms girllover and boylover are used to specifically indicate a childlover's sexual orientation.

So while it could mean someone who is acting on a sexual attraction to a child, in this website's case (as I have gone there and read some of the archives) it appears that the majority of the posts (actually I couldn't find any that discussed having a sexual relationship with a child) are about loving children and just adoring to spend time with children.

Some of the posts are about protecting children.

Do I think it's darned weird? You bet I do! But I did take the time to research it a little more before being offended by the post. I'm not saying that's what everyone should do! Absolutely not! But for me, I wanted to understand just what "boylove" in this context referred to. I think most of us who have watched South Park know about NAMBLA and their strangeness. Am I offended by NAMBLA? Yup, pretty much. But I did want to find out what these guys were about in the context of the thread.

The concept is beyond my ability to grasp, but I guess that's why it's in Rants.

[wavydaby 1]

I guess thats why I dislike wholeheartly the stupid boy love post. I see that everyone over there finds it distastefull. However, why even bother to post something that is so horrible? What is there to discuss? I do not see any intelligent pro and con argument on this subject. The purpose of that thread is only to stir up trouble. Not to encourge debate.

[anonemouse 1]

It is in Rants, or on this forum at all as a provocation for arguement.

We give power to those who wish to stir things up by responding to it at all. As he has stated, we're making him happy by being offended by it.

So, please don't feed the trolls.

I was wondering about this. What's the thought behind posting to a thread (essentially bringing more attention to it by bumping it up), just to ask that people ignore it? Wouldn't not posting to the thread and being one less person to bump it to the top essentially work better than bringing attention to it? Eventually, as people stop posting to a thread, the thread is ignored. The more often a thread is bumped to the top, the more attention it gets.

[nataliec 0]

This post is inappropriate because it does not adequately describe the content of the website unless one clicks (perhaps ignorantly) on the link. This is a website closely monitored by the FBI for child predators. Even a XXX warning is not enough, for activity between consenting adults is perfectly acceptable in every way to me, and I may choose to venture there. XXX does not describe this subject matter. I do not choose for my computer to eat these Cookies and PB the spam into my email.

[anonemouse 1]

Because I was responding to the kind people here on THIS post as I find myself offended as well. What is your reasoning?

I'm not offended by the post, so why do I need reasoning to bump it to the top? I was just wondering about the reasoning behind why people (I wasn't really referring to just you, I'd noticed several people doing it) post to threads that they find offensive. I thought it was fairly obvious that the more posts a thread gets and the more often it gets bumped to the top of the list, the more attention it gets. If I ever want a thread to die, I ignore it and hope everyone else does the same. I certainly don't post in it and bring more attention to it.

This post is inappropriate because it does not adequately describe the content of the website unless one clicks (perhaps ignorantly) on the link.

I don't know about anyone else, but I found the title of the thread to be quite informative. What did you think "boylove" meant?

[marjon9 6]

I guess thats why I dislike wholeheartly the stupid boy love post. I see that everyone over there finds it distastefull. However, why even bother to post something that is so horrible? What is there to discuss? I do not see any intelligent pro and con argument on this subject. The purpose of that thread is only to stir up trouble. Not to encourge debate.

I certainly agree that there is no "pro and con" debate about the topic of the boy love forum. But for me the debate here is about a different topic. For me the debate is about whether one group of people with certain moral sensibilities has the right to decide for everyone else what they can read, or how they should live. After all these months of reading these religious-themed posts and listening to people declare that they have a right to tell me and everyone else how we must live, I just got a bit worn out from it.

To me one of the prime examples is prayer in school. The concept of prayer in school is just about as offensive to me as pedophilia. Yet those who advocate it believe that they have a right to force that on me and everyone else. The abortion debate, the gay marriage debate, etc., etc., are similar to me. A certain group of people feels like it has the right to legislate in these areas and force everyone else to live by their determination of what is morally correct. That is simply unbearably offensive to me.

So that is the debate here for me. It's not about whether anyone advocates sex with children, which of course no one does.

So, yes, I did begin a sort of a troll post. I knew that the usual crew of "religious" conservatives would stand up and demand that the post be removed. I enjoyed participating in the demonstration that the moral sensibilities of this particular group does not always get to determine what is best for everyone else.

And besides, it was interesting to me lifting up this rock of the boy love forum and finding the vermin underneath. It's interesting, weird, funny. It really is hard for me to understand what the big deal is.

[nataliec 0]

I know the more sophisticated among us may be familiar with the term "Boylove." As I said, some, including me (a summa cum laude graduate of a major dental school-not to brag-just explaining my education status) may be a bit ignorant of the term because of limited exposure, so to say. It honestly didn't "click" with me until I clicked on the link. And I don't think I am the only one. I am just pro fair and adequate warning, not censorship.:peace:

[nataliec 0]

P.S. I am not religious, conservative, or Republican. I also totally support your right to discuss anything you like.

[anonemouse 1]

Oh, I can understand not knowing what it was. I was like 99% sure, but I had to go check out the FAQ section of that site just to make sure. I didn't want to assume that it was about pedophilia without being certain. Admittedly, Mark could have elaborated a little in the starting post. But I was also the first person to post in the thread, so there weren't any other clues beyond the title. By now, though, if people fail to read the thread before clicking on the link, that's their fault.

[Sunta 4]

After all these months of reading these religious-themed posts and listening to people declare that they have a right to tell me and everyone else how we must live, I just got a bit worn out from it.

Me too!

You want to be really worn out? Go on over to the "Christian Bandsters" thread.

Don't post there though, because it's a thread "just for them", and they don't want anyone like you or me posting there.

Not even to proclaim that their posts are really disturbing, especially the one about converting 300 children to "receive the Lord". It makes my blood boil to think of innocent children who don't even understand what they're getting into, being brainwashed.

Basically what they do is they put on some kind of carnival where they have food and face painting, and invite low-income families to attend, and then brainwash them into becoming "saved" by giving them free stuff. Kind of like missionaries who go to poor areas and brainwash (aka bribe) the people there. They prey on people's vulnerabilities and it makes me so angry.

I don't post there because I find most of those people to be very unwelcoming of differing points of view (such as my view that what they are doing is totally wrong), and plus they proclaimed they didn't want anyone who doesn't agree with them posting there.

But I do read it and it makes me very frustrated.

[nataliec 0]

OK, Laurend, educate me on this FAQ section of the threads. Ignorant again, as I don't know how this works. P.S. I am likely to be old enough to be your mother, so be patient with me. I agree that if you click on it now, you are on your own, but the only responses when I logged on were about how weird the site was. I wanted to know what was so weird, cause a lot of the time I like weird.:embarassed:

[anonemouse 1]

OK, Laurend, educate me on this FAQ section of the threads. Ignorant again, as I don't know how this works. P.S. I am likely to be old enough to be your mother, so be patient with me. I agree that if you click on it now, you are on your own, but the only responses when I logged on were about how weird the site was. I wanted to know what was so weird, cause a lot of the time I like weird.

It wasn't the FAQ (frequently asked questions) of this site, it was the FAQ of the site that was listed. I looked long enough to know that it was about pedophilia.

[nataliec 0]

When I clicked on the site I knew immediately what it was. Perceptive. But I'd rather not be cookied to this site.

[Lap_dancer 8]

I thought about that BOYLOVE thread today and I put myself in check. I moderate another Vbulletin website and I'm the one who is always whistling the free speech whistle. When it comes to questionable items as in said BOYLOVE post, there is no debating the value of it as an item on the site. I call those kinds of posts "Baiters". They are designed to bait a fued, cause friction and division. It's not a Catholic vs. Wiccan issue, it's not a gay issue. The whole purpose was simply to bait and stir to get everyone's ire up. Think about it, does anyone coming to a website like this for the purpose of obesity/surgery/beneficial health information have need for BOYLOVE? And check out the first post. It's a missile at the christians on here that they have lightened up. Says who? So while I am disappointed that we all got baited into this thread, I will not give it anymore time than the penis post. It will die a natural death.

Now I have weight to lose.

[marjon9 6]

The whole purpose was simply to bait and stir to get everyone's ire up.

This is simply not true. That was not my purpose. My purpose was to stimulate debate on the question whether one group of people has the right to control the behavior of others through legislation reflecting their own moral beliefs. Religious conservatives are constantly seeking to do this on the local level with school prayer, all the way through to the national level with constitutional amendments about gay marriage. I fully expected said religious conservatives to protest my post, and they did, demanding that it be removed because it went against their own view of "correct" morality. They were not able to get their way.

I believe that this is a very legitimate basis for meaningful discussion, and is not simply designed to bait and stir up everyone's ire.

Obviously, none of this has anything to do with whether anyone "supports" pedophilia.