While this law continues, only the fully legalisation of child pornography makes any sense, nobody in their right mind can surely imprison someone for looking at CARTOONS that they do not like.

Reference:

http://anu.nfshost.com/2008/politics-of-an-obscene-character

The blog post above that began this thread is utter balderedash! There is nothing on Boychat that encourages anyone to molest kids. There never has been and never will be. The purpose of Boychat is to assist boylovers to be able to live in our paranoid societies and have loving, non-sexual relationships with boys. Nothing more and nothing less. There is no "secret code". What you read is what it means.

The photos of boys the author referred to are in fact "sigpics" or avatars, and it is a requirement of the board that sigpics may only be photos of the poster when he/she was a child. If the person who wrote the above post had done his research properly, he would know that. There are currently several threads there discussing some new sigpics that posters have had included. It should be noted, that for a photo to be used as a sigpic, it has to be emailed to the admin for approval and included in a specific folder on the server to be accessible. Photos cannot otherwise be included in a post. The server uses a modified version of HTML that does not recognise the "img" tag.

Boychat is open for anyone to post, and you will find that those who go there seeking real information are well received, and that questions will be answered honestly and frankly. If you want to continue this discussion with me, do it there. I read every post on the board.

I’m going to share my opinion.  I hope you consider it based on empirical merit rather than what is politically and culturally correct.

It is certainly true that children are not sexless slyphs.  They usually discover some means of sexual gratification at a young age (apart from prone masturbation, typically this age is six), often on a subconscious level.  Some take it further and seek out sexual interactions, typically with their peers.

This is considered normal and regarded as experimentation in most of the more liberal 1st world and most 3rd world cultures.

Most gay boys, when they become teens, have their first experience with Men - their are two reasons for this - one, Men are available, interested, and usually discreet, two - society makes it very hard, particularly in the US, UK and Australia, for them to simply "come out" and be open to their peers about their desires and, biological needs (post 13, on average, sexual activity becomes a physical need).  That is not to say societal acceptance is without progress - but the toll in the interim in terms of human suffering for children is severe - in the US, 50% of gay high-schoolers (even some primary-schoolers) commit suicide.  Look up the stats if you don’t believe me.

As I was saying, usually from the age of 6 children engage in arbitrary and casual sexual activity - not all, but the vast majority - since this is often without and mental context - ie the thought "i am masturbating.." it is not something everyone even remembers without severe analysis of their past - many people choose to dismiss pre-teen sexual activity because of the PC controvesy.  Again, not all people do have young sexual activity - but most.

That said, man children from the age of about 8 onwards, begin to seek out sexual activity, usually with peers, and sometimes with trusted adults who appear open to these acts.

The average age for penetrative heterosexual sex in the US is 12.  Usually this is with an older partner (usually 15-25 yrs).

Historically, this is neither unusual or frowned apon.  The current hysterical concern over children damaging themselves through sexual activity is best described as originating in the Victorian era.

Indeed, as you can see my Name is an alias - Plato, Socrates and their contemporaries, founders of the university model and many of our most fundemental and pervasive methods defined as "civilized," would turn in their graves at the current condemation of Adult-Teen relationships (with or without intimacy) and resrtiction of children from birth through, in the worst countries, age 18.

Thanks for listening.  Take care out there.

A LOGAN City councillor has the perfect place for pedophile Dennis Ferguson and sex offenders like him - an island, but not any paradise.Councillor Darren Power says sex offenders should be removed from society after their release from jail."We have to feel safe from them and they have to feel safe from us, so maybe some remote location like an island is the solution," he said. "I’m not talking about an island like a resort island in the Whitsundays, more like a refugee camp set-up.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/remote-island-could-be-place-for-pedophiles/2008/07/20/1216492221076.html

That’s even something the Dutch law requires of me (when you know about a crime committed or a crime that can be committed, etc., you have to report it). Someone, then, who actively encourages others to break the law is, yes, breaking the Dutch law and that, yes, I find important enough to report.

Frankly, it’s little to no concern to me whether people enjoy that or whether they think that it’s hysteria.

As said, Erika did not do this, which is why I’m not reporting her; but there is a line, and it should not be crossed. And that most certainly is a warning.

Likewise, that a group is condemned by society for their criminal actions does not make them anything more than very superficially similar to groups persecuted in the past for their ethnicity. Nasty little attempt at playing victim with a false moral equivalency there.

Erika’s also conflating wardship status with property, and legal incompetence to give sexual consent with slavery, and alleging that the only basis for guardianship and legal inability to sexually consent is the hysteria of others.

Hysteria, such as you practice, has systematically denied children the right to voice, the right to choose, and the rights to their bodies — leaving them nothing but (as you imply) sexless things to be controlled.

Uh uh. Not buying even a small part of that. Complete and utter BS. And in my humble assessment that argument can indeed "legitimately be construed as endorsing or encouraging the sexual abuse of children." Many pedophiles defend pedophilia as not being immoral, and being wrongfully illegal by trying to end-run the basic reasons children are a protected class.  Stripping legal protections from children and the right to defend children from their guardians does indeed open children to sexual abuse.  QED.

At the point we start to threaten to ban people or turn them in to the authorities for merely refusing to join a moral crusade and not for anything they actually did or said, I’ve got a very serious problem with that.

That part I can agree with.

At the point we start to threaten to ban people or turn them in to the authorities for merely refusing to join a moral crusade and not for anything they actually did or said, I’ve got a very serious problem with that.   We should be capable of disagreeing with someone’s analysis even about a morally hypersensitive without trying to criminalize any and all disagreement on the subject. The better historical analogy might be the Salem witch trials, where not only were the witches themselves presumed guilty, but anyone who even raised the tiniest questions on their behalf was also likely to be deemed a witch. Look above, Michael and Claudia and Tully and Conner, that is exactly what you just did.

I read Erika’s points as being that the hysteria about childhood sexuality may be less justified than it intuitively appears to someone in our contemporary moral system. That is an analytical point, not a normative argument. It carries no presumptive endorsement of adult-child sexual contact and it presumes no moral comparison with other “despised” groups to make an analytical comparison. I suspect Erika may be coming from a background similar to that of recent scholarly works that raise questions about childhood sexuality that have provoked unreasonable reactions from hypersensitive publics when those works are misinterpreted as endorsing child sexuality.

In short, put your intellectual glasses on for just a second and you may find that Erika is not doing what you thought she was doing. One of the hardest things to do in social science is to suspend normative judgments long enough to see through to empirical realities. I run into this problem all the time in the civil-military relations field — people pathologize military intervention in politics at such a high normative level that it often blinds them to empirical realities and potential complicating cases like the role of Turkey’s military in restraining Islamism. I would suggest that observations that children are in fact sexual beings can be observed and accepted WITHOUT endorsing adult exploitations of it.

In plain words, children are not legally capable of consent, neither in contract nor in sex, and for very good reasons. Side arguments about children possibly having sexual desires areentirely irrelevant. Sex without legal consent is rape. Rape is rightfully considered a serious crime. The exploitive rape of those who are categorically unable to consent, even more so. Erika is arguing in favor of those who openly fantasize about, encourage, and offer facilitating advice on,  committing child rape. Erika is comparing that to being Jewish. Condemning the open facilitation and encouragement of child rape is not remotely hysteria. It is not even remotely similar to anti-Semitism.

your "argument" is so much horse doo-doo

That’s very restrained of you, Claudia. And yes, if it didn’t involve some child actually being raped or terrorized to bring it into court, I’d LOVE to see someone trying that argument on a jury. I predict it would precede phrases from the judge along the lines "the maximum penalty allowed by the law" and "to be served consecutively."

Of course, considering we live in an age of high intensity hysteria when it comes to the sexuality of children, it’s not surprising that the responses by the staff (does anyone else read this blog?) are the Internet age’s equivalents to frothing at the mouth.

And then Mike enters the stage with all the grace of a balloon full of water, and starts shouting that he’ll call the authorities if you disagree with his opinions.

What a joke.