User4/draft/First they said ''this'' about BoyLovers... - Revision history

User4 at 17:34, 5 April 2016

2016-04-05T17:34:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:34, 5 April 2016
Line 27:		Line 27:
	It's ''not'' about "saving children".		It's ''not'' about "saving children".

	~~<big>~~It's about furthering the goals of the antisexuals and sexophobes, ~~and~~ the spreading of their demonstrably harmful morality!~~</big>~~		'''It's about furthering the goals of the antisexuals and sexophobes, which is the spreading of their demonstrably harmful morality!'''

	That is what it is ''really'' all about!		That is what it is ''really'' all about!

User4: User4 moved page User4/draftFirst they said ''this'' about BoyLovers... to User4/draft/First they said ''this'' about BoyLovers...: self-evident

2016-04-05T16:09:47Z

User4 moved page User4/draftFirst they said ''this'' about BoyLovers... to User4/draft/First they said ''this'' about BoyLovers...: self-evident

← Older revision	Revision as of 16:09, 5 April 2016
(No difference)

User4 at 16:09, 5 April 2016

2016-04-05T16:09:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:09, 5 April 2016
Line 10:		Line 10:
	*BoyLovers were all "pederasts" who anally raped (therefore physically harming) "innocent" boys		*BoyLovers were all "pederasts" who anally raped (therefore physically harming) "innocent" boys
	*BoyLovers were selfish, narcissistic, and did not empathize with the feelings of boys		*BoyLovers were selfish, narcissistic, and did not empathize with the feelings of boys
			*BoyLovers "abandon" the boy as soon as he "ages out" of the BoyLovers preferential age of attraction

	As each of ''these'' myths was then exposed as being false, they had to come up with even ''newer'' arguments:		As each of ''these'' myths was then exposed as being false, they had to come up with even ''newer'' arguments:

User4 at 15:52, 5 April 2016

2016-04-05T15:52:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:52, 5 April 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~The~~ said that BoyLovers were homosexuals, who:		They said that BoyLovers were homosexuals, who:
	*"pervert the morality" of innocent boys/"children" (1800s to present)		*"pervert the morality" of innocent boys/"children" (1800s to present)
	*were "inverted," "perverted," "deviant" (late 19th- and early 20th centuries)		*were "inverted," "perverted," "deviant" (late 19th- and early 20th centuries)
Line 20:		Line 20:
	This is easily demonstrated by the actions of the "child savers" when they go ''beyond the borders of the U.S''--to ''other cultures'', where there are different moral codes.		This is easily demonstrated by the actions of the "child savers" when they go ''beyond the borders of the U.S''--to ''other cultures'', where there are different moral codes.

	For example, in most Asian countries--whose cultures are ''not'' based on Judeo-Christian morality--~~there~~ '''''is no guilt or shame felt by a boy who engages in sexual activity with a BoyLover.'''''		For example, in most Asian countries--whose cultures are ''not'' based on Judeo-Christian morality--'''''there is no guilt or shame felt by a boy who engages in sexual activity with a BoyLover.'''''

	Therefore, according to the reasoning of the "child savers"--which is that boys need to be "saved" from feeling guilt and shame (the guilt and shame which comes from being exposed to the condemnation by society) then there is '''''no reason at all to condemn BoyLovers having sexual relationships with boys in cultures where boys feel no guilt or shame.'''''		Therefore, according to the reasoning of the "child savers"--which is that boys need to be "saved" from feeling guilt and shame (the guilt and shame which comes from being exposed to the condemnation by society) then there is '''''no reason at all to condemn BoyLovers having sexual relationships with boys in cultures where boys feel no guilt or shame.'''''

User4: Created page with "The said that BoyLovers were homosexuals, who: "pervert the morality" of innocent boys/"children" (1800s to present) were "inverted," "perverted," "deviant" (late 19th- and..."

2016-04-05T15:49:49Z

Created page with "The said that BoyLovers were homosexuals, who: *"pervert the morality" of innocent boys/"children" (1800s to present) *were "inverted," "perverted," "deviant" (late 19th- and..."

New page

The said that BoyLovers were homosexuals, who:
*"pervert the morality" of innocent boys/"children" (1800s to present)
*were "inverted," "perverted," "deviant" (late 19th- and early 20th centuries)
*and therefore, as do all homosexuals, they murder their "victims" (early to mid 20th century)
:and they kidnap, rape, and kill "little children" (1930s to present)
*"recruit" young boys into homosexuality (1940s to present)

As each of the above myths was exposed as being false, new arguments were needed against BoyLove and BoyLovers:
*BoyLovers introduced "dirty" sexual ideas into the "clean minds" of asexual children
*BoyLovers were all "pederasts" who anally raped (therefore physically harming) "innocent" boys
*BoyLovers were selfish, narcissistic, and did not empathize with the feelings of boys

As each of ''these'' myths was then exposed as being false, they had to come up with even ''newer'' arguments:
*BoyLove is immoral, and--because sexual activity with a BoyLover exposes boys to the condemnation of society--the boys are being harmed.

This is a circular argument: Society condemns BoyLove because boys, if they engage in sexual activity with BoyLovers, are then subjected to condemnation by society if it is discovered. And therefore the boys feel shameful and guilty for having engaged in sexual activity with a BoyLover, and this shame and guilt is due to the fact that society condemns BoyLove.

How can we know that the above argument by the so-called "child savers" is deceitful, and actually just ''another'' excuse to ban BoyLove?

This is easily demonstrated by the actions of the "child savers" when they go ''beyond the borders of the U.S''--to ''other cultures'', where there are different moral codes.

For example, in most Asian countries--whose cultures are ''not'' based on Judeo-Christian morality--there '''''is no guilt or shame felt by a boy who engages in sexual activity with a BoyLover.'''''

Therefore, according to the reasoning of the "child savers"--which is that boys need to be "saved" from feeling guilt and shame (the guilt and shame which comes from being exposed to the condemnation by society) then there is '''''no reason at all to condemn BoyLovers having sexual relationships with boys in cultures where boys feel no guilt or shame.'''''

It's ''not'' about "saving children".

<big>It's about furthering the goals of the antisexuals and sexophobes, and the spreading of their demonstrably harmful morality!</big>

That is what it is ''really'' all about!

User4/draft/First they said ''this'' about BoyLovers... - Revision history

User4 at 17:34, 5 April 2016

User4: User4 moved page User4/draftFirst they said ''this'' about BoyLovers... to User4/draft/First they said ''this'' about BoyLovers...: self-evident

User4 at 16:09, 5 April 2016

User4 at 15:52, 5 April 2016

User4: Created page with "The said that BoyLovers were homosexuals, who: *"pervert the morality" of innocent boys/"children" (1800s to present) *were "inverted," "perverted," "deviant" (late 19th- and..."

User4: Created page with "The said that BoyLovers were homosexuals, who: "pervert the morality" of innocent boys/"children" (1800s to present) were "inverted," "perverted," "deviant" (late 19th- and..."