Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply US-PHARMACIES UGL OZ
Raptor Labs UGFREAK OxygenPharm
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplyUS-PHARMACIES UGL OZUGFREAKRaptor LabsOxygenPharm

Does This Make You Feel Good????

  • Thread starter Thread starter dballer
  • Start date Start date
D

dballer

Guest
NAMBLA-RIFFIC!
The Beauty of Adolescent Boys
by Astrid Jackson




Who doesn't enjoy the beauty of boys? So hairless! So bursting with vital bodily fluids! So lacking in social skills! On the cusp of manhood, nearing his sexual peak, the barely ripe boy triggers reproductive impulses in us all. That the cultural omnipresence of smooth, lanky boys in cute underpants owes a debt to gay male consumers almost goes without saying. From Versace's shiny, skinny hipsters and Prada's cool, shaggy-haired waifs to Calvin Klein's tits 'n' abs blossoming from tighty-whities, current standards of masculine beauty are a far cry from the rugged, fur-trimmed man of yesteryear.

Adolescent male beauty is not masculine, nor is it feminine--it floats in the limbo between childhood and adulthood. While adolescent boys' behavior seems to be a construction of defense mechanisms to cloak those helplessly out-of-control feelings that torment all teenage boys, these barricades are still relatively straightforward in light of the complications of manhood. The hatred and hypersocial retardation that plague adult males are still just enduring foibles in teenage boys. The juxtaposition of this aggressive anguish with newly powerful yet awkward bodies quivers, a cocktail of unstable elements. Adolescent beauty vibrates in that space like a bell.

No one can deny the rush and thrill of power toting one of these boys around. Claire Denis, a French filmmaker, knows how to watch and appreciate a boy without making you hate yourself for doing it; her long shots glorifying Grégoire Colin's adolescent trembling (before he got muscles) in Nénette et Boni filled theatergoers with exquisite longing for the frustrated, aggressive young pizza-slinger. I found myself repeatedly fantasizing about rescuing him from beating off into pizza dough. Gus Van Sant casts Joaquin Phoenix's shuddering belly as high filmic art in To Die For.

Both of these masturbatoriffic scenes configure the viewer's lascivious desire within the context of "hot for teacher." Somehow, Mrs. Robinson types are tolerated as zesty old ladies or understanding, compassionate, mature women, while gay men who lust after teenage boys are made to feel like pedophiles for openly objectifying adolescents. Both men and women are capable of victimizing young boys. So what accounts for this difference? I suspect it's tools we use. As animals and as a society, we're hung up on penetration and the almighty dick. Apparently, straight women do not pose a threat with their nurturing vaginas and receptive, soft breasts.

Masculinity is under siege in an older man/younger man relationship, and it is all about penetration. The older gay man who lusts after adolescent boys is made to suffer because he's perceived as having penetrated the younger man, and that's not okay. Why? People believe the act of penetration has the power to "turn" the younger man gay. (I would venture that if Mary Kay Letourneau had been a man, folks would have been screaming for her blood, instead of gently suggesting that she was not well.)

I get giggles and knowing rolls of the eyes from my friends when I tell them I like boys. When gay men acknowledge they like teenage boys, friends hustle their toddlers indoors. Musing over the possibilities of revisiting teenage sex, my gay male friends (we share a common vision for Keanu Reeves) and I bemoan society's inability to allow the objects of our desire some measure of free will. Some boys want to sleep with older men and women. We can't deny the influence of power, but all of us should remember being teenagers ourselves, and the titillation of being admired by an older person. Some were nice, like certain camp counselors and co-workers, while others--self-loathing, lying, rapist youth pastors and the like--were monsters.

But others were sought after and flirted with, coaxed for beer and passage into the strange land of adulthood.
 
My thoughts.....

'My only premise is that there are times when one must attack with complete ruthlessness and fight with lethal fury. This fury and ruthlessness must be harnessed and directed to the gravest possible damage—to kill.'
 
Explain your idea. Your basic point is, if someone writes something purporting to want to have sex with little boys, they should be killed.


OH GOD I LOVE TO CUM IN A 12 YEAR OLD BOY'S ASS

There. Do I deserve death? No. I was joking.

How do you ascertain intent?

Dumbshit, go read some philosophy and stop eating up lies.
 
Zirak---whatever


Listen to me pal, settle your ass down.

It sounds like to me that that individual is trying to rationalize pedophilia and that he is a practicing pedophile. I am not saying that the govt should raid his home and drag him out and kill him, but I do think that he should be put to death.

I got no compassion for any individual who thinks like he does---he is part of the problem.

You on the other hand, are just a sympothizing hot head.
 
huntmaster said:
Listen to me pal, settle your ass down.

It sounds like to me that that individual is trying to rationalize pedophilia and that he is a practicing pedophile. I am not saying that the govt should raid his home and drag him out and kill him, but I do think that he should be put to death.

I got no compassion for any individual who thinks like he does---he is part of the problem.

You on the other hand, are just a sympothizing hot head.

How do you tell the difference? Seriously. Think about it for a second. You are the FBI. You have a program that trawls the web, looking for pedophilia websites. Once you find one, you will subpoena the ISP to find out the user, and put them to death after a cursory trial. How do you tell those who really believe what they wrote from those who don't?

Furthermore, do you really think people should be put to death for THOUGHTS? If a person commits no crime, they should be put to death merely if their thoughts are bizarre or evil?
 
buddy28 said:
how young are we talking here???

that shits prettty bunk.

Those sick fuckers talk about 10-14 year old boys.

I would rather fuck them with a flamethrower.
 
Zirakzigil said:



Furthermore, do you really think people should be put to death for THOUGHTS? If a person commits no crime, they should be put to death merely if their thoughts are bizarre or evil?

Good point. But, on the other hand, if the guy is serious, theres got to be some pressure from the moral majority to austrize people who consciously choose to celebrate underage homosexual behavour.
 
dballer said:


Those sick fuckers talk about 10-14 year old boys.

I would rather fuck them with a flamethrower.

Prepubescent sex is terriable. I agree.

Thing is though, Ive seen some fine ass girls at the age of 14 i would go home and whack off too. ;)
 
buddy28 said:


Good point. But, on the other hand, if the guy is serious, theres got to be some pressure from the moral majority to austrize people who consciously choose to celebrate underage homosexual behavour.

I agree. It's disgusting and in a perfect world people like him would not exist. If he lived in my community I'd tell everyone I knew about his views, and I'd warn the police and the local school districts, and tell them his name. However he should not be prosecuted merely for thoughts.
 
Tell people about him?? Not quite.. I think a wood chipper and a few of my drunk buddies would be a little more up to par for that twisted bastard.
 
Zirakzigil said:

However he should not be prosecuted merely for thoughts.

True. The guy obviously isnt stupid. He rode a thin line by not explicity endorsing the solicitation of underage sex, while clarifying his desires as nothing more than fanatasy.

Its pretty twisted though. Like Raina said. Its just taking advantage of kids so u can get off.
 
Zirakzigil said:


I agree. It's disgusting and in a perfect world people like him would not exist. If he lived in my community I'd tell everyone I knew about his views, and I'd warn the police and the local school districts, and tell them his name. However he should not be prosecuted merely for thoughts.

If he lived in my community, he would be very fortunate if all I did was beat his ass.
 
Zirakzigil said:
Explain your idea. Your basic point is, if someone writes something purporting to want to have sex with little boys, they should be killed.


OH GOD I LOVE TO CUM IN A 12 YEAR OLD BOY'S ASS

There. Do I deserve death? No. I was joking.

How do you ascertain intent?

Dumbshit, go read some philosophy and stop eating up lies.

lies, what the fuck are you talking about?

look here you piece of shit, dont call someone a dumbass for having moral beliefs. take your fucking philosophy and get the fuck off this board, you three dollar bill.

call me the fuck whatever you wanna call me, that shit is sick, and it has no place in our society, you might feel different one day if your teenage son gets it from one of these crazies.

they deserve death and if you wanna stand up for them then you deserve death, so fuckyou and your philosophy! moron.

as far as im concerned, if nambla or you was in my face preaching one bit of this shit, you better prepare to fight to the death.

sponge.
 
Zirakzigil said:


However he should not be prosecuted merely for thoughts.

well let me tell you, smarty pants with philosophy 101 under his belt. people act on thoughts. period. he shouldnt be prosecuted, he should be hung from a tree.........by the neck.
 
spongebob said:


well let me tell you, smarty pants with philosophy 101 under his belt. people act on thoughts. period. he shouldnt be prosecuted, he should be hung from a tree.........by the neck.

Fine. I'm saying right now, I think little boys are sexy and I'd like to fuck one. Should I be killed?

I want to go kick this dude in my gym's ass. Should I be arrested for aggravated battery?


People don't always act on their thoughts. Ever felt like you just wanted to hit someone but didn't? Ever felt like you just wanted to tell some bitch off, but didn't? The set of all actions a person does is a proper subset of the set of all their desires.

Not to mention, how do you tell what someone is thinking?

Think about this logically.
 
spongebob said:


lies, what the fuck are you talking about?

look here you piece of shit, dont call someone a dumbass for having moral beliefs. take your fucking philosophy and get the fuck off this board, you three dollar bill.

call me the fuck whatever you wanna call me, that shit is sick, and it has no place in our society, you might feel different one day if your teenage son gets it from one of these crazies.

they deserve death and if you wanna stand up for them then you deserve death, so fuckyou and your philosophy! moron.

as far as im concerned, if nambla or you was in my face preaching one bit of this shit, you better prepare to fight to the death.

sponge.

Sponge---your the man.

Well said my friend.
 
huntmaster said:
this is about a published artice, not private thoughts.

spin, spin, spin

So if I write something down and it becomes published, I can be prosecuted for my thought? Really, do tell. Explain your view in completeness. Don't give me one liners. If you can't explain it, I will assume you are replying out of emotion and not logic. Hint, your view should NOT consist solely of "he should die because he wrote down perverted shit" or you are a fascist and therefore an idiot.
 
SHUT UP NOW!!!

Zirakzigil said:


People don't always act on their thoughts. Ever felt like you just wanted to hit someone but didn't? Ever felt like you just wanted to tell some bitch off, but didn't? The set of all actions a person does is a proper subset of the set of all their desires.



Think about this logically.


BOSTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union will represent a group that advocates sex between men and boys in a lawsuit brought by the family of a slain 10-year-old.

The family of Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge said the North American Man/Boy Love Association and its website which is now offline incited the attempted molestation and murder of the boy on Oct. 1, 1997.

One of two men convicted in the killing, Charles Jaynes, 25, reportedly viewed the group's website shortly before the killing, and also had in his possession some of NAMBLA's publications. Also convicted in the killing was 24-year-old Salvatore Sicari.

The ACLU said the case, filed in federal court in mid-May, involves issues of freedom of speech and association.

"For us, it is a fundamental First Amendment case," John Roberts, executive director of the Massachusetts branch of the ACLU, told Boston Globe Wednesday. "It has to do with communications on a website, and material that does not promote any kind of criminal behavior whatsoever."

ACLU officials said NAMBLA members deny encouraging coercion, rape or violence.

Attorney Lawrence Frisoli, who represents the Curleys, said he is glad the ACLU is defending NAMBLA, because he has had trouble locating the group's members.

Harvey Silverglate, an ACLU board member, said Wednesday that the group's attorneys will try to block any attempt by the Curleys to get NAMBLA's membership lists, or other materials identifying members.

The ACLU also will act as a surrogate for NAMBLA, allowing its members to defend themselves in court while remaining anonymous.According to the Globe, NAMBLA officials in the past have said their main goal is the abolition of age-of-consent laws that classify sex with children as rape.

At two separate trials last year, prosecutors said Jaynes and Sicari were sexually obsessed with the boy, lured him from his Cambridge neighborhood with the promise of a new bike, and then smothered him with a gasoline-soaked rag when he resisted their sexual advances. They then stuffed him into a concrete-filled container and dumped it into a Maine river.

Sicari, convicted of first-degree murder, is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Jaynes' second-degree murder and kidnapping convictions enable him to seek parole in 23 years.

The Curleys last week were awarded $328 million by a superior court jury in a civil suit against Jaynes and Sicari.
 
that article has me soo mad... I cannot see straight.

I am going down to midtown to cause some terror.
 
dballer, you have no point. I said, the set of all actions is a proper subset of the set of all thoughts a person has. There are always thoughts one does not act on. If some people acted, or tried to act, on those thoughts, fine, throw the book at them. If people are merely writing down their ideas, they should not be punished, no matter how heinous the thoughts they write.

I think you people would feel more comfortable in the 1930's Soviet Union, or Europe before the Enlightenment.
 
Zirakzigil said:

I think you people would feel more comfortable in the 1930's Soviet Union, or Europe before the Enlightenment.

Or in Texas.. 1953
 
Zirakzigil said:


Fine. I'm saying right now, I think little boys are sexy and I'd like to fuck one. Should I be killed?

spin all you want. but you know damn well theres a difference between what you are doing right now and that essay that was written. the nambla organization is sick.

I want to go kick this dude in my gym's ass. Should I be arrested for aggravated battery?


People don't always act on their thoughts. Ever felt like you just wanted to hit someone but didn't? Ever felt like you just wanted to tell some bitch off, but didn't? The set of all actions a person does is a proper subset of the set of all their desires.

Not to mention, how do you tell what someone is thinking?

Think about this logically.

how do i tell??? they write it down and have a website.

im telling you, now listen closely, any member of nambla should be arrested. fuck free speech. its that simple to me.

what do you think would happen if i had a website that talked about killing the president???

in life, there are some things that should be based on emotions not logic or what your liberal college professor shovels into your head and this is one of them, that is my opinion.
 
wow.

good post dballer.

I can see Zirakzigil's point.

But, on the otherhand, Canada has enacted hate laws which outlaw the publish of written material that depricates a specific ethnic, religous, or social groups.

Its a tough issue because once we give the government the right to determine governing morality, and codify it, our civil liberities become jepordized.

on the otherhand, i dont know why the aclu's defending the pedophile site. Stupid, stupid move.

And the family got 328 million!!?! Holy shit thats a lot of dough.
 
Last edited:
Interesting.

Some are criticized for wanting these people put to death.

Others are criticized for respecting their right to free speech.

I will compromise.

I believe that they should have every legal right to say what they are saying - until a legion of angry fucking fathers of adolescent boys brutally murders all of them!

-Warik
 
spongebob said:
how do i tell??? they write it down and have a website.

im telling you, now listen closely, any member of nambla should be arrested. fuck free speech. its that simple to me.
Fuck free speech? I guess there is nothing left to say. If you do not see the reason that thinking people will protect free speech with their lives, then you need to read more philosophy and history. Preferably history of Europe, 1677 to present. Read some Thomas Paine. These people were intelligent people, and they were willing to die for their freedom of speech. I guess they were just wrong, huh?

My last thought here - I will repeat: no one should be prosecuted for their thoughts or their words.
 
buddy28 said:


And the family got 328 million!!?! Holy shit thats a lot of dough.

Remember what those animals did to their son. I think the fags should have been set free to go in the ghetto of Atlanta.. I know wherever you put those pieces of shit.. humanity would deal with them. Fuck civil justice when it comes to events like these.
 
spongebob said:


what do you think would happen if i had a website that talked about killing the president???

in life, there are some things that should be based on emotions not logic or what your liberal college professor shovels into your head and this is one of them, that is my opinion.

True that. But theres probably a law somewhere that enables the prosecution of persons who conspire, with due intent, to kill the president. theres probably laws like that for raping kids, but intent would probably be more liberally applied concerning the conspired assination of the pres, then it would be for the kid. Too bad for that though..... GW's doing a pretty shit job.


haha.
 
buddy28 said:
wow.

good post dballer.

I can see Zirakzigil's point.

But, on the otherhand, Canada has enacted hate laws which outlaw the publish of written material that depricates a specific ethnic, religous, or social groups.

Its a tough issue because once we give the government the right to determine governing morality, and codify it, our civil liberities become jepordized.


buddy, good point bro, we have hate laws here too. good point.

laws are partly based on morality.


warik

good post, i was thinking the same thing.
 
Zirakzigil said:

Fuck free speech? I guess there is nothing left to say. If you do not see the reason that thinking people will protect free speech with their lives, then you need to read more philosophy and history. Preferably history of Europe, 1677 to present. Read some Thomas Paine. These people were intelligent people, and they were willing to die for their freedom of speech. I guess they were just wrong, huh?

My last thought here - I will repeat: no one should be prosecuted for their thoughts or their words.

If you think our founding fathers would have stood for this shit you are mistaken.

There is a reason why this is happening now and they can almost get away with it---and its a new thing.

its b/c of people like you that our nation is headed in the wrong direction.
 
dballer said:


Remember what those animals did to their son. I think the fags should have been set free to go in the ghetto of Atlanta.. I know wherever you put those pieces of shit.. humanity would deal with them. Fuck civil justice when it comes to events like these.

True. Punishment didnt fit the crime. So compensation was adjusted.

Im against capital punishment, but those two dudes committed probably one of the most terriable acts a human could ever committ. I mean that seriously. To deceive a little kid to rape them, then pour gas on them and kill them....unbeleivable.

Life imprisonment in a maximum security institution - in the general population.

I dont like to think of myself as vindictive guy, but those men will face God when they die.
 
buddy28 said:


I dont like to think of myself as vindictive guy, but those men will face God when they die.

I would LOVE to be the one to arrange that meeting.
 
dballer said:


I would LOVE to be the one to arrange that meeting.

Itll happen bro. Perhaps huntmaster can give you the quote where Jesus talked about punishment for those that harm kids.

Not good.
 
huntmaster -

something almost incomprehensable. If those men accepted Christ, and repented and sought forgivness. Theyd find it.

How does a person rationalize that?

Thats pretty nutty. Not to turn this into a religous thread. But an interesting point.
 
Zirakzigil said:

Fuck free speech? I guess there is nothing left to say. If you do not see the reason that thinking people will protect free speech with their lives, then you need to read more philosophy and history. Preferably history of Europe, 1677 to present. Read some Thomas Paine. These people were intelligent people, and they were willing to die for their freedom of speech. I guess they were just wrong, huh?

My last thought here - I will repeat: no one should be prosecuted for their thoughts or their words.

i dont give a fuck how smart they were brother, intelligence is over rated. and quit looking up to people and develope your own thoughts. anyhow, im not saying they were wrong or right. im telling you that its my opinion that an organization like nambla is sick. tell me one good thing they do????

i dont need to test free speech with dirtbags like that. im telling you that i can not have a website preaching the killing of the president. now where's the free speech?

yes, fuck free speech, im willing to give up MY right to write or talk about young boys, so that nambla cant have the right to do it as well.
 
buddy28 said:


Itll happen bro. Perhaps huntmaster can give you the quote where Jesus talked about punishment for those that harm kids.

Not good.


Matthew chapter 18:6
[6] But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
 
huntmaster said:



Matthew chapter 18:6
[6] But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

ouch.
 
buddy28 said:
huntmaster -

something almost incomprehensable. If those men accepted Christ, and repented and sought forgivness. Theyd find it.

How does a person rationalize that?

Thats pretty nutty. Not to turn this into a religous thread. But an interesting point.

Yeah, thats just an example of the power of the Love of Jesus though.
 
spongebob said:


i dont need to test free speech with dirtbags like that. im telling you that i can not have a website preaching the killing of the president. now where's the free speech?

yes, fuck free speech, im willing to give up MY right to write or talk about young boys, so that nambla cant have the right to do it as well.

good point sponge---and I will add for ol Zirak that I would be willing to give up every freedom that I know of if it would save the life of just ONE past or future victim of one of these sick individuals.
 
I suppose I'm being naive but I cant imagine that guy is talking about 10-14 y/o boys..I was thinking more along the lines of 17-19 but then again that wouldnt be illegal so I suppose it's true...in that case, I would do nothing but smile if these entities unfit to be called humans were thrown off a cliff...

However, free speech rights CANNOT be infringed for ANY reason...why? Because it's like a damn..once there is a small hole, people will find reasons to make more holes, and pretty soon the damn breaks and your freedom of speech, such and important right, washes away...
 
huntmaster said:


good point sponge---and I will add for ol Zirak that I would be willing to give up every freedom that I know of if it would save the life of just ONE past or future victim of one of these sick individuals.

C'mon hunt, you're a smart guy...you can't think that way, I know this kind of shit gets the blood boiling, but far more would suffer with what you're talking about...for example, would you support outlawing all guns to save the life of 1 young boy who accidentally shoots himself in the future...?
 
he speaks of 'hairless young boys'---thus the 10-14 yr/old range.

and if this is what free speach is --- I dont want it. If we get down to it in the courts and free speach protects these individuals, yall can have it. I dont want any part of it. this is not what was intended. this is not why we fought the Brit's.
 
huntmaster said:
Matthew chapter 18:6
[6] But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Yikes.

God doesn't fuck around. Don't mess with Him. =)

-Warik
 
Frackal said:


C'mon hunt, you're a smart guy...you can't think that way, I know this kind of shit gets the blood boiling, but far more would suffer with what you're talking about...for example, would you support outlawing all guns to save the life of 1 young boy who accidentally shoots himself in the future...?

I was speaking of myself and my rights in particular. Not everyone else's.

Many of the rights that men and women have died for in our nations history are being perverted and transformed into protecting the criminal. It was bound to happen sooner or later I guess. It is just a very hard pill to swallow.
 
Last edited:
we as a society need to figure out whats really important. i have no fear at all of loosing any rights just because we say were not gonna allow nambla to exist. the american people are too strong for that to happen. its a crying shame to begin with that we even have to discuss a topic like this in order to discuss free speech. but oh well, lets keep flushing ourselfs.

zirakerzil, or whatever the hell your name is, you had some good points. peace.
 
Top Bottom