?STUD? of the day.

[Doug69]

RE: Twink Patrol

 

>We all know that there are a number of members here who prefer

>the company of "twinks." Would any of those members care to

>tell us whether they think there is anything inappropriate

>about pornography featuring kids who are 18 but look younger,

>or about hiring escorts who are 18 but look younger?

 

An excellent question! I look forward to reading the answers, if there are any. I asked this question once before, a little less directly, in a thread which was about the definition of "twink," and I got no answers, which I took to be an answer in itself.

 

Let's see if you have any more luck with your direct approach. Although I (and apparently most others) thought the Sega picture was vile and sick, I have seen lots of other pictures around here of "escorts" over which "twink-lovers" drooled, where the model in question certainly appeared to be under 18, only not as much under 18 as Sega appeared to be.

 

Was the Sega picture bad only as a matter of degree (i.e. that he looked 14 rather than 16), or is it always repugnant to pursue "twink" escorts based upon their highly youthful appearance where they look like they are under 18, regardless of how much under 18 they are?

[+ Lucky]

RE: Twink Patrol

 

Good questions, at least on the surface. In the travel section there is an escort listing whose review brags that he is 20, but "looks 16."

 

As far as protesting the pictures in question, my feeling is that child exploitation is unacceptable and vile. The line has to be drawn somewhere and society has chosen to draw it the age of 18. So if we are going to accept that there is a line to be drawn, it is not acceptable to play games with marketing 18 year olds to look 12 or 13. The appeal is still to the same crowd that would exploit a 12 or 13 year old. I don't know why this website would want to have that appeal, and I am glad the picture is withdrawn.

[Hamlet]

RE: Twink Patrol

 

>As Doug recently pointed out in another thread, one would

>think that gay men who want to engage in one type of sexual

>activity, prostitution, that is illegal would have a

>laissez-faire attitude toward the sexual proclivities of

>others and would be the last to condemn anyone for sexual

>behavior considered "deviant" by the same people who condemn

>gay sex as deviant.

 

Woodlawn, I think that the outrage that has been expressed here has little or nothing to do with censoriousness of people whose proclivities are simply different from the majority of those who frequent the site. I think it has much more to do with the fact that most of us feel that this KID not only looks younger than 18, but IS younger than 18 - by a considerable margin. The exploitation of minors for sexual puposes, both as prostitutes and as models in kiddie porn, is repugnant to most of us, not because we hold some sort of rationalized double standard of sexual behavior, but simply because we share a fundamental sense of decency. This sense of decency is not dictated by laws, even though our feeling of what is right or wrong is influenced by the laws and mores of the country we have grown up in, but springs mainly from a genuine concern for the welfare of children.

 

I'm not familiar with the sex scene in Moscow, where I believe Aaron Lawrence hangs out, but I do know St. Petersburg. Any street kid can get a perfectly valid looking fake ID for the Russian equivalent of $10. Aaron Lawrence knows this too. But for a long time I've suspected that he just doesn't give a damn.

[axebahia]

RE: One man's twink....

 

>We all know that there are a number of members here who prefer

>the company of "twinks." Would any of those members care to

>tell us whether they think there is anything inappropriate

>about pornography featuring kids who are 18 but look younger,

>or about hiring escorts who are 18 but look younger?

 

I count myself as a "twink" amateur, but personally the body of "boy" does not interest me. It rather looks like that of a girl with a dick. For me, a twink that falls in the 18-21 range without a lot of body hair of older men, but with more body definition than younger boys is just fine. As for those under 18, who look 18-21, as others have said, a line must be drwn somewhere. However, that was not the case with Saga. He looked 14, and probably was. The only other call as close to this that I recall was a pic that Les posted and that Hooboy refused to take down.

[Luv2play]

RE: Twink Patrol

 

I stated in a previous post that I would be the last to condemn another's sexual proclivities but, that said, I thought it was ill-advised for HooBoy to tolerate the depiction of child sexuality on this site. We all know that the escorts who advertise their services on this site state that the fees are for time only etc, etc. We know this is a fiction but, hey, we have to consider the state of the law wherever we are.

 

If we were in Amsterdam, we would not have to worry, as prostitution is legal. Some of those escorts appear on this site and they don't have to make the claim that fees are for time only.

 

Until recently, sodomy was illegal if practiced by two gay men in the privacy of their home in Texas. In Canada, this has not been illegal since 1968. Society evolves and laws change over time as this evolution continues. Not every nation is on the same page, neither is every community within a nation.

 

The debate over prostitution and whether it should be decriminalized has begun in Canada. It has not in the United States (except in Nevada where it has been legal since I can remember). The debate on gay sexuality has advanced much further in Canada than the United States.

 

So for a gay man who travels and who enjoys the company of male escorts, what is one to do? Well, for me, I take note of the local customs, the local laws, and act accordingly. The more repressive the laws, the more circumspect I am. But I don't stop availing myself of the services of escorts. Nor do I feel like a criminal for following my own inclinations.

 

When it comes to child pornography and sex trade, the line is drawn in almost all (if not all) societies. Not only is it illegal, but it flies in the face of how every society views its responsiblities to a vulnerable population that cannot defend itself, namely children. So to equate the flouting of anti-prostitution laws with those condemning using children for sexual purposes is not only specious but I would assert, mischievous on the part of Woodlawn.

[BuckyXTC]

RE: Twink Patrol

 

So to equate the flouting of

>anti-prostitution laws with those condemning using children

>for sexual purposes is not only specious but I would assert,

>mischievous on the part of Woodlawn.

 

Mischief on the part of Woodlawn...............perish the thought!

 

Yes, Woodie and his alter ego Doug69 (who takes delight watching the inadequacies of Down's syndrome children) have definitely laid out the bait. Another red herring to keep the pot stirred.

[Doug69]

RE: Twink Patrol

 

>Yes, Woodie and his alter ego Doug69 (who takes delight

>watching the inadequacies of Down's syndrome children) have

>definitely laid out the bait.

 

Don't include me in his argument regarding the "inconsistency" between defending prostitution and condemning child pornography because I'm not the one who made it and I don't agree with it.

 

I think Woodlawn's argument is easy to answer. One can consistently believe - as I do - that consenting adults have the right to engage in whatever activities they want with one another provided such activities don't directly harm anyone else, but also believe that child pornography or the sexualizing of children is grotesque and should be criminal, precisely because children are incapable of meaningful consent.

 

For that reason, there is absoultely nothing inconsistent about participating in or defending prostitution transactions while simultaneously condemning child pornography - any more than it would be inconsistent to defend prostutition while condemning murder.

 

What is interesting about what Woodlawn observed is that there are many people who will proclaim outrage over pictures such as Sega while, at the same time, oogling over "twinks" who, while not as young-looking as Sega, still look under 18.

 

>Another red herring to keep the

>pot stirred.

 

Funny how your posts, where you express often controversial views in a strident manner, are devoted to stirring debate, but when other people do it, it's just about "pot stirring." It must be nice to give yourself dispensation from all of the rules you apply to others.

[woodlawn]

RE: Twink Patrol

 

>I think Woodlawn's argument is easy to answer. One can

>consistently believe - as I do - that consenting adults

>have the right to engage in whatever activities they want with

>one another provided such activities don't directly harm

>anyone else, but also believe that child pornography or the

>sexualizing of children is grotesque and should be criminal,

>precisely because children are incapable of meaningful

>consent.

 

I wouldn't dispute that a meaningful distinction can be made between adult prostitution and child prostitution. But both are simply examples of moral and legal line-drawing. I find it interesting that people who are on the wrong side of a line drawn by the overwhelming majority of their fellow citizens are quick to condemn others who are on the wrong side of another line.

 

>What is interesting about what Woodlawn observed is that there

>are many people who will proclaim outrage over pictures such

>as Sega while, at the same time, oogling over "twinks" who,

>while not as young-looking as Sega, still look under 18.

 

I don't think we can deny that some people who frequent this site specifically want to hire prostitutes who look like teenagers. I assume that is because they find teenagers sexually attractive and want to indulge their desires by hiring kids who are of legal age but could pass as teenagers. Do members think there is anything wrong with that? If not, is there anything wrong with posting pictures of kids who are of legal age but could pass as teenagers?

 

>>Another red herring to keep the

>>pot stirred.

 

I think the common meaning of "red herring" is a device that is meant to distract attention from something else. I have done nothing more than raise an issue that is certainly related to the discussion in this thread and invited others to comment. If you have a problem with that, maybe a message board is not where you ought to be spending your time.

[Hamlet]

RE: Twink Patrol

 

>

>I wouldn't dispute that a meaningful distinction can be made

>between adult prostitution and child prostitution. But both

>are simply examples of moral and legal line-drawing.

 

You can't be serious. Child prostitution is not "simply" an example of moral and legal line-drawing. I'm sure you yourself don't believe your cool-as-a-cucumber pseudo-rational sophistry. Anybody, Woodlawn, can dress up an atrocity in fine language and specious arguments. It remains an atrocity.

 

>I find

>it interesting that people who are on the wrong side of a line

>drawn by the overwhelming majority of their fellow citizens

>are quick to condemn others who are on the wrong side of

>another line.

 

Your implication is that people who subscribe to the majority view that child prostitution is heinous may be doing so merely because it IS the majority view. I'm new here, I don't know you, and haven't read your numerous previous posts. It is clear from the way that you write that you are an intelligent man. Too intelligent to believe your own nonsense. Others who have had longer histories with you can speculate as to why you do this.

[marc anthony]

RE: Twink Patrol

 

>

>We all know that there are a number of members here who prefer

>the company of "twinks." Would any of those members care to

>tell us whether they think there is anything inappropriate

>about pornography featuring kids who are 18 but look younger,

>or about hiring escorts who are 18 but look younger?

>

>

 

I prefer the company of twinks. I like boys who are 18-23, and quite frankly, I like them to look like they are 18-23. College boys are my biggest turn on... both the look and the demeanor. I agree with everyone that Sega did not look 18 (though the actual pics on Aaron's site, as someone directed us to, makes him at least look like he could be). And no... he did not turn me on, but then if he is 18 and he turned someone else on, what am I supposed to say? I can tell you this... if you went to a large university campus and walked around, you would find a few guys who look at least as young or younger than he does.

 

There are guys who are 18 who look 25, and there are those who look 15. It is the law of standard deviations and averages. Not everyone who is 18 can actually look 18. Now if the the photographer tried to dress this boy up in "little boy" clothes, and give the illusion that he is underage, I have a problem with that... just as there are laws that prohibit the graphic portrayal of rape, even if it is staged. And quite frankly, that is why I talked about not being interested in that escort Lucky who clearly played to the underage fantasy.

 

But this was Sega, naked, looking like how he looks with no clothes on... it didn't turn me on at all, but that's me. But how am I (we) supposed to express moral outrage if he is indeed 18, legally took those pics, and was legally entitled to gain work from so doing?

 

So if you are asking about my personal lines... I do draw the lines at people who don't look like they have reached 18. They don't turn me on. But if you are asking about what I think is an appropriate moral line... I draw the line at underage sex. I draw the line at graphic portrayals meant to simulate underage sex. I don't draw the line at over 18's who happen to look young trying to do standard porn. After all, that 18 yo consent line was drawn with the concept of emotional readiness in mind, and we should ALL know by now that one's outward look has nothing to do with emotional readiness.

[woodlawn]

RE: Twink Patrol

 

>You can't be serious. Child prostitution is not "simply" an

>example of moral and legal line-drawing. I'm sure you

>yourself don't believe your cool-as-a-cucumber pseudo-rational

>sophistry. Anybody, Woodlawn, can dress up an atrocity in

>fine language and specious arguments. It remains an

>atrocity.

 

You speak of "atrocity" as if it were a physical law of the universe, like the speed of light, which is the same for everyone. Let me remind you that most of our fellow citizens consider it no less or very little less an atrocity to have a fat old man hire a young guy (even if of legal age) for sex, or for a married man to cheat on his wife with a male prostitute. But those are things that are viewed as perfectly acceptable by many posters here.

 

Let me also remind you that since you don't know me, it doesn't make much sense for you to be "sure" about my beliefs. You certainly shouldn't assume that I see everything from the same point of view as you. That's almost always a mistake.

 

 

>Your implication is that people who subscribe to the majority

>view that child prostitution is heinous may be doing so merely

>because it IS the majority view.

 

Well, unless I am much mistaken that is how cultural mores are learned. No one is born with certain beliefs about prostitution. We are taught certain things from an early age and become used to them. There is an old Russian saying: "We are born with water in our mouths, so we think it has no taste."

 

> I'm new here, I don't know

>you,

 

But that doesn't stop you from making assumptions about what I believe.

 

>and haven't read your numerous previous posts. It is

>clear from the way that you write that you are an intelligent

>man. Too intelligent to believe your own nonsense. Others

>who have had longer histories with you can speculate as to why

>you do this.

 

If you're the sort of person who labels as "nonsense" any point of view he doesn't agree with, we're not going to get along too well. Some of us are capable of considering seriously and dispassionately other points of view even though we don't agree with them. If you don't have that ability you'd be well advised to avoid my posts.

 

And I've already said why I do this. I raised the issue of people who use this site to hook up with escorts who can pass as teenagers because I'm curious about whether they (and others) think there is anything wrong with posting pictures of such escorts (or porn models) on this site. Nothing complicated about it.

[bluenix]

The Speed of Light

 

>You speak of "atrocity" as if it were a physical law of the universe, like the speed of light, which is the same for everyone.

 

The same for everyone? No, sorry, you're quite wrong.

 

Here's CNN on the speed of light:

 

http://www.ezshots.com/members/blueman/images/blueman-99.jpg

[Hamlet]

RE: Twink Patrol

 

>You speak of "atrocity" as if it were a physical law of the

>universe, like the speed of light, which is the same for

>everyone. Let me remind you that most of our fellow citizens

>consider it no less or very little less an atrocity to have a

>fat old man hire a young guy (even if of legal age) for sex,

>or for a married man to cheat on his wife with a male

>prostitute. But those are things that are viewed as perfectly

>acceptable by many posters here.

 

I give the posters here a little more credit – I doubt that many of them are quite as shallow as you suggest. It's true that in the second case there are two adults going into things with their eyes wide open – I don’t see that as an issue. In the first, however, I do have a problem, insofar as I don’t like situations in which people get hurt, as the wife, sooner or later, will be. I doubt that many of the guys on this site are truly comfortable with that scenario, even if it is one that they enact with some regularity in their own lives.

 

>Let me also remind you that since you don't know me, it

>doesn't make much sense for you to be "sure" about my beliefs.

> You certainly shouldn't assume that I see everything from the

>same point of view as you. That's almost always a mistake.

 

True.

 

>Well, unless I am much mistaken that is how cultural mores are

>learned. No one is born with certain beliefs about

>prostitution. We are taught certain things from an early age

>and become used to them. There is an old Russian saying: "We

>are born with water in our mouths, so we think it has no

>taste."

 

Try this “cultural mores stuff” on a 14 year old runaway in New York who works the movie houses of Times Square for $10 (if he's lucky) per blow job and lets himself get buttfucked by any drunken slob who comes along just so he can have a warm place to sleep. That was me in 1962. The memory of sexual abuse lingers and colors one’s whole life. It is unaffected by mores, penal codes, majority views, or any other abstract constructs. It just IS. I stand by my statement that an atrocity remains an atrocity.

 

>> I'm new here, I don't know you

 

 

>But that doesn't stop you from making assumptions about what I

>believe.

 

No, it doesn't. I read your words and infer from them what I can to the best of my ability. Just like anybody else.

 

>>and haven't read your numerous previous posts. It is

>>clear from the way that you write that you are an

>intelligent

>>man. Too intelligent to believe your own nonsense.

 

>If you're the sort of person who labels as "nonsense" any

>point of view he doesn't agree with,

 

I'm not.

 

>we're not going to get along too well.

 

I don’t know if we’ll get along or not. The finding out may prove to be interesting.

 

>Some of us are capable of considering

>seriously and dispassionately other points of view even though

>we don't agree with them. If you don't have that ability

>you'd be well advised to avoid my posts.

 

What I find, since you ask indirectly, is that your points of view shift in the wind like a weathervane that perversely and insistently points in the opposite direction from the prevailing wind. I don't know, yet, what you stand for. But I'll admit, you've caught my attention.

[Trixie]

RE: Twink Patrol

 

I rather like what Marc Anthony has to say here, and agree with him on many of his points. But i think a culture is expected to delineate what is acceptable, as has been pointed out on this thread, (a culture should also be able to adjust it's mores according to the needs of a changing society, but that's another story.) Cultures can be large-scale or small-scale, there are cultures within cultures ad infinitum. Here on this board we are a "culture" of mainly western civ. anglophone homosexual males who hire men for sexual relations. We have our own little micro-culture on this board.

I don't think anyone here would push the idea that Sega does not have the Right to pose nude. He has the right to earn a living as he sees fit (if indeed he can find a sustainable market) given that prostitution is legal in Russia.

But I really don't think that's the point here. If we were discussing a review of Sega, that would come into play. But what we are discussing is a paid advertisement by Aaron Lawrence, and whether it is his right to use imagery on a site where many of the regular participants have once already voiced strenuously their discomfort with the said imagery. In our "micro-culture", disapproval of this set of photos has been voiced not once but twice by many users of this board. There may be many others who are titillated by Sega here, but they are not making themselves known. Our little culture is establishing it's boundaries, for bettr or worse. I hope in the future Mr.Lawrence will honor those boundaries.

Trix

[woodlawn]

RE: Twink Patrol

 

>In

>the first, however, I do have a problem, insofar as I don’t

>like situations in which people get hurt, as the wife, sooner

>or later, will be. I doubt that many of the guys on this site

>are truly comfortable with that scenario, even if it is one

>that they enact with some regularity in their own lives.

 

I don't know what basis you have to tell us what most of the people on this site are comfortable with. I have seen most of the escorts who post here state quite plainly that they have no problem taking money to be with married men who are cheating on their wives. Of all the escorts I have seen post here, I can think of only one who has said he is NOT comfortable doing that. Ask them yourself if you don't believe me. And I can recall only one other poster (besides myself) who has ever indicated that he finds that situation troubling.

 

 

>Try this “cultural mores stuff” on a 14 year old runaway in

>New York who works the movie houses of Times Square for $10

>(if he's lucky) per blow job and lets himself get buttfucked

>by any drunken slob who comes along just so he can have a warm

>place to sleep. That was me in 1962. The memory of sexual

>abuse lingers and colors one’s whole life. It is unaffected

>by mores, penal codes, majority views, or any other abstract

>constructs. It just IS. I stand by my statement that an

>atrocity remains an atrocity.

 

Once again, the age at which people have sex is a cultural issue. In many countries it is not unusual for girls to be married at an age at which in the United States they would not be eligible for a driver license or even a learner's permit. You are simply taking your opinion on this issue and making it into a universal law. Other cultures have other mores.

 

 

 

>No, it doesn't. I read your words and infer from them what I

>can to the best of my ability. Just like anybody else.

 

 

But what you are inferring is that I DON'T agree with my own statements. You have no basis for making such an inference.

 

 

>>If you're the sort of person who labels as "nonsense" any

>>point of view he doesn't agree with,

 

>I'm not.

 

Good.

 

 

>I don’t know if we’ll get along or not. The finding out may

>prove to be interesting.

 

Only if you have something interesting to say.

 

 

>What I find, since you ask indirectly, is that your points of

>view shift in the wind like a weathervane that perversely and

>insistently points in the opposite direction from the

>prevailing wind. I don't know, yet, what you stand for. But

>I'll admit, you've caught my attention.

 

 

In fact, my point of view almost never changes. As I've already tried to explain, however, I am capable of considering seriously and dispassionately points of view OTHER THAN my own. In my opinion that is the definition of "tolerance."