Pedophiles and the twinks who operate webcams.

[RockHard]

Parenting

 

"As a parent, how does one discuss openess about one's sexual identity."

 

For me, it wasn't difficult at all but I'm an outspoken, in-your-face kinda guy. Of course, it helps if the parents are open-minded and honest with themselves, which is difficult to find. Being free of bigotry and prejudice helps, too.

 

I know, to many, it seems unlikely that cool parents exist but there are plenty of parents out there who work hard and do good by their children.

 

There will always be children who receive no good guidance and sexual predators prey on vulnerability. Teaching a child to beware of predator behavior is easy. Preventing a pedophile from coming in contact with your child is much more challenging.

[RockHard]

RE: Denied

 

From Lucky's profile:

 

"My comments are all intended for entertainment purposes. I have no intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person."

 

Since this is the case, I will no longer acknowledge your sarcastic, stalker-style jabs and give you the benefit of all my doubt.

 

If you wish to keep more escorts posting here on this forum, I suggest you post a picture of yourself and let your radiating beauty do the trick, every pun intended.

[woodlawn]

>Woodlawn,

>

>Normally I never respond to inflammatory posts that are

>intended as a mere provocation for futile and one-sided

>polemics.

 

But you do have a habit of labeling opinions you don't like as "inflammatory," "provocation," "one-sided" and "polemics." That's very narrow-minded of you. If you can't stand to read opinions that differ from your own, you should simply turn off your computer and talk to yourself.

 

>On one hand we have exploitation of children by adults.

>

>ANY kind of exploitation of children by adults, either labour

>exploitation, sexual expliotation or emotional abuse is wrong

>and should be punished. I do not -in any case- condone or

>support or try to justify it. That is final.

>

>On the other hand, (And you seem to have a lot of trouble

>discerning the difference between these two absolutely

>different subjects) we are talking about legal age of consent,

>for nurturing, respectful and mature relationships between an

>adult and a non-adult.

 

You are right, I do have trouble understanding the difference between the types of relationships you are describing. That's probably because the terms you use to describe them are so mushy and unspecific.

 

But this thread is about a SPECIFIC relationship between a child and adults who paid him to perform sex acts both with them (in some cases) and for their entertainment by webcam. If I remember correctly, in no case was the child coerced. In every case he demanded and received payment for what he did. Do you define that as "exploitation" or not? It's a very simple question that you should have no difficulty answering.

 

You speak of "nurturing, mature and respectful relationships" between a child and an adult. I assume you believe such relationships can involve sex, otherwise there is no reason for you to mention the age of consent for sexual activity. Can they also involve payment to the child? If not, why not? Many escorts who post here (and clients also) insist that the relationship between an escort and client can be "nurturing, mature and respectful." If that is true, is there any reason why a client should not hire a 14 year old escort for sex? I see nothing in what you have said that suggests you would ban such activity. Would you? Isn't that exactly what happened in the case described by the NY Times article we are discussing?

 

 

>You repeatedly state in your posts that the fact that I

>mention that age of consent varies from country to country can

>be construed as support for child exploitation.

 

That's because I think they can be so construed. See above.

 

 

>I wholeheartedly respect the fact that due to your cultural

>upbringing, religious background and personal beliefs you

>consider teenagers to be children.

 

You know nothing of my cultural upbringing. You have no idea whether I grew up in Brooklyn or Borneo. For all you know, my family could be Irish or Pathan -- or both. I consider those who have not attained their majority in the eyes of the law in my country to be children because that is what the law says they are.

 

> I

>also have to respect what seems to transpire through your

>posts: That sexual relationships seem to have a very negative,

>damaging, abusive, denigrating connotation.

 

You seem very confused here. We are discussing an article describing a sexual relationship that the child involved now acknowledges was "damaging, abusive and denigrating," isn't that correct? How do you go from that to claiming that I consider all sexual relationships so? Can you quote any post of mine in which I make such a statement?

 

 

>What I cannot allow is for you to infer

>that I support child abuse, just because our moral, religious

>and cultural backgrounds are different. The fact remains: we

>both agree that abuse (no matter what age, or what

>circumstance), is always wrong.

 

But you seem to have trouble explaining exactly what constitutes "abuse" in your opinion. That's why I keep asking specific questions. If you ever answer any of them specifically, I may finally understand just what your position is.

 

>And since you seem to be missing the point here,

 

It is you who are missing the point. This thread is about a specific case described in a NYT article. It is about a boy who became involved in sexual relationships with adults in his early teens, not when he was 19. That is what we are discussing. You keep wandering away from the facts of the case to talk about very different things, and I keep trying to bring you back to the subject of this thread.

[Juan Vancouver]

Power imballance promotes abuse.

 

To simple questions, simple answers:

 

>But this thread is about a SPECIFIC relationship between a

>child and adults who paid him to perform sex acts both with

>them (in some cases) and for their entertainment by webcam.

>If I remember correctly, in no case was the child coerced. In

>every case he demanded and received payment for what he did.

>Do you define that as "exploitation" or not? It's a very

>simple question that you should have no difficulty answering.

 

Yes, it is evidently a case of exploitation, abuse and manipulation. A child abuser often takes advantage of the child's false perception of "power". Often the child will have the delusion that it is him/her who initiated contact, that it is him/her who had the power to stop or keep going, that the adult was just a toy that he/she was playing with. And sadly, because of that, many abused children after being abused experience a feeling of self-condemnation, as if they were responsible for the whole thing. The abuser makes them feel guilty for being pretty, dirty, slutty... bad. And that's the tool they often use to ensure the teenager's secrecy about the whole thing. That is manipulative, wrong and sick.

 

In my personal opinion in this case, the adults and the parent should be prosecuted and punished. The young adult should seek counselling.

 

 

>You speak of "nurturing, mature and respectful relationships"

>between a child and an adult. I assume you believe such

>relationships can involve sex, otherwise there is no reason

>for you to mention the age of consent for sexual activity.

>Can they also involve payment to the child? If not, why not?

>Many escorts who post here (and clients also) insist that the

>relationship between an escort and client can be "nurturing,

>mature and respectful." If that is true, is there any reason

>why a client should not hire a 14 year old escort for sex? I

>see nothing in what you have said that suggests you would ban

>such activity. Would you? Isn't that exactly what happened

>in the case described by the NY Times article we are

>discussing?

 

Underage prostitution (or exploitation) should always be illegal and prevented. Under any circumstance.

 

I believe that progressive laws have a reason to be. In countries in which age of consent is low, escorting or prostitution is never legal before the age of 18. (When it is legal).

 

This is for a very simple reason: When a young adult needs money, it is very likely that he will put himself in risky, umcomfortable, demeaning situations as long as they allow them to earn the money necessary for his sustenance. An underage escort is more likely to make errors of judgment that will endanger him. An underage escort is more likely to allow the client to mistreat him, abuse him, threaten him. (Not to mention that a teenager might be easily overpowered in a physical fight by an adult. -not in every case, of course).

 

I know that 18 is a very arbitrary number. I know of escorts (or civilians) that are 35 years old and they cannot prevent abuse, they cannot defend themselves when it happens, or even worse, they assume that being abused is normal. But I agree that an escort will be much safer and wiser if he is at least reaching adulthood.

 

The more mature and confident we grow, the easiest it is for us to create our own boundaries and make people respect them. Being a legal adult does not guarantee an ability to have our boundaries respected (hell, sometimes I find myself in situations in which my boundaries were crossed, and find it hard to go back to safer course), but those who write the laws -and those who advise them- agree about the fact that a young adult is still not in the position of making his boundaries clear and respected. And that easily leads to abuse, when a power imballance is present.

 

And lastly, I know that I have profusely talked about this issue, but you might need me to adress it more clearly. I am more than happy to do it.

 

Money creates a power imballance.

 

Money puts the minor in a position of wanting to please the adult to be able to receive the payment. The adult can decide to hold back payment unless the teenager does this or that.

 

Power imballance is the main condition for abuse to happen.

 

Rewarding a sexual act with money, good marks, a good role in a play, a gift, a medal, a good position in the team, preference upon other siblings, and so on, makes the relationship dangerous, unfair and allienates the whole nature of it. Under this circumstances consent CANNOT be given. Sex under this circumstances -no matter if the minor considers himself to be a succesful manipulator, a user, the responsible one for the sexual relationship- it is considered abuse. And should be punished.

 

I know as a fact that many of us still struggle in this endless pattern of user-usee but now we are adults. We are accountable for our choices. We are big boys and we can protect ourselves. (Or choose to be victims).

 

A young adult has the right to receive our support, guidance, respect and trust. And if they need it, they have the right to demand our help in preventing, locating and punishing abuse.

 

I hope this time it is more clear. Thanks for asking concrete questions instead of just misinterpreting my posts.

 

Sincerely,

 

Juan Vancouver

[woodlawn]

RE: Power imballance promotes abuse.

 

>I hope this time it is more clear. Thanks for asking concrete

>questions instead of just misinterpreting my posts.

 

Thanks for finally speaking to the point. I don't agree with all you've said, but I cannot say that any of the points you've made regarding sex for payment with minors is unreasonable.

 

As for misinterpreting your posts, if you look at what I said about your posts in my first post in this thread, I don't think you can honestly claim that I misinterpreted anything.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Denied

 

Rockie...your response to Tom was just juvenile. Sorry if you don't like to be called on it. Tom was posting on a subject, opining as it were, that had nothing to do with his job. So why the comment about not hiring him? Should I stop buying Preparation H at Wal-Mart just because I don't like what you say?

 

(And you thought I didn't know who you "really" were!) Now lighten up, you take this way too seriously!

[RockHard]

RE: Denied

 

"So why the comment about not hiring him?"

 

I refuse to pay, in dollars or time, for any product, service, or service provider I deem amoral. I will not financially support a pedophile or a pedophile sympathizer just as I will not purchase any products produced by Michael Jackson.

 

Also, I will never join maleescortreview.com because it is owned by the same folks who own bareback.com.

 

A consumer has few rights but the most powerful and effective right is to leave the wallet closed shut and tell the manufacturer why.

[woodlawn]

>Our ideas about

>appropriate sexual behavior arrived on the world stage rather

>late.

 

So did ideas like racial equality, sexual equality and religious freedom. Other eras and other cultures did not adopt those ideas. Does that mean we should question the value of those ideas? There are still cultures in which women are considered and are treated as inferior beings, for example. Should we respect cultures that treat women as inferior because it would be arrogant for us to assume that our mores are trans-cultural?

 

>For instance, throughout history, many people married

>as early as 14,

 

And throughout history physicians treated the sick with remedies like bleeding and cupping that we now know are utterly useless at best. I think the problem here is that you disregard the findings of scientists who have studied the effects of sexual exploitation of children by adults and you treat the issue as a matter of opinion rather than fact. You remind me of the people who keep saying we shouldn't take evolution too seriously because it is only a "theory," and the origin of our species is a matter of belief rather than a matter of fact that can be resolved by scientific inquiry. On the issue of pedophilia, the scientific evidence supports RockHard's view rather than yours.

[Guest alanm]

Calm Down

 

>I refuse to pay, in dollars or time, for any product, service,

>or service provider I deem amoral. I will not financially

>support a pedophile or a pedophile sympathizer just as I will

>not purchase any products produced by Michael Jackson.

 

I agree with almost everything you have posted, Rock Hard. But in the process of arguing your position, you have knocked people with almost bibilical fury. Calm down. Lucky is a decent person and so are the others you have gone after. Nobody has voiced support for Michael Jackson.

[RockHard]

RE: Calm Down

 

"arguing your position"

"you have knocked people with almost bibilical fury"

 

Not at all how I would characterize my contribution on this thread.

 

"Calm down"

 

Nothing worse than a control freak who enjoys telling people what to do. By nature, few are more calm than me.

 

"Lucky is a decent person"

 

I don't know him and I don't you, either. Therefore, your judgement is meaningless to me.

 

"and so are the others you have gone after."

 

Read the sentence above. Furthermore, I don't "go after" anyone. I merely respond to what others say with words, when I feel so inclined. Spare me your soap opera, melodramatic characterizations. Your comments are just too (dysfuntional) gay for me.

[Yeswell]

Thanks to Tom Isern for a thoughtful comment. I'm sorry it was misunderstood. His posting neither advocates nor defends pedophilia. Also, pointing out that ideas about sexuality, about the age at which children become adults, about the sexuality of children, and, in fact, about almost everything have changed many times over the years is not the same as saying that our modern ideas are therefore wrong. As I see it, Tom is saying that we need to be very careful about saying things are natural or unnatural or always wrong or always right. Tom's posting was intelligent and clearly expressed; as neither Woodlawn nor Rockhard appears to have problems with basic reading comprehension in English I can only assume their responses demonstrate that contemporary hysteria about this topic is stronger than logic.

[woodlawn]

> Tom is saying that we need to be very careful about saying

>things are natural or unnatural or always wrong or always

>right.

 

Maybe, but I think it's far more important to avoid a philosophy of moral relativism in which nothing is considered wrong and no one is condemned no matter what he does because we are told we shouldn't be "judgmental." That has been a recurring theme in the MC for a long time.

 

> Tom's posting was intelligent and clearly expressed;

>as neither Woodlawn nor Rockhard appears to have problems with

>basic reading comprehension in English I can only assume their

>responses demonstrate that contemporary hysteria about this

>topic is stronger than logic.

 

I don't think there's anything hysterical about taking the position that it's not a good idea to allow a teenager to operate a porn site out of his home or to sell sexual displays or favors to pedophiles over the Internet. In my experience, people who use words like "hysteria" to describe the condemnation of pedophilia are usually trying to rationalize their own practices or desires.

[Guest alanm]

RE: Calm Down

 

Spare me your soap opera, melodramatic

>characterizations. Your comments are just too (dysfuntional)

>gay for me.

 

 

I made a New Year's resolution not to respond to post like this, but I'm going to break it just this once.

 

Soap opera? Melodramatic? Dysfunctional? You are the one, Rock Hard, who is continually telling us how important you are and peppering your comments with self serving anecdotes about your wonderful relationship with your son. Any shrink would have a field day with the comments you have made on this site, as Doug pointed out about a month after you

joined the message center.

 

Perhaps your comments are part of a stratgey to impress escorts.

 

I am glad that you have done well in life and that you and your son are close. Whatever your reasons, you post on the above constantly. So pardon me, if I was a little surprised by your response to my urging to calm down.

[RockHard]

Trying to calm alanm down...

 

"I made a New Year's resolution not to respond to post like this"

 

Oh, alanm, you really are TOO funny. You're killing me with your limp-wristed gayness. When you start making resolutions about posting or not posting on the Hooboy Message Center, you know it's time for therapy.

 

"You are the one, Rock Hard, who is continually telling us how important you are"

 

There you go again with your soap opera melodrama, dear. You just can't seem to help yourself. I don't recall ever making any statement on this board proclaiming "how important I am." That's your fantasy, sweetie, not mine. I'm just tickled that my writing bothers you so much. Thank you for reading my posts.

 

"Any shrink would have a field day with the comments you have made on this site"

 

I wouldn't waste my time with just "any" shrink.

 

"as Doug pointed out"

 

Ah...now your illness is perfectly clear.

 

"Perhaps your comments are part of a stratgey to impress escorts."

 

Yo, escorts...is it working? (Excuse me while I check my Inbox.) "Is that a gun in my pocket or are you just happy to see that big, fat bulge in my wallet? I thought so. Now get on your knees and suck this baby good!"

 

"I am glad that you have done well in life and that you and your son are close."

 

Those are the kindest words you've said to me since I registered here. Look how long it took you to be nice. I'd work on that if I were you.

[Yeswell]

I certainly don't believe in moral relativism--in fact, I feel that to be judgmental is both a duty and a pleasure--and neither Tom nor I said or implied that we did. As for your comment about complaints about hysteria usually indicating something about the complainer's own practices or desires, I think I'll have to defer to your superior knowledge of pedophiles.

[+ Tom Isern]

Thanks Yeswell, for renewing my faith in the posters on this site. You are right. My comment neither condemned nor advocated pedophilia. I was upset at the way pedophiles were being insensitively stereotyped by Rockhard--lumped together and judged based on their orientation, not their behavior. If Rockhard is a doctor, I find his comments even more offensive, because they betray an uneducated mind and an intolerance of human fallibility. I'd be grateful to never even meet him, much less sleep with him. Pedophiles are human beings too (sorry for the cliche), and like gay men or lesbians, they are probably not responsible for their feelings and orientation(s). What they are responsible for is their behavior--how they treat other people. To assume that they all behave or think or have sex the same way--that they "don't know where the line is," as Rockhard said, is stupid and immoral. I have a very, very close friend who is an older, celibate pedophile. I love him and care very much for his happiness. He abuses no one. And Rockhard has no fucking business abusing him, or generalizing about people like him, on this site. I think you are right--pedophiles are the last group of people it is still considered okay to hate. That is a problem the medical profession should be helping with--but then, anyone who knows the history of the medical profession knows that they were among the 19th-century fellows who pathologized and criminalized homosexuality.

 

I end with a quote from Nietzsche:

 

"Morality, insofar as it condemns for its own sake, and not out of regard for the concerns, considerations, and contrivances of life, is..an idiosyncrasy of degenerates which has caused immeasurable harm."

[+ Tom Isern]

...I forgot to mention: My father was a doctor. He seldom gave advice...he supported me and my brothers and sisters, but allowed us a great deal of freedom to grow up to be the kind of people we wanted to be. So much latitude, in fact, that I am still loved and accepted in my family even though they know all (or almost all) about "this." Dad did, however, have one favorite piece of advice: "Be quick to perceive, slow to judge." I never once heard him condemn gay men, African Americans, pedophiles, or any vulnerable minority. Reading comments on this site has taught me to appreciate my father more. Thank you guys.

[RockHard]

Interesting backstroke, Sister Helen Prejean Isern.

 

"Pedophiles are human beings too"

 

So are serial killers, drug dealers, and parents like Joel Steinberg and Hedda Nussbaum.

 

"I have a very, very close friend who is an older, celibate pedophile."

 

I did say "you clearly have some empathy for this illness" but I don't believe any of the dialogue in this thread included the discussion of "celibate pedophiles" or "pedophiles-in-recovery" until now.

 

"And Rockhard has no fucking business abusing him"

 

Tom, dear, that sure is some stretch. What does any of this have to do with "the Greek tradition of man/boy love?" Where was your "celibate pedophile friend" in your first series of judgmental posts?

 

"pedophiles are the last group of people it is still considered okay to hate"

 

I never mentioned the word "hate" in any of my comments and I don't believe sick people should be hated because of their illness. But what can be said of sick people who deny their illness and continue to do harm day after day, year after year, without ever seeking help? I think "pathetic" is a fair word.

 

For the son of a father who taught him to be "slow to judge," Tom Isern has done a fine job of judging me and my comments on this thread.

 

I admit, I have little patience for people who abuse themselves. I have even less patience for people who abuse others, especially children, and don't seek help. Unfortunately, denial is a very powerful side effect of some of these very destructive mental illnesses.

 

"That is a problem the medical profession should be helping with"

 

I agree. Mental illness and destructive addictions have a long way to go in medicine. Unfortunately, admitting a serious problem exists and seeking help falls on the shoulder of the patient.

 

I will vote for any politician who supports government funding for mental illness research. I continue to donate to private stem cell and genome research. I do my best to financially support the efforts of AA and NA. But I'm no saint and will eventually offend someone with my insensitive use of inflammatory words, especially on subjects that cut to the bone.

[woodlawn]

>Interesting backstroke, Sister Helen Prejean Isern.

 

Yes, it's quite a switch from saying that it's wrong to condemn all sexual relationships between children and adults, as he did in his first post, to saying we should have compassion for those pedophiles who do NOT act on their impulses.

[+ Tom Isern]

Sister Helen Prejean was a great woman, Rock, so I'll take the compliment. Thanks.

 

Don't you remember calling pedophiles "pathetic" and "sick" and saying that NONE of them know when they've "crossed the line"? Those were your words. Lumping a group of people together like that is called stereotyping. It's unethical. When you clearly didn't understand that, I didn't change the topic, as woodlawn complains, I used an example from my personal life to illustrate the point. I'm glad to see that it troubled you. There is little that can be said about ALL pedophiles. They are individuals and probably share very little in common. Some are responsible. Some not. They deserve to be respected and judged not by their orientation, but on their behavior--how they treat other people. Labeling an entire group of people sick and pathetic and saying that none of them are capable of responsible behavior is a form of hatred.

 

The fact that I've chosen to unpack and stress the comment I made in my first post about stereotyping does not mean that I back away from my other claims.

 

Has anyone seen the 1993 film "For A Lost Soldier"? It's about man/boy love--a Canadian soldier in WWII and a Dutch boy. I sure wish this Canadian soldier had lived down the block from me when I was fifteen!!! Great film. Here's what TLA says:

 

************************************************

 

SYNOPSIS

An essential film that tells the story of a boy and a man in love - explosive? yes - romantic? yes

 

REVIEW

The explosive subject of man-boy love is delicately handled in this touchingly romantic drama of a boy's coming-of-age during WWII. Joroen, a handsome rosey-cheeked boy of 13 is sent to the countryside to stay with a farming family in order to avoid the horrors of war. It is there that his adolescent sexual urges for boys begin to take hold. Initially interested in boys his own age, especially his girl-crazy best friend, the boy eventually finds his true love with Walt, a Canadian soldier stationed in the area as part of the Liberation forces.

 

It is love-at-first-sight for the two who, undeterred by their language barrier, develop a friendship that begins first as buddies and develops later into a full-blown love affair. Their one lovemaking scene in which Walt calls Jeroen 'his little prince' is achingly romantic and sexually intense. And while the film isn't sexually graphic, it may shock with it's cavalier attitude towards their tender love. What is truly remarkable is that their is no negative after-effect of this affair on the boy. A truly rare and extraordinary film. (Dutch with English subititles)

[RockHard]

"Don't you remember calling pedophiles "pathetic" and "sick" and saying that NONE of them know when they've "crossed the line"?"

 

It was clear in my mind that my original post (and the quote above), while referencing the NY Times' article, was specifically speaking to pedophiles who remain in DENIAL and are currently active with their sexual-molestation pursuits. I can honestly say that my post DID NOT speak to any pedophile in treatment, recovery, or someone who does not act on his feelings, and nor did I intend to include those individuals. Context matters.

 

Yes, an alcoholic will always remain an alcoholic. He is either drinking or he's a drinker in recovery but it is common to characterize the distinction. I think the same respect can apply to any intelligent discussion on pedophiles.

 

Certainly, if my father was an alcoholic and refused to stick with treatment, I would not hesitate to call him and others like him "sick" and "pathetic." It's very difficult and frustrating to love someone who cannot find a way to control his hurtful behavior or to love and heal himself. This does not mean we hate them or are expressing true "hate" by using inflammatory words when discussing emotionally-charged, highly personal topics.

 

"They deserve to be respected and judged not by their (pedophile) orientation"

 

Not so fast, sweetie. Sexual orientation is NOT a mental disorder and the jury is still out on whether the APA will ever change its clinical definition of pedophilia as a mental disorder. Pedophilia as "orientation" is being actively debated at this time within the APA, even though they are adamant that such relationships are immoral and should remain illegal. I don't recommend you hold your breath waiting for the American Psychiatric Association to remove this specific paraphilia from its current classification. If they do in our lifetime, I'd be happy to revisit the discussion.

 

"Lumping a group of people together like that is called stereotyping."

 

Well, thank you for the vocabulary lesson but, as I already said, there was no intent to lump your friend or anyone like him in this thread. Intent matters, too. Furthermore, I'm no fan of political correctness.

 

"Labeling an entire group of people sick and pathetic and saying that none of them are capable of responsible behavior is a form of hatred."

 

Given the context of the original post and the article I referenced, I do not feel I labeled an entire group of people. I never said, "none of them are capable of responsible behavior." Tom, your judgment is false and I do not agree with your cognitive distortions. It's your cognitive distortions and your obvious sentimentality towards man/boy sexual intimacy that "trouble me." And that's the reason I will never hire you.

[woodlawn]

>Sister Helen Prejean was a great woman, Rock, so I'll take

>the compliment. Thanks.

>

>Don't you remember calling pedophiles "pathetic" and "sick"

>and saying that NONE of them know when they've "crossed the

>line"? Those were your words. Lumping a group of people

>together like that is called stereotyping. It's unethical.

 

I don't speak for RockHard, but I do not take seriously lectures on ethics from people in your business. People who feel free to pick and choose which societal norms they respect and which they reject look rather silly when they start lecturing the rest of us on the importance of honoring such norms.

 

> There is little that can be said about ALL

>pedophiles. They are individuals and probably share very

>little in common. Some are responsible. Some not. They

>deserve to be respected and judged not by their orientation,

 

One thing that can be said about ALL pedophiles is that they experience urges to engage in sexual activity with children, since that is what the word means. I see nothing inaccurate about calling such people "pathetic," if one knows what the word "pathetic" actually means. Like any mental illness this is a misfortune, not a disgrace. Disgrace comes into it when pedophiles act on their urges. The last statement is one with which you clearly do not agree, as your comments about "man/boy love" and the film you reference indicate. You're entitled to your opinion of pedophilia. You're not entitled to tell Rock or any of the rest of us that expressing our opinion is "unethical."

[twinkboylover28]

That beautiful, female, blond school teacher who fucked her 14-year-old student received no jail time.

 

Double standard?

[Luv2play]

>

>I don't speak for RockHard, but I do not take seriously

>lectures on ethics from people in your business. People who

>feel free to pick and choose which societal norms they respect

>and which they reject look rather silly when they start

>lecturing the rest of us on the importance of honoring such

>norms.

 

Since this debate occurs in cyberspace, where the only parties who identify themselves and their professions are the escorts who engage in debate here, it is unfair of you to belittle Tom's arguments on ethics. After all, you could be a bankrobber, for all we know, or maybe a choirmaster who diddles little boys. Why should we consider your arguments and lectures any more seriously, if they have to be based on your profession or personal proclivities, of which we are totally unaware.

[+ Tom Isern]

So, I take it, Woodlawn, that people who HIRE escorts are more ethical than people who are escorts? Don't be ridiculous. Some of us actually believe, and with good reason, that escorting is not unethical. That's why we're here. Do you know that in Germany escorting is not only legal (and I DON'T mean to imply that the ethical and the legal are the same thing--they almost never are) but the state actually licenses it and gives the sex workers health insurance. Now there's an enlightened country for you.

 

It should come as a surprise to no one but the most narrow and ignorant Republican that the ethical person is seldom the person who marches goosestep to the mores of his time. Socrates told us that. So did Jesus. Martin Luther King. There's a long, long list.

 

I stand by what I said: Labeling a whole class of people "sick" and "pathetic" without any regard for individual difference is unethical.

 

 

"We are raised to honor all the wrong explorers and discoverers -- thieves planting flags, murderers carrying crosses. Let us at last praise the colonizers of dreams."

- Peter S. Beagle