I am very offended by the B**love post

[Carlene 12]

Just curious but what do you mean when you ask "which team are YOU on"

The question seems to not fit with the rest of your post as there is no mention of teams although if you were hoping to insult me you succeeded

Please tell me what you found insulting, as that certainly was not my intention. I was only asking if you agreed with the side that felt Marjon had trivialized molestation by his comparison with forced prayer, or did you think we were overly sensitive to take offense.

[TommyO 5]

Asking me what team I am on in a thread that references Man/Boy Love feels like an insult to me.

[Carlene 12]

Asking me what team I am on in a thread that references Man/Boy Love feels like an insult to me.

Tommy....

Did you think I was asking if you were a lover of young boys? Lord help us....I would NEVER insinuate such a thing! I promise!

[TommyO 5]

Carlene, this topic is one that bothers me quite a bit, as a parent I take great offence to any abuse of children. I have a very liberal attitude about most things but any activity between individuals were one individual is able to take advantage someone who is weaker disgusts me. Because I feel so strongly about this I may have been overly sensitive to your post.

[Lap_dancer 8]

I find it amusing to see how many are so offended by the offense of the offending words that weren't meant to offend.

Oh, and anytime someone needs an interpreter to clarify, might go back and edit themselves. They do have that option you know.

[Carlene 12]

Oh, and anytime someone needs an interpreter to clarify, might go back and edit themselves. They do have that option you know.

Can't edit.....it's still broken. I sure wish they would get that thing fixed, though!

[wavydaby 1]

It's not the same thing at all....

1. Legitimate members are not hucksters trying to sell something.

2. Legitimate members do not "post and run". They stay around to discuss their post.

It is the same thing, both are trash. There was nothing of any benefit in posting that link. NOT ONE THING.

Even the original poster stated that the reason they posted it was to see the fire fight.

Legitimate members do not post trashy sites of abborhent quality to see a fire fight between members.

I say that thread is trash. And now I get to hear, "if you dont like it, dont look at it."

That is not the point. Yes, I realise that this is the "beloved" R&R section where anything goes. I still think there needs to be a line.

Or else, anyone can start posting porn links on this board under the guise of "lets discuss it"

So, anyone have any good DVDA links we can "view and discuss?"

[faithmd 14]

Can't edit.....it's still broken. I sure wish they would get that thing fixed, though!

Just click on go advanced once in the edit screen.

[Carlene 12]

It is the same thing, both are trash. There was nothing of any benefit in posting that link. NOT ONE THING.

Even the original poster stated that the reason they posted it was to see the fire fight.

Legitimate members do not post trashy sites of abborhent quality to see a fire fight between members.

I say that thread is trash. And now I get to hear, "if you dont like it, dont look at it."

That is not the point. Yes, I realise that this is the "beloved" R&R section where anything goes. I still think there needs to be a line.

Or else, anyone can start posting porn links on this board under the guise of "lets discuss it"

So, anyone have any good DVDA links we can "view and discuss?"

Trash, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. And this is in no way an attempt to promote the "boy love" site, or to argue Marjon's intentions. As you probably know, Marjon and I have our own issues, but I will defend forever his right to say (post) whatever he chooses, as long as he stays within the LBT rules.

I say that links to porn sites would be fine, as long as there are no graphics, but that kind of defeats the whole purpose of porn, don't you think? The BL site was a verbal outrage - no pics of "seductive" young boys (thank God).

And while we are on the subject, does anyone have a comment on kiddie porn in advertising?

Fresh off of getting in trouble for producing a batch of racist t-shirts, Abercrombie decided to get into a less controversial business: kiddie porn. It appears everyone’s favorite overpriced, gelled-up, frayed-bottom brand is into selling thongs — for children. The words “eye candy” and “wink wink” are printed on the front of the skimpy underwear. Now that’s hot. Who is Abercrombie’s head of design? Woody Allen?

And from another source...

Part "Barely Legal," part vapid teen magazine, the Christmas issue of the A&F Quarterly is unparalleled in the amount of naked frolicking it uses to sell clothing. And considering the demographic it is trying to reach, it's downright risqué. Besides the couples seemingly in the throes of sexual intercourse, there are subtler seductions. If you look very, very closely, somewhere around Page 100, you can find not-quite airbrushed male pubes on a well-cut frat guy, as he slides in the buff down a wet rock into crashing waves. It's beyond anything our parents saw in Playboy.

"It's very healthy to be free and be honest about it," says Sam Shahid, an A&F board member, and head of Shahid & Co. in New York, the firm that designs the racy ad campaigns. The cover of the Christmas issue promises "280 pages of moose, ice hockey, chivalry, group sex & more." There wasn't a whole lot of ice hockey or chivalry, unless, by "ice hockey" they mean bare asses, and by "chivalry" they mean nipples.

One layout is of four giggling topless coeds, tanned and blond, sprawled across a plaid blanket in the woods, pulling down the boxer shorts of a freshly scrubbed muscular guy, with a Cheshire cat grin revealing Tom Cruise-like pearly whites. And his ass.

Then there's a completely naked couple, making out, or having sex, on wet rocks. There's Tom Cruise-guy again, naked by the fireplace, but for a strategically placed gift with a bow. And look! Two naked men (can 18-year-olds be called men?) in the river, standing barely far enough away from each other not to be construed as gay -- though that's how I construed it.

"There's no such thing as being too sexy," Shahid says. "You're speaking to the kids. Everybody talks about sex all the time." He says none of the sexual content in the catalog is meant to shock -- though this comes from the same man who gave us the borderline kiddie porn ads for Calvin Klein years ago.

If you allow your kids to wear clothing from Abercrombie, you are buying into this.

I did not post pics from the Abercrombie catalog, BTW, because I consider them extremely inappropriate. But you can Google and see for yourself.

[marjon9 6]

I find it amusing to see how many are so offended by the offense of the offending words that weren't meant to offend.

Exactly!!! Well said!!! I couldn't have said it better myself!!

You use the word "amusing" to describe this. I use the word "silly." Perhaps there is a big difference there, but I don't see it.

The fact is, I do not in any way trivialize any sort of harm or trauma that may come from molestation, rape, pedophilia, etc. I've explained that clearly over and over again in numerous posts. If anyone got the incorrect impression that I do trivialize these things from a particular sentence of hyperbole I wrote three days ago, please let that impression be corrected.

If someone wants to be offended by a position I have actually taken, I would have no problem with that. But being offended by a misunderstanding from one sentence that clearly does not reflect what I actually believe is, shall we say amusing/silly. I hope everyone will stop being "offended by the offending words that were not meant to offend."

[Carlene 12]

If someone wants to be offended by a position I have actually taken, I would have no problem with that. But being offended by a misunderstanding from one sentence that clearly does not reflect what I actually believe is, shall we say amusing/silly. I hope everyone will stop being "offended by the offending words that were not meant to offend."

Perhaps you should apologize first for your poor choice of words. Then we would, of course, forgive you and move forward. But to suggest that we need to "stop being offended" is just arrogant on your part. If you don't mind my honest opinion.

[marjon9 6]

Perhaps you should apologize first for your poor choice of words. Then we would, of course, forgive you and move forward. But to suggest that we need to "stop being offended" is just arrogant on your part. If you don't mind my honest opinion.

I don't think a "poor choice of words," assuming there was one, or an analogy that "could have been better," is something that requires an apology. Especially in Rants and Raves. If it did, 80% of the posts would require apologies.

Again, all of this is a red herring. No one wants to talk about what this thread is actually about, so instead they want to focus on my alleged "arrogance."

Feel free to have whatever "honest opinion" you want to have about me, and feel free to refuse to "move forward" about this. Whatever.

[green 6]

I don't know whether I am right or not but I believe the point of Marjon's initial post was to point out that hypocrisy comes in some fairly bizarre forms. If I hadn't actually visited this site I would have thought that it was a parody of a Christian site set up by clever sh!! disturbers but it is the real thing. The message which Marjon was sending his fellow rant & ravers had nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the site itself; it had everything to do with the issue of hypocrisy - that people can and will promote unsavory actions employing arguments found in the Bible itself.

I have noted that a number of you are so violently repelled by the introduction of this material onto the Rant & Rave discussion site that I have become concerned for a couple of reasons. One of them is this: until fairly recently child abuse was considered so shameful that those children who were being abused and those adults who had been abused as children were unable to speak out about this. These were individuals who suffered in silence and believed that they themselves were dirty and complicit in their own abuse in some fashion.

It has only been over the last 25, maybe 30 years, that this very dirty secret has become openly aired in public. One of the most touching and most horrifying pieces of testimony which I have ever heard came from a man who had been deemed as a trouble-maker when he was a kid and was thus sent to a boarding school run by priests. He was sexually abused and when he tried to tell his parents about it way back in the 1950s they became enraged; they regarded him as a nasty, dirty, little boy who was telling tales against the church fathers.

The second reason why I am concerned by your howls to have this thread removed is that I do believe in freedom of speech. The site which Marjon has posted is not explicitly pornographic although it is both unsavory and disturbing. Would it not be better to discuss such issues as hypocrisy and, as Carlene has suggested, the increasing sexualization of young children in advertising, etc?

[wavydaby 1]

Then start a thread calling out hypocrisy, with them as an example. Dont post it out there and dump it. There are many many things to call foul on regarding hypocrisy. I call foul on the link, not the discussion.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

You can't be serious. I agree that children should not be forced to pray in school, however, prayer is far less damaging to a child than sexual exploitation or molestation. I say this as a person who was both required to pray as a youngster, and who was fondled by a perverted uncle. I assume you were the victim of mandatory prayer, but unless you have experienced both, I find your comparison a little flippant, if you don't mind my saying so.

I don't know, Carlene. I see his point. He has the right to feel as he does, just as you have the right to feel as you do. You can't really argue how a person feels. However, I don't think he meant his comment in a literal way and I think you know that.

It tooks years of work to undo the damage done to me by xtianity. But my case is nothing in comparison to others. Do you think stripping a child nude, laying them on the alter of a church, being restrained by a bunch of nutty adults, holding a knife up and getting ready to stab the demons out of a child because they stutter (and we ALL know someone who stutters is the product of possession) in an effort to "scare" the demons out of them is not bad? How about doing this or something like it day after day after day while the child is screaming bloody murder while believing she will be killed by the nice church people?

These are the kinds of people that want prayer in schools, the total whackjobs. I guess I am looking at the fact that I don't believe Marjon meant the comment in a literal sense and I think we have to look at the entire picture.