Post a response:
|
about youth liberation, and instead discuss boy liberation? I can handle that. Even in your post, you're flying the boylove flag rather than the childlove flag. I used to think that the two movements (boylove and girllove) should join forces, but at this point, I'd rather just pursue male sexual entitlement. I.e., let men put their penises anywhere, as long as they're not infringing another man's rights (including another man's right to control his daughter's sexuality). That's the traditional way, and the way that can probably attract the most allies, while diminishing the amount of opposition we receive, especially in this era of resurgent nationalism, which might tend to encourage the butch, macho form of pederasty that Sick Rose was talking about. What is the point of liberating girls? What allies will we gain by doing that? The feminists aren't going to suddenly say, "Oh, you want to set girls free to have sex with whomever they wish; how wonderful! We'll join your movement!" No, the feminists will always oppose boylove and any other cause that would tend to give men more sexual freedom and make men happier. That's been their way from the very beginning. Expecting feminists to be good allies if we try to lend them a helping hand, is like expecting that providing training and weapons to radical Islamic terrorists is going to make them loyal friends of America. |