Re: ''It's bad OpSec''?

It's a difference of OpSec and messaging The bad OpSec I was referencing is to admit to what one has done with one boy. That is not only bad OpSec, but against rule 6. Messaging on the other hand is in line with what you are asking/discussing with what one WISHES to do. Not HAS DONE. Sure it could be viewed as bad messaging to publicly discuss the idea of fucking a boy. However it could also be positive through desensitization. What I think is wrong though is catering to the wishes of the antis by curtailing, giving in, or soft-balling to them via "lesser" acts are more "acceptable" than others. Yum-Yum is OK, where Boom-Boom is not. I think that we are way past this in the minds of the antis and they are not prepared to accept even a glance in the direction of a boy by a strange man. So given that I don't really care about splitting hairs with the knuckle-dragging antis and normies, I will discuss my beliefs openly. That includes that some men and boys like oral, and some men and boys prefer anal. I think it is bad form for oral types to look down on anal types. It gives the same energy of when the LGBTQIA@!#$%^&* threw us under the bus when we became a "liability" for them in the 80s-90s. So that being said. I am happy to say that I would prefer to be with an anally focused 11-14yo femboy. The fact that someone else might prefer oral or a different age range has no effect on my interests. There could be a case made that Hebes and Ephebs are being dragged down by Neos. But you don't see me directly calling them out as being too vocal and that they need to be quiet because it will make it easier for Hs and Es.