BoyWiki:Agora/23 May 2015: Difference between revisions
From BoyWiki
Created page with "=Agora/23 May 2015= ==Sex tourism== A New York Times article about the NAMBLA newsletter says "One of those articles offers graphic 'tips on how..." |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==Sex tourism== | ==Sex tourism== | ||
A New York Times article about the NAMBLA newsletter says "One of those articles offers graphic 'tips on how to make that special boy feel good.' Another is a memoir by a former camp counselor who fondly recalls having sex with a 9-year-old camper, advises readers on using pornography to seduce a child and recommends travel to countries where laws on child prostitution are lax." What is NAMBLA's position on sex tourism, anyway? I see that it's mentioned in a couple issues of Zeitgeist, but without any commentary.[http://www.nambla.org/zeitgeist_june_2011.html][http://nambla.org/zeitgeist_march_2012.html] [[User:Lysander|Lysander]] ([[User talk:Lysander|talk]]) 17:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC) | A New York Times article about the NAMBLA newsletter says "One of those articles offers graphic 'tips on how to make that special boy feel good.' Another is a memoir by a former camp counselor who fondly recalls having sex with a 9-year-old camper, advises readers on using pornography to seduce a child and recommends travel to countries where laws on child prostitution are lax." What is NAMBLA's position on sex tourism, anyway? I see that it's mentioned in a couple issues of Zeitgeist, but without any commentary.[http://www.nambla.org/zeitgeist_june_2011.html][http://nambla.org/zeitgeist_march_2012.html] [[User:Lysander|Lysander]] ([[User talk:Lysander|talk]]) 17:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
:I am not a member of NAMbLA and so I can not speak for them. I suspect that what was being said in what you read about the [[NAMBLA Bulletin]] was propaganda. My personal position is this, I am against it. I understand the arguments for this practice, and even apart from the very negative legal ramifications, I would still be against it as it as a general rule. To me, it doesn't have anything to do with boylove. On the other hand, if a BL was to take one boy who is selling sex under his wing and provide for his general well-being, education, etc... in a mutually loving and symbiotic relationship, that would be different. --[[User:Etenne|Etenne]] ([[User talk:Etenne|talk]]) 18:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:57, 23 May 2015
Agora/23 May 2015
Sex tourism
A New York Times article about the NAMBLA newsletter says "One of those articles offers graphic 'tips on how to make that special boy feel good.' Another is a memoir by a former camp counselor who fondly recalls having sex with a 9-year-old camper, advises readers on using pornography to seduce a child and recommends travel to countries where laws on child prostitution are lax." What is NAMBLA's position on sex tourism, anyway? I see that it's mentioned in a couple issues of Zeitgeist, but without any commentary.[1][2] Lysander (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am not a member of NAMbLA and so I can not speak for them. I suspect that what was being said in what you read about the NAMBLA Bulletin was propaganda. My personal position is this, I am against it. I understand the arguments for this practice, and even apart from the very negative legal ramifications, I would still be against it as it as a general rule. To me, it doesn't have anything to do with boylove. On the other hand, if a BL was to take one boy who is selling sex under his wing and provide for his general well-being, education, etc... in a mutually loving and symbiotic relationship, that would be different. --Etenne (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
