Age Limit

[Guy@naPrince]

Admiring God's handiwork and licking your chops are two different things, if you ask me. I think that, if someone notices you taking an unusually focused interest in the anatomy of a minor, we should call you on it. Boy or girl doesn't matter to me, since you got no business pawing over either one of them.

Don't ask me what "unusually focused" or "licking your chops" means here. I'll know it, when I see it.

Don't ask me what "call you on it" means, either. You'll know it, if I'm the one calling - count on it.

Won't sign on with beating anyone's ass, unless I saw actual fondling, molestation or attempt at either,..in which case, I really cannot say what I'd do - the 'sicko on a stretcher' scenario sounds damn close.

[No offense intended to anyone here, as my comments are meant to be taken generally and not as a response to any boardee in particular.]

To Stronzo: While I'm familiar with the works of Von Gloeden and have a mild affinity for nude photography myself, I prefer the subjects to be adults. Some of his work is classically beautiful and ingenius - like his repro of Flandrin's 'Naked Young Man By the Sea'. Some of his other stuff, especially some of his Greek youth group photos, is pure filth and would classify as kiddie porn in modern times - just my opinion again.

 

[ClaireTalon]

I think it's okay as it is. As others have stated already, as long as it's casual nudity and no pick-up place for guys, it's a good place to learn something about casual nudity. It will be more harmless than things any 16-year-old or younger can find through the internet, for starters.

Maybe it'll even help in some ways to let youngsters in at that age, and help him to get a better self-assessment. At times where widely-accessable porn implies that any guy under at least nine inches is small, some visual contact to other average guys will show him first hand that less hung guys indeed are a minority, and not a necessarity.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Admiring God's handiwork and licking your chops are two different things, if you ask me. I think that, if someone notices you taking an unusually focused interest in the anatomy of a minor, we should call you on it. Boy or girl doesn't matter to me, since you got no business pawing over either one of them.

As I read over my commentary I don't think I mentioned "pawing" anything. :33: I maintain that those two in the gym locker room were beautiful men. There was nothing perverse about my appreciation much as you may want to paint any looking as perverse.

I realise how "au courant" your thinking is just now in this repressive society.

Don't ask me what "unusually focused" or "licking your chops" means here. I'll know it, when I see it.

Ah. Now I see you've appointed yourself that same morality police I pointed out earlier. I'll be sure to watch out for your educated scrutiny.

What's 'unusually focused' mean? What constitutes that step over the threshold to pedophilia to you GP? Do tell us all so we know just how long to look and precisely when to turn our glance away lest we be man-handled by your ilk.

Won't sign on with beating anyone's ass, unless I saw actual fondling, molestation or attempt at either,..in which case, I really cannot say what I'd do - the 'sicko on a stretcher' scenario sounds damn close.

America the beautiful

To Stronzo: While I'm familiar with the works of Von Gloeden and have a mild affinity for nude photography myself, I prefer the subjects to be adults. Some of his work is classically beautiful and ingenius - like his repro of Flandrin's 'Naked Young Man By the Sea'. Some of his other stuff, especially some of his Greek youth group photos, is pure filth and would classify as kiddie porn in modern times - just my opinion again.

One man's "pure filth" is another's artistry. Such has always been the nature of artistic critique.

Given the present political and social climate your response does not surprise me at all. I didn't expect my view to be widely endorsed given the present witch hunt to label people in this country.

I'm also not surprised to find that you're a heterosexual male. I assume you'd never once think of looking at a sixteen year old young lady on a beach in her bikini? No, course not.

Generally Guy@naPrince I find thinking that once anyone (of any gender) reaches the age of eighteen somehow miraculously they can be thought of as 'licking your chops' material a preposterous notion of sexuality.

 

[B_Stronzo]

I'm sensing a heteosexual male "don't touch our penises" undercurrent in these "stretcher" postings.

It's subliminal but it's there.

 

[SomeGuyOverThere]

Just quickly skimmed the topic, I think I'm echoing other people here:

I think it's a very good thing that the father brings his son in, you didnt say that the father or the boy makes a fuss about nudity, so I don't think you should either. I think exposure to male nudity will teach hte boy to be confortable about his body and other people's body, and hopefully this will lead to a better understanding of himself and his sexuality either way.

If you are uncomfortable with it, then don't go nude around the boy, but you can't make the other guys cover up.

 

[Guy@naPrince]

I'm sensing a heteosexual male "don't touch our penises" undercurrent in these "stretcher" postings.

It's subliminal but it's there.

When I said that my comments weren't directed specifically to you, I wasn't kidding. I really was speaking generally and am sorry you don't believe me.

I understand that you were just admiring a healthy young guy, just as older gents admired me at that age. I was always being asked if I played football everywhere I went, and recall quite a few compliments on my physique, back then. I wasn't ridiculing or mocking you, because I've been admired that way, myself, and I know that it doesn't mean a damn thing.

However, I am aware that there are people out there with intentions less than innocent than your own. I don't think it's so unreasonable to be aware of that and to protect younger folks from that kind of attention. Your post just got me thinking, and that is why we're here - isn't it?

I really wasn't mocking you, Stronzo. Take that as you will.

As for your comments regarding my heterosexuality, they were unapologetically bigoted and unnecessary. I've never done anything to slander or injure you in any fashion and did not deserve to be so insulted. Keep in mind that had I made a similar comment regarding your homosexuality, I would be hounded off the boards.

Too often, we hear homosexuality unfairly associated with pedophilia, as if one naturally followed the other. It's erroneous to do so, in my opinion, and my post reflects that. Just the same, it's equally erroneous to assume that every str8 guy's drooling over young, under-aged girls, while hypocritically condemning gays for the same behavior. Just remember, Stronzo, that you made that association here today with your bigoted remark, and not me.

Baron Von Gloeden is an interesting figure and justifiably controversial, in my (less than) humble opinion. It's not the homoeroticism in some of his work that I have found distasteful, but, the marriage of these erotic ideas with images of children. His work reflected more than just innocent coming-of-age curiosity between youths of the same sex, but ludely used these boys to express adult sexuality,..rather like puppets. Review his work again, and you will see how stiff and clearly uncomfortable his youthful, Cicilian subjects were with the poses he assigned them - the shame, disgust and confusion is all over their faces.

And if you can look at them without some equal or comparable measure of disgust - without just the slightest twinge of rage - then, God help you.

Again, Stronzo, my remarks were not directed at you, but inspired by the depth of your observations.

 

[stetree]

i spent most of my life growing up with the army and wen we had one of the squadies babysit us i would quite often see him/her walking round naked in the morning. My parents also walk round the house naked and as such my sister and myself have no embaresment about nudity and find it perfectly normal and natural.

Unfortunatly this is not a common view as i discovered wen i went on an exchange to germany with school. Not one of the other english students would go into the sauna at the pool as they thought all the nudity was "wrong"

 

[F_Man]

Sauna is a word from the Finnish vocabulary; the tradition here goes back a 1000 years. The families go together, all sexes, always nude. At puberty, usually boys start to go together with their dad, the girls with their mom. But you grow up with nudity being natural, and that men of all ages and shapes share something. It doesn't mean that you couldn't enjoy multiple levels of the sauna experience.

Nudity and sauna belong so self-evidently together in Finland that it's quite common for friends to do it together, male & female, too, and nobody "cares" but rather enjoys.

Finnman - just fresh & refereshed from his sauna:wink:

 

[B_Stronzo]

When I said that my comments weren't directed specifically to you, I wasn't kidding. I really was speaking generally and am sorry you don't believe me.

I'd willingly have believed you if you had not begun the next line with 'To Stronzo'.

I understand that you were just admiring a healthy young guy, just as older gents admired me at that age. I was always being asked if I played football everywhere I went, and recall quite a few compliments on my physique, back then. I wasn't ridiculing or mocking you, because I've been admired that way, myself, and I know that it doesn't mean a damn thing.

I never suspected you were mocking me. I just thought you were being off-target. I still do too.

However, I am aware that there are people out there with intentions less than innocent than your own. I don't think it's so unreasonable to be aware of that and to protect younger folks from that kind of attention. Your post just got me thinking, and that is why we're here - isn't it?

Yes we're here to think. But you were dictating reality.

As for your comments regarding my heterosexuality, they were unapologetically bigoted and unnecessary. I've never done anything to slander or injure you in any fashion and did not deserve to be so insulted. Keep in mind that had I made a similar comment regarding your homosexuality, I would be hounded off the boards.

There's a very big difference between being a bigot about someone's sexual orientation and saying we all find beauty attractive as I believe was my reference. Now get some perspective about you. I didn't attack your heterosexuality. I said only that you were no more or less inclined to the desires as we homos. Why would that unnerve you so? Don't like being lumped in with us I'd guess.

I don't regulate my artistic or moral tastes with the urgent question "what would Oprah think or do?" raging in the back of my mind ... simply so you know.

Too often, we hear homosexuality unfairly associated with pedophilia, as if one naturally followed the other. It's erroneous to do so, in my opinion, and my post reflects that.

That was so prosaic it's nearly rote. I'm glad you're convinced of what you say.

Just the same, it's equally erroneous to assume that every str8 guy's drooling over young, under-aged girls, while hypocritically condemning gays for the same behavior. Just remember, Stronzo, that you made that association here today with your bigoted remark, and not me.

Dude. You're the one taking me to task here. My remarks, again, were without bigotry. The association is legitimate too.

Baron von Gloeden is an interesting figure and justifiably controversial, in my (less than) humble opinion.

He controversial? Oh no, not again.

He's only recently become re-controversial because of cloistered views like those eminating from those who think like you do.

It's not the homoeroticism in some of his work that I have found distasteful, but, the marriage of these erotic ideas with images of children. His work reflected more than just innocent coming-of-age curiosity between youths of the same sex, but ludely used these boys to express adult sexuality,..rather like puppets. Review his work again, and you will see how stiff and clearly uncomfortable his youthful, Cicilian subjects were with the poses he assigned them - the shame, disgust and confusion is all over their faces.

Since you appear to know so much of Von Gloeden let me inform you he lived in SICILY and his subjects were Sicilian boys and young men who were dressed to represent an era when the bible thumpers among us hadn't polluted the natural order of beauty to deem everything homosexual "vile". Those boys were posed (albeit very late-19th century in final form) to call back to the times of Ancient Greece and Rome when boys did "do" other boys just the same as now. (Difference is now we don't speak of it lest someone put us on "a stretcher")

And if you can look at them without some equal or comparable measure of disgust - without just the slightest twinge of rage - then, God help you.

Spare me your 'God help yous' ... I feel no rage. I feel disgust at the direction society has taken to instruct people to scrutinize and corrupt everything they view. Again, since you appear to know very little of Taormina or Von Gloeden here's a quote from Wilhelm von Gloeden, The Boys of Taormina:

"The last surviving boy model who exposed himself to the great photographer's lens, died in 1977, at the age of 87. It is accepted that all of the models were photographed willingly and many were paid handsomely in royalties, their descendants continuing to prosper as a result today. No harm was done then; how can there be any harm done by showing the images, savouring the male beauty, and reliving, however briefly, the halcyon heaven von Gloeden created for himself, his friends and lovers on the romantic seaside in the heart of the ancient world."

Here is the LINK to the entire short bio should you care to inform yourself.

By the way? Ever been to Taormina? You'd hate it. It's rampant with free thinkers and libertines of every description.

Again, Stronzo, my remarks were not directed at you, but inspired by the depth of your observations.

As mine were yours.

 

[unknowing]

I agree with Stronzo's view of society's hysteria of the admiration of adolescents, while I also accept Guy@naPrince's explanation of his statement and feel that Stronzo might be a bit harsh in his response.

Repressed American (U.S.) "values" have built an arbitrary wall of forbiden-ness of sexuality for people under the age of 18. It's nonsense. Some 13 year olds are ready for sex; some 24 year olds are not. I was actively looking to have sex with men or boys by the time I was 13.

Additionally, and it's something that I don't ever hear anyone bring up for discussion, is that, in my opinion, those who are sexually attracted to younger people are no more responsible for their attractional orientation than are homosexuals and heterosexuals. I hear gay men on this board criticizing others for being attracted to a younger man, near the border of the legality line. They sniff, "I prefer MEN, thank you very much", as if they had made a superior moral choice. I am always reminded of the smugness of certain heterosexuals who assume a posture of moral superiority over homosexuals, as if the heterosexuals chose to be that way, and that gays had somehow made an unforunate moral decision.

How many of you who are attracted to A&F model types remember making the decision to be attracted to that type? How many who like "daddies"? How many straight guys who are attracted to women with large breasts? At what age did you decide that you would be arroused by large breasts? How about those who like to feel pain? Watersports? And ad infinitum.

In infanthood, there are no boundaries between ourselves and the outside world---Mommy is us and Daddy is us and what we want, everyone should want. I think that some small part of all of us never outgrows this phase, and I think that it's human nature to assume that what we like, everybody else should like. When we find out that it isn't necessarily so, we are confused and angered and want to assess blame and point fingers. It's true in all phases of life---politics, religion, tastes in food, music, men, women.

I wish everyone in the world would consider these things prior to passing judgement on others. Warmest regards----Mark

 

[D_Elijah_MorganWood]

I'm on the PDA so this will be short. In my early childhood I lived in two communes in Hawaii. You've seen both locations in many films as the spots are spectacular. Clothing was definitely optional. It also had nothing to do with sex. I never saw anyone leering an underage boy. Some people were so beautiful one had to look but it wasn't sexual. That never would have been tolerated.Nudity does not equal sexuality except in the minds of uptight Americans and in a gym setting...terrified heterosexual men. There is no issue with a sixteen year old going to a gym. I did and so have scores of others without being scarred for life.

 

[B_Stronzo]

I agree with Stronzo's view of society's hysteria of the admiration of adolescents, while I also accept Guy@naPrince's explanation of his statement and feel that Stronzo might be a bit harsh in his response.

Repressed American (U.S.) "values" have built an arbitrary wall of forbiden-ness of sexuality for people under the age of 18. It's nonsense. Some 13 year olds are ready for sex; some 24 year olds are not. I was actively looking to have sex with men or boys by the time I was 13.

Additionally, and it's something that I don't ever hear anyone bring up for discussion, is that, in my opinion, those who are sexually attracted to younger people are no more responsible for their attractional orientation than are homosexuals and heterosexuals. I hear gay men on this board criticizing others for being attracted to a younger man, near the border of the legality line. They sniff, "I prefer MEN, thank you very much", as if they had made a superior moral choice. I am always reminded of the smugness of certain heterosexuals who assume a posture of moral superiority over homosexuals, as if the heterosexuals chose to be that way, and that gays had somehow made an unforunate moral decision.

How many of you who are attracted to A&F model types remember making the decision to be attracted to that type? How many who like "daddies"? How many straight guys who are attracted to women with large breasts? At what age did you decide that you would be arroused by large breasts? How about those who like to feel pain? Watersports? And ad infinitum.

In infanthood, there are no boundaries between ourselves and the outside world---Mommy is us and Daddy is us and what we want, everyone should want. I think that some small part of all of us never outgrows this phase, and I think that it's human nature to assume that what we like, everybody else should like. When we find out that it isn't necessarily so, we are confused and angered and want to assess blame and point fingers. It's true in all phases of life---politics, religion, tastes in food, music, men, women.

I wish everyone in the world would consider these things prior to passing judgement on others. Warmest regards----Mark

Thanks Mark. That was spot on.

My harshness (though decidedly there) is a manifestation to not-so-thinly-veiled homophobia. Nothing more, nothing less.

I see it and the attack modus is manifest.

My reaction to it when I see is knee-jerk. I tamed that response in the name of greater board harmony believe it or not from the one I'd previously composed.

 

[unknowing]

Stronzo-- I lurk here quite a bit, but I always enjoy what you and others post. Your discourse is elevated and thoughtful-----Mark

 

[D_Lawsonne Lackingnuts]

The local gym that I went to was for everyone. My family signed up under one membership and usually each member would at least go there once a month. I used it frequently because of school and sports since I was 15. They have separate locker/changing rooms for children and adults. The policy was if you were 16 or older, than you would use the men's changing room/showers/sauna/locker room, whatever you want to call it. There were male dudes, but it was not sexual. It's changing clothes and showering--simple human hygiene. In the 15 and under room, there were stalls for changing and showering and in the 16+ room, there were only two for the modest. It's just a fact of life...deal with it.

 

[Guy@naPrince]

To Unknowing: A moving and insightful post. Nothing more I do, but thank you for sharing that.

I'd willingly have believed you if you had not begun the next line with 'To Stronzo'.

To Stronzo: That was precisely the reason I wrote 'To Stronzo' there. I was trying to separate my general remarks from my comments on Von Gloeden's work, which were made specifically to you.

I'm not crazy here, Stronzo. Hate me all you want, I've got no ill-will against you. Just the same, I didn't appreciate the remark, if only because I don't understand where it came from. What does me being str8 have to do with anything?

When I write one of my trademark arm-length, ten-caveat posts, it's not just to interrupt the procreative habits of my fellow hets, who'll be way too tired to screw after reading them - thus, controlling the world population. Hell no! I'm also thinking about all the erect peckers and dildoes out there, quivering in mid-air and begging to be stuffed into something! While you're all distracted, I'm out shopping for cool antiques, and I've got entire movie theatres to myself - no pesky kids!

To all: I secretly rule the world, folks, and make it a point to annoy everybody here, str8 and gay alike.

I love you all. :smile:

 

[B_Stronzo]

To Stronzo: That was precisely the reason I wrote 'To Stronzo' there. I was trying to separate my general remarks from my comments on Von Gloeden's work, which were made specifically to you.
I'm not crazy here, Stronzo. Hate me all you want, I've got no ill-will against you. Just the same, I didn't appreciate the remark, if only because I don't understand where it came from. What does me being str8 have to do with anything?

To Guy@naPrince:

First off to hate you I'd have to have an investment in you. I have none.

You have 'ill-will' generally. It's to the phenomenon I invest my rancor. There are many things you 'don't understand'. Reacting to someone's ..let's call it "sacred right to their heterosexuality" is something that somes flying out of your intial post.

You being "str8" has everything to do with anything. It's the reason (though you appear to be entirely ignorant of it) that you find youself so put-off by von Gloeden's work and anyone who might possibly look at a sixteen year old boy in that same way some heterosexual men may ogle a sixteen year old girl. You've yet to admit that it happens equally in both groups. WHO BLOODY CARES?

When I write one of my trademark arm-length, ten-caveat posts, it's not just to interrupt the procreative habits of my fellow hets, who'll be way too tired to screw after reading them - thus, controlling the world population. Hell no! I'm also thinking about all the erect peckers and dildoes out there, quivering in mid-air and begging to be stuffed into something! While you're all distracted, I'm out shopping for cool antiques, and I've got entire movie theatres to myself - no pesky kids!

I love you all. :smile:

In Jesus' name I love you too hon.:33:

By the way? Have you been to Sicily?

 

[Guy@naPrince]

Here's what I believe, Stronzo, so there will be no misunderstandings about it.

I don't like to see 'children' hurt or exploited in any fashion, and even for the sake of creating art.

I don't like to see adult ideas projected onto children for any reason, and I think that some [SOME] of Baron Von Gloeden's work does exactly that. I think that some people interpret the eroticization of children in art as evidence of adult eros in all children, which it isn't, and that this makes some people comfortable with interacting sexually with children; these are your pedophiles or sickos, if you will.

I think the eroticization of children, anywhere or anyway, puts children in danger - something I am certain no one here will abide.

I understand that the age of consent may be much different, where you are, Stronzo. I know there are many places in Europe and one or two in the US, where the age of consent is sixteen. If we differ in our definitions of what we consider 'children', that is probably why.

I am not calling you a pedophile, and I hope you understand that it was never my intention to even imply that you were.

Is there some reason that gay people and straight people can't treat each other with decency and respect? Does the fact that there are heterosexual people in the world, who wrongly persecute gay people, justify hostility or disrespect of all str8 people?

Your insinuation that, because I'm str8, I must have some lust for underaged girls was offensive and bigoted, Stronzo. I made no such insuations about you as a gay man and never would; so why do you insult me with this? Do I deserve this, simply because I am str8? Sexual orientation wasn't even in the discussion; so, I just don't understand what your reason was for this kind of cheap shot.

Anyway, this is water under the bridge, as far as I am concerned. I will agree to disagree on the above-mentioned subjects. When next I encounter you on the LPSG boards, I'll regard you as a friend, as always I have.

I hope you will do the same.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Your need to defend your stance is telling indeed Guy@anaPrince.

I think you suffer from acute a MERIKUN- ism and you've bought into a safe morality where you don't need to think beyond the box.

It's never easy to have an unpopular point of view but thinking I slammed your sexuality is a stretch love. And I'll 'read you with decency and respect' only when your rhetoric isn't that reflected by our present mood of national paranoia... certainly not when your posts are filled with the paraonia of the heteroseuxal homophobe. And dude? Did I once say/imply that you personally lusted after young girls? No. Do I think many heterosexual men do? Yes. So bloody what??

Your insinuation that, because I'm str8, I must have some lust for underaged girls was offensive and bigoted, Stronzo. I made no such insuations about you as a gay man and never would; so why do you insult me with this? Do I deserve this, simply because I am str8? Sexual orientation wasn't even in the discussion; so, I just don't understand what your reason was for this kind of cheap shot.

No you 'deserve it' because of your stretcher comment. I realize you and the one who preceeded you with that commentary think you're "protecting the sacred male penis" but it's a joke to me. And when I see homophobia manifest and ANY of its forms (no matter how subtle) I'll take personal issue.

Just thnk of me like the Angela Davis of homosexual Civil Rights. That may help.

No cheap shot. You've simply personalized it for whatever reason.

Some gay men do 'lust after' underaged boys. I've been known to myself in fact. Hell a month ago I was with a close female friend and her neighbor's son was there and he was beyond sexy. I told my friend "fuck is he hot!" She responded: "you letch! The kid's fifteen."

So lock me up and throw away the key. He looked 20. Guess we'd better have all those nubile young boys wear age tags. In fact, I think some of them are pretty fucking fine. Would I do anything about it given the ramifications legally? No. But I think much of what straight males mandate is personal bias and agenda-filled. I think wrapping their youthful counterparts in banners of "no touch" is proof-positive of it too. But the moral majority does not dictate how I think. Nor do you.

(In truth I suspect these sixteen year old topics of discussion wouldn't have the maturity to be "good ass" if you get my drift... but goodness knows they're pretty to ogle) Just make sure you dictate when I should avert my glance, eh?

Lusting and doing are two EXTREMELY different things. If we were all put away for our "impure thoughts" I suspect the streets would be empty.

How can you 'regard me as a friend'? Are you daft?? We don't know one another and if I heard you voice your platitudinous horse manure in public I'd take direct issue with you.

 

[Guy@naPrince]

I'm not taking it personally at all, really. You're pissed at str8 people, pissed at America and taking all of your frustration out on me. It's payback time for Stronzo, and I'm in the crossfire. Why would I take that personally?

Judging from the conviction of your post, I've no doubt you would do something, if you saw some kid being fondled, molested or abused; of course, you would.

You would not stand idly by and watch this.

 

[rayray]

do you remember that movie "Blue Lagoon"?? Once I realized Brooke and Chris were minors I went Blind. LOL:smile: