Re: Not David (Dark Side Forum)

Re: Not David
Author: Le Fettische	June 11, 2010 at 15:13:09
in reply to: Re: Not David* posted by Jason on June 11, 2010 at 04:17:00*

> I'm up for it if anybody else is.

As I mentioned in my post to the other board, my pictures really got some danders up (and maybe that wasn't the only thing they got up) and may have been the impetus for the termination of the YS forum. But that came about only after I started adding captions in the style French post cards, spelling out some of the associations the pictures called up, which nobody had ever objected to before.

I think this is the process, in a lot of cases: A guy pores over a picture for lubricious purposes without reflecting on what he's doing, then somebody makes a salacious remark which parallels what he's thinking himself, so that suddenly he feels guilty about it and denounces that person for having a dirty mind. Also, passers-by who have never paid much attention to that line of interest and didn't mind it as long as it was kept in the closet, suddenly decide it's scandalous and needs to be suppressed.

Some of those who were outraged by my fakes-with-captions were people I feel sure wouldn't have objected to photos of real girls smoking. (I'm not talking about people who criticize fakes because they only want to see the real thing; that's different.) What was getting them exercised was all in the mind. And in that they only parallelled what's been going on in society at large.

Does anybody else remember that in the old days nobody used the word "pedophile"? The usual term was "child molester," and the people the community got up in arms about were those who molested children. They were condemned for what they _did_ or tried to do. Now soccer moms are persecuting lonely recluses for having Bad Thoughts about their daughters.

Case in point: A few years ago a guy in LA was arrested for taking pictures of school cheerleaders doing formation rallies at half time. He didn't approach them, just took their pictures, and then went home and pasted them into scrapbooks between porn photos. Some moms noticed him taking pictures, his home got raided by the police, he was hauled into court, and he ended up being barred from future games.

Note that the parents didn't object to their kids performing suggestively, or to people watching, and of course the girls' own sexual behavior never came into it. One had to assume their moms weren't concerned with the possibility of their banging the players under the bleachers (or wherever they do it nowadays), just that they were spreadeagling themselves inside a guy's head.

Maybe now that people are forced to tolerate homosexuality (the government, employers, teachers, and TV all say so), they've made the "pedophile"--now defined as someone with an interest in anyone under 18--into the new scapegoat. And as in the outside world, so in this subcommunity.

I might mention also that toward the end my pictures were getting thousands of hits (the site tracked those) but only a handful of comments; and when the controversy broke, only one person spoke out in their defense. This suggests that interest in this area is widespread but largely concealed--maybe from fear of rabid soccer moms.

Follow Ups

Re: Not David Jason 15:42:40 6/11/2010 (2)
- Re: Not David Jason 19:19:45 6/11/2010 (1)
  - Re: Not David Le Fettische 07:09:27 6/13/2010 (0)

Post Followup

Name:
E-Mail:
Subject:
> > I'm up for it if anybody else is. > > As I mentioned in my post to the other board, my pictures really got some danders up (and maybe that wasn't the only thing they got up) and may have been the impetus for the termination of the YS forum. But that came about only after I started adding captions in the style French post cards, spelling out some of the associations the pictures called up, which nobody had ever objected to before. > > I think this is the process, in a lot of cases: A guy pores over a picture for lubricious purposes without reflecting on what he's doing, then somebody makes a salacious remark which parallels what he's thinking himself, so that suddenly he feels guilty about it and denounces that person for having a dirty mind. Also, passers-by who have never paid much attention to that line of interest and didn't mind it as long as it was kept in the closet, suddenly decide it's scandalous and needs to be suppressed. > > Some of those who were outraged by my fakes-with-captions were people I feel sure wouldn't have objected to photos of real girls smoking. (I'm not talking about people who criticize fakes because they only want to see the real thing; that's different.) What was getting them exercised was all in the mind. And in that they only parallelled what's been going on in society at large. > > Does anybody else remember that in the old days nobody used the word "pedophile"? The usual term was "child molester," and the people the community got up in arms about were those who molested children. They were condemned for what they _did_ or tried to do. Now soccer moms are persecuting lonely recluses for having Bad Thoughts about their daughters. > > Case in point: A few years ago a guy in LA was arrested for taking pictures of school cheerleaders doing formation rallies at half time. He didn't approach them, just took their pictures, and then went home and pasted them into scrapbooks between porn photos. Some moms noticed him taking pictures, his home got raided by the police, he was hauled into court, and he ended up being barred from future games. > > Note that the parents didn't object to their kids performing suggestively, or to people watching, and of course the girls' own sexual behavior never came into it. One had to assume their moms weren't concerned with the possibility of their banging the players under the bleachers (or wherever they do it nowadays), just that they were spreadeagling themselves inside a guy's head. > > Maybe now that people are forced to tolerate homosexuality (the government, employers, teachers, and TV all say so), they've made the "pedophile"--now defined as someone with an interest in anyone under 18--into the new scapegoat. And as in the outside world, so in this subcommunity. > > I might mention also that toward the end my pictures were getting thousands of hits (the site tracked those) but only a handful of comments; and when the controversy broke, only one person spoke out in their defense. This suggests that interest in this area is widespread but largely concealed--maybe from fear of rabid soccer moms.
Optional link URL:
Link title:
Optional image URL: