Wednesday, October 01, 2003

Okay, so I am not real thrilled with the NAMBLA and lolicon posts from earlier. I considered deleting them entirely, but since I've never done that even with some of my shittier posts, I decided to leave them. I'm not unhappy with the content, believe it or not, but I'm unimpressed with the piss-poor presentation.

What I wanted to say is essentially in there, I just did an awful job of tying it all together. First off, I think those posts probably sound horribly contradictory. Sex between men and "young boys" BAD, sex between men and "younger girls" SOMETIMES OK. The problem could have probably been rectified by clarifying what ages I'm talking about. With the "younger girls," I'm looking at like mid-teens on, and with "young boys," I'm talking about ages that people would definitely consider "children." Again, I'm not really doing a good job of defining things. It's kinda one of those "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" kind of things.

In addition to being contradictory, I can see how the contradiction would look like a huge double standard. Furthermore, I could see where the NAMBLA rant in context of the lolicon rant might possibly be interpreted as homophobic. That definitely was not the intent. When I'm talking about men and those teenage girls, the same goes for men and teenage boys. Since the whole lolicon issue revolves around male/female relations, that's why the focus ended up there.

Also, I wanted to hit the fact that I get tired of groups like NAMBLA and pedophilia in general continually being linked with homosexuality, because that's a total bullshit link. I just couldn't find the right place to fit that in.

It probably didn't help that I did the posts back-to-back. If I were a good writer, which I am not, I probably could have effectively done them back to back and chalked it up to "technique." Technique was not in the muthafuckin' hiz-ouse today, however.

Hopefully that will clear things up, unless if by some miracle I was clear already. But probably not, in both cases.

No comments: