| 
I indeed can suggest that it sounds clinical, in the exact same way that "homosexual" sounds clinical So you really are equating the term "boy" with "homo", in terms of giving a clinical vibe? I find that bizarre. When I hear the term boysex, I don't reach for my scalpel, my hands wouldn't be steady enough. Homosex, on the other hand, sure, bring on the chloroform. I would appreciate if you were more able to rationally engage rather than outpouring in self-righteous anger Hamming up the thundery bluster is a chat forum's lingua franca. I wish you didn't have such an awkward split between your attempts at humour and your earnest, dubious rationalisations. But hey, tolerance, baby. Re: "boy", especially in the modern day, it's mostly directed towards prepubescent male children. This is incorrect. Males between the ages of 11-14yo represent peak BOYishness. You seem, in the modern way, to be simply lumping pubescents in with the children. If they are all lumped together, and seen as immoral, it leads to the perception of young people not being suitable sexual targets in general, even if they are of age and perfectly capable of consent. Yes, absolutely. But the great and most important dividing line in all this is puberty. That's when Nature says, go get 'em, tiger! And it is specifically this early phase that is at the root of all pedophobia, because the keenness of boys to engage sexually completely terrifies people. The quickly growing sexual attractiveness of boys and girls at this age is what must be suppressed in all good men. And it's then projected out onto evil pedos so the ritual of riddance can take place.  |