OK why the title boylovers?

Christian Boylove Forum

OK why the title boylovers?

Submitted by sally on March 24 2002 12:43:20

OK I have to get the kids up in half an hour for church but I will focus on point quickly.

Why call yourselves boylovers?

What are you trying to convey? That you love boys? Well that can't be. I love boys but I'm not a boylover. It must be that you are trying to convey a sexual attraction to boys.

Now I'm glad that some of you don't actually have sex with boys. And it is to those of you who admit that it would be sin for you to have sex with a boy that I'm speaking.

Why do you call yourselves boylovers? Why not call yourselves men?

I am a woman who is sexually attracted to men and I am married to a quadriplegic and I have been celibate from the age of 24 to the present-- 41. So I have been celibate through all the years that the sexperts say are my raging hormone years.

Now what would you think of me if I started a club and I made a symbol and I called myself a manlover? What if I discussed on and on and on how much I loved men and how I know that I am not allowed to have sex with them because to have an affair would sinful but I will not give up my right to hang with them and nurture them and love them? What if I insisted that I would never hurt the men? Oh no, I love them. I would just have MFs (men friends) and I would love them and love them and I would see in this strong attraction to men the passion that God has placed in my soul for him?

You want to say that your desires aren't wrong, only your actions are wrong. But that is not true. If I desire a man beside my husband that is sin. It is not being faithful to him.

Now I suppose you can say that if you are not married it is not wrong to desire a boy. I guess I don't even want to argue that. I actually think that we all have the capacity to desire all manner of perverted things. Stolen water tastes sweet, the proverbs tells us and how true that is. But the minute the desire pops into your head you should be dumping it.

How are you dumping it when you come on this web site and affirm it?

And how are you dumping it when you retain the right to love boys as long as you don't have sex with them?

Love-- erotic love-- is way more than sex. And it is not OK for you to love boys any more than you love girls and men and women.

It is not OK for me love men. It is not OK for me to affirm this general love for men. I have one man to love and he alone may I love in this way.

If I ever have any attraction to any other man that relationship ends quickly. Why? Because the Bible tells me to flee from temptation, not get on the Internet and start jabbering about how holy this attraction is since, after all, God made me this way.

One of you said you had to make sure to love the ugly boy. Nice try. You need to flee temptation, period the end.

As an older woman in the church I'm to teach the younger women and you'd better believe I teach them to never be alone with men they aren't married to. Even if I have no desire for a man, I will not be alone with him. Why would I put myself in a position where I could be tempted? What purpose is there in doing that? Could I really convince myself that God had placed a man in my life and I was the only one who was able to nurture him and love him and be his spiritual guide? Or should I just be honest and say, God, you know that I don't want to be in a position where I might be tempted... in fact, Lead me not into temptation... send this man his own wife to take care of him.

And should you not pray for the boys you think you have charge over and pray that God will give them their own fathers to nurture them?

Get married and have your own kids if you want to nurture kids. And I'm not being sarcastic here. God has ordained that parents nurture children not male friends of the family who have sexual desires for the boys. You are sincere, or you think you are, I'm sure, but your sexual desires blind you, I have no doubt.

OK-- gotta run to church.

More lectures to follow if the powers that be don't yank my posting privileges.

And I will interact with some of your specific comments, too.

sal
sally@paraklesis.com

Follow ups:

the eroticisation of love - F.O.D. March 27 2002 07:50:05 (4)
- Re: the eroticisation of love - sally March 28 2002 00:51:49 (3)
  - Sally's flawed premises - Abelard March 29 2002 07:00:34 (0)
  - maybe it's not OK - F.O.D. March 29 2002 01:59:16 (0)
  - Re: the eroticisation of love - Thunderchild March 28 2002 17:56:46 (0)
::sigh:: - JohnDoe420 March 24 2002 23:17:08 (0)
Re: OK why the title boylovers? - response X March 24 2002 19:52:22 (0)
Celibacy, Clubs and Lust - J March 24 2002 18:39:56 (1)
- Re: Celibacy, Clubs and Lust - sally March 25 2002 00:49:44 (0)
Re: OK why the title boylovers? - Jules March 24 2002 18:01:20 (1)
- Re: OK why the title boylovers? - sally March 25 2002 01:26:24 (0)
Re: OK why the title boylovers? - hopesalive March 24 2002 17:31:27 (4)
- evil desires - sally March 25 2002 09:58:06 (3)
  - Re: evil desires - hopesalive March 25 2002 16:02:31 (0)
  - Letting our light shine - Bach March 25 2002 10:22:32 (1)
    - Re: Letting our light shine - sally March 25 2002 11:09:32 (0)
Don't jump to conclusions - Forgiven March 24 2002 16:56:20 (14)
- Re: Don't jump to conclusions - sally March 25 2002 10:26:12 (13)
  - Lots of interesting points - Forgiven March 26 2002 01:27:59 (10)
    - Re: Lots of interesting points - sally March 26 2002 15:15:28 (9)
      - Sexual ATTRACTION isn't an issue - Forgiven March 27 2002 13:21:35 (3)
        
        Oh..well what is, then? - sally March 27 2002 22:36:56 (2)
        
        One assumption you seem to be making - Forgiven March 29 2002 16:15:59 (1)
        
        Re: One assumption you seem to be making - sally April 2 2002 12:31:06 (0)
      - Argument from silence is always risky - Forgiven March 26 2002 20:01:10 (2)
        
        Re: Argument from silence is always risky - sally March 27 2002 17:47:42 (1)
        
        Did I mention monks? - Forgiven March 29 2002 17:17:13 (0)
      - on the lesser of two evils - Bach March 26 2002 16:39:01 (1)
        
        Re: on the lesser of two evils - sally March 27 2002 19:26:56 (0)
  - Re: Don't jump to conclusions - foxfire March 25 2002 12:47:14 (1)
    - Re: Don't jump to conclusions - sally March 26 2002 02:35:13 (0)
OK, here's why - Dakota March 24 2002 16:45:30 (14)
- my long response-- grab some coffee and sit a spel - sally March 24 2002 22:50:08 (12)
  - I tried that. - Nate March 25 2002 22:04:45 (3)
    - Re: I tried that. - sally March 26 2002 03:01:15 (1)
      - A wonderful name - Nate March 27 2002 02:14:44 (0)
    - That really sucks-nt - Dakota March 26 2002 02:37:02 (0)
  - A shorter response. One donut should be planty. - Dakota March 25 2002 02:06:48 (6)
    - Another PS - Dakota March 25 2002 16:50:00 (4)
      - another really long one-- read it in shifts =0) - sally March 26 2002 03:48:31 (3)
        
        Ahem, you, selfish? - Thunderchild March 28 2002 21:47:20 (0)
        
        A short reply. (I promise) - Dakota March 26 2002 12:35:54 (1)
        
        Re: A short reply. (I promise) - sally March 26 2002 15:30:32 (0)
    - PS - Dakota March 25 2002 03:21:06 (0)
  - Re: my long response-- grab some coffee and sit a spel - hopesalive March 25 2002 01:30:50 (0)
- 'Non-offending pedophiles' - a helpful phrase (nt) - Jules March 24 2002 18:11:33 (0)
Re: OK why the title boylovers? - foxfire March 24 2002 14:24:49 (0)

Post a follow up message:

Username:		Password:
Email (optional):
Subject:

Link URL:
Link Title: