User talk:Clayboy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Clayboy and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!


Hi - I just want to say that I applaud your courage in admitting you are a boylover in a world like this. While I am attracted to minors, I'm lucky enough that this isn't my sole attraction, and so I won't die a virgin. I understand that others are not so lucky. Society is insane to suggest children need to be protected from gentle and loving intimate contact with ANYONE, adult OR child. Children need protecting from society. -- 195.93.21.2

Children need to be protected from predators who lie to everyone, including themselves, like you. How long will you really be able to surpress your urges, before it becomes too much? Seek help, while you still can, before you cross a line you can't go back from.--70.182.219.158 17:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not "surpress my urges"; my right hand is very well exercised and in my mind fantastic scenes play out. Many people, such as yourself, consistently try to persuade me to believe that I will suddenly start to engage in horrible crimes against children. I suspect you will be disappointed if I don't. Cognitive dissonance is a terrible thing, when your mental map doesn't match the terrain of reality. Incomprehensible as it may seem, we are just ordinary people made of flesh and blood, who laugh and cry and dream and hope just like anybody. And just like most people, most of us are not deprived of values and empathy. If I never do terrible things, I expect to never be treated as a terrible person. Clayboy 21:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


My first sentence was...Children need to be protected from predators who lie to everyone, including themselves, like you. Believe me, when I say I hope to god I am wrong. By the way, i wasn't just refering to you doing something to a child, I was also thinking of you doing harm to yourself. I know you are a normal person, I also know what kind of pain comes when a normal person has to surpress themselves day in and out. You know deep in your heart these urges are wrong, I suspect that is the real reason you haven't acted on them.--70.182.219.158 15:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe any urges are "wrong". Only actions can be wrong, because only actions get consequences. I do believe that sex with anyone below the age of consent of a country is wrong, but mostly because this society is mad and would hurt the boy if they found out. You don't expose someone you love to danger. Also, you did call me a predator, which is kind of unfair since I don't hunt. What would you have me do? Clayboy 17:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Society wouldn't hurt the boy, the adult would be the only one society would hurt(and rightfully so). Children aren't "mini adults". Believe it or not, children do not share your sexual urges. --70.182.219.158 19:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Believe it or not, youth sometimes have sexual urges. If they share a loving relationship with someone like me and are found out, they would be pulled through a victimization process that would not let go until they'd be convinced that what they experienced as a loving, mutual relationship at the time was in fact an abusive, manipulative plot. This process would leave them emotionally scarred for life, and the only way for me to avoid it is to avoid any sexual relationships in the first place. Yes, society would react against me as well, but that to me is a secondary concern.
Regarding the labelling of me as a "predator", I just wonder how you justify it. As you may realize, it is extremely defamatory. I personally would reserve usage of it for people who systematically hunt down children for sexual abuse, not 30-year-old virgins who strongly oppose sex with minors. Clayboy 21:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
If what you say is true 70, why do people like you (moral supremists) who insist on trying minors as adults? Isn't that a bit of a double standard? You say on the one hand that they aren't mini-adults, incapable of sexual feelings (which is nonsense biologically), yet on the other hand as soon as one of them commits a crime overzelous prosecutors will try an 8-year old as an adult just to get the maximum vindiciveness. I don't condone Clayboy's POV, but I also don't condone hypocrites. --Dragon695 06:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I see double standards like that all the time, but to be fair, 70 hasn't to my knowledge said anything that indicates he would try children as adults, and he/she has conceded that children can have sexual feelings. No need to polarize people into extremist camps :-) Clayboy 11:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What your generalization seems to gloss over is the adults who were molested as children by adults with same urges as you. These adult were never put threw this process you speak of because they never told anyone, because of the shame they felt. Perhaps the individuals responcible for this had the same delusions that these kids "wanted it". Maybe predator was too strong a word for you, maybe "future predator", or "defender of predators" would have been more approriate.

You don't expose someone you love to danger.

Would you love them if they weren't children?--70.182.219.158 23:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Labeling me "future predator" enforces the impression that you expect me to hunt down children for sexual abuse. I'm sorry, but I will disappoint you, and it will be easy. It will take me the rest of my life, but at my death bed I will smile gleefully at the thought of all the anti-me's I have disappointed.
Labeling me "defender of predators" is equally defamatory. I have never once defended the act of hunting down children for sexual abuse. I detest the notion of "predators" at least as much as anybody else, because they do bad things to people I love.
There are insensitive individuals who convince themselves that kids "want it". For some kids they are right, for others they are wrong, and the gamble is a terrible thing. This is why sex as a goal for a relationship is always wrong. I'm sure your relationships are not persued with the goal of sex, unless you are very shallow. I don't suspect you are, but for some reason you expect all pedophiles are? Sex, as I understand it, is something that happens naturally between two people who love each other. If there has to be "persuation" involved, that's wrong -- regardless of age, but perhaps particularly for minors because of societal dangers.
Would I love them if they weren't children? As life experience has shown me, love is ageless. I have fallen in love and stayed in love ten years later, so yes, I definitely would love them. But I wouldn't fall in love with them. Clayboy 23:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


If you never touch a child in any sexual way, I would gladly recind my calling you a predator, upon your death. I seriously advise you to limit your contact with young boys, to the point where when you accually see one it is a shock. What really bothers me about people who agure this, is that they put children on the same plane as adults. Let me just say children as a whole don't understand nor really want actual sexual contact. Children are curious about it, about their bodies, but I defy you to find one child who does want sex with an adult. If you do, be sure you check their past, i'm sure you will find some interesting things. child defined as ages 0-12.

Speaking of that, since you are so openly honest, have you had any sexual contact with an adult as a child?--70.182.219.158 00:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

So I have to wait until I'm dead for you to stop calling me terrible names? :-) I'm not sure how to limit my contact with boys so much that every time I see one I get shocked, that's a bit dramatic. Whatever time I get to spend with boys is whatever joy I have in life, and I think avoiding boys at all cost would give me a very weird and unhealthy view of boys (just like straight men who never get to relate to women). I definitely agree that children are generally much more interested in their peers than in adults (I know I was), but if you think adolescents are never attracted to people older than them, you are certainly mistaken.
The sex argument is not very interesting to me personally though. Even if I got you to agree that sex doesn't automatically destroy minors, I would never persue a sexual relationship in this societal climate.
To answer your question; no, I did not have any sexual contact with an adult as a child. Nor have I had any sexual contact with any other person later. Most pedophiles/ephebophiles are not "results" of childhood events. This is our sexual orientation, which we never acquired, but simply discovered, just like you discovered yours. The only difference is that we are universally hated and called bad things even if we never do anything bad. Clayboy 00:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


This is our sexual orientation, which we never acquired, but simply discovered, just like you discovered yours.

My sexual orientation, like everyone's, was a mixture of nature and nurture, it wasn't simply discovered. Whether you will admit it or not, your life as a child has shaped the adult you are, both emotionally and sexually. In other words you didn't just wake up one morning and say "I am a gay pedophile, and I have no idea why".

I have made no claims as to the origins of sexual orientations. There is most likely a mixture involved, but I still "discovered" my orientation, like everyone discovers theirs. I didn't "wake up one day"; I gradually discovered to whom I was attracted. When puberty hit this realization became much stronger, but there were several indications years before that. Add to that that for years I was expecting an attraction to girls to emerge, until I finally had to accept that it just wasn't going to happen -- and it hasn't. So yes, I did "discover" that I was attracted to boys, as opposed to just deciding to be. I cannot switch to another orientation just to please society, though I would in a split second if I could. But since I can't, there is no point in condemning me and trying consistently to make me feel like a subhuman monster. If I caved to all those who try to make me feel that way, I would probably start to act like a subhuman monster too (except I would sooner kill myself). If you want to fight child sexual abuse, there are probably more productive approaches than to hack on the likes of me. Clayboy 17:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No one is asking you to "switch it off", I don't even believe that is possible at this point. What you can do is get help. You don't have to deal with this by yourself. By help i don't mean going to NAMBLA meetings. Go see a doctor for god's sake.

If I'd had to deal with it all by myself, I shudder to think what would have become of me. The attitudes I have do not come from thin air; since the advent of the web I have been communing with other boylovers [1]. This has taught me that I am not a bad person, that I can function in society, and that I am not alone. And it has given me the intellectual platform to individually assert my opposition to the persuit of sex. That seems pretty healthy to me. I'm not sure what I would say to a doctor, but he would probably be obliged to advice authorities of me. I prefer to stay out of trouble. Clayboy 17:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


Doctor-patient confidentality If the doctor believe you are a threat he can alert the authorities, but if you are as well adjusted as you say and have committed no crime, he would have nothing to go to the authorities with, and legally nothing would happen to you. If anything did happen you could sue the doctor. Don't use that as an excuse again, and communing with "boylover" is like a drug addict trying to be rehabilitated by a drug pusher. No better than a NAMBLA meeting.

The confidentiality rules differ from country to country, and in this regard I am not sure what the rules of my country are, but I have heard some bad things happen to people who just wanted to talk to a professional. I'm not sure what you think a doctor could do for me; you seem to not believe he could "cure" me, and he doesn't need to persuade me to stay off sex. So in addition to the risks involved, I simply see no reason to talk to one. People should talk to a doctor if they have a problem -- what is my problem? Clayboy 18:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed you were a fellow American. As far as what you problem is, Gee shot in the dark here, but a sexual atraction to young boys could be a problem. I am not talking about a cure, but help with dealing with everyday life. The fact that besides the internet it must be a sad lonely life for you, never being able to share your true self with very many people. Beside all you "boylover" friends have done is convince you that this is normal, and that the only reason you should act on these urgs is for fear that society would hurt you or the boy. Constantly repressing yourself is hard for anyone, it's just logical to think that it's a powderkeg waiting to explode.--70.182.219.158 20:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a sexual attraction to boys could be a problem. For me, it is not, and I don't make it a problem for others either. I don't know what kind of help I need with my everyday life. Yes, I am sometimes sad and lonely, but I don't know what a doctor could say to me to make that go away. A doctor could not allow me to share my true self any more than I already do. I also don't see how getting convinced that I am "not normal" would help me deal better with life or make me happier. I do not "constantly repress" myself, so there is nothing waiting to explode. I think that addresses all your concerns. If I ever get depressed I will look into talking to a professional. Thanks. Clayboy 20:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok then, Good luck to you, even if you signed my RfC.--70.182.219.158 20:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Input Requested

Hi. I have made a Request for Comment page about the user from IP# 70.182.219.15. Since this user implied that you were a child sex predator, I figured you would be interested in weighing in. If you agree that this user's behavior is abusive, please sign it. Corax 23:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead, sign it, if you feal that way. I was only trying to engage you in a conversation thought.


clayboy...you are dangerous. Admitting to being attracted to children is something that should be saved for the therapists office and not something that should be used in an attempt to garner sympathy from like-minded current/future paedophiles. What is even more twisted, is that you 'people" have infiltrated something seemingly safe that children use for reference and made it your little clubhouse of perversion. I sincerely hope that you die very soon so that you dont ruin some child(s) life to gratify yourself.

I'm not here to garner sympathy. I'm here to help work on an encyclopedia. I am very focused on writing from a neutral point of view. Thanks for your concern! Clayboy 17:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Depo Provera

I agree that needle-phobia is not strictly a "side-effect", but it is in my professional experience seen by patients as a major negative in the cost-benefit discussion of this contraceptive option. The problem is perhaps more of the section title of "Side Effects", but I tried to keep the section headings consistant with other articles on contraception. This point surely does not warrent a separate section of its own, but it does need to be included somehow in the article. My preference is to re-insert the sentance (not bulleted if that seems more acceptable) for the fudged compromise I originally made. However, that is not to deny the validity of your edit comment, so I would welcome your thoughts first. davidruben 23:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I certainly have no professional experience in this field, but I found the point oddly misplaced, perhaps especially as the first in the list. I tried to figure out a way to integrate the information into the existing prose, but I found no natural place for it. Since you know what you are doing, by all means feel free to revert my edit. Clayboy 00:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed I had similar problem trying to find "natural place for it", so I have tried altering the section title to make more sense. I suspect other editors might also start editing around this issue and so copied the points above to Depo-Provera's talk page. Hope you do not mind :-) David Ruben Talk 01:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NAMBLA: LGBT?

There's currently an unofficial tally on the matter on the NAMBLA discussion page. Figured you might want to know. Corax 22:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another poll

Just thought you'd like to know that another poll is taking place toward the bottom of the NAMBLA discussion page in which users are asked (yes or no) if NAMBLA should be categorized in each of the pedophilia organizations, pederasty organizations, and LGBT organizations. Regards, Corax 22:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nut attack

Thanks for helping out with the various articles in the historical pederasty category. The anon is also going after Homosexuality in ancient Greece and Homosexuality and Islam. I guess it was just a matter of time, putting all these divergent topics together was bound to help the opinionated ignoramuses. Too bad we have to waste precious time like this. Haiduc 12:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I see he/she persisted and has been banned. I'm quite flabbergasted at his actions; that's a lot of "work" he did, and only fueled by moral outrage. I'd agree to calling him/her a "nut". :-) Clayboy 17:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding a bit unscientific, these people worry me. I have a hunch that they are deeply repressed pedophiles themselves, under a thick layer of aggression, self hate and authoritarianism. Just think for a second - what normal man would take time out from his busy life to mount an ideological attack on a collection of encyclopaedia articles documenting love between men and boys? And then reveal a rather idiosyncratic obsession - how did he put it in all his edits? - something about "touching up little boys"? It is obviously something that preocupies him, haunts him. If I am at all right, these are the people who are liable to snap at some point and actually harm a child. If only there were some way to get through to them and help them into some kind of therapy, then we might be doing a good thing. But what can you say that would not be construed as an attack? Haiduc 12:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Comments on Corax's talk page

I didn't go there to argue with him. He came to my page to argue with me. It is common practice to respond to messages on your talk page on the user's talk page. So please don't make assumptions about who is arguing with whom without reading my talk page first. When you ASSUME something you make an ASS/out of/U/and/ME...... -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 20:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that way for me too I just go along with the crowd :) Glad we got that settled :) -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 20:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Pedophile activism

Hi, I'm messaging you because you're listed as having recently edited this article. What is going on with this article? I saw that the name changed again, its been protected, is tagged NPOV disputed, etc. Is it coming into shape, or what? Per some discussion starting with the article's AfD a couple weeks back, I created a project structure to address this article, here: User:Herostratus/Pedophilia I'm not an expert on subject or article, so I'm asking current editors -- Do you think this would still be useful, or what? Thx Herostratus 14:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous comment

Thank you clayboy, for being honest. The hurtful statements above [on my user page -- clayboy] are exactly the kind of narrow-mindedness that continues to create so much suffering in our world. I must admit that still I cannot understand or condone your attraction, but I'd like you to know how brave you are for expressing a different side to the story, which was enlightening and important considering the irrational fear and hatred that has been generated by one-sided press. Thank you again for trying to increase our awareness.

Thank you so much for that comment. Understanding and condoning are nice goals, but they can never happen if all I get back is verbal violence and intellectual dishonesty. Comments like yours remind me that there are sane people in the world, and for someone as outcast as my kind, that means more than you'd expect. Thanks. :-) Clayboy 09:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Vandalism"

It is poor form to revert other editors who are making good faith edits and to label their work "vandalism". [2]. The definition to that term here is quite limited. See Wikipedia:vandalism. Please show good faith. -Will Beback 22:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was a little in doubt about what to write, and it seems I made a bad choice. I will try to reserve my venom in the future. Clayboy 22:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to add my comment, to the same effect. In that kind of a situation it might be better to contact the user to discuss, since it is obviously a good faith edit and what's needed is to resolve the difference of opinion. That said, I am not sure what malakos has to do with pederasty, but I am ready to be proven wrong. Haiduc 23:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/l/a/User_talk%7EClayboy_0ab5.html"