New! Official /sms/ website: https://sms-blog.com/ Shota for straight men. No /ss/ and no gay shota. Simple pictures of the beauty of boys and boyhood.Previous: >>3983041
Latent homosexuality thread.
>>3998242Check the official website for more info, anon!
Dante and Vergil are so cute
>>3998237This would be more on-topic without Killua, he's definitely gay for Gon.
>>3998244Silver needs more love (but yeah I love Dante and Virgil, too).
>>3998248In that pic specifically he looks like that friend at the sleepover that gets annoyed with how much space his friend takes up in the bed
>>3998227Did these threads start because of those old "female gaze" shota threads or what?
>>3998323These threads exist for straight men who love cute boys in a platonic sense, not in a sexual way. I'm pretty sure the OP of the female gaze threads was fine with lewds, whereas I prefer hugs and SFW content.
>>3998352I can't imagine the mental gymnastics you have to come up with to not being called a homo pedophile
>>3998355What mental gymnastics? Are you saying that anyone who likes cute boys must have some sort of erotic feelings towards them?
>>3998357yes you little retard, nobody, SPECIALLY no male, is obsessed with little boys to the point of making an entire website about them because "they are cute in a platonic way" without having clear repressed erotic intentions behind. are you a fucking woman or something to come up with these arguments? you shotafags really have some of the worst people ever
I was a gay shota OP who had sentimental boyfriendships but also crushes on my best friend… would I be allowed to exist in your utopia
>>3998364As long as you're not imposing sexuality on the actions or mere existence of intimate friendships between boys, then no, I don't have a problem with you at all. I've talked to other gay guys that absolutely hate the idea of behaviors or language being "gay-coded" since (from their perspective) it stigmatizes them from other people.
>>3998363The fact that we have academic journals related to the study of boyhood as well as excellent books by Niobe Way and films from A24, etc. on how imposed gender norms, performative masculinity and sexuality fracture boyhood friendships should demonstrate that I'm not the only one thinking about this important topic.
>>3998364OP is a christard. He'd have you stoned to death to "atone" for his own repressed homosexuality.
>>3998367>I'm not the only one thinking about this important topicYou're not, I do too. I'm still very much gay, though.
>>3998371Why are you so upset at the idea that straight men can enjoy looking at cute shotas? Do you see it as an attack on gayness or something stupid like that?
>>3998379That's fine! I'd love to hear what you have to say!
>>3998414no, people (in this forum) see you as somebody who is utterly ridiculous, in real life they would call you a creepy pedo and nothing else
>>3998432>in real life they would call you a creepy pedo and nothing else... Doesn't that apply to everyone on this board?
>>3998445not everyone is a shotacon in /cm/ really
>>3998414I feel like if you named these threads "platonic shota general" or something like that you would have avoided a lot of unnecessary bickering, this board is allergic to the word straight
>"straight male shota">only posts the gayest pictures imaginable
>>3998227>the websiteI think you're severely overestimating the impacts of shotacons in culture, anon. The VAST majority of people (outside of select internet forums like this board) are extremely averse to analyzing homoeroticism in boy dynamics. Homoeroticism isn't being "imposed" onto boys in any meaningful way. Shotacons are an extremely niche group - your "straight male appreciation for boyhood" isn't under attack.
>>3998549He's just a snake. Look at this shit.>What initally started as an attempt to have a conversation on what the nature of shotacon was quickly devolved into a schism between true shotacons and fake shotacons. It was not enough to see beauty in the male youth, to have nostalgia for one's boyhood, and to yearn for those intimate friendships one had in the past -- rather, in order to have a true appreciation for the boy, one must always sexualize him. This put myself in opposition with a number of people on the board. Characters and relationship dynamics that I saw reflect the unique, special qualities of the adolescent male experience (such as the friendship of Gon and Killua in HunterxHunter) could only be read with a homoerotic subtext in mind. Traditional or even conventional archetypes of youthful masculinity were looked down upon in favor of a personalities and tropes colored by Japanese pornography and fantasy.He went out of his way to find one of the few places on the Anglophone internet where people are allowed to positively discuss romantic love between boys and started spewing shit about how wrong and impure it is. Then he acts like an innocent victim just trying to have a "conversation".He doesn't even have the self control to rein in the gay bashing just for the portion I quoted, heavily implying that "Traditional or even conventional archetypes of youthful masculinity" are at odds with homosexuality. On the FAQ he says that if you're born male you're male and no one can take that away from you. And yet he refuses to acknowledge that a boy could ever have a genuine romantic attraction to another boy and consistently frames homosexuality as something that would make a boy lesser.If he was just a moralfag, that would be one thing. But in reality he's just using the moralfagging to convince himself he's advocating for boys while trying to preserve the very psycho-spiritual disease that has been poisoning male intimacy.
>>3998549>I think you're severely overestimating the impacts of shotacons in culture, anon. The VAST majority of people (outside of select internet forums like this board) are extremely averse to analyzing homoeroticism in boy dynamics. Homoeroticism isn't being "imposed" onto boys in any meaningful way.Intimate male friendships in history and literature have been tossed aside in favor of liberal revisionism. Boswell did it with Sts. Sergius and Bacchus when he lied about them being lovers by distorting the purpose and meaning of the rite of adelphopoiesis. And Horner did the same with David and Jonathon in "Jonathon Loved David" when he deliberately misinterpreted scripture, Jewish idioms, and translations in order to paint a false narrative that they were gay. That's imposed homoeroticism. If we're talking about imposed sexuality on boys - look at how boys must prove their heterosexuality or their masculinity by living up to impossible standards that society has set up. This puts barriers between boys and their friends as they must now act and behave in a way that is "manly" (can't be too affectionate, can't show too much emotion, can't show too much physical affection).
>>3998559(Cont.)"Boys know by late adolescence that their close male friendships, and even their emotional acuity, put them at risk of being labeled “girly,” “immature,” or “gay.” Thus, rather than focusing on who they are, they become obsessed with who they are not—they are not girls, little boys nor, in the case of heterosexual boys, are they gay. In response to a cultural context that links intimacy in friendships with an age (childhood), a sex (female), and a sexuality (gay), these boys “mature” into men who are autonomous, emotionally stoic, and isolated. The ages of 15–19, however, are not only a period of disconnection for the boys in my studies, but also a period in which the suicide rate for boys in the United States rises dramatically and becomes four to five times the rate of girls, whereas in early adolescence it is only three times the rate of girls (Youth Suicide Fact Sheet, 2006)."Niobe Way - Boys Friendships During Adolescence
>>3998550>He doesn't even have the self control to rein in the gay bashing just for the portion I quoted, heavily implying that "Traditional or even conventional archetypes of youthful masculinity" are at odds with homosexuality.I'm talking about how the "true shotacon" only ever cares about the topic as a means of sexualization. It's a fetish. And imposed homoeroticism on boyhood friendships is just another fetish for these shotacons (which is why I'm against shipping culture and other aspects of otaku culture). I never once implied that a boy could not be gay. Of course there will be boys who are gay due to genes, environment, trauma, or a combination of the three. I'll reiterate. I don't have a problem with gay people or gay men. He who has not sinned, et al. My issue is with imposed sexuality - seeing homoeroticism (or any eroticism) where there clearly is none. It just so happens that where there are people who are affectionate for boyhood, there are those with impure intentions who are only there because they desire to eroticize the boy himself.
>>3998559>Intimate male friendships in history and literature have been tossed aside in favor of liberal revisionism.I don't have a problem with your point of view, but I've seen you come close to doing the opposite, which is just as bad - erasing homoeroticism where it exists (Greek antiquity, for example) or painting it as inferior or somehow more vulgar than platonic friendship.
>>3998568>I don't have a problem with your point of view, but I've seen you come close to doing the opposite, which is just as bad - erasing homoeroticism where it exists (Greek antiquity, for example) or painting it as inferior or somehow more vulgar than platonic friendship.I don't think I've done that specifically. As far as Greek homoeroticism goes, I've read Adonis Georgiadis' "Homosexuality in Ancient Greece" since he believed that while the practice did occur, it wasn't as widespread or tolerated as other scholars would make it out to be. Of course it's been a while since I've read his book and some of his explanations didn't make sense, leaving me with more questions than actual answers. So I don't have an opinion one way of the other on the nature of ancient Greek sexuality or pederasty. That said, again, be gay all you want. I don't care. What I do care about is the stigmatization around platonic male friendships. From Jaeger: >"We have no vocabulary that can come to terms with the love of Richard and Philip Augustus. "Homosexual," "homoerotic," even "male friendship," are colored by the erotic. Even when the erotic is unstated ("male friendship") the terms still operate in the same force field... Sedgwick's term "homosocial"... sets sexuality to one side, eliminates its automatic inclusion, while holding it in readiness... it posits nonsexual male-male desire... 'chaste voluptuousness' (casta voluptas)."
>>3998568I entirely agree with this anon and the general feeling of others that some of your (way too long) prose sometimes paints actual homoeroticism and homosexuality in boys and young males (which exists!) as inferior, less pure (you actually use this word), more vulgar, than non-sexual close friendships between boys and young males. This makes you come off as homophobic in a subtle and insidious way. I strongly suggest you read your website from an exterior viewpoint and rephrase some of it in more neutral terms if you are hoping to convince anyone besides yourself.
>>3998590I think I should note that my reasoning for my tone is because of the arguments that were had in the main shota thread. I've said it before on multiple occasions before I even started the /sms/ threads, but it is possible for a male to have a affection for cute boys with eroticizing that feeling. Any time I tried to explain that sentiment, other anons would suggest that I was "in the closet" or a "closet homophobe." What am I supposed to conclude from that type of reaction?
>>3998685That's not why we say you're in the closet. We say you're in the closet because your behavior and fixations are characteristic of a person who feels guilty about being attracted to the same sex.Regardless, your belief that romantic love between boys is impure does not logically follow from strangers on a Rwandan stamp collecting forum being mean to you.
I'm actually a fed btw
>>3998769i knew it
I've a slight crush on an online friend, though he's someone I met in-person. He shares some cute boys art with me but he otherwise seems pretty straight I think, albeit unattached. I saw he had tinder installed on his phone. This is all to say this thread has given me food for thought, whether it rationalizes my assumptions, or parodies them. I honestly can't tell.
>>3998814I think a pretty straightforward way of figuring it out would be to reciprocate the boy pics and see how he responds if you send some more homoerotic ones. Not anything explicit, just stuff like lovey dovey KilluGon pics.If he doesn't sperg out like OP, then he is most likely both gay/bi and OK with that.
>thi entire threadCalling it "Platonic Shota Love", "Boyhood Appreciation" or literally anything else would have saved everyone a headache.
>>3998988I specifically gave these threads the "straight male shota" name because I want to emphasize that a love for cute boys is not exclusive to any one sexuality. Beyond that, it's a shared love of being male and of conventional/archetypal masculinity. I've thought about using Sedgwick's term "homosocial," but even in her own words, she's used that word to attack male camaraderie (since apparently men being close together is just another way of 'upholding the patriarchy'). So I'll have to find something else or maybe make my own word, that's something the Discord group and I are still figuring out.
>>3999028>I specifically gave these threads the "straight male shota" name because I want to emphasize that a love for cute boys is not exclusive to any one sexualityA word for non-romantic love? that would be Platonic Love
>>3999061>A word for non-romantic love? that would be Platonic LoveYes, I agree. But do we all share the same sensibilities when it comes to a love of boyhood? Do we all come to /cm/ or shota threads for the same reason? I'm trying to de-emphasize the erotic element that is assumed with the word "shota."
OP idk if you've watched the 2022 Belgium film "Close" by Lukas Dhont, since you sound American to me and I'm not sure that film was ever released there, but as I see you quote psychologist Niobe Way I think you'd like it, that film was inspired by her researchIt's also a very good film, though heart-crushing, I cried
>>3999086Anon, do you know where the word shota comes from? The erotic element isn't assumed. It's an intrinsic part of shotacon. And using the word straight doesn't address your issue anyway. While not allowed on this board, /ss/ is more common than homoshota and every bit as erotic. Your conflation of "straight" with "not erotic" is yet another example of your anti-homo bias leaking out. And it is this bias that is preventing you from understanding what eroticism even entails. This topic was brought up a while ago back in one of the female gaze threads; eroticism isn't limited to the things that make men's dicks hard. There's both levels to it and different erotic elements that have more or less appeal to different sorts of people. The simplest way to explain this is via an example. And I'm going to choose one that contradicts both your assumptions about eroticism and the way you present boys and boyhood.FLCL's Naota is not especially popular with shotacons. Anons here do like him, but he doesn't have a dedicated superfan like Selim or Allister and he rarely comes up in discussions of the best/cutest shotas. And outside of here he's even more forgotten, barely having any fanart. He was also never popular with girls in the way some shounen protagonists get fangirls. No, the audience he appeals to is boys. Not as the object of eroticism, but rather as its subject.Naota is a very sexual character. There are boner metaphors every episode, he makes all the female spooks' noses bleed with his "guitar", and he's constantly finding himself in erotic situations. He isn't a wish fulfillment MC. But he is a self insert for the confusing, frustrating, exciting, and uncontrollable sexual urges of boys his age. He is erotic, but in a way beyond the selective limitations you try to place upon the concept. And boys, who his eroticism is designed for, are not the sterile, sexless dolls of your purity fantasies.
>>3999109I have watched it, it's beautiful. I think everyone should watch it.>>3999110>Anon, do you know where the word shota comes from? The erotic element isn't assumed. It's an intrinsic part of shotacon.That's why on the homepage of my website I have the following written: "Likewise, shotacon, by definition 'portrays pre-adolescent boys in sexually charged situations as objects of attraction.' It's this definition (and subculture) that we take issue with." Unfortunately we don't have a word for a love of youth and masculinity that doesn't assume eroticism. >Naota is a very sexual character... constantly finding himself in erotic situations. And boys, who his eroticism is designed for, are not the sterile, sexless dolls of your purity fantasies.I never once stated that boys can't experience erotic desire. Am I supposed to believe that my attraction to characters like Black Cat or Zero Suit Samus at age 12 was not real? Of course those feelings were real. Once again, the problems I'm addressing are 1) imposed sexuality where there is none (including historical revisionism) and 2) seeing the boy or normal boyhood experiences as nothing but erotic. Let me put it this way. A lot of anons here seem to think the simple act of bedsharing between boys has some hidden homoerotic attachment to it (either when in fiction or in real life). By that logic, I must also have an Oedipus complex because my sister and I would sometimes share our mother's bed until I was around age 8 or 9. This is what Lukas Dhont's "Close" was talking about. Boys can't express genuine intimacy or physical affection with each other for fear of erotic attachment. Having to "prove" one's sexuality or masculinity is an exhausting, endless frustration much in the same way saying "no homo" is an unnecessary qualifier that didn't exist prior to sexuality being imposed everywhere.
>>3999182You're going to have as much luck changing the meaning of shotacon as someone trying the same with lolicon. Which is to say, none at all.>I never once stated that boys can't experience erotic desire.You consistently assert that homoeroticism is anathema to boyhood on the basis of its supposed "impurity". And, up until this very moment, you have treated purity and asexuality as one and the same. I guess this is you outright confessing that you think a boy's erotic desires are only impure if they are for another boy.>including historical revisionismFuck off. You and yours are at odds with over two thousand years of historical consensus across multiple religions and cultures with radically different views of homosexuality. A pagan ancient Greek scholar, a medieval European christian monk chronicler, and a 20th century atheist historian would all be in closer agreement with one another about the history of homosexuality than any of them would be with the traplarper revisionists like you that have spawned in the last ten years.>seeing the boy or normal boyhood experiences as nothing but eroticNo. It's you refusing to tolerate any acknowledgement of eroticism because you have a deranged sense of eroticism and an even more deranged sense of causality. You and everyone else who has ever lived would recognize that an unrelated 12 year old boy and girl sharing a bed together would be an erotic situation for the both them. So if you put two boys in the same situation they are going to perceive it as erotic as well. It has nothing to do with what society thinks of it. The boys just simply aren't retarded and can recognize the situation for what it is. The reason boys fear this kind of intimacy and feel like they have to prove their sexuality is because of people like you instilling them with the idea that doing anything homoerotic is wrong and makes them lesser or impure.
>>3999182>>3999195cont.During my childhood, I was fortunate enough to have very physically intimate male friends. And not a one of them thought that all the hugging and lounging on one another wasn't gay as fuck. They just didn't care. And they were all incredibly straight. They were simply not raised to think gay = bad, so they weren't afraid to do gay stuff. They weren't going to suck a boy's dick because they didn't want to, not because "oh no, that would be gay."I was the only homo among them and yet I was the one most afraid of physical contact because, unlike them, I was raised to think gay = bad. I did have erotic attachment to the friend I had a crush on. And yet I was the one that was uncomfortable with his hugs as the specter of my father's disgust and disappointment loomed over me.If you truly want boys to be able to bond more deeply and share physical intimacy with one another without feeling ashamed then you have to stop perpetuating the idea that homoeroticism is impure. Boys will always have an innate understanding that if something would be erotic if they did it with a girl, it will still be erotic if they do it with a boy. But straight boys are perfectly capable of being comfortable with homoeroticism if you don't raise them to believe it's wrong. This is ultimately because the modern understanding of sexuality is totally at odds with reality, but that's a whole other issue.
>>3999196100 years ago men would freely cuddle, sit on each other's laps and even go skinny dipping together. The modern post-WW2 invention of homosexuality as some kind of "identity" one is born as is one of the major things stifling platonic male intimacy in the West. A 1920s man holding hands with his best friend while walking down the street probably thought as much about sodomy as he did cannibalism, or whatever other fringe reprobate behavior you could think of at the time.
Are male Shotacons are female Shotacons more common? Common reasoning makes me think it's female Shotacons, but aren't most of these anime-adjacent communities male-dominated?
>>3999207100 years ago English schoolboys were still engaging in the behavior that gave the word "fag" its associations with homosexuality. There has been a change in how people think about sexuality. And this has had a part in making male intimacy taboo. But back when it was more accepted for straight men to be more intimate with one another they were not ignorant of the existence of homosexuality nor were they unaware of the homoeroticism of their behavior. They just simply weren't bothered by it because they didn't have the modern absolutist stance on eroticism. Even now we understand that holding hands is not the same as sex. But, in some ways, they are treated as the same. They are both taken as equally authoritative expressions of sexual interest. In both directions. If a boy who is believed to be gay holds hands with a girl people will question his sexuality just as they would with straight boys holding hands.This is a broader issue that goes beyond non-sexual male intimacy and shotacon. The entire modern paradigm concerning sexuality is broken and wrong. You seem to understand that yourself. And yet you still reinforce some of what makes up that flawed understanding.You're right that innate, immutable sexualties aren't real. But what this means is that aversion to homosexuality is mostly artificial. And we know this is true by looking at cultures that were never influenced by a prohibition against homosexuality. This is also why even modern Westerners have to tacitly concede that the dogma is wrong with concepts like "prison gay".And while the different forms of love do exist, there is no clean separation between them. Sexual and paternal love have the least overlap. But best friends and romantic lovers are adjacent seas that seamlessly flow in to one another.Without these artificial barriers, there is no male intimacy problem. Men and boys would simply love their male friends to whatever extent they personally feel without any external constraints.
>>3999208The genre was invented by women and that's a cut and dry fact. Nowadays it's probably a 50/50 mix but who really knows.
>>3999208The ratio has fluctuated over the years. The original shotacons were overwhelmingly women. But by the late 90s/early 00s there had been a shift towards more male shotacons and it eventually became a male dominated community. However eventually (it's hard to pin down when, but maybe around the mid 2010s) there was a resurgance of female interest in shota which we are still experiencing today. No one has hard numbers, but it's probably close to an even ratio nowadays with a slight male bias.That said, women in general are more prolific producers of fanart, doujins, etc. So female shotacons have always been well represented in that regard.That's for Japan. In the West I'm pretty sure it's always been male dominated. There has been some growth of Western female shotacons mirroring the trend in Japan. But Western shotacons are still overwhelmingly men.
Huh, really? I know there's a surprising amount of female doujin mangakas, but they were the majority at one point? Interesting . . .
>>3999210>Without these artificial barriers, there is no male intimacy problem. Men and boys would simply love their male friends to whatever extent they personally feel without any external constraints.Really well said anon. Ironically OP's mentality, if adopted, would just introduce an element of pervasive neurosis and watchfulness
Anon, I think you made my point for me. I want boys to be able to freely be affectionate and intimate with each other without a care. As you said, your straight friends were able to do so because "they didn't care." What I'm proposing instead is a type of return to innocence of the mind. Go watch Close and see what destroyed Leo and Remi's friendship. Another girl imposed sexuality onto their friendship where it wasn't present because she saw their physical affection as homoerotic behavior. And so naturally, that put an artificial barrier between their friendship - which inevitably led to its demise (not going to spoil what happens, everyone should go see it). I was able to be physically affectionate, be half-naked, and share the same bed with other boys because sexuality was out of the equation, it's that type of relationship or "space" where there is a mutual understanding that this boy I'm with is the same as me (same body, same thoughts, same skin). Even in my adolescent friendships with other boys, we subconsciously acknowledged each other's heterosexuality in some of the more awkward moments we found ourselves in and shrugged it off. It wasn't until someone else brought up the possibility that our behavior could be perceived as "gay" that I was forced to recognize what "gay-coded" meant and was forced to say things like "no homo," or "gay" as a qualifier. As far as historical revisionism goes - yes, I absolutely do hate when revisionists like Boswell posit the fake narrative that David and Jonathon were gay. Just look at morons like Jeffrey P. Dennis who think Spongebob "present same-sex desire as ordinary and even vital." https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01956050309603674That's because Boswell and Dennis see everything through a queer lens - how is that different from the majority of what happens in the main shota thread?
>>3999219>Posting women without a single male present on /cm/Are you retarded
>>3999231Cont.Another point I think that's a bit contentious here is the body. Why is it Finland can have sauna culture or Japan can have onsen culture, a situation where multiple boys can be naked in each other's presence - and there' no problem at all? Why is it I can have somewhat similar situations in my own personal life (childhood sleepovers, gym locker rooms) and it's not awkward at all? Because my subconscious mind and my body recognize my boy friends as just another extension of myself and my body. If we share the same body, and if we're so close enough to be able to be physically affectionate with each other (through mutual understanding, shared vulnerability, trust, etc), then that "homoeroticism" simply vanishes. Put it another way. If two boys are asleep in the same bed - that's a sign signaling a deep, emotional bond, a shared history. Why bind it to just homoeroticism?
>>3999235From Diana Addis Tahhan:>However, touch as a manifestation of intimacy is not physical or from the ‘body’; what is overlooked is the spontaneity and feel of touch that is intimacy… These views are often manifested in those assumptions of a mind–body split which view the ‘body’ as an entity. And bodies as entities cannot really touch. These bodies are separate and contained in their own identity. There cannot be a connection of ‘bodies’ as only bits of the body can touch at any one time… A ‘mutual mingling’ (O’Loughlin 1995) occurs as people participate in and through one another. They are no longer separate or distinct bodies but a different body that includes the experience of others. Touch happens in flesh, the body touches through flesh, intimacy finds meaning because of flesh. Indeed, the body is the vehicle through which touch can occur but it is flesh that connects and makes proximity through difference, and intimacy, possible.
>>3999231You just gave examples of why this position is untenable. It's too fragile. If all it takes to poison male intimacy is someone inevitably pointing out that skinny dipping or sleeping together is kind of erotic, then you will always end up back where we are today.The solution is to accept that yes, that stuff is erotic. But there's also nothing wrong with it being erotic. It's not a sin. And it doesn't make you or your friendship lesser. Or greater. It's all ultimately just different expressions of love.Armed with that truth, there is nothing that anyone can say that will make a boy ashamed to love his friends.
>>3999238The idea that sharing a bed and goofing off while naked with another male are somehow inherently erotic activities is absurd. The vast majority of men and boys throughout history have been straight and would not view either of those activities as actually being "gay" or erotic. Not everything is about sexuality, as much as modern hypersexualized society would like to frame it that way.
>>3999258You've got a few problems going on here. First,>The vast majority of men and boys throughout history have been straightThere's no such thing as straight. Modern sexual identities are fiction fabricated to satisfy ideology. For all but a small minority they have no relation to reality. Specific behaviors can be hetero or homosexual. But people, for the most part, are not. And in societies without a taboo against homosexual behavior, it is rather common.Second is your continued insistence on an overly simplistic and restricted sense of eroticism. Something being erotic does not mean the people involved must necessarily want to have sex. Your inability to grasp this is one of your biggest problems when it comes to shotacon, which comprises an extremely complex and variable collection of erotic attractions.Finally, you are treating eroticism as all or nothing.>Not everything is about sexualityPeople of any sex skinny dipping (in a culture where public nudity is rare) is erotic. But it isn't necessarily about sexuality. The eroticism is simply present as a part of that activity. It may or may not be the focal point depending on the intentions of the participants.
>>3999262Go back to reddot.
Ignore the spammer. Updated the site with some essays.
>>3998227 (OP)I really like your threads and your new website. I deeply get what you're trying to do here and I respect the ideas you are putting forward. Personally I have a shared appreciation of the boy aesthetic both in the erotic and the platonic sense, and I believe the two have always coexisted to some extent in human civilizations. The particular conditions and contingencies of contemporary western anthropology will mean that people will have a very polarized and neurotic outlook on this subject, to the point of considering it taboo, whereas this was not always the case. In fact I would even say that with this topic you are touching on some of the very most complex areas of human ontology, for the conception of beauty and alterity lie at the very heart of the shared human experience and never has a true consensus emerged to quell the flames of discourse thereof.Thus I understand that your ideas are likely to get misinterpreted which leads many people to lash out, out of ignorance and insecurity. I would argue that most people that react negatively to your ideas do so out of logic semantic misunderstandings, not out of true and deeply rooted ideological divergences. Regardless I think your intentions are noble and you should keep defending your position in spite of the cultural currents and the misconstrued perceptions that people might have on this particular topic. Your own lived experiences influenced you to become who you are and for you to think the way you do, and I think there is inherent value in that, regardless of anything else. Don't let anyone tell you that the essence of your being is wrong when you are defending it with such forward honesty and clarity.
>>3999847That's very sweet of you, anon. I really appreciate the kind words.>Personally I have a shared appreciation of the boy aesthetic both in the erotic and the platonic sense, and I believe the two have always coexisted to some extent in human civilizationsI still have yet to write a proper essay on the body of the boy (I still have Germaine Greer's "The Beautiful Boy" on my bookshelf to read), but once I do more research I'll do a thorough write-up. But I agree! There are so many beautiful statues, paintings, and other images of boys that I could just stare at for hours. In these images I see the interior beauty reflected through the body, the innocence of mind and thought reflected through his nakedness. I see my own past and (if we're using the word "erotic") a "positive eros" that can be made good to describe the lived, felt experience of being a boy with other boys.I think this topic can be very difficult to talk about because a lot of us just don't have the language, lived experiences, or culture to inform us properly of what it is that we are truly feeling. If, for instance, we lived in a culture that accepted communal nakedness and male bonding as part of the norm (i.e. the Indo-European "Männerbund," Pagan rites of initiation, Christian Medieval life), we wouldn't be having these disputes over whether handholding or skinnydipping is "homoerotic" behavior or not. They don't have these discussions in Turkey or Iran where men hold hands or in Morocco where men kiss each on the cheek as a greeting. Even in Amish country men will participate in the kiss of peace, (a kiss on the lips as it was traditionally done) per the New Testament. These acts have no bearing on their sexuality at all and align with their local customs and religion.>Don't let anyone tell you that the essence of your being is wrong when you are defending it with such forward honesty and clarity.Thanks again for your charity and pleasant words, anon. I'll keep posting.
Boys are perfect and easily my favorite thing in the entire world.
>>3999847>lash out, out of ignorance and insecurityThat's OP, though. The most obvious example is how absurd this crusade against homoeroticism is in the first place. Right now in the real threads we have an anon asking, as many of us have, for anime with gay shotas. Unfortunately, as >>3999836 and >>3999833 describe, he is going to come up emptyhanded. But this is somehow so prevalent as to be a problem. Even just the implication of homosexuality is apparently intolerable to OP, as evidenced by him trying to turn Gon and Killua into his poster boys for straight shotas. They are some of the only boys with a blatantly homoerotic relationship that even normalfags acknowledge. So of course they're the ones that OP wants to claim.
>>3999868Killua and Gon's friendship is never depicted as homoerotic.
>>3999868>Right now in the real threads we have an anon asking, as many of us have, for anime with gay shotas.While a simple SFW shota/shota love story doesn't exist in anime form - there's a plethora of pornography and anime with homoerotic undertones that cater to gay men and fujoshi. BL has been around since the 80's, it's not new. You have shota anime targeted towards fujoshi that sexualize physical abuse and violence (Black Butler), anime that normalizes pederastic relationships (Super Lovers) and anime that also fetishizes crossdressing (Boku No Pico). It's no surprise that the polluted forest with the dead trees can't bear good fruit. You're better off burning the whole forest and starting over.>Even just the implication of homosexuality is apparently intolerable to OP, as evidenced by him trying to turn Gon and Killua into his poster boys for straight shotas. They are some of the only boys with a blatantly homoerotic relationship that even normalfags acknowledge. So of course they're the ones that OP wants to claim.I don't know what Togashi intends for Gon and Killua's friendship in the future. He could eventually make them a pair for all I know! If he did, then personally I think it would change how I view Togashi's interpretation of friendship and intimacy. I haven't watched the anime in a while, but nothing jumped out at me as Killua having a crush on Gon. I just saw him as having a special relationship with Gon - that Gon was the only other person in his life who validated his existence and gave him a purpose. This is also the same Killua who's own family abused him, neglected him and wanted to kill him when he fled their captivity. So I do think it's fair that Killua would feel an attachment or desire to protect and be loyal to Gon. That includes other feelings like jealousy or bitterness at the thought of someone else taking Gon away from him. But again I don't think those feelings should only be interpreted as homoerotic.
>>3999874Regarding the HxH canon - Togashi can do whatever he wants. When I read literature I always try to read it with the author's intent in mind and try to understand what the author is communicating. It's why I have a special hatred towards fan culture that can only participate in fandom if they use characters for their "headcanon" or for "shipping." And I see that happen too much with HunterxHunter. I have a lot of books on my backlog to read so I can't spend time with one series, remembering all the exact details of certain character arcs or plot lines if I'm being totally honest. It's a great show and I loved seeing a genuine boyhood friendship finally on screen, but it's ultimately not that important.
>>3999874>I think it would change how I view Togashi's interpretation of friendship and intimacyIn a bad way? Why?
>>3999873If one of them was a girl there would not be a single person on this Earth denying that they were one another's love interest.>>3999874Togashi mentioned in an author comment in WSJ itself that he wanted to make a gay shota sports manga but wasn't allowed. There is no doubt or question that the homoeroticism is there and intentional. It is not the gayest shounen manga by accident. It is the result of Togashi pushing that envelope the furthest he was able.The fact that you try to use the censorship he and other mangaka have had to deal with as evidence that homoeroticism is the thing that's evil is abominable. You are actual trash and the man who created the boys you keep trying to destroy would likely agree.>>3999877What is there to question? He has dropped the last vestiges of pretense and gone fully, unambiguously anti-homo.
>>3999864Me too anon. Boys are the most precious and beautiful beings in existence and must be protected at all costs. Literal angels too pure for this world. At least this is something we can all agree on.
>>3999877Well it just goes back to the point of these threads. Let's say Togashi comes out and says: "Yes, Killugon is definitely a thing." Fine. Well what was the evidence? Well some /cm/ users would point to moments where they shared a bath together. Others would point to Killua's embarrassment when Gon praises him or shows him affection by telling him how much he's happy to be with him. Was that it? Is that all it takes to establish a gay relationship? What does this say about friendships built on loyalty and trust, or deep friendships built through a mutual sense of compassion and shared sense of vulnerability (both emotionally and physically). What then happens to Damon and Pythias? David and Jonathon? Gilgamesh and Enkidu? What would this mean for real life male friends?
>>3999882People see in narratives what they want to believe. In the end it doesn't matter what the intention of the artist is, for the artwork inevitably becomes appropriated by the beholder to serve as the mirror to their soul. In essence it doesn't matter for a thing to be a thing or something else, what matters is what meaning one will end up ascribing to it. The creation of one's own meaning is more important than the discovery of static truths.
This is interesting. I have noticed that only on /cm/ and /lit/ are people willing to display elevated forms of dialectics just for the love of the game. I'd wager the average IQ on these two boards is at least one standard deviation above the rest of this godforsaken website. The appreciation of the male aesthetic in a philosophical sense seems to be reserved for an intellectual elite these days.
>>3999884While I agree with you in a sense - as an artist - my own thoughts, lived experiences, and beliefs go into the creation process. So it's not like I can ignore Togashi or his interpretation. That said, in all honesty, Togashi doesn't hold a candle to the authors I have on my bookshelf (Dostoevsky, Steinbeck, Huxley, Clarke, etc). I don't need HunterxHunter to affirm male affectionalism or boyhood friendships. Literature, religion, and mythology are full of intimate male friendships that don't have the distorted homoerotic lens that we have today. I still have Twain "Tom Sawyer" and I still have Donald Ferguson's "The Chums" series of novels.
>>3999882It still seems like you think male eros is some kind of downgrade or something, as if there should be an absolute binary distinction between philia and eros. Real genuine masculine societies have not thought this way!>What would this mean for real life male friends?Nothing? Also, as regards Gilgamesh and Enkidu, erotic language is used at times for their connection:>My son, the axe you saw is a man.>Your loving it like a woman and caressing it,>And my making it your partner>(Means) there will come to you a strong one,>A companion who rescues a friend.But this doesn't mean it is not a friendship, nor that it constitutes a "gay relationship" - it can be both or neither, or some fusion. Who cares. Perhaps a thing can start as a friendship and become a romance. Is that so bad? In my friendships and romances with other boys when I was younger, there was always this continuum and spectrum and ambiguity - and that was not something I ever stressed about. I do not think friendship and romance are always very easy to distinguish between either - not just between members of the same sex but in general. It also seems from recent scientific investigation that romantic love evolved from same-sex pair bonding between earlier primates.
>>3999874>It's no surprise that the polluted forest with the dead trees can't bear good fruit. You're better off burning the whole forest and starting over.You're still talking like homoeroticism is evil. You need to read the ancient Greeks.
>>3999904>Also, as regards Gilgamesh and Enkidu, erotic language is used at times for their connectionJust a quick note, but erotic language does not a homoerotic subtext make. See the "Song of Songs," or Medieval Christian literature as an example. >But this doesn't mean it is not a friendship, nor that it constitutes a "gay relationship" - it can be both or neither, or some fusion... In my friendships and romances with other boys when I was younger, there was always this continuum and spectrum and ambiguityThat's what we're trying to discuss and help parse out. Take for example this anon here>>3999339 Anon was able to have a very intimate relationship with another boy when he was young, all the while his friend would inevitably settle down with a girl and said friend eventually became a father. In much the same way I've talked about moments of sharing the same bed with other boys or feeling another boy's skin against mine - I recognize the act for what it is. I don't let my current self color that moment as something it wasn't. Yes, those moments are tender, special, and good. I miss those friendships dearly. But it has a different connection associated with it compared to a romance or sexual relationship. And I do have my past dates with girls for comparison, the feelings that bubbled up, the anxiety that came, etc - all very different from my friendships with boys.>You're still talking like homoeroticism is evil. You need to read the ancient Greeks.I plan to read the Greeks, but only in the light of Christianity which conquered Paganism and took what was good from the Greeks and made better.
Honestly I'm an homo that enjoys both erotic and wholesome shotas and this thread is valid. It's grim but people need to realize how unloved and unappreciated boys are, i was just reading about how both fathers and mothers favor their daughters over their sons, fathers especially seem to be afraid to show love to their sons. This shitty world really needs to not be afraid of showing love to boys.
>>4000080>It's grim but people need to realize how unloved and unappreciated boys are, i was just reading about how both fathers and mothers favor their daughters over their sons, fathers especially seem to be afraid to show love to their sons. This shitty world really needs to not be afraid of showing love to boys.It's unfortunate that people are conditioned to believe that boys don't need affection are should only receive affection from their mothers or girls. Where I'm from you'd be hard-pressed to find any dads hugging their sons, guiding or teaching their sons, or even just being present for their sons.
>>4000080But this is precisely why OP and his threads suck. This is a real problem. But OP is poisoning the well by simultaneously pushing the ideology that led to this in the first place.
>>4000111christianity is a joyless death cult
>>4000122While I agree with this, I was being even more specific. The taboo against homosexuality is a part of what was basically proto-feminism. It's a work of social engineering that turns men into simps who care more about female approval than the well being of other men and boys. It hitched a ride with christianity, as it was right at home in its progenitor tribe of henpecked, matrilineal, boy mutilators. But it is ultimately its own issue that has a risk of being perpetuated even without christianity.Gay boys are genuinely the only way to eradicate simps and reclaim male intimacy and camaraderie.
>>4000128This is what the German Conservative Revolutionary writer Hans Blüher believed too:>It is indisputable that the compulsory assessment of females as the only objects of love and desire results in a harmful over-taxing and sexual overestimation of them which would be foreign to the ancients.... the female love-monopoly has thus contributed to conferring upon the vast majority of ordinary, foolish females - who are, spiritually and morally, quite considerably below the level of the average man - a ridiculous and systematic sexual over-estimation, with all of the pomp that entails, thereby wounding a man's pride through the notion of the adoration of this type.... It would seem only right to demand that, once again, the culture gradually open up to the male-male love sphere. Doing so would doom the social gynecocracy
i honestly don't get how feminism is to blame here, that seems like a thought-terminating cliche to me. not even radfems seem to have any problem with gay men and boys, and feminism definitely did a whole lot more to dismantle constricting gender roles than conservatives and reactionaries did.
>>4000142>not even radfems seem to have any problem with gay men and boysMaybe not gay men but definitely boys, the amount of heinous shit I've heard those whores say about boys is insane so fuck them.
>>4000108Yeah, the "tough love" shit has probably caused so much damage to boys.
>>4000149>>4000152the reactionary redpill manosphere types didn't do any good either desu
>>4000152>>4000132as much as it's a go-to answer to everything wrong in the world to some people here, women are also not the main culprit. the reason boys don't get to show affection and be open with their feelings is that it's labeled as unmanly and gay. whenever a boy deviates from the kind of oafish sigma male behavior, they're shunned and ridiculed, then grow into repressed and bitter men, unable to express their emotions, just bottling it up while putting up a front of toughness and feigned self-confidence. that's what each new generation of boys perceives as what being manly is, and generation after generation they grow into these repressed husks of people.i'd be lying if i said i have a good solution for this, for me personally it was coming out as gay but that won't work for everyone. queer visibility and mainstream representations of queer joy are definitely making some progress but it took generations to get us into this ubiquitous male repression and it will probably take generations to undo it.
>>4000154>>4000142Boys are seemingly disadvantaged and attacked from various people, even those who mean well. The radtrads and manosphere types will push false narratives on our boys, shaming them for not being "masculine enough," giving them unbearable expectations to live up to, and false promises that will only hurt them. As other anons have noted, I don't like the forced girl-craziness - some boys just aren't interested in relationships, other boys are homosocial and would rather spend the day with their friends rather than go on a date. I don't like the emasculation of our boys either, reducing them to servants for the needs of women. I'm honestly just wondering if there's really anyone out there that actually will listen and tend to the needs of our boys...
>>4000165I'm not too fond of women but i actually agree with you on them not being the main culprit. They're definitely part of the problem though, for some reason some of them seem to hate the idea of boys receiving affection probably for retarded reasons like "it takes away from women!"
>>4000165>as much as it's a go-to answer to everything wrong in the world to some people here, women are also not the main culprit. the reason boys don't get to show affection and be open with their feelings is that it's labeled as unmanly and gay. whenever a boy deviates from the kind of oafish sigma male behavior, they're shunned and ridiculed, then grow into repressed and bitter men, unable to express their emotions, just bottling it up while putting up a front of toughness and feigned self-confidence. that's what each new generation of boys perceives as what being manly is, and generation after generation they grow into these repressed husks of people.I couldn't agree more, anon. Myself, I can't really relate with most men where I'm from. I'm not "conventionally masculine," I love to draw, paint, and write. I love studying on my own time when I'm not at work. I just never really "fit in" with all the social constructs that were set up for me. But honestly I'm okay with that. I think we as a collective just need to let our boys know that there's different ways to be themselves that are all valid and that doesn't strip them of their identity.
>>4000142There's a few things at play here. First, not all women approve of this state of affairs even if they benefit from it. It's deeply unnatural to most peoples so some will instinctively resist. Western women technically never even signed up for this in the first place, as it was brought in to Western society from the outside already formed.But, more importantly, the form that homosexuality has taken in the modern, Western mind is essentially controlled opposition. "Progressive", feminist women still use accusations of homosexuality as a cudgel to beat men that get out of line. The lip service is that homosexuality is all good and valid and whatever, but the reality is that it still permanently marks you as a lesser man.Boys do get more leeway with this. But they generally don't know that. They see the social consequences of being perceived as a gay man and reasonably conclude that the same would apply to them.I also think it's worth noting the disparity in the dismantling of gender roles. Substantially less of that has happened for the benefit of boys than has happened for girls. And the loss of male spaces that OP has mentioned is pretty much entirely the result of feminists specifically targetting and dismantling those male spaces.You assume that feminists and conservtives are at odds on this. They're not. They're two sides of the same boy hating coin.
>>3999881>>3999864Based, i feel the same. Can't stop thinking about boys all day.
>>4000132Where is this quote from?
>>4000378Love you too, anon.
>>4000383Still here, no need to be upset.
>>4000383>>4000378Why so much seethe? I'm a homo sho enjoyer but i really don't get what's so wrong about these threads. I mean yeah, the naming could be better since straight shota implies shotas being paired with girls but that's it.
>>4000422I think I know who that was, he tells me to kms in the main shota thread too, lmao. Anyways, I would hope the idea that straight men having affection for shota wouldn't cause such division. We have women here as well and they should also be able to express their affection for shota. But it seems like there is this weird atmosphere coming from some users that if you don't express the exact same NSFW desires as everyone else - you're not welcome. I'm apparently "ruining board culture" as one anon in the main shota thread put it.
>>4000460The way i see it, there's something powerful about shotas being so beautiful that even straight guys can't help but appreciate them.
>>4000462Yes! And I think that goes for all boys - beautiful teens, bishounen, etc.
>>4000460Unlike you, the women here are largely well behaved. In fact, I'm pretty sure there are a few in the shota threads or at least some of the series specific shota threads that manage to coexist despite the prevailing no girls allowed attitude. It's remarkably easy to fit in if you don't come to blue /y/ peddling gay conversion therapy.
>>4000476Ban evading again?
>>4000489I'm not banned. If you're talking about the deleted posts, they weren't mine. I never even saw what they said.
>>4000080It's not that they're afraid it's that they don't care. Realizing this made me lose a lot of respect for fathers and yes i know I'm generalizing and the majority of dads are probably great but the fact that fathers being apathetic towards their sons is so common to the point it's normalized across the entire world is sad.
