Discussion thread for straight anons of the board who like cute boys. Keep it SFW and on-topic. No /ss/ and no gay shota.
Your previous thread is barely 2/3 full.
>>4046296He wasn't getting enough attention
Good evening straight shotacons how are we feeling tonight >>4046296For some reason people have been prematurely starting shota threads on this board within the last 6 months or so I am not sure if it is intentional or retardium or both
>>4046303Your old thread was burried and irrelevant, you just wanted to jump back to the top again.
>>4046303There's a difference between doing it 5 pics early vs 45. The one time an anon did that with the shota general, we scolded him for it.
>>4046296It's not about the image limit. I started this one because lately there's been threads and anons in the shota threads asking questions about their sexuality so I figured now would be a good time to start another one.https://boards.fireden.net/cm/thread/4042555/This thread's a good example (hope that anon is still here and he's okay).
>>4046367>blah blah blah excusesYou didn't figure out shit, you're just attention whoring. kys
>>4046367>I started this one because lately there's been threads and anons in the shota threads asking questions about their sexuality so I figured now would be a good time to start another one.With all due respect, anon, I think you and I both know you're not a good mentor when it comes to that kind of thing.
>>4046735What makes you say that?
Genuine question: If you're not homophobic, why do you call it "straight male shota"? "Straight" is not a word that means pure or nonsexual - it means heterosexual. The opposite of what you deem to be a predatory shotacon, would not be a "straight" shotacon. A boy who only seeks out relationships with females isn't sure to avoid abuse, because women can be abusive. Furthermore, why is the "straight male" the only sort of person who can enjoy boyhood in a non-predatory way? Gay men aren't necessarily sexually attracted to boys, and plenty of straight men abuse boys (even if in nonsexual ways).
>>4047084I think you're reading too much into it. The thread's title is an invitation for straight (or questioning) men of /cm/ to talk about their interest in shota, how they got into it, what shota means to them, etc. I think there are a lot of people who would love to express their platonic affection for boys but who ultimately stop themselves because there is a negative stigma attached (particularly among men in general). And this stigma is attached to all men who take an interest in children, gay or straight. Also it's important to remember that the word "shota" itself has a sexual component here in the West, whereas in Japan the word can encompass different sentiments (sexual and/or platonic). >Furthermore, why is the "straight male" the only sort of person who can enjoy boyhood in a non-predatory way? Gay men aren't necessarily sexually attracted to boys, and plenty of straight men abuse boys (even if in nonsexual ways).I don't recall saying anything like this, even in the previous threads. I'm against sexualization of boys no matter who it comes from.
or it's just a fucking troll thread by a schizophrenic you morons
It's awesome that there seems to be an increase in straight men on this board!
>>4046269Fat ugly pigs
>>4048165Why did mods delete this in the man x sho thread? Lame.
>>4047083>What makes you say that?Well, the last time we spoke, I opened up to you about my sexuality and how it developed and how I reconciled it with my spirituality, and you said, in a really accusatory tone, that being gay is a "disordered" sexuality (have you SPOKEN to any women recently?) and started quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church at me, as if who I am or am not able to establish a relationship with is something I not only have control over but should be ashamed of. That is not what people who are struggling with their sexuality need to hear, especially if their spiritual well-being is on the line.
>>4048349I don't mean to come off as harsh or condescending if my tone was a problem the last time we spoke. That said, there are a lot of people that have conflicting feelings regarding the variety of feelings they have and what sexuality even is. It's seems every so often we'll have a debate in the main shota thread that it is nigh-impossible for someone to love cute boys and be heterosexual at the same time, as if their love for cute boys cannot in any way be platonic (or that there must be some hidden homoerotic desire). And yet even now there are still anons that will debate this.>>4047397Case in point. An anon talks about his friend experimenting with another man because he likes the aesthetic beauty of male genitalia, but immediately regrets it and found no pleasure in the act. He hasn't had sex with a woman so there's a possibility he could be heterosexual, but we don't know. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Not for me to decide and ultimately I don't know enough about the person nor is it any of my business one way or the other.
>>4048349As far as your own sexuality goes that's on you, I have no control or say over that. Tom Horner and John Boswell both tried to reconcile their homosexuality and their faith in their respective works. Horner resorted to distorted interpretations of sacred scripture to bend to his own personal interpretation of the Old Testament, meanwhile Boswell relied on false claims and examining European culture through a narrow, homoerotic lens. And Boswell ended up being attacked both by faithful Catholics and his LGBT allies for historical revisionism. I'm only saying this as a warning, not saying you're engaging in the same thing, anon.
>>4048355 >>4048356Glad to hear it. I'm aware of many thinkers who project homosexual ideas in inappropriate places (the relationship between Jesus and his disciples, for example) and I've never been about that, especially when it comes to children. This mentality has literally been weaponized against fathers in modern day and is a large part of the reason why so many people grow up without them.The only time I have a problem with the orthodox conception of sexuality ("orthodoxy" being something that's been influenced by modern ideas either way) is when people get it into their heads that there is only one way to live consistently within God's plan, which is foolish and short-sighted. All of us are different and live under different parameters, and in my opinion at least this is not a corruption of God's plan, but a feature of it. An organism that can not evolve can not adapt and will die, whether it be an individual or a collective.This is far from unique to Christians, either. People who believe in "the gay community" are equally preachy about the One True Way to live and it's all hogwash. At least the Church has a tradition which upholds social stability to back itself up.This is slightly off-topic, but a friend of mine showed me a YouTube video that I think you might find interesting. It talks about the importance of the concept of friendship, especially among men, and how it's been distorted by modern social pressures. I think it demonstrates that a lot of modern attitudes about homosexuality are completely warped, even among homos themselves.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuu6sPr6vfo
>>4048358>This mentality has literally been weaponized against fathers in modern day and is a large part of the reason why so many people grow up without them.Could you expand on how this affects fathers, specifically? I've never heard of that problem before.>The only time I have a problem with the orthodox conception of sexuality ("orthodoxy" being something that's been influenced by modern ideas either way) is when people get it into their heads that there is only one way to live consistently within God's plan, which is foolish and short-sighted.I'm going to agree and disagree. I think we have a major problem where people will assert their own interpretation of "orthodoxy" as if it was doctrinal orthodoxy itself (i.e. Internet radtrads and Christian influencers). This is where you get a number of people being merely performative with their religion rather than actually taking on the challenges and disciplines it requires. I also don't believe that God is bound by the sacraments or by any custom, tradition, etc. Some people would argue otherwise. I'm pretty sure there is a saying that "the Church moves in time" as far as your concern with an organism needing to evolve.>This is slightly off-topic, but a friend of mine showed me a YouTube video that I think you might find interesting.It's definitely on-topic for the thread. I've watched a few minutes and he already brought up Cicero's work which would later inspire St. Aelred's work on Spiritual Friendship, a book I recommend. I can't finish the video tonight, but I've read academic literature and other books on the history of male friendship and how it used to be very intimate (emotionally vulnerable, physically affectionate). I really like C. Stephen Jaeger's explanation that that type of male affectionalism in Medieval life was just another expression of chauvinism and courtly love largely taking influence from Biblical customs.
>>4048362>Could you expand on how this affects fathers, specifically? I've never heard of that problem before.It's been a while since I've used social media, so I don't have a clear idea how often this comes up anymore, but during the 2010s there was a growing stigma about fathers being emotionally close to their children, because men are seen as sexually deviant and incapable of controlling their urges. So, much like anons in these threads projecting homosexual attitudes onto young boys, many people (including the women in their lives) would accuse these fathers of being sexually abusive to their children. I don't know how often this was a real factor in divorces, but I know it was often used strategically for that purpose. It's been very difficult to correct, or even talk about, especially with the current hysteria and moral panics around pedophilia since the Epstein case reached mainstream consciousness.>I also don't believe that God is bound by the sacraments or by any custom, tradition, etc. Some people would argue otherwise. I'm pretty sure there is a saying that "the Church moves in time" as far as your concern with an organism needing to evolve.If you want my opinion, every commandment given by God was given for a reason. Some of those reasons are timeless (love your neighbor, because love brings people together, as is in our nature) but some of them are context-sensitive. I'm obviously not qualified to make any authoritative decisions on which are which, but I think a person who's willing to interrogate them in their proper context can at least make some reasonable judgements - for example, most Christians accept that keeping to kosher foods was a requirement of the time. In any case, it's ultimately up to the big man himself how he judges people, so it's not my place to say either way, but I would note that the prohibition against homosexuality does not appear in the Ten Commandments, which are generally held as the most important.
i feel like /cm/ is more interesting than the yuri board desu
>>4048366>during the 2010s there was a growing stigma about fathers being emotionally close to their children, because men are seen as sexually deviant and incapable of controlling their urges.I think I have an idea of what you're talking about. One of my friends works with children at a daycare. He's like me, single and very average looking. I remember being scared for him because there were articles talking about attitudes towards male teachers with people asking questions like: "Why would a man want to be a teacher? Probably to get close to children!" It's honestly frustrating, and that type of unwarranted suspicion makes it worse for those of us who genuinely do find beauty in children and wish to embrace, nurture, and protect them.>but I would note that the prohibition against homosexuality does not appear in the Ten Commandments, which are generally held as the most important.We'll have to agree to disagree, but we can move on if you like. I do think that there are certainly a fair number of people (both religious and secular) that make sexuality their number one priority when it comes to moral issues, rather than more important things such as genocide, food insecurity, usury, state-sanctioned violence, etc. There are plenty of problems out there that affect the lives of everyone, regardless one's sexual orientation. It's why I try my best to stay far away from online culture wars, Twitter, etc.
>Nearly all the boys said that they did not disclose negative feelings and problems to other boys. For instance, in answer to the question “Do boys talk about their fears and worries with each other?” 20 of the 23 boys said “no.” Moreover, many said that disclosing feelings would lead to ridicule.>The interviews contained very few accounts of boys helping one another with personal struggles or offering emotional support. When asked what they would do if they saw that a friend was upset (or what a friend would do if the boy himself were upset), only 4 of the 23 boys furnished a scenario in which two boys delved into the problem with each other. The other boys spoke about keeping such struggles and feelings to themselves:>Darren: [If] there’s something that’s depressing, which I know it’s there, I’m not going to try and talk about it. . . . I’ll try to hide it away.>Boys strongly emphasized that a public display of hurt or upset feelings would be met with ridicule from their peer groups. Harry, for example, anticipated how “idiotic” he would sound if he were to disclose his feelings:>Harry: Fear of mocking [laughs] obviously. There’s always stuff you don’t want to talk about, because you know you’re going to sound like an idiot. Usually I just stop.
>Boys said that they avoid making emotional disclosures to one another to avoid seeming unmasculine. They also described cutting off other boys’ emotional displays and intimate disclosures, so that interactions would stay within the bounds of acceptably masculine behavior. Sean, for example, whose best friend was upset by his parents’ divorce, explained, “I don’t comfort him because I’m not going to be a girl.” A girl, Sean said, would “sit on the situation until it’s over.” In contrast, Sean urged his friend to “just get over it or whatever. Like, move on.” Sean said that he expected and accepted similar treatment from his male friends.>MO: Can you think of a time when a friend saw you worried or upset about something? Do you remember what he did? >Sean: You know, the same thing. You know, “Just get over it.” Like “It’s over with.” “Just take it like a man.” “Move on.” >MO: What do you do when you “take it like a man?”> Sean: Well, I suck it up and just hope nothing bad happens.>When Harry’s friends are upset, he says, he does not “feed them clichés about . . . how it’s going to turn out alright and that you’re here for them . . . I give very cold advice.”>Harry further added that the risk of being called “pansy, wuss, or weak” prevented him and his friends from bringing up “emotional insecurities” with one another. “It’s the guy macho thing,” Harry said, “You’re not allowed to show pain so much.” In summary, many boys—18 of the 23 in total—described themselves and their friends as deliberately stripping painful emotional content and disclosure of troubles from their interactions with other boys to avoid being called girlish or gay.
>Most boys spoke of the positive function of keeping emotional interchanges in their friendships and peer groups to a minimum. Such relational practices helped boys to enact a valued form of masculinity that required disengagement from their own and others’ feelings. However, 10 of the 23 boys also said that confiding feelings and worries could bring relief. For example,>Harry: If you have problems, it’s better to share them with other people than just to keep them pent up inside you and not discuss them with anyone. >George: I don’t like keeping things to myself. I think that people can do that if they’re used to it. . . . But I think you feel relief when you tell somebody something.>Some boys recounted specific incidents when fear of a negative reaction from their peers prevented them from disclosing their fears and feelings. >Phillip: I remember being scared—September 11 got me scared. And I don’t know, I guess I tried not to show it. . . . I should have told someone. But I— wasn’t sure how they would react, so I just didn’t tell them. . . . I think I should have tried to talk about it. It might have made me feel better if I had.>In summary, nearly all the boys readily identified peer sanctions against sharing weakness, fear, or worry. However, a fair number (roughly 44%) also identified positive personal consequences of sharing feelings in times of distress, such as gaining relief.
