VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 123456789[10] ]
Subject: Re: Summer Camps


Author:
John (Mad)
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 05:12:12 05/03/19 Fri
In reply to: John 's message, "Re: Summer Camps" on 00:55:43 05/03/19 Fri

Think I figured it out the question how how Mother could be so cruel to her son(s). It was sexual desire - of the Mom! She got off watching naked boys. She likely further got off by having complete power over them and beating them while they were of course naked should the boy resist his public nakedness.

It makes sense. Helping the daughter Male anatomy education her was a side benefit and good public excuse. but didn't justify the enormous pain she inflicted on her son if we assume she loved him. Tradition (boys always swam/are spanked naked) s also a great cover excuse because it was mostly true. But again not strong enough for you to abandon protecting your child from harm. Just because different rules and customs exist in different eras, they do not override a mother's instinct to protect and certainly not be the cause of harm to her child.

But sex is different. Sex can be like a drug or gambling. You can throw anyone under the bus or risk jail to meet that need. That would cause her do this, especially since society was handing her this opportunity on a silver platter. Go ahead Mom - strip your son at home or in public, parade him around in public areas so everyone can see his humiliation, etc, AND no one will question you!

Mothers could get away it because Motherhood was seen close to sainthood and everyone knew that mothers had no sex urges (Ha!). Her life in the 50's and before was seen as taking care of the home and children. Because she was above suspicion, she was handed her son on a silver platter. Society in effect said "Do whatever you want to these boys - no one will question your motives. "

So really her only obsticals were her husband and the boy. If the husband gave her the green light, then she was home free. To counter her son's objections she would either make light of his concerns and tell him it was no big deal and he would get used to it. But if he kept on (because boys who didn't like it rarely got okay with it later), then her son would eventually break after more beatings (naked of course) which could be endless or threats to make him stay naked 24 hours a day. Once compliance was achieved, Nirvana! . She could enjoy her naked son and any other boys without anyone questioning her. Summer camps and swim meets must have been as exciting for her as it was for her daughters.

The only negative was she had to know she was hurting her son. But no one suspected her of doing anything wrong so I expect that she convinced herself that indeed it was no big deal and her son would survive.

Anyway, I think that was how a loving mother became a monster.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
[> [> [> Subject: Re: Summer Camps


Author:
John (Mad)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 12:35:07 05/03/19 Fri

One other thing in regard to my contention that this forced boy nudity was done to satisfy his Mom sexual urges. There is a fetish called BDSM that correlates in many ways to the mental and physical tortures that these Moms I voluntarily inflicted on their sons.

I think that the embarrassment and humiliation of her son forced to be naked was not an unfortunate side affect. It was core to maximum enjoyment of this fetish for the Mom. It explains a lot, such her blind eye to its reality. No wonder Moms had no sympathy - it was what she wanted. To force a boy to strip naked is one thing. But to do it in front of family and friends and watch him tremble and involuntarily get erect is so much more rewarding if one is doing this for sexual purposes.

The naked spanking is probably the perfect example of this fetish played out. First, get the son to believe his actions led to this result so anything that happens he will believe is his fault. The reality is the Mom was just looking for an excuse. Gather however many females available and command him to strip in front of them. Make him stand naked with hands to the side or on top of his head while she lectures him and the females drink in his naked body. Turn him around l, bend over (giving occasional exposures to his anus) and start the whipping. The females notice with each strike how his buns quiver and start to change color. After the spanking, have him turn around stand naked with hands on his head for half hour while the women get more views and delight at his humiliation, especially if he gets an involuntary erection. Hell the Mom could even add punishment for that since he must have been think perverted thoughts to get an erection when in fact the only perverts are the Mom and female audience.

What a perfect BDSM set-up! And made more so because (i) the boy is made to believe that this punishment is his fault and that he deserved it, (ii) the humiliation is acknowledged as part of the punishment so any barriers that would lessen his humiliation to okay to eliminate, and (iii) everything about is open ended from weapons to be used on his body to his body's position to time span for his spanking and total nudity to who gets to enjoy the show. Since humiliation is stated as one of the punishment's goals, almost nothing is prohibited.

And that is just how this fetish for the Mom plays out in spanking. In swimming meets, summer camps, Mom or sister's helping bathe the boy, all are enhanced if the boy is embarrassed and humiliated. What evil monsters these Moms were, in my opinion.
[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Summer Camps


Author:
John (Mad)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 14:01:52 05/04/19 Sat

One other thought. Say a mother had a son who was overweight with a large belly that overhung his genitals and had large man boobs. She may not have an sexual desire to see him naked but might be compelled to do so for other reasons.

First, being stripped naked just in front of his Mom much less in public would cause him greater embarrassment and humiliation than other boys due to his fat deposits in addition to his private parts, and this humiliation is a big turn on. But more importantly, her son is her ticket to seeing other boys naked. By signing him up for swimming lessons, the Boy Scouts and summer camp, she now has access to all these events. And there, she can see groups of naked boys that she finds attractive. Also for semi- private events such as home pool parties or spankings, she can invite mothers of boys she wants to see naked and if they see her boy naked, they are more likely to reciprocate by making their own boy naked and maybe invite her to see their attractive boy spanked.

Yes for a pedofile, whose only social and legal barrier to this practice is to pretend she derives no personal sexual thrill and substitute that this forced nudity is for the good of the boys (using excuses such as helping them with their own body acceptance and respect for authority), this is motivation enough for stripping even her unattractive boy.
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Summer Camps


Author:
John (Mad)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:49:14 05/04/19 Sat

I realize that I have been posting a lot recently and plan to take a break.

But received an email after my last post challenging my label of these abusive Moms as "Pedofiles". I responded that the definition of a Pedofile is someone who "derives sexual gratification from sexual fantasies or acts involving a child". If my contention is accurate that the motivations of the Moms was sexual gratification, then I stand behind my label.

While here, two other things- believing her own bullshit and the risk of escalation.

It is very likely that the mother's BS excuses for forcing her son to be naked would have been readily accepted by the law and her social circle. This could lead to the Mom's self-delusion and she may start believing her own BS reasons, since everyone else does. She may become to believe that this practice is really helping her son in the long run even though he can't see it now, due to his immaturity. Her sexual gratification is just a little side benefit and is in no way the reason she is doing this to her son. This can lead to escalation, under the theory that if a little (her view) humiliation is good for the boy, maybe more would be better?

The danger of escalation is further increased by the nature of repitition. After humiliating her son for a while doing the same things, the sexual gratification will likely diminish some. That is natural. It's the "been there, done that" thinking. Still enjoyable but not with the same intensity.

Given this, some Moms may be driven to increase their son's humiliation through increased frequency and severity, with maybe new scenarios introduced.

For example, wouldn't it be a valuable community service if she conducted an Enema seminar in her home for not only her daughters but daughters of both her friends and her daughter's friends? Heck, the Moms of these daughters should come too. After all, most of these girls would be mothers some day and should know how to give this important digestive cleansing service to their future children. Of course her son would be allowed (read required) to participate as the patient. Any objections by him would simply be selfish since he would have no valid reason. It has long been established that unlike girls, boys have no need for privacy. And should he continue to resist, well they both had been down that road before and she had no doubt that she would eventually be able to convince him.

Sorry if all I have said in the past few days have put a monkey wrench in the reader's enjoyment of these memories. But didn't know how else to present what I think is true. I think it is important to peel away the facade of BS reasons and justifications (it was just a different time...). Maybe these posts will stop abuse in the future.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Summer Camps


Author:
Odd Job
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 02:12:36 05/05/19 Sun

I've been watching these threads for some time, and while some of this stuff seems unbelievable, I have no problem accepting it. I never experienced anything close to this, only nude swimming in high school; and had I, I probably would have grown up to be a serial killer. (I can already hear the Greek chorus of “it didn’t hurt me” warming up in the background.) I did, however, attend college with a woman who life guarded in YMCA full of nude male swimmers of all ages. It’s just a simple leap to nude swim meets.
If there’s one thing I learned growing up in the fifties through seventies, it’s that you always question the official explanation for anything. It exists to protect someone or something. The official explanation always harps back to the AHA recommendations from 1926, which recommended nude swimming for males only. Apparently, girls’ swimsuits (on average three times as large as boys’) were made of magical material that didn’t clog the filters. And reading the Summer Camps thread, one is prompted to wonder who changed the filters in those lakes. Those suckers must have been huge!
I can’t remember which of the Greek philosophers observed that no one knowingly does evil, some of us just don’t know what is right and wrong. I think you’re being naive to presume the mothers abused their sons, although that’s a lot more common than is recognized. One should not presume evil intent when simple incompetence or stupidity will suffice. Nor is it sufficient to invoke the zeitgeist of the time as justification—that slavery was once common doesn't make it any less heinous.
Justification, no; explanation, yes.
The nude swim meets, the nude summer camps comprised teaching modules that were intended to impart important lessons to both boys and girls.
The boys were nude:
1) To make them docile and compliant.
2) To reinforce their obedience to authority. (Most important, this.)
3) To begin inculcating within them an understanding bodies aren't theirs, but belong to the community, and later, by extension, to the state. (Also really important.)
4) To introduce them to their adult sex roles. As with most of nature, males must mount a display to attract females.
With reference to points 2 and 3, I refer you to the psychologists Zumbardo and Milgram, and their experiments with deference to authority. If that stuff doesn't curl your hair, it mus be made of metal!
The girls were observers:
1) To reinforce their superior role in the sexual dance. They get to choose.
2) To initiate the process by which they make those choices. Evaluating the boys for their desirability would hardly be sexual at that age, but they did gleefully rank their appeal. Note that the ones who took their humiliation with a good grace—not displaying any wimpy, “girly” shyness—were rated higher. This formed the foundation for the selection process that would begin when their sex drives kicked in a few years later.
It must be noted in passing, that there was also, in the background, a subsumed fear of homosexuality. We think little of it today, but it was once considered as linked to pedophilia, and the average family lived in fear that their apple cheeked young boy or halo ensconced young princess could grow up to be a fudge packer or twat licker. It was thought a learned response and the fear was mainly directed at boys, with girls presumed to be ultimately walking baby factories whose desire to reproduce would guarantee their heterosexuality. Boy nudity was linked to this fear, with two competing lines of thought—“manly” men would have no problem parading their junk in front of others, so nudity could identify the wimpy, gay ones; others thought that nudity would identify the gays as the ones who enjoyed it too much. Either view is manifest nonsense, but it was one held at the time and is worth mentioning.
I must clarify that I don't condemn all those women who have posted here of their youthful delight in observing nude boys; I would have done the same thing had I observed nude girls. But these were five, six , seven decades ago, and the innocent girls grew up, as we all did, to understand the concepts of morality, ethics, empathy, fundamental human rights that hold us together as humans in a civilized world. You might think that the passage of decades had imbued a recognition of the unfairness of it, and some small bit of guilt that they were the privileged ones.
Find me some postings that display that understanding!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Summer Camps


Author:
John (Mad)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 04:38:33 05/05/19 Sun

Damn, Odd Job, that was a great post! So much in it to discuss!

First, it is nice to have an alternate explanation of how this could have occurred, other that my conclusion of evil pedofile Moms. I am not convinced but I thought your macro-society molding points very interesting.

My problem with your theory is while the structures were in place (nude swimming meets, summer camps, etc), the parents still had to make the decision to attend them with their forced naked son. If he objected, they still had to overcome his resistance, which I understand usually occurred through beatings (or the more polite term spankings). I have a hard time giving the Moms (who I understand was the primary decision maker in regard to the conditions regarding raising the children) a pass by saying she simply didn't know right from wrong. Or explain the Mom's cruelty as simply due to the group of Moms who participated were somehow afflicated with mass stupidity or incompetence.

So while I would like to exonerate the Mom's behavior as being due to these factors or the result of the government' desire to make males into docile, order-obeying, machine-gun fodder for their various wars, I can't get there. The government might want this, but they have to overcome the Mothers' supposed normal instinct to protect her childen from pain and harm. Unless that supposed instinct is just a myth like motherhood being viewed as close to sainthood, and in reality females have no such instinct or greater empathy than men.

Your ending point about the lack of empathy or compassion of the women's postings on this site was also noticed by me and seems to support the empathy myth. There really is no empathy for the male victims in these postings but lots of joyful comments about the thrill of seeing the boy's humiliation! In these posts, the women posters say they delighted in the boys' embarrassment and humiliation so I believe that the Moms who caused it also delighted in this. Certainly no empathy either then or now exhibited by any of the females involved.

While it might have been the government's desire to mold boys into docile men, there is no mechanism to compell the Moms to be so cruel to their sons. And make no mistake, they were cruel!

The Moms could not comprehend their son's embarrassment and humiliation when it was obvious through the situation, his direct words to her and his body language, what their son's position was and reasons for it clear. Further, it is not believable that the Mom couldn't imagine if she was subjected to the same. To put it a new way, say she took her son to the dentist and the dentist started drilling without administering novocaine and the son screamed in pain, do you think the Mom realistically couldn't understand his pain because she was not personally experiencing it? It was too big of a leap to imagine how she would feel if she were in the dentist's chair instead of her son? I call BS on that defense.

The Mom happily denied all her son's arguments, beat him through naked spankings to overcome his objections, then gleefully attended his humiliating events with daughters and daughters' friends in tow. How, again, was she not evil? And why was she compelled to be evil, if there was no sexual satisfaction need being met? I still conclude she was an evil pedofile because that to me still best explains the Mom's behavior.

Your slave comment was an interesting analogy attempt. I agree that it was similar in that it is a part of our history and it was wrong. But a big difference was it was the law of the land at least in the south and everyone had to participate at some level, even if you were white and didn't own slaves. Not the same here - no one forced the Mom to force her son to be naked. That is all on her.

But while I highlighted our differences, I actually agreed with much of what you said and your tone. Really appreciate your knowledgeable perspective. I am going to have to look up those researchers you mentioned.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Summer Camps


Author:
John (Mad)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 16:44:51 05/05/19 Sun

Something a little different. Here is a hypothetical conversation between a Mom of a forced naked son Jimmy (14) and her best friend Margaret.

"Margaret, I just don't know what I am going to do about Jimmy. You know Jimmy is kind of shy and I have been trying to break him out of his shell and be more comfortable with himself. Four years ago when he was taking swimming lessons at the Y, he was naked of course and was noticeably embarrassed when the family and one of his sister's friends attended his graduation swimming class. I decided then that I would help him get over his embarrassment by increasing the frequency of his public nudity.

But Margaret every time I tell him to strip or tell him an event is coming up where he will be nude, he argues with me. I am so tired of having to justify my decisions! So about a month ago, I laid down a new rule: in the future, when I tell him to strip, he must comply immediately regardless of location or who is around. Further, when I tell him of a future activity in which he will be required to be nude, no backtalk. The only acceptable response to either situation is to say "yes, Ma'am". The penalty for not following this rule is an immediate spanking that reaches level 3, the most severe. I added that because I really want him to learn this lesson and not be challenging my authority all the time over this issue.

The Mom had really got Margaret's attention now and she asked "so how has it gone?". Mom said "Well, for the most part, good. He forgot a couple of times early on and I really caused him pain with the immediate spanking. Plus I put him in the baby position on his back with his knees raised which exposed all of his parts to his sister and a couple of different friends who witnessed the punishment which was really humiliating for him. You know how important humiliation is in punishing boys; physical pain is not enough to teach the lesson for boys. But after those two times, he has been compliant - until last weekend.

You remember my college friend Jane? She used to live around here and has a daughter Rhonda who is a year younger than my Jimmy. Jimmy and a Rhonda played to get her a lot until they moved away when Jimmy was seven. Anyway they both came by and Rhonda has really blossomed! She is so pretty and told us she just was selected to join the Cheerleading squad this year. Jimmy was glad to see her and seemed a little smitten as I think back on it. Anyway, about a half hour into the visit, Jane remarked to Jimmy that she couldn't believe how much he has grown. I immediately blurted out "you don't know the half of It. Jimmy strip and let her see how much you've grown!"

Maybe that was a mistake of mine. But I couldn't take it back because then Jimmy may wonder if all my orders were a mistake.

Jimmy's face turned white and he immediately excused himself to go to the restroom. He was gone about 10 minutes and returned wearing a robe. He then opened the robe, and showed Jane and Rhonda the naked front of his Body.

I was seething by then. Maybe I was wrong to order it but I had and Jimmy clearly violated the new rule. I wasn't going to let him get away with it. So I announced that Jimmy had just earned himself a Spanking and I had him remove the robe, put his hands on his head and slowly rotate in front of our guests so the could get a good look. Then after explaining to him why he was being punished l. I had him assume the baby position while I whipped him with a belt.

Thereafter, I had him alternate with hands on head between standing and the baby position for next half hour. I told Jimmy this was still a visit and he was to participate in the conversation including answering any questions put to him. During this episode my friend Jane was taking it all in with a little smirk but Rhonda was totally wide-eyed. She pulled out her phone camera and took lots of pictures of her Mom and me but often Jimmy seemed to be in the background and the camera was not always perfectly aimed at us.

I should mention that during his spanking, , my daughter returned home with three of her girlscout friends. She is two years younger than Jimmy so really didn't know Shane or Rhonda. But I was so impressed with her - she and her friends decided to sit and visited with us for the next half hour instead of immediately going to their room. I thought that was so mature of her!

After Jimmy's punishment time was over, Jane and Rhonda left and the girls went up to the sister's bedroom. Jimmy said nothing, just got on his robe and left.

Margaret, since then Jimmy has barely said two words to me. When I announced upcoming events in which I expected him to be nude, he just mumbled "yes, Ma'am" but nothing more. In an effort to lighten the mood, yesterday at the breakfast table I jokingly called Jimmy my "cute little slave boy". Instead of laughing along with me, Jimmy didn't even crack a smile. I told him it was just a little joke. He didn't say anything but just glared at me!

Margaret, I do t know what his problem is. Maybe he has lost his sense of humor? Sure he was a little uncomfortable being naked in front of Jane, Rhonda and the girl scount friends of my daughter's. But he has been naked in public many times. He should be used to it by now!

The end.

Readers - sorry for the book-like length. Once rolling, it was hard to wrap up. Hope you enjoyed the misguided mindset of this mother and its devastating effect it had on her 'slave' son. That last bit reflects the reality. The son really was like a slave in Households that had the nude boy policy and enforced compliance with naked spankings.



[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.