Happy IBLD!


Google today changed the “L” in their logotype to a blue candle, as a subtle tribute to IBLD. Thank you! Don’t be evil! And happy IBLD, everyone!

2 thoughts on “Happy IBLD!

  1. from …http://www.ibld.net/
    The Background Pattern on the site has definitely NOT a blue candle (though a blue color as a whole to the background including the not-blue candle). But you got my attention.
    ‘IBLD.net does not harbor or provide links to boy erotica (“child pornography”).’
    What does this undefined ‘they’ mean by this? What is boy erotica? Outside of my brain, this means ANYTHING, any items that anyone and any ‘they’ equate to porn. I mean, ‘boy erotica’ versus ‘erotic reactions to boy images’ versus anything bo-ishly erotic (eg, a bent hydrant with a fully clothed boy sitting on it) versus some other ‘child pornography’ versus those already in jail for visual but still physical eroticisms ( a ‘boy’s tattoos on a public transit?) and never a physical contact of any kind whatsoever? Oh, this they practice dis-association. OK. But then what? Hmm. Safe is safer. OK. No appeal to them for safety.

    If this ‘they’, whoever they-them are, and this all is meant by the ‘above’ to say that boy love and the love of boys is in no way sexual, that boys are, to them-all, not sexually arousing, that boys are not at all in any way any more than a human object of love with nothing to do with even the possibility of sex, or some such similar, then some such similar ought to be here for to see and read … and it AINT here nor there. So’s I take it all from them as they are a bunch of something else-ers.

    A dad maybe loves his male child as cute, tender, sweet corn off the cob, creamed of the crops, and, so, on, but in no way sexual, and this is how the IBLD-whoevers guys SOUND . . . . assuming indeed they-all are males . . . Mothers can be considered as common boy lovers. For this is what they seem to be saying . . . . that they are NOT ‘boy’, ‘under the age of legal consent’, ‘lovers’ ‘in any sexual sense’. DUH?? WELL, in that case, I kinda sorta understand the thing. But I do, indeed, wonder, yea, WHY they are making themselves out but as no different than ‘male’ ‘moms’.

    This all does not sound nor read right. More like —- I do not know but I hint enough. The entire anti-child-sex-porn legal and psycho industry is so full of obsessives, that even fantasies become child porn, in and out of mind, just in case, as they themselves say.

    1. You touch on something one can call “the gay anxiety”; the will to be portrayed as really nice chap, even more respectable in things moral than the average straight guy. This phenomenon, which I have experienced firsthand in my publishing, is ridiculous among gays and even more so when applied to bl’s. As if anyone ever in our society would find them respectable! Ridiculous but understandable, since we all have a need to feel accepted.

      That said, I don’t think the site you link to is as anti-sex as you make it out to be. They even write that they are “about consensual sexually expressed boyhood relationships with older males”, which is quite a strong statement.

      Of course, there’s a bit of intellectual confusion too. They write that the site “does not support or condone molestation, predation, or other illegal acts” – not realizing that their “sexually expressed boyhood” is exactly that according to most people and jurisdictions.

      I think the site is a one man project and I thought it was a bit cute with its 90s web design, the funny © mark, and its good intentions.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *