On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:19:12 GMT, the non <myaddress@server.co> wrote:
>snip
>>
>> Thanks for your contribution. I believe you have side stepped the
>> intent of my question.
>>
>> Knowing the attitude of Western society regarding boylove and the
>> potential harm that may come to the boy from that attitude, does a
>> boylover then injure the child by the very act of initmatacy?
>>
>> Certainly the guardians of social morality and mental health would
>> answer resoundingly, "Yes!"
>>
>> What then say you?
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "That which is not just is not law"
>
>Since you ask, no. The guardians of social morality and mental health
>do far more damage than any paedophile short of kidnap and aggravated
>rape, and people who do that aren't paedophiles, they are kidnappers and
>rapists.
>
>Since you are fond stories, let me tell a couple:
>(1) a personal friend used to befriend runaways and homeless boys in a
>major West Coast city. He would feed them, clothe them as necessary,
>take care of medical and dental problems, and after several months (the
>boys knowing all the time my friend's underlying orientation) they might
>pose for his camera, if they were so inclined. No pressure. Some of
>the even wanted to sleep with him (heavens to Murgatroid!). One of "his
>boys", 14 then and now 18, was caught having sex with another 14yo
>street kid, and the police threatened him with a rape charge unless the
>gave up the name(s) of adult(s) with whom he had had sex. So the 18
>year old named my friend, who was promptly arrested, eventually
>convicted (of photographing minors) and sentenced to 10 years. The cops
>filed Rape against the 18 year old anyway, and he jumped off a high
>bridge. Who harmed whom?
>
>(2) Another pair of friends, who had no sexual contact until after age
>18 (and then token experimentation), had a similar result. The man was
>charged (and convicted) of possession of illegal porn, sentenced to 10
>years. His friend, whom the police got wind of, was fragile, tended to
>be depressive, and the police tried everything in their copybook to try
>and get him to implicate the older friend in an illegal sex act (i.e.
>under age). He couldn't because it didn't happen, and he wouldn't
>fabricate. But the result of FBI "intensive interview" techniques were
>so thoroughly devastating and demoralizin, destroying his self-esteem,
>that he casually stepped out of a 16th story window after it was over.
>
>So re-read what I wrote, and understand that individuals have different
>capabilities of understanding and perspective. Some people cannot have
>a sexual relationship at age 25 (or even any age) without guilt, remorse
>and emotional damage, while some (not any, not all, but some) boys can
>place the experience in context at age twelve or younger. Follow
>science, not the crackpot whims of your "guardians" and your mental
>health professions, most of whom need intensive mental health therapy
>themselves before they should ever think of addressing the problems of
>others.
>
>Finally, please remember that "morality" is based upon tribal beliefs
>and superstitions; it is not universal but reflective of whatever group
>of nuts you happen to chose to belong to. Ethics, on the other hand, is
>based upon kindness and fair play, and is universally applicable.
Although I do not need to reread your previous and well-crafted
statements, and I am skeptical as to your view of the source and role
of "morality" and role of individual volition in choosing one's "group
of nuts," please allow me to draw some tentative conclusions as to
your position on this question.
1. An intimate relationship between a mature boylover and his little
friend, in and of itself, and like other intimate relationships, can
be constructive and rewarding for both, even if condemned and
stigmatized by the moral values of the "greater society."
2. The "greater society" and its moral and legal institutions do far
greater damage to a boy discovered in such a relationship than is done
by the boylover himself.
3. Morality is an arbitrary set of values, rules and sanctions
imposed by a culture on its individual members, whereas ethics
represents a universal set of values that transcend culture.
4. Provided that the boylover is acting ethically, society is the
true offender. Acknowledging that social morality is at best
arbitrary and variable, and that society invariably does more damage
to a boy than a boylover does, the boylover is under no constraint to
follow the dictates of that morality and is not culpable for the
damage society might do to his little friend upon discovery of their
intimacy.
5. Hence a "true" or ethical boylover does his little friend no harm.
Now, a question.
Obviously,many boylovers will have initmate relationships with boys
irrespective of what their society values, sometimes at great risk to
themselves and perhaps their paramours, as you put it. Some boylovers
claim to abstain from intimacy, believing the existing social morality
insures that harm will invariably be done.
What responsibility does the boylover have towards his society and its
moral values, if any?
Lastly, I should like to state that your two stories, like the one
which I shared with Doc and that you must have read, absolutely
horrified me. I was hardly "fond" of them, as you put it. I believe
we are one on this subject, but I must take exception to that
perceived sarcasm, which offended me.
Again, I respectfully remain,
Your Obedient Servant
VV
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
|