| Re: Do boylovers hurt boys? Yes, no, maybe ? |
EasyNews, UseNet made Ea .. |
| the non (myaddress@server.co) |
2007/06/27 23:49 |
In article <s57683h1r6gn8211jlkbvd88idilpocp2g@4ax.com>,
HMS Victor Victorian <VV@19thCent.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:02:35 GMT, Dude With the Hair
> <DudeWiththe(REMOVE)Hair@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 02:49:40 GMT, HMS Victor Victorian
> ><VV@19thCent.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:33:59 GMT, Dude With the Hair
> >><DudeWiththe(REMOVE)Hair@hushmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 02:34:57 GMT, HMS Victor Victorian
> >>><VV@19thCent.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>*Saving bandwidth*
> >>>
> >>>>>As for guidelines for intergenerational relationships, I can distill
> >>>>>the right path down to one simple mantra:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>If we put our boys first in all things, then we will succeed in all of
> >>>>>our goals for them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Thanks again The Non, for the thoughtful informative post.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Doc
> >>>>>NP-f31
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Boys First, Last and Always
> >>>>
> >>>>Taking your mantra to a logical extension ...
> >>>>
> >>>>Given the nature of Western Judeo-Christian society, a boylover who
> >>>>has a consensual intimate relations with a young friend, however that
> >>>>might be expressed, harms the boy through his own irresponsibility,
> >>>>knowing that if the relationship is exposed, the boy could be
> >>>>stigmatized by the very society that claims to protect his interests.
> >>>>
> >>>>This, then, is 4s00th's position.
> >>>>
> >>>>Is it yours?
> >>>>Is it The Non's?
> >>>
> >>>In my practice and world view that scenario will have been thoroughly
> >>>disscussed, debated and decided upon by both parties before any
> >>>consenual act ever takes place. Given your example, you can see why I
> >>>believe intergenerational sexual relationships should only be acted
> >>>upon after months of eduation, thought and heartfelt discussion
> >>>between partners who condider each other equals.
> >>>
> >>>Doc
> >>>NP-f31
> >>>
> >>>>Most respectfully,
> >>>>VV
> >>>>God Save Her Majesty the Queen.
> >>>>God Preserve the Prince of Wales.
> >>>>Rule Britannia!
> >>
> >>
> >>Yet, you must concede, my dear friend, that although a man and a boy
> >>may have serious discussions regarding intimacy, and that the boy may
> >>eagerly desire such intimacy, there is a real danger that should the
> >>relationship "come out" in public, the boy will be stigmatized,
> >>perhaps feel humiliation and suffer degredation--in other words, be
> >>harmed.
> >>
> >>Let me tell you a story. I know of a boy, who was "involved" with a
> >>man much older than he. Once an investigation was completed, the
> >>older man went to prison for twenty years. The boy at the time of the
> >>man's arrest was twelve or thirteen years old. By the time the trial
> >>ended and the whole scenario became public, he was just entering
> >>secondary.
> >>
> >>One morning, a passerby found him in a deep ravine, upon the rocks
> >>below a highway bridge, dead. He had thrown himself off in an
> >>attempt, tragically successful, to commit suicide. It was explained
> >>to me that he had been so unmercifully taunted and degraded by his
> >>school mates for being "so-and-so's wife" etc. that he had been driven
> >>to self destruction.
> >>
> >>Is this outcome substantially the fault, then, of the man who loved
> >>the boy and got caught?
> >>
> >>Respectfully submitted.
> >
> >No, that outcome was the results of kids being tough on other kids.
> >And the real blame lies on the media who would publish the name of a
> >minor in such a case. That should never have happened.
> >
> >Doc
> >NP-f31
>
> It seems peculiar to me that, during the course of this thread, I have
> been alternating responses between you and The Non ... a tag team
> endeavor, I suppose.
>
> Let me address your second statement first. This event occurred in a
> small, rural community, so to my knowledge the name of the minor was
> never published. Don't delude yourself. Everyone at school knew.
> Every kid knew who the older man was and which boys spent considerable
> time with him. Many of those boys, among them the tragic suicide,
> suffered the slings and arrows of their classmates being "tough" on
> them. One boy, who was known as quite the tough, responded by beating
> up his accuser. That ended his torment. The more sensitive and less
> aggressive lads weren't so lucky and they certainly weren't spared.
>
> Which brings me to your first statement. Why is it that makes "kids
> being tough on other kids?" Although The Non has accused, and
> rightfully so, the adult moral "authorities" of stigmatizing a boy, is
> not the telling damage done not by them but by the boy's very
> classmates, his peers and acquaintances? What is it that predisposes
> kids to act in such an unsympathetic way as to drive a boy to suicide?
> I can assure you it is a trait that many cultures do not share.
>
> Is it not a deeper and broader malaise than merely the LEA, the
> so-called psychologists, and the Media?
>
> Thank you again, Doc, for your thought-provoking insight into these
> matters.
You are right (and I hope this thread will end about now!) in that kids
in all cultures do not react in the manner described - many kids around
the world would be jealous if anything. I can remember in my own youth,
back when boys delivered newspapers on daily routes, that fights could
erupt at the "paper shack" when a route became available with a client
who was known to diddle boys on request, and that was in Spokane WA!
|
|
|