On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:45:00 GMT, 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.
I should have never commented on a case I was not familiar with.
Why are kids tough on other kids? That is far afield from your
original question and has nothing to do with boylover/boy relations.
But I would suppose that it mainly human nature. Perhaps a boy who
already has low self-esteem may feel raised up by putting down a boy
whom peers might perceive as inferior or an outcast. Just as bullies
in a pack will pick on the solitary kid if they can corner him. In the
end it comes down to power.
Doc
NP-f31
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
|