On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:34:50 GMT, Dude With the Hair
<DudeWiththe(REMOVE)Hair@hushmail.com> wrote:
>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
Yes, but it has everything to do with my original question. There are
societies, so-called "primitive" or "small-scale" societies, where
children seldom argue and taunt and never, never fight. Secondly,
there are societies that are dumbfounded by the violence of Western
reaction to sexual contact with and between minors. They see us as
quite obsessed.
Why is our society so obsessed with issues of sex and sexual identity.
Why should gentle boys be taunted and pummelled for being fags? Why
should Marines so detest a group of people that, according to their
own stereotypes, is too "weak-wristed" to present a threat? Why is it
seriously asserted that if a man touches a boy's genitals, that the
boy is scarred for life and requires years of therapy?
Boys drove that young man to suicide through learned behavior ...
behavior taught them systematically by a society that detests certain
classes of people. And sadly it must be admitted that the boy victim
himself had been taught such lessons, that he would need years of
psychotherapy, that he had been soiled permanently, that he perhaps
should detest himself for getting into "that kind of relationship."
Here's another story. I knew of an older gentleman who was generous
and sociable. Boys visited his home regularly. Indeed, they flocked
there. It was initially suspected, then rumoured, that the gentleman
was a boylover. Apparently he had an ill-advised liason involving
masturbation with one young teen. After thinking the experience
over, the boy became so extremely distressed that he told his father
about it. The boy said that he was afraid he was a "fag."
Needless to say, the father agreed and was livid. He reported the
incident. The police launched an investigation. The gentleman was
arrested and received a prison term. The identities of the lads
involved in the investigation were meticulously concealed ... so great
was the fear of being stigmatized ... and have no doubt ... by
Society.
Thus, in accordance with The Non's statements, I conclude that
boylovers--true, ethical boylovers--do not directly harm the boy.
Society does the damage, and intentionally ... through the consensus
of moral tyranny.
Does the fact that Society imposes these rules demand that the ethical
boylover acknowledge them and refrain from intimacy, knowing the
possible ramifications? This is 4s00th's position.
Or does the boylover ignore the rules?
As to whether this might be "right" or "wrong", one perhaps should
consider first other rules Society once believed were sacred and
unbending, yet today are seen by the majority of that society as being
backward, antiquated and cruel.
Slavery comes to mind.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
|