unkn <76636@m.xcom>let his fingers dance across the keyboard and
saidnews:Xns996ACE484943876636mxcom@216.40.28.70:
> I rescued a couple of questions you made in one of your earlier posts
> and over which I want to make some blood.
>
> you asked
>
> "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 intimacy?"
>
> And unfortunatelly, the answer, or at least my answer, is yes. The
> direct responsability of this society that you call (well called
> tyrannic, make indirect responsibles of us. Fucking unfair, isn't it.
> Grotesquely unfair, considering how society talk about us. So I want to
> focus over another of your questions:
>
> "What responsibility does the boylover have towards his society and its
> moral values, if any?"
>
> Cause I obviously don't know the answer to this one, I'll just try to
> comment what seem to have been the different positions in the groups
> during the last months.
>
> One person who left the groups not many time ago defended that our duty
> as boylovers was to hit fiercely the pillars of this society and its
> conceived moral. And he defended that it was necessary that we and our
> children take certain risks to get all the rights that Occident, or
> modern society, or Judeo-Christian society if you prefer, denied us. The
> fact that this point of view was actively offensive and to a great
> extent dangerous doesn't mean that I didn't understand it, or even share
> it a little. Nop, I suppose I'll never be brave enought to take on a
> idea like that, but it's true that somedays i think 'come, come, nuclear
> bomb', and that this world is so desperating that we should take the
> weapons one of these days... and things like that.
>
> You also watched Dudewiththehair to wave that sentence that seems to
> have become his flag. "The boys first" he said. I admit that this is a
> nice reflection. But I wonder, is the same nice than right? I mean, is
> not maybe a triumph of the 'common moral' if we set the boys necessities
> above ours? Is not a way to yield to the outside pressure? Don't
> misunderstand me, i know that boys are often more helpless and
> necessitous than we are but "If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you
> tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?". Can't we
> be equal than boys? Or is this a crazy idea? I don't know. Anyway, it
> seems that this resolution is the more similar to the truce (or future
> truce) we can pursue. And for this reason it's my favourite.
>
> The poster called lipschitz seems to be very happy feeling atraction to
> minors but not taking any action about it. He forgot to say, I guess,
> that he probably think that the relationships between adults and minors
> are nasty, or outrageous or impure. I'm sorry to say, and maybe disquiet
> some lea, that this is the only point of view that make me wanna throw
> up. It's so sensible, and loyal, and coward all at the same place... I
> really don't want to bend my arm in such a way.
>
> Anyway, as a epilogue, I have to say that society and LEA have now
> exactly what they want of us. We are in the 2007 no more than a bunch of
> disorganized people, many of us lurkers who will hide forever, and
> others, the self-proclaimed aristocracy of the bl usenet society (you
> know, the people with -lol- badges) who seem a little snob for my taste.
> I really don't see much hope. But well, this is just my opinion :P
>
>
> best regards
Hello, unkn,
First of all, please don't put words into my posts. I did not say I thought
adult/minor relationships were inherently bad, immoral or anything else. I
only said that I choose not to become sexually involved, choosing fantasy
and masturbation over contact and the risk of prison.
That being said, I personally know several men (formerly boys, but aren't
we all) that, as boys, had intergenerational relationships lasting, in two
cases, several years. These men are well adjusted; only one leads a "gay"
lifestyle. Another of the men considered it a "phase" (his word, not mine)
and today is married with children of his own. Yet another of the men has
become a mentor (coaches his son's ball team), but is not sexually
attracted to boys. About all these guys have in common is their pasts and
the fact that they all know me.
Although they are acquainted, none of the men know anything about the
other's past, and I don't have any reason to divulge anything that has been
said to me.
Getting to the issue of harm, my personal opinion is that much more "harm"
is done by society's reaction if the relationship is dicscovered than
anything the adult would do. Note, I am speaking about a man who loves boys
and has no desire to hurt a boy.
Remembering that, when the time comes that the boy wants to stop, it is the
adult's responsibility to STOP! The hardest part of the relationship, then,
would be ending the sexual part. Nothing says that the adult has to stop
seeing the boy, or especially being a friend to said boy. God knows, most
boys have so little positive adult influence in their lives today anyway.
I admire the men who coach and mentor boys. I would love to do that, but I
have doubts about my resistance.
Therefore, I choose not to put myself in a position that could even
possibly lead to anything more than passing contact. You see, it is a self-
preservation thing, as well as a concern for boys. I am all too aware of
the signs of a boy that could use a friend.
I'm not sure I could be just a friend, and if I couldn't keep a "safe"
distance, and someone found out, then what did I do to that boy? Even if
the boy starts things, it is up to me to watch out for the boy's well-
being. I don't think it is the relationship itself that is harmful, it's
the stigma that would follow the boy, and that's a risk I am not willing to
take, for me or for any boy. Recently there was a story in the news about a
boy (18, I think) that jumped from a cruise ship while on vacation because
he had been beaten then raped by his peers. His suicide note said it was
that everybody knew what had happened. How much worse would it have been
for him had he been a willing participant?
So. no, it's not fair for anyone. Not for the BL, not for the boy. But that
is the way things are, and signs are things will get much worse before they
get better. Today, you'll get a longer sentence if you sleep with a 16-
year-old than if you shoot and kill him. Where is the sanity?
So, I sit here at the computer, and write these silly long-winded
explanations about why I'm sitting here writing these silly long-winded
explanations...
I'll get up in the morning, go out, and maybe go to the mall and check out
the eye candy, then come home and fantasize about things. But no, I won't
be picking up any boys tomorrow, unless I see one that has fallen and needs
a hand getting back on his feet...
Maybe this is a 'cowardly' way to deal with reality. But it is the way I
deal with reality.
I'm not sorry that this makes you want to "throw up". This has been a
sucessful way of self-preservation for a long time, and hopefully it will
continue to be sucessful for some time to come.
I do, however, wish you luck in changing the world.
Take care.
--
It has recently been discovered that research causes
cancer in rats.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|