Sorry Vic -- it's been a really bad few days. Sudden changes in
weather can really affect me nowadays, and I can't be sure that I'm
not coming down with a snotty sinus infection.
Until I can get back to you, think about this -- I've never said that
sex was inherently harmful or sinful; we've had tons of anecdotal
evidence to the contrary over years in addition to historical data on
periods in which relationships between adults and kids were tolerated
or even encouraged to refute the notion.
Stay Safe,
with sincere affection,
Steve
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:20:24 -0700, HMS Victor Victorian
<victorvictorian@hushunomail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:56:10 -0500, 4s00th <4s00th@hushmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I was really ready to jump your shit over this post -- not because
>>you're entirely wrong, but because I was afraid that you were trying
>>to rationalize sexual relationships between adults and kids. I guess I
>>should apologize for my prejudice! I'm sorry.
>>
>>On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:03:15 -0500, not_so <not_so@innocent.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Socety stigmatises sexual activity among the young and yet, if we are
>>>honest, most of us know that we were sexually aware, and often active,
>>>long before the arbitrary age set by society.
>>>
>>>Kids are taught "not to touch themselves" "to be modest" "that sex is
>>>for marriage" - none of these are natural instincts and result in adults
>>>in whom sexuality is supressed.
>>
>>The thing is, kids are, always have been and always will be, curious
>>about their bodies. The problem is that here in the US, we are ashamed
>>of our bodies and our sexuality and our sexual organs and, most of
>>all, our sexual desires. I'd say sexual needs and practices is as
>>natural as any other bodily process -- but we're pretty embarrassed by
>>most of those too!
>>
>>But the point remains that children are always going to touch
>>themselves and fool around with other kids -- and we shouldn't even be
>>trying to stop them unless there is the likelihood of abuse. I was
>>looking up some quotes by Robert Heinlein from Time Enough for Love
>>when I came across this gem -- which I had forgotten about: "Never
>>they are growing up, they are nerve ends all over, and resent (quite
>>properly) any invasion of their privacy. Oh, sure, they'll make
>>mistakes, did you not?)"
>>
>>>Of course there are cases of real abuse but I wonder how many abused
>>>children were actually traumatised by the hysterical reaction.
>>
>>Certainly this is a major problem -- especially if we're talking about
>>innocent peer exploration or consensual peer play; but the
>>implications for sexual relationships between adults and kids is clear
>>-- it's the adult's responsibility to consider all of the factors that
>>may cause the child harm if he/she/they pursue a sexual relationship.
>>Kids really aren't capable of assessing such things. It's like leaving
>>a loaded gun around the house where kids can get it. No, you didn't
>>kill anyone yourself, but you might as well have.
>>
>>>If a kid
>>>leads an older one on to explore and they are caught - the line is to
>>>tell the younger one "it was not your fault"
>>>
>>>This is wrong - not because of who the blame is apportioned to, but
>>>because the very mention of blame suggests that perfectly natural sexual
>>>play with others is somehow wrong
>>
>>It's so strange. In the 50's and 60's, both kids would have been
>>punished -- sometimes quite severely. In the 70's, many parents got
>>the idea that peer sex-play was a normal thing and even thought it was
>>cute. That idea seemed to grow and hold sway well into the 90's. And
>>now, one of the kids is blamed and mislabeled as a sexual offender
>>while the other may well end up abused by the hysteria of those around
>>him or her. Well, except for that one case in Utah where the local
>>prosecutors wanted to actually try two 13-year-old kids for molesting
>>each other -- thus making them sexual offenders and victims at the
>>same time!
>>
>>>I grew up in the 1940's and was aware of body pleasure from as young as
>>>I can remember and was sexually aware and masturbating to orgasm by the
>>>age of 10. I did have experiences with other boys 2-3 yeas younger or
>>>older and I was never approached by an adult - but even in my very early
>>>teens I wanted to be - guess I wasnt cute enough or just didnt meet the
>>>right people.
>>>
>>>from about age 14 I started looking for fun in public toilets and
>>>started to encounter men and truthfully none of them were other than
>>>kind to me and never did anything I didnt want to do. I look back on
>>>those experiences without any regret or remorse. I do so wish I had
>>>pictures of myself having some of this fun.
>>
>>Hell, I actually wished I had pursued more peer relationships! I
>>started fooling around with other boys at about the age of 8 -- and
>>that worked pretty good for me for quite a while since boys my age
>>were perfect for my particular attraction! And even when I had
>>out-grown same-age attraction, the differences between my age and the
>>age of the boys who attracted me were not really significant. And yes,
>>occasionally I fooled around with boys a year or so older than me, but
>>that was much less common -- not that I wouldn't have if some of the
>>older boys I knew had suggested it!
>>
>>>I am not trying to put down the kids that feel genuinely hurt or upset,
>>>especially those that are forced into situations they dont want - but I
>>>do not feel that arbitrary ages are the way to test someones ability to
>>>say "yes I want to" - our bodies tell us this.
>>
>>I'm glad you understand that a lot of kids are genuinely hurt -- each
>>and every day. As I said, my prejudice lead me to believe that you
>>would deny this or rationalize it away; instead, I find myself
>>agreeing with you in principle if not in every detail.
>>
>>But I do want to be clear -- adults have to take the responsibility to
>>make sure that they do no harm, whether that harm is a direct result
>>of what they do, or indirect in the case of the hysteria if the
>>relationship should be outed. Furthermore, they should also take the
>>responsibility to know whether a kid genuinely wants to fool around as
>>opposed to being afraid to say no -- whether they are afraid of being
>>forced or physically hurt or afraid that you will abandon them and
>>stop loving them if they say no. And finally, an adult should also
>>understand the difference between a kid wanting to fool around or make
>>love and a kid who is willing to do those things because he or she
>>knows that you want them or just because they love you enough to want
>>to please you.
>>
>>We tell kids that they can (and ought to) say "no." But we don't
>>really give them the right to say, "Yes." And now we're trying to
>>criminalize normal sexual exploration.
>>
>>I have a special place in my heart for boys who like to fool around
>>with other boys (not to mention wood in my pants!), and it just makes
>>me want to weep at what societal hysteria is doing to something
>>natural, normal, innocent ... and beautiful.
>>
>>Steve
>>-- 4s00th@hushmail.com
>>
>>My email is always available for those looking for and willing to supply support in the effort to remain boy-lovers and not become child-molesters de jure if not de facto.
>
>Dear FourSoothe,
>
>Please forgive my intrusion into this sad discussion. I must say I
>think you are a sincere fellow who bases his opinions, which seem well
>thought-out, on both personal experiences and indepth study.
>
>Nevertheless, I object to your use of language in your opening
>statement. More so, I object to the high handed, if frank, attitude
>you project. Clearly you believe ... no doubt for very
>well-thought-out and well-studied reasons ... that although it is not
>evil for a Boylover to harbour a desire for sexual contact with boys,
>it is evil to actually have such contact.
>
>By whence do you come to this conclusion, and on the basis of what
>evidence? I suspect you are projecting your own social and moral
>values across the boards. Can you assert the same for Thailand as you
>can for the United States, or for Japan, or for Brasilian indigenous
>peoples?
>
>I should also suggest that in situations in which you know not the
>range of facts, that you exercise greater discretion, if not brevity,
>in giving advice to those you may suppose require it.
>
>A little introspection and less automatic acceptance as to "the nature
>of things" might serve you better.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>HMS Victor Victorian
-- 4s00th@hushmail.com
My email is always available for those looking for and willing to supply support in the effort to remain boy-lovers and not become child-molesters de jure if not de facto.
|
|