On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 21:13:46 -0400, NP-f31 wrote:
>A BL friend wrote to me the other day about a date he recently had
>with a woman who is a nurse. She worked in palliative care and was
>talking about the death of one of her patients that had just occurred.
>As it turns out this patient had been a 12 year old terminally ill
>boy. The date had imbibed a few drinks and her tongue was loosened.
>She began to explain to my friend that she had granted the dying wish
>of this boy. He had, over a series of days, told her that the one
>thing he didn't want to do was die a virgin and that she was his only
>hope. She is an attractive woman, by the way. One day not long before
>he died she was assisting him in the shower and he implored her to
>touch him. She said she felt sorry for him, and she ended up making
>love to the boy and added that it was an enjoyable experience for the
>both of them. This really got the attention of my BL friend, it
>intrigued him to say the least. He told her that he wasn't judging her
>and that what she did was an unselfish act. Armed with that knowledge
>she admitted to my friend that this wasn't the first terminally ill
>adolescent she'd sent to heaven a man. Then she told him that she knew
>of many hospice nurses who had done the same thing. How many? She
>didn't say. This absolutely blew my friend's mind. He wondered what my
>feelings were on the subject and I told him. I'll share them with you
>too and I hope you'll share your feelings on the subject as well.
>
>Here is what I think:
>
>I think that nurses who have sex with terminally ill boys are
>fulfilling their own fantasies, not some boy's dying wish. Put the
>shoe on the other foot, if a male nurse had been asked the same
>question by a terminally ill 12 year old girl, the male nurse would
>be seen as a rapist, especially by the drunken nurse. She
>wanted those 12 year old boys for the same reason we, as BLs, would.
>She has convinced herself that she was fulfilling his final wish. What
>she really did was seduce and rape him. That's how it would be seen if
>we did it. I won't allow her to live in a double standard world. What
>if the boy had been gay? Would she have sought out a male nurse to
>service him? No, she was living out her fantasies and she's justified
>it in her mind because the kids were dying. What if either boy had
>made a miraculous recovery? What would she be then? A statutory
>rapist. Just because the boy dies doesn't make it okay. If you and I,
>as boylovers, have to go to jail for making love to a boy who wants us
>to, then she has to also. Otherwise, when is rape not a rape? When a
>woman does it? Tell that to Mary Kay Laterno. If the boy is dying?
>Well, that would lead to a rash of rape-murders, wouldn't it?
>
>I think this scenario shows the whole ingrained bias against man/boy
>relationships. I guarantee you if it were the other way around, man
>and girl, she would be horrified and so would her hospice boy rapist
>friends.
>
>Your thoughts solicited...
>
>Doc
>NP-f31
My Dear Doc,
I feel sorry for the young fellow. When one reaches that age, one
becomes acutely aware of being on the doorstep of manhood, with all of
the expectations one has heard from friends and family as to what
makes a "real man." If indeed the story was true, the lad had learned
he would be unfulfilled if he were to die a virgin. How preposterous,
of course, but very sad, don't you think?
If the nurse felt she were "doing the lad a favour" by sending him to
heaven as a "real man," that is equally preposterous and equally
tragic.
But if she acted to satisfy and confort him, then she is as an angel.
To your argument. You state that nurses (presumably both men and
women) are fulfilling their own fantasies rather than the desire of
their younger partners. First, what should be so surprising or
objectionable about that? Second, if the younger partner makes such a
request and enjoys the experience, what should be so objectionable
about that? That a male nurse would be "seen as a rapist" is
precisely that ... SEEN ... by OTHERS, as a rapist ... completely
irrespective of the feelings of the younger partner. We are so
constrained by society, to such a great extent by gender roles. Men
are seen as predatory ... women as sympathetic and nurturing. There
have been cases, several of which I am certain you are familiar, where
a woman, most particularly a teacher, had been accused and convicted
of "rape" of a male student. Yet I hazard that these women do not
suffer near the punishment NOR the ostricisation that men do, because
of society's view of the nature of men and women.
We are also constrained, perhaps unfairly and inaccurately, by
society's view of sex ... what the sexual feeling really is, who is
capable of feeling it and what it signifies, how a sexual act is
defined, and who may or may NOT engage in sexual acts. These rules
are less fundamental or, for that matter natural, than they are
arbitrary ... rules simply created by any society--groups of people
adhering to a traditional code of behaviour-- to organize and control
members of that society. So the idea that a grown woman and a young
boy or girl, or a grown man and the same, could not mutually enjoy
sexual contact, and that the younger partner would be fundamentally
scarred from the experience in all cases, is only substantiated in a
society that upholds that idea.
Thus you state that the nurse "raped" him. Did she? How are you
defining rape, and from whence do you get the inspiration for that
definition, sir? You also state that, because a man engaging in a
similar act with a girl (or, for that matter, a boy) will invariably
be judged a rapist and sent to jail ... therefore so should the woman
be punished in like.
I recall Ted's signature line here ... "An Unjust Law is Not Law."
Boylovers are subjected to the most heinous and draconian laws and
punishments for loving a boy. You would therefore subject women who
love boys or girls to the same injustice?
And should this be overturned (which, of course, it will not) would
that lead to a rash of rape-murders? I think you overstate
considerably here, for emotion-stirring purposes. Of course not. It
is the law itself that has oft led to this terrible end. For Love
does not Murder the object of its desire. Hatred does.
Lastly, you state that the scenario shows an ingrained bias against
man/boy relationships. Yes, in a sense, I suppose. But you know, all
our biases are learned ...
A very wise doctor once told me, "Any LOVE is GOOD love." Let the two
of them be.
With all due respect,
VV
God Save the Queen!
God Bless the House of Windsor!
Rule Britannia!
|
|