Path: news.nzbot.com!spool1.sonic-news.com!news-out.sonic-news.com!not.news-service.com!not.alt.net!not.highwinds-media.com!t4!artnm!sb07!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.news-service.com!postnews.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!novia!novia!sequencer.newscene.com!not-for-mail
From: Morpheus <Morpheus@dreamland.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.prettyboy
Subject: Re: Boys in their Element(repost)
Date: 28 Aug 2010 01:31:01 -0500
Organization: Dreamland
Lines: 345
Approved: abc
Message-ID: <0001HW.C89DFADE00180911B02919BF@news.newscene.com>
References: <gde076p5ei1f8meudhf83uqsous9719kds@4ax.com> <e8b2761p866ebpis148i9e68occ93qsspt@4ax.com> <umq776tuv4sjb3q8b7cosfn2lp05usa2o6@4ax.com> <0001HW.C8997E920010C0BFB02919BF@news.newscene.com> <ece876d2j64al5no5nnggh8f11atopevm3@4ax.com> <0001HW.C89A09D0000FE3E6B02919BF@news.newscene.com> <es9a76p7lva1834kptqip07k233jeqaj23@4ax.com> <0001HW.C89B2B95000D75B6B02919BF@news.newscene.com> <m2sc76p2jge19uti0rru615cmgbcf7mnjq@4ax.com> <0001HW.C89C408E0004F93FB02919BF@news.newscene.com> <nlrf7693icc0rdvhnfp17584plf7tlhpp4@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Hogwasher/4.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-No-Archive: yes
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.prettyboy:12152
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:17:52 -0700, HMS Victor Victorian wrote
(in article <nlrf7693icc0rdvhnfp17584plf7tlhpp4@4ax.com>):
> On 26 Aug 2010 18:04:01 -0500, Morpheus <Morpheus@dreamland.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 06:55:01 -0700, HMS Victor Victorian wrote
>> (in article <m2sc76p2jge19uti0rru615cmgbcf7mnjq@4ax.com>):
>>
>>> On 25 Aug 2010 22:22:01 -0500, Morpheus <Morpheus@dreamland.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 07:31:47 -0700, HMS Victor Victorian wrote
>>>> (in article <es9a76p7lva1834kptqip07k233jeqaj23@4ax.com>):
>>>>
>>>>> On 25 Aug 2010 01:46:01 -0500, Morpheus <Morpheus@dreamland.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:43:03 -0700, HMS Victor Victorian wrote
>>>>>> (in article <ece876d2j64al5no5nnggh8f11atopevm3@4ax.com>):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 24 Aug 2010 15:52:01 -0500, Morpheus <Morpheus@dreamland.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:16:06 -0700, Z NP-f6 wrote
>>>>>>>> (in article <umq776tuv4sjb3q8b7cosfn2lp05usa2o6@4ax.com>):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 10:30:47 -0400, NP-f31 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What I've learned is my kid IS paying attention, and not just when I
>>>>>>>>>> tell him 'this is something you need to remember'. He is modelling
>>>>>>>>>> himself after me. That is what Dads are for. That is what boylovers
>>>>>>>>>> should aspire to be. For all the beauty of a boy and all the
>>>>>>>>>> enchantment he can bring to your life, what is important is what YOU
>>>>>>>>>> can mean for HIM. Even when you have less access to a boy, like with
>>>>>>>>>> me and T-Bone or Mac, the time you spend with them talking and doing
>>>>>>>>>> things has an accumulative effect. Even if you're just cutting up
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> having fun, they ARE watching and what you do for them has a
>>>>>>>>>> lifelong
>>>>>>>>>> effect. I pray that every boylover who is brave and lucky enough to
>>>>>>>>>> take on a loved boy remembers that whether he tries purposefully or
>>>>>>>>>> not, he IS having a permanent impact on the boy he loves. By loving
>>>>>>>>>> your boy unselfishly, you guarantee that your legacy will be a
>>>>>>>>>> positive one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Love,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Doc
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PS-Sorry Z if that last paragraph came off a bit preachy. I know you
>>>>>>>>>> get it, but you're not the only one who will read this. Mea culpa.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not at all preachy, Doc! Look around and everywhere people are
>>>>>>>>> fouling
>>>>>>>>> up kids by sending them the wrong messages.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Given my circumstances and character I know that I will never be able
>>>>>>>>> to bring up a kid but I try with all the kids I meet to remember
>>>>>>>>> that,
>>>>>>>>> even with the most casual meetings, they are watching and learning!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's easier for part-time people like me than for committed people
>>>>>>>>> like you which is why I respect what you do so much.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On a more mundane note, don't let that youngest boy of yours get
>>>>>>>>> swollen-headed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Love from Z
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Absolutely true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The question is NEVER if a kid learns anything. They are doing
>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>> all the time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The question is WHAT did they learn? WHAT did you teach them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dearest Morpheus,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you've made an astute observation and query. I have always
>>>>>>> suspected, although also having acknowledged that my belief may
>>>>>>> simply be a reflection of my own insecurities and perceived failings,
>>>>>>> that the impact parents make on the enculturation of their children,
>>>>>>> is highly over-estimated. A parent or parent-surrogate who might
>>>>>>> believe himself to be successful would, of course, stringently
>>>>>>> disagree, but I hold that a child's personality is fairly properly
>>>>>>> forged by the age of two, and that those who make the greatest
>>>>>>> immediate and long-lived impact on his enculturation are not his
>>>>>>> parents, nor adults at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is his peers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, in general, what children have learned is not what we as parents
>>>>>>> or adults think they've learned, and what we taught them not at all
>>>>>>> the content that they gleened from us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, and by the way ... I must state here that I am rather tired of the
>>>>>>> admonition of what messages we are sending to our youngsters. Nowadays
>>>>>>> we seem to always be sending messages--the wrong ones usually. If
>>>>>>> only half of the messages we were supposedly sending were actually
>>>>>>> sent, we'd not be able to converse due to the cacaphony of
>>>>>>> exhortations!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I'd also like people to cease and desist criticising the chubby
>>>>>>> youngsters, and the skinny ones, and the ones who are overly shy or
>>>>>>> overly energetic, and the kids who aren't making the grade.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, and stop, please, medicating them for these imagined deficiencies
>>>>>>> as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>> HMS Victor Victorian, NP-g18
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> God Save the Queen.
>>>>>>> God Bless the Prince of Wales.
>>>>>>> God Preserve the Windsors.
>>>>>>> Rule Britannia!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think research has been done showing the strong effect peers have on
>>>>>> child
>>>>>> behavior. But there are other strong factors as well including
>>>>>> inherited
>>>>>> tendancies, parental behavior, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My point was that kids are sponges, they soak up everything. They are
>>>>>> very
>>>>>> observant and, for the most part, very astute and well tuned in to
>>>>>> emotional
>>>>>> nuance. They learn at a very young age to respond to their mother's
>>>>>> mood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that the view that personality is determined by age two is not
>>>>>> well-supported. Kids at that age are still developing quite a bit
>>>>>> cognitively. Their ability to form cause and effect relationships and
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> project into the unseen is a bit limited.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But even if we move that age back, to 9 say, to say that personality is
>>>>>> determined would lead to the notion that people can't change their
>>>>>> fundamental make up, yet we know that many people do exactly that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Morpheus,
>>>>>
>>>>> Accept my apologies for misunderstanding your intent. Such happens
>>>>> when the listener's listening is flawed due to having an agenda
>>>>> plugging the auditory receptors! I may be suffering that ailment!
>>>>>
>>>>> You may wish to review the evidence provided by research into child
>>>>> growth and development. When it comes to the human species, one must
>>>>> always apply the term "generally". People may indeed fundamentally
>>>>> change the basic elements of their personalities--their fundamental
>>>>> makek-up, but generally I believe they do not. Nor do they have a
>>>>> choice in the matter, really.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Children are sponges. Dickie was constantly badgering me for a
>>>>> quid or two! Now as an adult, I regret to say, he solicits
>>>>> considerably more!
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>> HMS Victor V.
>>>>>
>>>>> God Save the Queen.
>>>>> God Bless the Prince of Wales.
>>>>> God Preserve the Windsors.
>>>>> Rule Britannia!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks HVV for your comments. There is a wide range of variation in
>>>> human
>>>> behavior, that's for sure....so using the word 'generally' makes a lot of
>>>> sense.
>>>>
>>>> We also need always to be careful in differentiating so-called 'human
>>>> nature'
>>>> from learned behavior. Which behaviors belong in which category is
>>>> subject
>>>> to considerable questioning.
>>>>
>>>> I generally tend to mistrust claims that this or that behavior is 'human
>>>> nature'. I think we don't really know the nature of human nature (if
>>>> you'll
>>>> forgive me).
>>>>
>>>> I agree that most people don't really change that much over the course of
>>>> their lives, but some people do, so that supports an argument that it's
>>>> possible to make such changes....not common, but possible.
>>>>
>>>> And Dickie, as I point out, is only doing what you taught him to do... :)
>>>>
>>>> Take care,
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Morpheus,
>>>
>>> I am in complete agreement. Above all other species, human nature IS
>>> defined almost exclusively by learned behaviours. Culture was our
>>> reply to the demands of natural selection.
>>>
>>> Regarding my dearest now-middle-aged boy Richard, you are absolutely
>>> right! As a boy, he had a firm grasp on my heart-strings, and I could
>>> not resist granting him whatever favour he wished ... all he need do
>>> was to light up his face with a hopeful, beaming smile, or put on his
>>> pout--his lower lip ludicrously stuck out near past his chin,
>>> invariably drawing from me a laugh and compliance!
>>>
>>> Guilty, I say! For I am unabashedly guilty.
>>>
>>> Wiser now, I tell you I would do it all again!
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> V
>>>
>>> God Save the Queen.
>>> God Bless the Prince of Wales.
>>> God Preserve the Windsors.
>>> Rule Britannia!
>>
>> Yes. You showed him that the smile or a pout worked. Of course you would
>> do
>> it again. You even knew you were doing it whilst you were doing it.
>> What's
>> wrong with that? Why are you guilty about it?
>>
>> Some fucking church thing no doubt... "You're not supposed to have those
>> thoughts!!!!"
>
> Dear Morpheus,
>
> No, no, no, no, my friend. I did not intend to say I felt guilt
> surrendering to Richard's lethal pout or warm and dimpled smile.
> Jealous that I had not myself been such a boy? Oh, yes.
>
> But was there guilt? Of course, and not the kind that may be
> dismissed readily, as those morality lessons from the vicar. My guilt
> arises from the tabernacle of my heart, wondering after all these
> years if I had done my dear boy wrong. How can one not ponder these
> issues? Haven't many of us struggled with these doubts, as had our
> laureate author T. H. White, stricken by the charm of a ten-year-old
> lad?
>
> "...I have fallen in love with Zed. On Braye Beach with Killie I waved
> and waved to the aircraft till it was out of sight ... It would be
> unthinkable to make Zed unhappy with the weight of this impractical,
> unsuitable love. It would be against his human dignity. Besides, I
> love him for being happy and innocent, so it would be destroying what
> I loved. He could not stand the weight of the world against such
> feelings - not that they are bad in themselves. It is the public
> opinion which makes them so. In any case, on every score of his
> happiness, not my safety, the situation is an impossible one. All I
> can do is behave like a gentleman. It has been my hideous fate to have
> been born with an infinite capacity for love and joy with no hope of
> using them."
>
> Guilt, indeed. Had I a chance to once more to see him pout so sweetly
> ... to feel his arms about my neck, his breath on my cheek, his body
> arching toward mine, his firmness pressed against me ... I would be
> swept away once more!
>
> V
>
>
>
>
> God Save the Queen.
> God Bless the Prince of Wales.
> God Preserve the Windsors.
> Rule Britannia!
Isn't it wonderful how we can recapture the strength of those feelings,
painful though they may (at times) be? I remember the time I was in bed
with......sigh.
Maybe I'm a psychopath, but I am having a problem seeing the need for the
guilt.
Re-reading White, what is there to be guilty about? His strong feelings?
hardly.
The fact that the object of his feelings was somehow off-limits? In what
way? According to who? I'm not suggesting these questions don't have
answers only that they need to be answered in order to form a judgement.
Some would say that the unsuitability of the love is because it is expressed
(in some cases) sexually. And, it may be that a sexual relation takes place
before the younger person is aware enough of his own sexual persona to really
comprehend the implications of the acts involved...
But doesn't that happen every day with people of all ages in both sexual and
non-sexual circumstances?
A 16 year old speeds down the roadway driving a car. The driver is legally
allowed to be driving a car in many states in the U. S. Does the 16 year
old kid understand, as he's roaring down the roadway speeding, that because
of his recklessness he might hit a child in a crosswalk and destroy both of
their lives? No, he's not thinking of that. Should only 80 year olds drive
Besides that's what laws of consent are for. Does a 6 year old understand
the implications of sexual activity? Probably not. Does a 14 year old boy
understand? Probably yes. Does he have full and complete understanding of
his behavior and all its ramifications? Probably not; who does? When is
this ever the case?
Forcing a sexual relationship is called rape and there are (justifiably) laws
against it. Enticing, pushing or tricking a child (or anyone) into a
physical relationship that is unwanted or not understood is wrong. Enticing
a child into a sexual encounter when the child is too young to understand or
give knowing consent is wrong. It is placing the adults sexual needs ahead
of the needs of the child. That is not love; that is possession.
I don't think reasonable people would defend that kind of behavior, but what
if that's not what happens? (N.B. It's important to differentiate between
fantasies or thoughts and actual behavior). What about when all parties
enter into the relationship with sufficient awareness and completely
volitionally?
I've heard men in sexual liaisons with 18 year old boys called Pedophiles.
Nonsense. The psychiatric community says pedophilia is sex with children.
18 year olds are not children. Perhaps they are not fully mature adults, but
I don't even know what the term "fully mature adult' means. I've met 45 year
old men that act like children and ten year old kids that act like 40 year
olds.
The vicar says it's wrong. Of course he does. He's trying to maintain a
social power grip. The Pope declares, while surrounded by homosexual
priests, that homosexuality is an unnatural state. Nonsense. That has
nothing to do with morality or biology; that's all about power(fucking
fascists).
But in truth, the issue cannot even be spoken about in 'decent' society. The
pendulum swings in both directions though.... I do remember Amsterdam in the
late 70s. (bigger sigh)
There are those who disagree. And, as C. Eastwood reminds us, "Opinions are
like assholes. Everyone has one."
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
|