On 28 Aug 2010 01:31:01 -0500, Morpheus <Morpheus@dreamland.com>
wrote:
>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."
IAWTP
Your best post in years, Morpheus. Five Stars.
Doc
NP-f31
|
| 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 |
|