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!sb06!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.news-service.com!news.astraweb.com!border5.a.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Boys in their Element(repost)
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:34:17 -0400
From: Mover <Mover@Watch-Me.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.prettyboy
Reply-To: Mover
Message-ID: <280820102334171779%Mover@Watch-Me.com>
References: <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> <0001HW.C89DFADE00180911B02919BF@news.newscene.com> <3iai76p4q497lrdl394flua3apdr1s4n7q@4ax.com>
Organization: Move He - Thee Ate Her
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Thoth/1.8.3 (Macintosh)
X-No-Archive: yes
Lines: 450
NNTP-Posting-Host: 798863e4.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=cRUjREZ<?f[W]I=Ra]NaiPL?0kYOcDh@ZDS__J8CTVnW^lHNm]a^`dVE7f<IijDA[W<oo3k=37I5YdfmKjI7MY;TjH9jMlbS=QZ
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.prettyboy:12167
In article <3iai76p4q497lrdl394flua3apdr1s4n7q@4ax.com>, HMS Victor
Victorian <victorvictorian@hushunomail.com> wrote:
> 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."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Dear Morpheus,
>
> "The Thought is as Bad as the Deed
> or
> Let He Without Sin Cast the First Stone"
>
> Fear and morality are meant to keep one from committing wrong. Guilt
> is meant to remind the transgressor to not do wrong again. White
> feared acting upon his emotions would invariably harm the object of
> them. Had he done so, deducing from his own rationalisations, he
> doubtlessly would have felt guilt.
>
> As humans, we all recognise the concepts of good and bad, right and
> wrong. In many cultures, these are defined by morality, or a
> religious precept. Other cultures may define them as more of a
> cause-effect phenomena ... natural consequences of actions. I believe
> most humanity defines it as both.
>
> What is seen as right, and what is seen as wrong, varies greatly. This
> is not to say there are not absolute 'rights' and wrongs'. But there
> are philosophies that view the act of lying, under any circumstance,
> as not moderately, but fundamentally wrong. But who among us would
> not lie to save our loved one's lives? So we recognise lying is
> probably 'wrong' but disagree as to the severity of badness depending
> on the circumstances. It is tradition, culture and society that
> define those circumstances. Hence, the theft of a loaf of bread by
> Jean Valjean might be forgiven more readily that the theft of the
> crown jewels by a set of rich, international thieves.
>
> The crux of the argument is the interpretation of the severity of the
> 'wrong'. This is where the clash of moralities comes. An 18 year old
> is a child? Preposterous. What about 17? What about 13? In Japan,
> definitely not a child and within the age of consent. What about
> pubescent youth? Biologically, a 12 year old boy might very well be a
> physical adult, capable of having a child ... and from what science
> tells us about trends in young girls, even younger. At this point
> enters the psychological defense of morality. When does a person
> have the maturity to make independent and informed decisions regarding
> a variety of actions seen as 'adult?' I suspect the Japanese opinion
> regarding this varies greatly from the British or American. I'll make
> no other comment regarding this or the concept of informed consent,
> other than to say these psychological defenses are erected as a second
> parapet when the main wall is breached.
>
> Who, among us as Boylovers, has not done wrong? Perhaps not one can
> claim to be innocent of the charge. I know I can not. So would it be
> wrong to run your hand gently under a young boy's underpants while he
> was fast asleep and unawares? Putting aside momentarily the dictates
> of my Golden Rule (!) many of us, myself included, would say probably
> so. And, if so, what is the severity of the wrong? Does your
> society agree with you?
>
> Most would immediately say,
> No.
>
> Sincerely and Horribly Verbosely,
>
> HMS Victor Victorian, NP-g18
>
>
> God Save the Queen.
> God Bless the Prince of Wales.
> God Preserve the Windsors.
> Rule Britannia!
Bravo! Magnificent! The best in this thread. Possibly your best, ever.
Not verbose at all. Just right, and eloquently stated. I don't think
anyone could have expressed what you did, any better.
Mover, in thankful admiration
|
| 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 |
|