On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:34:17 -0400, Mover <Mover@Watch-Me.com> wrote:
>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
Dear Mover,
I am flattered. I feared perhaps this last might have left the
impression that I had become a presumptious and tiring poser.
Thank you.
HMSVV
God Save the Queen.
God Bless the Prince of Wales.
God Preserve the Windsors.
Rule Britannia!
|
| 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 |
|