On 28 Aug 2010 23:37:01 -0500, Morpheus <Morpheus@dreamland.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 09:13:28 -0700, HMS Victor Victorian wrote
>(in article <3iai76p4q497lrdl394flua3apdr1s4n7q@4ax.com>):
>
>> 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!
>
>Not verbose at all. Eloquently stated. One could pick at this phrase or
>that, but my sense is that this thread has run its course.
>
>It's nice to be able to talk these issues around. There are many fault lines
>hidden and not so hidden in these matters and we struggle to maintain our
>footing and not to cause harm.
>
>It's true that every society has the ideas of good and bad and right and
>wrong, but how those ideas manifest themselves both individually and
>societally, and privately and publicly varies widely. That seems to be the
>way it is; ambiguity is integral to the human experience.
Dear Morpheus,
Agreed. It has been pleasant discussing these issue with you, and
thank you for your kind comments.
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 |
|