|
|
mihangel
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: UK
Registered: July 2002
Messages: 192
|
|
|
Charlie's plea for enlightenment prompted replies of various kinds. One strand led on to the argument, made very firmly by Cossie and Jack, that 'sex with kids is wrong'. As I read it, most posters on this board (including myself) would agree in condemning a large age difference. But it raises a parallel question: what if the age difference is small? In Britain, sex between males of 16 or above is legal, but if either is even a day under 16 it is not. One appreciates that legislation has to be very specific, and cannot take into account the infinite variety of individuals and circumstances. It cannot define cases where, for example, sex between two immature 16-year-olds might be more 'reprehensible' (for want of a better word) than between two mature 14-year-olds. Yet a large proportion of the stories on this site (and on Nifty, etc etc) deal with consensual underage sex, which is illegal. Whether or not the police do anything about such real-life cases as come to their notice is another matter altogether. It is still illegal.
On 29 October Tim raised this very question when he posted a survey ('Age of Sexual Consent': if you want to refresh your memory, it's under Resources). Most curiously it seems to have generated no correspondence whatever on this board. He argued that sex between boys of similar age should be permitted, while pointing out the possible danger if one were, say, 15 and the other 12. He therefore proposed a sliding scale of age difference which could be permissible, from age 12 upwards. The survey results show that 30-odd percent feel that if there has to be a fixed age of consent, 16 is the right one. But 60 percent approved Tim's notion of a sliding scale.
As a community we do not hugely disapprove of consensual underage sex, it seems, since we read stories about it, and occasionally write them. And it happens in real life, too. But few people who do live in the real as opposed to the fictional world are going to crusade for a lowering of the age of consent, let alone press for the adoption of Tim's sensitive and logical proposal, simply because neither is practical politics.
So - at least if we belong to the 60 percent who approve Tim's sliding scale or something like it - do we merely use it as our own private moral yardstick by which we make judgments? Or do we judge individual instances, whether in real life or in fiction, by simple instinct: that this one is laudable where that one is irresponsible or exploitative or whatever?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
richard lyon
|
 |
Toe is in the water |
Location: San Francisco
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 55
|
|
|
I am presently doing some research in this area for an essay that I am going to be posting to my website. I am struck by what a mass of confusion the law and political opinion is. I have more information about US laws than I do about UK laws. They varry considerablly from state to state.
The term age of consent usually refers specifically to a charge of statutory rape. When this age is set below the age of full majority it does not necessarily mean that sex between a consenting minor and an adult is entirely "legal". There are still laws about contributing to the delinquency of a minor that could be used to prosecute the adult. However, potential punishments are much less severe than those for statutory rape.
If anyone can point me to any online resources about UK law in this area I would really appreciate it.
The general reality seems to be that as long as people are below the age of majority they are subject to parental control. Sometimes that's a blessing and sometimes it's not.
I think that parents are more often unsure about how to deal with situations involving same sex activity.
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Again, as far as the age of consent is concerned we are of course bound by the laws of our respective cultures.
Unfortunately the law does not permit leeway for the enlightened notion of a sliding scale.
Where as mentioned elsewhere (See Richards reply) the issue of illegalities does come in with reguards to statutory rape. When sex occurs between minors of equally appropriate age there is only a small chance of legal reprecussions, and then only if a complaint has been lodged.
What has suprised me is the continued skirting of one very pertinant issue with reguard of "age of consent".
What about the parents rights? What about the legal issue of non-assignment of parental rights. (Which means that only a parent can determine what is right for a child).
Can a parent be held liable for a minor childs conduct reguarding sex with another child of like age?
I hope I didnt throw another stone into the pond.....
Marc
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting point about the parents, but let's take it a step further. What if it is with the parents' consent? Then throw in an age difference. I have read many stories at the different sites where the (usually single) parent is aware and condones the sexual activity. Is this really any different than a father taking his fifteen year old son to the local bawdy house for initiation into "manhood"?
I was in that 60 per cent that favored a sliding scale, but don't want it to just depend on age. We require instruction and testing to acquire a driving license, why not a sex license?
Here in Texas a seventeen year old hetero couple caught in the act and the girl can be charged with statutory rape. At least the cattle here don't have to be eighteen!
Hugs, charlie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You mean that 19 year old down cutie the block is off limits? It only a difference of 32 years! LOL
Hugs, Charlie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Granted, there are cases where the parents have granted (approveal) of their childs participation in some sort of sexual activity. But are these responsible parents?
In a story, a very beautiful picture can be painted, but the real world is generally quite different.
Marc.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mihangel
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: UK
Registered: July 2002
Messages: 192
|
|
|
That's just it, isn't it? As soon as you look at specific examples, whether they're actual or theoretical ones, the logic starts going a bit fuzzy. As Tim found, I think, when working on his proposal.
Two questions, not about the legal aspect or parental responsibility at all, but about what we see as right and wrong. First, as I remarked before, Cossie said 'Sex [i.e. cross-generational sex] with kids is wrong'. Jack said almost exactly the same. But when does a kid stop being a kid?
Second (but related). According to Cossie and Jack, sex between, say, a 23-year-old and a 13-year old is wrong. If you narrow the age gap, does it become correspondingly less wrong? At what point does it stop being wrong and become right? Is it wrong between an 18-year-old and a 13-year-old? A grey area, no doubt. Is it best, as it so often is in grey areas, to rely on instinctive judgment - that in *this* case it's OK but in *that* one it's not? I don't know the answer. That's why I'm asking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
richard lyon
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Location: San Francisco
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 55
|
|
|
Here's a link to an article I found that might be of interest.
http://law.about.com/library/weekly/aa980413.htm
It's a court decision in California that pertains to teens below the age of consent which is 18 there.
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article cited by Richard was very interesting, but also points the very narrow consideration courts give to laws nowadays. The court usually focuses on a strict adherence to the particular case before them without regard to setting a general precedent. I took a Criminal Law course several years ago where the text was a U.S. Supreme Court casebook. We had to find precedents that would apply to actual cases in the newpapers and boy was that a tough course. But I think, it would be even tougher now as the courts do not wish to take a stand anywhere, vacillating within a very narrow path where no one wins really, and application of the law is still very much open to the local prosecuting attorney's interpretation. But this is also reflected in the American workplace, no body takes a stand but follows like sheep down whatever business path that is currently touted by "experts" as the road to profits and fame. Most often this route bypasses anyone who does not have V.P. on their embossed, multi-colored business card.
But I move away from the subject at hand (easily distracted by a pretty face?) I again advance my idea of licensing after suitable training and demonstration of ability similar to drivers' licensing. If a fifteen year old spends three months attending a class where the mechanics of sexuality are taught, the medical and societal dangers inherent to such relations are shown, and discussions with sexually active adults to gain insight into the psychological ramifications are conducted, then I submit that minor boy would probably be better mentally capable of coping with a sexual relationship than possibly you or me (or at least the way we were when we had our first experience).
But alas, in today's world this is just a dream, as schools move further and further away from preparing children to enter adulthood. My God, an article in the newspaper the other day suggested that maybe schools should require some physical activity (remember Phys Ed?) to help reverse the national trend toward obesity! For those of you with kids still in school, have they come home full of giggles about what they learned that day and can't wait to try out this new info (that you can't punish them for because it was taught in school) on you to see how red-faced you become? I remember doing that to my mother the day we had the grainy, shadowy VD training films in the auditorium instead of shooting baskets in the gym.
Sex, whether you are talking about minors or adults, is fast becoming the darkly-light back room subject that soon will not be legal to discuss anywhere you might be overheard by someone too up tight to change clothes with the lights on.
Whew, off my soap box - - Hugs to all, Charlie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tim
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Location: UK, West of London in Ber...
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 842
|
|
|
I felt very "Alice in Wonderland" as I tried to construct a half sensble argument.
Take the 23 y/o and the 13 y/o. Ad a year to each of their ages? Tell me at what point the relationship becomes morally acceptable to you.
I cannot answer it. Not without knowing the couple concerned.
I have a friend who has a lover half his age. I mean LOVER, I do not mean a casual fuck. They are a couple, a true couple. Tell me the ages there that are "acceptable" to you. Or, without knowing the couple, can you do so?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mihangel
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: UK
Registered: July 2002
Messages: 192
|
|
|
That's why I asked. Yet Cossie and Jack seem adamant that cross-generational sex is wrong. I respect their opinions, and, as a general rule, I instinctively agree. But I've no doubt there are exceptions. And what exactly does cross-generational mean? Very likely satisfactory answers just don't exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
This is, I suppose, the ultimate debating topic for a gay board which is largely peopled by boy-lovers. (Whoa! Put the gun down. I'm not getting at you, and I include myself in the description!) The attraction of the topic is that it obviously doesn't generate a 'right' or a 'wrong' answer; it only raises more questions, so that debate-freaks like me get wound up to a state of near-orgasm at the excitement of it all.
Unhappily, I'm off on my travels again tomorrow, so I've got to get my fix tonight, and it needs to be pretty short. I think I'll go for the defensive play!
OK, I argued that cross-generational sex was to be avoided. I stick by that, but only in the context of sex with minors. It isn't for me - or, for that matter, for anyone else - to pontificate about age difference between consenting adults, of whatever sexual orientation.
Staying with minors, you'll see from an uncharacteristically frank (and possibly ill-advised) post below that I had a very close relationship between the ages of 22 and 28 with a boy who was 13 when the relationship began. And, for the record, he was the driving force in the early days. When we parted, by mutual consent, we remained close friends (and still are). He tells me - with no implication of resentment or blame - that his only regret is the fact that the relationship inhibited his natural curiosity to explore his sexuality in those years. I believe and understand him, and despite the fact that he apportions no blame to me, I feel extremely guilty. Obviously, I have thought about the issue long and deeply, and have looked closely at several other relationships of the same kind. I also remember the pretty intense pleasures of my own adolescence. My conclusion is always the same - however consensual an adult-juvenile relationship may be, it gratifies the elder partner at the expense of the younger.
None of this prevents me from supporting the concept of a sliding scale; if my recollection serves me right, Israel has recently introduced just such a system. I don't pin my colours to any specific age difference; it depends very much on the individuals concerned. In general, though, I think that it's a cop-out to apportion blame to the precociousness of the younger partner. I've been there, and I know I could have resisted if I had really tried - but despite all my pretensions of morality I didn't even want to try.
In short, I cannot deny that I am very strongly sexually attracted to teenage boys. I have, as an adult, already given way to that attraction. I am a skilled manipulator - I could probably create another cross-generational relationship today. I will never do so, because the whole weight of my experience tells me it would be both selfish and wrong. If you disagree, please say why - and be frank!
In closing, and with no relevance to what has gone before, I found myself in London's Covent Garden on Thursday afternoon. I was meandering towards Bow Street when a vision of loveliness emerged from the London Transport Museum. He was - I'd guess - around 16 or 17, ash-blonde, tanned and green-eyed. I immediately thought of the Tim of Jack's story - was he based on a real kid? If so, this was surely him, if a little older. Walking became difficult.
Now that I think of it again, writing becomes difficult. I'll be back on the board next weekend. Bye!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
richard lyon
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Location: San Francisco
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 55
|
|
|
I find your thoughts very persuasive. We generally think of "quality" relationships between lovers as being egalitarian and exclusive. A large age difference tends to limit the possibilities of those conditions being fullfilled. Thus, even if the relationship is not directly harmful, it may well be less than optimal. Relationships like other ventures have opportunity costs.
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
Thank you Jack for writing "Tim" (and also Island Summer, which I just read last night to my delight!!)
Thank you Tim for posting Jack's work on your site. I have been an admirer of yours for ages, and this confirms it.
I have lost much respect for GWG thru their strong-arm tactics regarding this story's posting.
I'm also a writer as well as a reader of fiction here and elsewhere.
I'm pleased to see this discussion carry on with so few tail-feathers lost to useless screaming and yelling! I have frankly been skeptical about adding my own thoughts to the debate, since people generally enter discussion with their ideas fixed, and rarely change them, no matter what input they may have subsequently. Sheesh, what a run-on sentence...sorry...
I am a middle-aged Geezer, who also has had an experience like Cossie's above. Except that I don't feel guilty about it. It was started mutually, without manipulation by either party. It was discussed openly and on-goingly, as we went. Neither played power games, consent was as informed as either of us could have possibly imagined. In fact my young man was usually frustrated by my need to talk about "every damned thing all the time" as he used to say. It ended with each of us mutually ready to move on. Neither of us felt it inhibited our growth at any point.
I'm not seeing any problem here except for the need to protect the helpless from the unscrupulous. I'm always in favour of that. Other than that, I'm a laissez faire anti-regulation type. I frankly don't care much if something is against the law. I was a Conscious Objector in the Vietnam War, and continue to object as conscientiously as possible about other issues whenever I see the need.
How much should guilt and fear of legal reprisal inhibit our forming mutually fulfilling relationships with whomever we choose?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I'll just leave it at that.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
No Message Body
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tim
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: UK, West of London in Ber...
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 842
|
|
|
First please do not be concerned about the GWG. It was their right to ask me to leave. The opinions expressed here were not "from a spokesman" but from a good friend who ALSO happens to be a GWG board member. He and I have mended our fences with good humour.
Second WELCOME!
And third to what I wanted to say.
To get my own thoughts in order I am spending sessions every 2 weeks with a psycho sexual counsellor. I don't necessarily like him, and he has pissed me off at least once, but that allows me also to trust him.
One of the things we discussed was the "lowest age with whom I would feel able to form a relationship".
We came to one conclusion. That is it rare to be able to provide the love that a young teenager needs when one is a grown adult and set in one's ways. A teenager needs freedom to be stupid, freedom to run wild, freedom to make mistakes. It would be a rare older lover in a m/f f/f or m/m relationship who could provide this without becoming "motherly" or "fatherly".
Such partnerships do exist. Undeniably, when well founded, despite being deplored by society and often in contravention of the law, when they exist well, both parties flourish.
Regrettably they also give rise to organisations which I deplore. NAMBLA, The Rene Guyon Society ["Sex befor 8 or it's too late"], and many, many others, with their female equivalents. They give rise to them because people point to the rare successful relationship and say "If it works for them I want it for me." And this almost always turns into an abuse.
I appreciate Marc's answers kep referring us to the law, but Marc, when you answer this (as I hope you will if there is something to answer), I would appreciate your feelings instead of the statute book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
No Message Body
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
richard lyon
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Location: San Francisco
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 55
|
|
|
There have been several references to the importance of obeying the law. There are many instances where that is a desirable thing. However, there are still 16 US states and a number of other nations that have laws which criminalize adult same sex relations in private. Should those laws be obeyed?
Such rights as we enjoy today came about because some people had the courage to disobey unjust laws and change them.
Laws about adolescents are far from clear and consistent. I think it is important for people to engage in their own ethical analysis and to share it with others.
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard does raise an interesting point here. Most existing laws do get changed through some form of civil disobedience indicating that the law needs changing. But at what point does it become more than civil action and crosses the line of morality? And should morals be changed the same way?
By the way: Marc, continue to be our voice of reason and law. I, for one, need your positive reinforcement to maintain my fantasies as just that and nothing more.
Hugs to all, Charlie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Firstly, any responsible adult knows that sex with a minor is wrong. It does nothing to improve the quality of life for the child and only provides stimulation to the offending adult.
Secondly, It is clear to me that any person engaging in such behavior do so because they are somehow compensatng for a deep rooted inadequacy.
It is harmful to manipulate a child into a sexual encounter, plain and simple.
But that is just my personally ethical opinion.....
Marc
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 60
|
|
|
i do like Story of Tim and various other stories by Jack, plus i like that Tim has hosted them, but i don't want to repeat myself here...anyway...i personally think it is only right that Tim had to leave GWG. They have clear guidelines for the sites joining them, with having the story on his site Tim had something on his site that was forbidden (going fater the guidelines) so it was either, 'remove the story' or 'leave'. He has chosen to leave because of whatever reason and everything is fine...gee...am i the only who doesn't see a problem there?
umm yes...that was it...something i didn't reply to?
i mean...hmmm yes...actually it's funny how on boylove boards everyone is like, 'don't say you had sex with a minor' cause well...you can actually go to prison for that...but it's funny to see that you obviously have no problem with admitting things like those...weird...
How much should guilt and fear of legal reprisal inhibit our forming mutually fulfilling relationships with whomever we choose?
honstly...if you have no problem going to prison and if you dare to possibly (make that most possibly) hurt a boy emotionally, you are free to do what you want.
the point is...the laws that exist were made to actually protect kids. it is not on you to decide whether your realtionship is mutually fufilling and in many cases the boy cannot completely decide that until years later...
so...that really was it now.
love,
brian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
Many of us are quite adept at assuming that what we believe to be true are therefore "facts". I'm sure I do too, altho I try and constantly fact-check to minimize that tendency.
Nothing is as "black and white" as you put it here, Marc. I can see that you need to make it that way for yourself, and the weight of the law and much of public opinion agree with you in this instance. In many cases, I'd also agree myself.
I'm just not as black and white about it. The examples used here have been acknowledged to be special cases, exceptions to the rules, very rare. Nobody denies the need for laws that defend the weak from the unscrupulous.
Internalized individual moral authority is sometimes more correct and true than external legal authority or morals taught generally.
Brian, good point about the need for Consciencious Objectors to acknowledge that they will sometimes have to pay a price for their stance. In the past, C.O.'s have indeed gone to prison for their beliefs. That doesn't make them bad or wrong. It makes them principled.
I'll have to check my old copy of "On Civil Disobediance". Wasn't that written by Thoreau about refusing to pay taxes? I love that book. Same principles here.
Again, I'm not sure anybody will change their opinions as a result of discussing them here, but it's very interesting and helpful to me to read the opinions anyhow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
If a person has to fulfill a need to entice children into sexual relationships, why not relocate to a place where these things are accepted. or at least the laws are less stringent?
Just as one might think that some have a moral obligation to themselves to lure children into sexual relations, the majority of the populace feel the need to protect children fron such preditors.
And no matter of personal preferance, or not even for the sake of civil disobediance is any freedom worth destroying a child.
Just my opinion....and perhaps a few more....
Marc
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Marc that children need, no, must be protected from sexual predators. Such people are out for only self gratification and dominance.
But what if the child is the predator? What would the consequences be then to the child? I think the consequences could be worse if the child is rejected out of hand simply because it is against the law.
How can the definition of a minor change from state to state or country to country? Do children reach maturity faster in some states rather than others?
Hugs to all, Charlie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
...For continuing to think "outside the box" as you are.
Legal ages of consent are arbitrarily chosen, and sometimes political compromises. Individual maturity levels, of course, as so many have said in so many different places and ways, vary tremendously. That's why I place such a high importance on every individual having as finely tuned a sense of right and wrong as possible. And not just reliance on legal barriers alone. Nobody sanely advocates removal of legal boundaries!
As for cases of a younger guy preying on an older one...I have a new story percolating which is called "Green-Eyed Monster" which will have that plot exactly. No promises on when it will be in any shape to show others, but it's coming along.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
If a child in fact persues an adult? I know that it does happen. But it is the adult, that in whatever the situation, must maintain control of the situation. It is the adult that must even protect the child from himself if need be.
Just as you say, "Nobody sanely advocates removal of legal boundaries!", but also, no sane person would ignore them in favor of bedding a child... Or by manipulating a child into thinking it was the childs own idea.
Just my opinion.....
Marc
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
So far, Marc, you have always presumed that control lies with the older person. A little simplistic, perhaps. You also almost always call the younger person a child. Just using that term can be seen as biased in many ways.
These are all interesting assumptions, which aren't always true...and not just from the point of view of an adult giving up control.
I am going to have to speed up my work on the new story ("Green-eyed Monster" coming soon, I hope). It's precisely about these interesting assumptions.
Something slightly new for everybody to consider...In many countries the age of criminal responsibility is 10, in some it's as young as 7! That is, young persons of 10 years or less may be deemed "responsible for their crimes" altho they may not be seen as able to consent to sex for many more years.
How sensible is that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
richard lyon
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Location: San Francisco
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 55
|
|
|
I have put together a summary of legal information about sexual consent and the law. Those of you who might be interested in it can find it at:
http://gay_list.tripod.com/
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
It is only a matter of common sense that one presumes that an adult, with full faculties is in conrtol of his/her self. To allow ones self to be deluded into a seductive incident with a minor (child or not) is not relenquishing control. It is giving in to an urge rather than following a reasonable thought out path.
I am not all that versed on the legal ages of culpability in all countries..... More information would however be appreciated.
One more thing. I truly find it interesting that after all my posturing, no one ever bothered to ask about what/who and what age I am attracted to.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
No Message Body
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
richard lyon
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Location: San Francisco
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 55
|
|
|
Thank you.
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
Don't feel neglected by nobody asking you those questions, Marc! Everybody that has talked about themselves has voluntarily chosen to do so, kind of spontaneously. Nobody's asked anybody for details, other than a general invitation from Charlie, I think, above. I always thought that was part of Nettiquette.
But feel free to tell us anything you like about yourself and who you're attracted to...we'll all be interested!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
richard lyon
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Location: San Francisco
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 55
|
|
|
No Message Body
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
First, I am Gay, and have been openly gay since 1964 having been outed as a freshman in high school. Back then they called it different things though. As for the incidents resulting from that "outing" see Tim... He has the details.
Being things the way they were I studied a lot. Graduated and went to college (Majoring in Philosophy)with also lesser degrees in Asian Art History, and Early English Literature. I taught Philosophy for most of my professional career and upon taking early retirement I now write, and work in a summer ammusement park (cedar point). It is not generally known, but cedar point employs 2,000 to 3,000 gay college boys every summer from around the world (eye candy that never ends) LOL...
I have been in love twice.
The first, Ricky, ended tragically, (See Tim for details).
The second, Kevin, I love him with all my heart. We made our commitment legal in Vermont last summer. Our civil union was on August 3, 2001.
As far as attraction goes. I have never had sex with a woman, nor have I ever been inclined to do so. I like looking at the boys, but due to personal issues, would never touch one.
Marc....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
Hi and pleased to meet you. It sounds like you have created a life after many difficulties that works well for you. That's the goal we all have! You have your set of definitions and paramaters that work for you, and we're working out our own, too. Lots of similar roads being gone down, seems to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
This is an old messageboard. Many, perhaps all, I have not checked, of the original contributors have passed through, found what they needed or failed to find it, and left. And yet the topic continues.
I found this article today: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-urged-to-sack-mp-who-questioned-age-of-consent-1950669.html
I'm surprised I never saw it before. And it interested me. I'd like your thoughts, not on the age of consent per se, but in the thoughts expressed in the article by the man criticised, Julian Lewis.
I haven't checked if he was re-elected. Perhaps someone would save me the trouble!
[Updated on: Thu, 24 June 2010 20:12]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
In Queensland, Australia the age of consent is 16, except for anal sex where it is 18. At least that law discriminates based on the act, rather than sexuality.
Oral sex is "less risky" in a lot of ways than vaginal sex because of the potency of the human digestive tract. Does Mr. Lewis support a lower age for oral sex than vaginal sex?
Anal sex is "risky sex". But the major concern is unprotected anal sex. Why not make the age of consent higher for unprotected sex regardless of sexuality or the type of sexual act?
His statements reflect ignorance and bigotry. Maybe it's well intentioned bigotry, but it still shows a lack of creativity and it certainly isn't a way for the Tories to endear themselves to GLBT people.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a guy like this, who has always taken the unsympathetic view of homosexuality, speaks in favour of further restriction on what is permitted, surely his opinions should be rejected.
When the law tries to regulate what we do in our bedrooms it makes itself a laughing-stock. Law that tries to reflect public opinion on morality is nearly always bad law.
Attempting to codify an age after which anything goes simply ignores (as so many of the posts here imply) the obvious fact that some people are ready for sex earlier than others.
There should not be a legal age of consent simply because in real life there isn't an age at which everyone is mature enough to handle all that goes with sex and love. (Is there an age when EVERYONE is mature enough?)
Even in a particular case it is very hard to be sure whether harm has been done to either party or whether one party is culpable or lacking in consideration or just plain evil.
Having laws about sexual relations merely muddies the waters as far as morality is concerned. People get to think that law spells out morality (it doesn't, of course). And legal definitions change the meanings of words - for example 'rape' no longer implies forcible insertion of an erect penis. Nowadays (in the UK) it does not even require either party to be undressed.
And the attitudes and the 'morality' of every church that expounds views on such things are deeply repugnant to me and, I believe, most of them are incompatible with what I think are the best human loving relationships.
Love,
Anthony
[Updated on: Thu, 24 June 2010 19:43] |
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Guilt 
