|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
I would like to thank you very much for your profound insight, and to let you know that you have pissed me off more than somewhat.
Did I say the children were cute? or in any way attractive other than as children? No, I did not.
The visit set me to thinking later last night.
I find that post of yours aggressive, pointed and unpleasant. By making it you are accusing me of things that are not now and have never been in my mind.
I've never been afraid of mentioning the unmentionable, but your reaction this time goes past the limits of acceptability.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
As i said...
A post of this sort comes into the mix every spring...
It is the regularity of the subject matter that sets my teeth to ache.
If you feel that my post was accusatory.... that was surely not my intent...
[Updated on: Mon, 09 June 2008 17:06]
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...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
Intent or not, that was the effect.
While the ache in your teeth is interesting, the post was also caused by an email to me that I was lost about answering well. Putting the post together seemed to me to be a good way of going about getting the advice.
So I actually care about someone else's teeth that were aching.
Right now I am more upset than you could possibly believe. This place IS for discussing things. You do not get to censor those that you find personally unpalatable. But you do need to censor the accusations you make over topics that displease you.
I say again that you have effectively accused me of things that are not even in my mind. I do not see any sort of retraction. Rather I see some oratory that reinforces it.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Where are you being accused of anything?
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...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
I am not about to restate your remarks. Re-read your first post in this thread. That post and its wording I find both to be offensive and aimed at me as the writer of the initial post. I find it to be written as an accusation.
I don't much care what you wrote it as. I care about how I received and perceive it.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Well I reread my post.... I still see nothing in the way of an accusation in it but as you seem to I will delete it...
It does not alter the fact that these lines of conversation come up with the tulips every year....
Again and again....
I just find the concept revolting....
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...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
The fact that a concept is revolting is not a reason not to discuss it. One might choose to avoid that discussion personally if the topic is unpleasant to one.
And they were not "my orders". I simply found it offensive. I'm not very keen on the "As per your orders....." line either. It just is not appropriate.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Unless i removed it I know full well you would have continued to hector over it....
You may have not said it.... but I full well know the tone...
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...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsui
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: September 2007
Messages: 338
|
|
|
No Message Body
[Updated on: Fri, 24 October 2008 18:18] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
The age of consent has been gradually increasing for thousands of years.
Yet the age of sexuality maturity and first menstruation/ ejaculation is getting progressively lower.
That is something I find odd...
To me sexual maturity and ability to engage in sex seem to go hand-in-hand...
Yet there's a whole social side to it, yes teenagers may not be capable of dealing with adult relationships, but then how come relationships aren't illegal, but the sex, which they are arguably more capable of dealing with, is?
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
This is a website that talks about teenage sex.
Yes it is a lot of other things. But first and foremost the stories on this webpage are stories about teenage sex.
It's more than just sex. If it was just sex it'd be more like Nifty. But nonetheless sex features predominately.
Why is it then surprising that things like teenage sex and ages of consent are mentioned?
Especially considering a large number of posters on this site are older men on a website that deals with teenage sex.
I think discussion of boundaries between older men (as post here) and teenage sex (as is featured on the website) naturally occur out of the content of the site. And they are more than appropriate to discuss.
It's a far more relevant discussion based on then content of the site than a lot of other discussions that are had here.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
The difficulty is not teenage sex per se. The real difficulty is the very reasonable legal duty to enforce the age of consent, coupled with real distaste for adult/child sex "events".
It is wholly right to discuss things. Lack of discussion leads often to incorrect assumptions.
Let me give an example:
Let us suppose the 11 year old lad (or the 10 year old girl, for that matter) had approached me in some sort of overt and obviously sexual way, giving the full impression that he knew precisely what he was doing. Let's "Nifty it". Let's assume he had asked what masturbation was all about and asked how it was done. And lets assume he was waving his apparatus about.
Can't get much more overt than that, can you?
That is the point at which the Nifty story goes forwards into some sort of fanciful "Show the child how it is done" world and people with morals pull back, have a sensible discussion with the child and leave the child intellectually satisfied and sexually physically innocent. They may have gained theory, but they certainly have not gained practical experience.
And the theory has to be judged with due regard to the child's age and maturity.
Or, to answer it another way, one may feel one is being seduced, but that is not a licence to respond.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Or...... perhaps.....
Because of those very points you mentioned, discussion regarding cross-generational relationships is all the more heinous.
But remember that my opinion is from an adult who considers the concept wrong.
You opinion comes from the other perspective.
Therefore your bias is predestined.
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...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
And who has said here that the concept of an adult having sex with a child is right?
Discussion cannot be wrong. Discussion brings unsavoury things into the cold light of day.
Without discussion and knowledge people then think that institutionalised sexual abuse of children probably doesn't happen. Jersey's Haut de la Garenne abuses would go unpunished for ever because the kids were not believed.
And what if a child sees this discussion and realises that he has been coerced into something that was wholly inappropriate? Perhaps he will choose to do something about it.
Do you remember Stephen, the lad who had been abused between ages 6 and 14 by a supposed family friend, who was suicidal, whose best friend shot himself because of abuse? Discussing things helped him get sufficient perspective to live and marry and raise his son. He started to understand that paedophiles are paedophiles and gay men are gay men. He was the one who hated you for some reason, because you were gay. I still see him online sometimes.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Yes I remember the kid Steve.... I remember the friend... as for discussion... I would not know as i didnt talk to him that much... If he has a son then I would worry for the child... Yup, he hated me, a lot of people hate me... Your point is?
Thanks for the illumination.
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...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
He had the son when he was 12 and the mother 14. The child was raised by Stephen and his father and replacement wife. He married her when he was about 20/21. It seems a supportive family. The child is much adored and doing well in school.
The point is that unsavoury things do not become acceptable by being discussed. Decent and open discussion allows unsavoury things to be shown to be unsavoury. What happened to Stephen was horrible and scarred him deeply. These are not commonplace things.
Yet the adult/youth segment on Nifty makes them seem commonplace, even enjoyed by the child. I'm quite sure that a child enjoys attention and fun, but playing with a train set is fun and does no harm. Playing with a penis is fun (or can be fun) and can do serious harm.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsui
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: September 2007
Messages: 338
|
|
|
No Message Body
[Updated on: Fri, 24 October 2008 18:17] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Playing with a penis is fun (or can be fun) and can do serious harm.
More so than a train set?
Social attitudes towards sex might create harm where there should be none.
But I don't think there's any innate harm in sex.
Except that one may get cum in their eyes. But even then, that is hurt, not harm.
If you think there's an innate harm in sex- please explain how and what it is.
As far as I see it's socially conditioned, which is why a lot of other cultures don't see sex as harmful.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
What's to handle psychologically?
I push this button and white stuff spurts out the end and I feel all tickly.
As I said, relationships require psychological maturity, but sex? I don't think so.
Maybe that's just my cold logic speaking. But I really do think aversion to promiscuity, etc is all just a socially conditioned thing. Sex is over-hyped which is why people expect so much from their partners sexually. If people treated sex more casually then there'd be much less of a problem.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
Ok, let's look at this:
Any bodily contact that is unwanted can be harmful because it disempowers the person who did not desire it. The person becomes bullied. Society takes that further and creates victims with the attendant emotional extra mess that being a victim creates. Without society it would simply be an unwanted interference.
However, playing with a penis leads to other acts.
"Wow this is fun!"
"Want to try something else?"
"Is it as good as this is?"
"Better!!"
And now you have a situation that, for adults who wish it is fun, and for a child who is being coached or groomed by an adult, absolutely not.
The René Guyon Society [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Guyon_Society ] is alleged to have considered that oral sex with adults cures thumb sucking. Put quite simply, Yuck!
While it may be pleasant to have one's own penis sucked, having a substantially larger one presented for sucking cannot be pleasant to any degree.
Now take the anus. We know it was not designed for sex, however much fun it is consensually. And we also know that an 11 year old is substantially smaller in stature than even a 16 year old. If an adult's anus can sometimes find accommodating an adult's penis challenging, how much more challenging for a child's?
Ripping of tissue is the most likely outcome, or stretching of the anal structure to lead to incontinence.
"With patience it can be stretched!"
I expect so. It's tissue and all tissue can, eventually, be stretched. And is that a pleasant, pleasurable, or appropriate process for a child? "Let's stretch this part so it doesn't hurt you so much when I insert this huge penis in your rather too small bottom!" How does that sound?
"But I only wanted to play with his penis!"
Yes, I bet you did. And there are loads of excuses to say why it might be good fun for the child. Loads. And yes, I'm sure that learning to masturbate a year or two early would be a couple of years of extra fun for the kid. But not with an adult. Adults have power, even power that they don't understand. And kids can't easily say "stop!"
Marc expresses his distaste differently from me. He does it instinctively, knowing this but not wishing to express it. I'm willing to express it in practical terms. Kids, especially pre puberty, are off limits, whether they are above or below the formal age of consent. It just makes sense.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
Time to take your cold logic out of the limited compartment it is viewing and to extend it to what happens at the next session, then the next, then the next. I answered this in another part of this thread.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsui
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: September 2007
Messages: 338
|
|
|
No Message Body
[Updated on: Fri, 24 October 2008 18:17] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
"Any bodily contact that is unwanted can be harmful because it disempowers the person who did not desire it."
I agree. Yet it is not illegal to pick a kid up by the arms and swing them in circles. They might like it at first, but might end up getting hurt if you spin too fast. What starts out as innocent fun ends up hurting the child.
Violent abuse is violent abuse- whether it be rape or bashings. Let's take that out of the equation. I totally abhor all violent and coercive actions.
A child might be convinced to keep going in your examples, but more than likely if it hurts they will say "stop" and if you don't stop you are guilty of assault.
Just like play-wrestling with a child. A kid might enjoy wrestling and being held in a headlock, but if you keep on holding it once they say "stop" you are guilty of assault.
If a child finds sucking a large penis isn't enjoyable they won't do it, unless they are assaulted or coerced into doing it.
To me, morally it's that simple. Legally, I understand the need to err on the side of caution. But I'm talking about morals, not law.
In my opinion sex is not different and should not be different to "play wrestling". Both actions can be fun, both have the potential to cause pain- especially when done with an adult. But as long as both people are voluntary participants, happy to continue and having fun then morally and logically, I don't see a problem.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
To expand- legally I think it is a good idea to have those laws.
If you engage in mutually agreeable activity with a child, it's likely the case will never come before a court.
A lot of the cases that come before courts are legitimate cases of child abuse. Those people deserve to be in jail.
Those unfortunate few that are put before the courts when a child wasn't hurt? They knew the risks.
I don't condemn the laws. But I do condemn social attitudes that result in sweeping generalisations. I do condemn a society that treats sexual assault as worse than any other kind of violent assault. I condemn the idea that sex is more sacred than any other kind of act and something children should be excluded from even when it only involves themselves. I condemn the police when artists are being investigated for showing pictures of naked children in their displays.
If society changed the laws would properly protect children. Right now they overprotect children from things that aren't even harmful.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
If the point were about the law, or the rather weird attitudes that society has about sexual assault being different from any assault, then I would consider agreeing with you.
But that is not the point.
The point is the actual, genuine, physical harm that can be done by even what starts out to be some sort of consensual activity.
But let's get "consent" out of the way first. I have one example. It comes from when I was 7. A schoolfriend told us that he had to be in court to be a witness. We were impressed. We asked what it was about. And the part that I remember today, though it was irrelevant and outside my experience then, is "My uncle tried to bite my willy off."
So, his uncle had given him oral sex, something he did not understand. We, none of us, understood oral sex. None of us understood a thing about sex at that age. We (all?) took this at face value: that he had been assaulted by an insane uncle who had tried to bite his willy off.
Could any informed consent have been involved here? Not a chance. The child had no idea what was going on. It might have started as a game where he appeared to give some sort of consent, but he didn't have the knowledge to be capable of granting consent.
Because he had no knowledge of what was in his uncle's mind I very much doubt that he was in any way made a victim and damaged by the culture of the victim. Nor was he damaged physically.
But take this to the next level. Let's assume that the experience of oral sex had been one he enjoyed and wanted more of - not an unreasonable assumption, orgasms are fun - and that uncle had moved on in his seduction. There the potential for physical damage happens. There is the huge difference in power and body mass.
The body is not designed to pull BACKWARDS in sexual pleasure. It's designed to thrust FORWARDS. The words "no" or "stop or "it hurts" tend to be inaudible once thrusting instinct takes over. Ask any Roman Catholic who has tried to pull out as a contraceptive method.
So now you have a kid who agreed to some sort of activity that was not understood who has been impaled upon the penis of some adult who says "but he agreed!"
You cannot agree to what you do not understand.
In so many ways I believe your thought process is horribly wrong.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Timmy,
While I agree with your attitude - that caring for children should not include introducing them to sex - I do think the argument from design is completely broken-backed.
When you say things about what the body is designed to do you bring in mountains of baggage that don't belong in a rational discussion. The body wasn't designed: it evolved and there is no purpose and there is no designer. And any stupid argument can be constructed on those lines - "What did God give us hands for if he meant us to eat with forks?"
And I question my own attitudes too. For example two or three stories on here have heroes who are notably restrained and wait to have sex with the boy they love far longer and with more resolve than I could ever have done; and I wonder why I am so carried along with feelings of approval of such people and attitudes.
Does anyone else feel like that?
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
My argument is not solely from design (or happenstance). I'm using it to counter what appears to me to be an argument that says "go ahead and shag kids"
Knowing something is wrong is one thing. Marshalling the evidence to assert it effectively is quite another. Kids need kids. They do not need to be buggered by adults. That's the point. There are many ways to make it.
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
|
|
|
Sure they don't need it.
Kids also don't need to play sport with adults or watch movies with adults.
All they need adults for is to feed and clothe them and provide them with sheltered.
I'm not talking about needs. I'm talking about what is harmful and what is not.
You keep on coming up with examples of where an adult loses control and something becomes harmful.
I gave examples of where this can happen in NON-SEXUAL instances.
I agree, an adult losing control and harming a child is wrong.
The question, it seems, is "should an adult let themselves get in a situation that isn't harmful, but can lead to something harmful?"
That's a valid question, but one I feel has no answer. To take it out of a sexual context:
"Should an adult play rugby with a child, given there is a chance the adult will tackle too roughly and hurt the child?"
or
"Should an adult play fight with a child, given there is a chance that if the child hurts the adult, the adult will let primal instincts take over and do serious harm to the child as revenge?"
In my opinion sex or no sex the questions are very similar to the hypotheticals you pose.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
Please do not take the fact that I am not going to answer this as any form of agreement with you. Time for others to judge. Or not.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Timmy,
Yes, of course. That's what I thought. When you have good arguments and bad ones in a case you actually weaken it by adding the bad ones.
You see this all the time in politics or listen to 'Today' on radio 4. The politician waits until he can answer one of the charges and does so at length and never is faced with the really difficult one.
That was why I pointed out one of your arguments was weak. I'm just as keen as you are that the right reasons for not molesting children are clearly expressed.
Then people will be (may be) persuaded. The case with the weak arguments is less likely to do that.
Love,
Anthony
[Updated on: Thu, 12 June 2008 11:37] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Saben,
I think I don't agree with you about what children need. Children need a lot more from adults than food and shelter. And the question what is harmful is far from simple.
For example, when is it permissible to hit a child? My wife and I think you should never do it and certainly never in cold blood. If you lose your rag so badly that you 'clip them round the ear' that may be forgiveable. But of course that is exactly what you say - "losing control and harming a child".
Some people would say that such restraint is bad."Spare the rod and spoil the child." I disagree with that. I'm inclined to agree with the precept that it is never right to do harm to another person if you can avoid it. But what about the concept of 'tough love'?
And I still say that bringing up children is the most important thing anyone ever does. Maybe these difficulties we are discussing show how many places one uses judgement in that enterprise and reveal how it is that it is so difficult to do well.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
This discussion is much like a walk through the brush....
Just as if you walk enough sooner or later a snake will be spotted.
Talk enough and a latent pedophyle will sooner or later expound on the "correctness" of intergenerational relationships and be exposed.
And it is better to know where the snakes are as opposed to not!
[Updated on: Thu, 12 June 2008 11:46]
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...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
Oh yes. I was just arguing this one from a mechanical perspective. I see the argument as neither weak nor strong, but as pragmatic.
There are plenty of other folk with other arguments who can take all of them forwards.
The main argument is, whether society thinks it is a good idea or not, whether it is lawful or not, it s a distinctly bad idea, and the child is never in the driving seat, whatever appearances there may be to the contrary.
Children do not require sex, and that is especially true when the potential sexual "partner" is older.
[Updated on: Thu, 12 June 2008 12:21]
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
|
|
|
Okay, Marc. Your post was in reply to mine, so I'd assume that's targeted towards me.
Intergenerational?
Well, my boyfriend is 6 years my junior. Is 6 years a generation? I've been with him since before he was of legal age (but respected the law) and I would never date anyone that young again. We've been together over 3 years now, however. We've lived together for 2.5 years of that.
You've been a member of these boards since I joined, when I was 17, Marc. You'd think you'd know by now that yes, in the past I have been attracted to younger guys. As I've aged my age of attraction has increased. I'm happy having a legal boyfriend. But I will still argue the morality of this issue from a philosophical standpoint.
Not because I am trying to justify my own behaviour, but because I think people SHOULD evaluate actions based on the harm caused rather than based on social conditioning.
I try to keep an open mind to all things, even things I find distasteful (incest, polygamy, drug-use). I evaluate them based on the harm caused, not on what society tells me I should think.
Yes, in the past I have been attracted to people below the age of consent, I was 17,18,19 at the time.. Only a few years past the age of consent myself. I've never been sexually attracted to a prepubescent.
Don't go slinging mud, I've never attacked you, regardless of your views and how much I may disagree with them at times.
I'm not, nor ever have been, a paedophile. I went through a stage where I was an ephebophile and now I'm in a relationship that on most days I'm happy to stick to, exclusively.
It's such a low tactic to revert to. Arguing that someone is something, just because they defend it. I argue in favour of transsexual rights, but I'm not a transsexual...
Attack my arguments, not me. I know this is a sensitive issue for you, Marc. But try and behave more civilly.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I agree that the topic of harm is not simple. And it is not something that a black and white conclusions can be drawn about.
That is in part what inspired my other topic on consent.
Going by the hierarchy of needs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_needs I'd agree that children don't just need food, shelter and clothing. Though they are the primary needs that adults provide.
Children also need "play", education and a range of other things.
I also think that children need the ability to explore sexuality without being reprimanded.
Children don't "need" to play rugby- yet adults introduce children to rugby. Children don't "need" to watch movies- yet adults introduce children to movies. Movies and rugby are potentially harmful. As is sex.
Sex might even have a greater risk of going wrong more often. But when it doesn't, I think it should be deemed appropriate.
I do appreciate the sentiment that adults shouldn't actively pursue sex with children, however. If it ever occurs it should be initiated by the child. I don't think such encounters are innately harmful, though they have the potential to be so.
I want children to be free from abuse. I don't want them to be free from experiences.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsui
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: September 2007
Messages: 338
|
|
|
No Message Body
[Updated on: Fri, 24 October 2008 18:15] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Your specific admission of a relationship that crossed the line of legal limits as proof enough regarding your preferances....
epehophyle? Now arent we splitting hairs?
Like the saying goes, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck.... It's a duck....
As for argueing for rights.... thats fine as long as legal boundries arent crossed in the process....
I don't attack.... I don't need to when miscreants are so willing to expose themselves so readily.
As for civil behavior.... Rest assured that my civil responsibility is complete.
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...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
I was absolutely not speaking of a sexually aware or physically mature person. Nor was I speaking of anyone anywhere near the age of consent, even in nations where it is 14.
I was and am speaking of a little kid.
Kids do not need sex, especially with adults. Kids may play mothers and milkmen or doctors and nurses and giggle together about stiff little willies and hairless little bodies. That is the province of a child.
Admiring a young teenager is not the same as buggering him against his wishes and the law. One may admire anyone, even Mother Theresa, but that does not mean that one is free to offer them sex.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quite so, Saben,
Free from abuse not free from experiences.
As both Sylvia's and my teens and twenties were such an unremitting sexual desert (and as both of us, especially Sylvia, suffered from that), when we had teenaged daughters, from the age of 16, we agreed to let them bring their boyfriends home to stay the night in their beds - provided they didn't get pregnant. We also provided condoms. I don't know any other parents who did that in the 1980s. And they did and they both divorced their first partners and have found better and now seem to be settled, each with two children and a caring man. But they aren't half grateful for what we did! They are now 41 and 42 years old!
I think I would have objected if they had formed liaisons with people half or double their age or if they had sexual experience when say under 14 with people say over 18. Please don't tell me I'm old-fashioned!
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Michael,
I'm glad to find that we are on the same wavelength yet again - even to coming close to agreeing with Saben.
I have to say that I find people who agree with me like this (or perhaps I should say that I agree with) are much rarer in real life than on this site.
Now I'm going to get castigated for alleging that this site is unreal!
Ah, well!
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
