|
|
|
|
You are right, of course, Timmy, but you miss what I was trying to get out of you (LOL).
What sort of relationship do you think a sexual one should be. Obviously it IS just the mechanical thing you say.
Don't you have any wishes about it?
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
A sexual "relationship" may be anything from a race to orgasm to a fully fledged exchange of emotions. It is whatever one chooses it to be.
I would have been more than satisfied with a furtive fumble in some cases and not satisfied with anything other than full blown monogamous partnership in others. Horses, as one might say, for courses
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, Timmy, but I think it is better than that. What is quite striking is the open-mindedness of the discussion. At least I think so.
It is remarkable, too, how few reactions of disgust or VERY strong disapproval have been voiced.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think they have, Warren.
Intergenerational sexual relationships have been acceptable in many societies though - such as some of those in ancient greece.
Our society could change too, but I'm not going to hold my breath. The way I and my children bring up children is to say to them that society on the whole disapproves of a lot that isn't wrong and so keep it quiet. Maybe even only do such things if they are really important to you.
I think the biggest change in my lifetime (OH apart from the increased acceptability of LGBT people) is in how young it is acceptable to allow children to have sex.
The mother of one of the friends of a grandchild was agonising over whether she could leave her 14 year old son and his girlfriend alone in the house together. My daughter easily persuaded her that what she ought to be doing was helping them, not hindering them so that if they wanted they could have sex without getting the girl pregnant or risking STDs.
That surprises and pleases me. I don't think it would be different if he had been gay either.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
The answer to the reactions is that no-one here has been irrevocably damaged by an abusive encounter. NW did take some serious harm in his youth, but the damage is healing. As far as I know all others here have had no difficult experiences nor have they knowingly caused any. This means that it can be discussed without a harangue.
I see "the unaskable questions" as wholly valid for discussion. With discussion one can form a rational view. Without it one has simply one's own view which may or may not be rational.
If one comes here with a closed mind then it is unlikely that it will be opened by any degree of discussion. One may never change one's views, but one can, if open minded, learn why and how other people say what they do.
And the questing teen? That is for the questing teen to decide. I hope they stay and learn. But, if they decide this place is not for them, that is also fine.
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: 13796
|
|
|
That is interesting.
Does your world with freely available sex mean that sex is treated as a recreational and amusing activity?
And is our society's narrower view based upon some sort of priestly control of what we do with our bodies in order "the better to glorify a deity?"
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Macky
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
|
|
|
Just to stand up and be counted on this issue, I would have to say that sex between adults children is categorically wrong. My reasons for feeling this way have been more than adequately expressed by both NW and JimB.
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My figmentory world is indeed as you said - sex is nothing special, amusing and recreational, with only the ocasional goal of procreation, now and then.
I cannot know or define all the influences upon which our current society's views are based - a tangle so complex and interrelated that I shall not even begin to try to untangle it, however today's society's views are much narrower partly because of some religion's views of what our bodies represent, yes
A truth told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent
-William Blake
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't really know, however I may make some guesses as to why puberty seems such an important distinction to many.
Puberty is important for physical reasons, notably it is the time when hormones may start to influence a child to specifically seek out and start or initiate any activity of a sexually pleasant nature - however indirectly or subconsiously that may be. Before puberty, any experience of a child experiencing sexual or related pleasure is almost universally initiated by another person or just happens incidentally and without prior intent - like climbing a rope.
It is also an important stage in the mental and emotional development of a child - when they first become sexually aware of themselves or other people, when they actually understand the distinction between the sexes as more than a vaugue idea of "they are physically different". It is also usually - but not necesarily and only co-incidentally - about the time that a well adjusted child starts to become mature enough to make personal decisions and discriminate in any fashion - understanding good and bad, what clothes would look good to wear, should I brush my teeth before bed, this person is attractive and that one has funny teeth, etc, and understands why they should or should not do something or say something beyond the "Mamma told me to and she is always right" reasons. They can decide why is something good or bad, and can make informed decisions. In essence, they take the very first small step to becoming mature.
A truth told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent
-William Blake
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I don't recall that the question actually mentioned adults explicitly as sole partners. It did mention adults, yes, but by no means as the explicit partner of the child.
Even so, making a statement is not discussing. It is valid to state it, certainly. But it has no particular value in discussion, since it is not backed by any points in its favour. Intuitively you may be wholly correct, but it has to be backed with something more substantial than a statement.
It may be wrong. But standing up and being counted has no point here. It isn't a ballot and our discussion will alter not one punctuation mark in official documents.
It may not be wrong at all. And we will still make no difference.
But we are capable of discussion with reasons, otherwise this forum has very little point. One cannot hitch one's wagon to another's horse without making it look like someone is keeping score, one also creates dogma.
[Updated on: Tue, 12 May 2009 22:21]
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
What makes puberty a “watershed” event is that it is nature's own signal that the body has matured sufficiently for the individual to engage in sexual activity. At that time hormones are released that trigger additional physical changes that further prepare the body for sexual activity and the ensuing results of that activity, along with mental/emotional changes that we all all familiar with.
Yes, prepubescent children are capable of sexual stimulation, even infant boys get erections. I must admit that I doubt that nature recognizes the recreational value of sex, only its procreation value.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Macky
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
|
|
|
Just for clarification, Timmy's post is in quotes. Asterisks define previous posts. My replies are unmarked.
"I don't recall that the question actually mentioned adults explicitly as sole partners. It did mention adults, yes, but by no means as the explicit partner of the child."
**So why do we deny them this chance to have fun with a more experienced older person?...
Or is an adult exploiting a willing child if they have sex with them?... So give some opinions,…
A moral question?
Posted by timmy®
[timmy]
on May 11 2009, 04:03**
There are at least 17 other instances where sex between a child and an adult is explicitly mentioned, "adult and kid", "inter-generational sex" "adult and child" etc. I'll be happy to send you the word document.
"Even so, making a statement is not discussing. It is valid to state it, certainly. But it has no particular value in discussion, since it is not backed by any points in its favour."
I see no valid reason to repeat what others have stated so eloquently.
**My reasons for feeling this way have been more than adequately expressed by both NW and JimB. (Macky)**
"Intuitively you may be wholly correct, but it has to be backed with something more substantial than a statement.
It may be wrong. But standing up and being counted has no point here. It isn't a ballot and our discussion will alter not one punctuation mark in official documents."
Seems to me these posts are evidence of others "standing up and being counted"
**- this makes it IMO wrong (NW)**
** I hesitate to say that it's always wrong for everyone ... but it would be wrong for me, ....I do think is wrong - immoral, in fact - and I think inter-generational sex presents a serious risk of it.…(NW)**
**"Is sex with children wrong?"…Likely…"Is it morally reprehensible?"…Without any doubt at all in my mind.(Warren C.E. Austin)**
**I don't think sex with children is wrong. But it can be wrong(Saben)**
**sex with children would be FAAAR less 'wrong' (Dewald van den Berg)**
** Sex with children, no. Sex with tweens, possible. Sex with adolescents, most probable;…(Raymundo)**
Timmy, if I didn't know better, I'd say you were picking on me!
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I'm not picking on you at all. You are simply the only person so far to make this a "stand up and be counted" thing. It isn't. It is simply part of my long held philosophy that the unaskable question can and should be asked.
Once asked it can be discussed. Rational conclusions can be reached. Those conclusions may uphold current societal consensus or they may not. But, if it turns into a thing where people take or postulate "sides" which "standing up and being counted" most assuredly does, then the exercise, which is one in abstract thought, fails.
Once it was unthinkable that anyone allowed two men to have sex with each other. People "stood up and were counted" against that. But my stating that fact does not in any way imply that I feel it is correct for grown adults to have sex with underage children. You should also understand that I am not stating that I feel it is incorrect either.
I also have a serious objection to the concept of "standing up and being counted" on this forum as a principle. You and I are individuals. We may agree on many things and disagree on many others. I do not wish, however, to be counted "with you" on some things and "against you" on others, nor with or against anyone else. I'd like, simply, to understand your views and most important your thought processes. Taking sides leads, in the schoolyard, to gangs, to bullying and, at least in the USA, to kids bringing guns to school and killing those whom they feel oppress. I'm not in to taking sides at all.
Perhaps that helps you to understand that I am not picking on you at all. I am picking on the words you used, or the processes you chose not to display in reaching your conclusion. And I would have done so whoever used them.
[Updated on: Wed, 13 May 2009 06:54]
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: 13796
|
|
|
Using the word "nature" per se, puts a personality to a natural process. I think you are exercising a judgment about readiness based upon puberty using societal thinking. Does the Bonobo ape use that thinking? Obviously I can have no idea, but the Bonobo seems to be no respecter of age of puberty, and is rather closer to uninhibited nature than we are.
If it feels good before puberty why is it not appropriate for the child to capitalise upon that feeling? There's not a huge lot about my first orgasm that was emotional, certainly nothing intellectual, nor even hugely satisfying. It was just "wow, that was good. I want to do that again"
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 wrote:
>Using the word "nature" per se, puts a personality to a natural process.<
You have just tied yourself into a semantic knot by objecting to "nature" being applied to a "natural" process.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Look again. I object to the use of the term as a personalisation in the way it was deployed.
"Nature" is an all embracing term, but to seek to categorise it as having some form of sentient personality is incorrect. It is like "intelligent Design" or "god".
"Mother Nature" was the thing not referred to here that started that load of bollocks off. Nature itself is what it is - the natural world.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think I understand what you are saying, Timmy. I did say that I was arguing on semantic grounds. You cannot put 'nature' on one side of the equation and change its meaning (even though you use the form 'natural') on the other side.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
It's really a case that you can not imbue nature with anything except natural processes. Nature may not be anthropomorphised
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps I should have phrased my response under the aforementioned heading more clearly, especially in light of attribution later in this thread:
MY RESPONSE:
>>"Is sex with children wrong?"
>>Likely.
>>"Is it morally reprehensible?"
>>Without any doubt at all in my mind.
TO CLARIFY, I more correctly should have replied:
"Is sex between a prepubescent child and an adult wrong?"
Most definitely.
"Is it morally reprehensible?"
Without any doubt at all in my mind.
My position, as now stated above, is taken irrespective of whether one considers either heterosexual or homosexual relations in these circumstances as being acceptable, or not.
My definition of what may, or may not, constitute a child originally read:
>>CHILD, to me, would have to be defined as being any individual certifiably prepubescent, and in terms of their being "male", one who has no fully developed pubic hair, and is not physically, let alone willingly, capable of delivering up ejaculate to his partner in the affair.
THIS SHOULD be amended to state:
CHILD, to me, would have to be defined as being any individual certifiably prepubescent; a proviso being, if "female", one who has no fully developed pubic hair, and whose menstrual cycle has not commenced and which has not more or less stabilized, and if "male", one who has no fully developed pubic hair, and is not yet physically capable of delivering up fully constituted ejaculate to his partner in the affair.
----------
FURTHER, I should have added (as redefined above):
"Is sex amongst children wrong?"
Unlikely.
----------
ADDITIONALLY:
Timmy asserts under his sub-heading "What happens at puberty that this is a special age?":
>>If it feels good before puberty why is it not appropriate for the child to capitalise upon that feeling?
Prepubescent children do experience (and respond to) what mainstream society will attribute to being "sexual" stimuli: a child's erection skinning a rope, or through his inadvertently brushing against another when passing through a crowded corridor, or during physical activities such as wrestling, or field-sports, hugging a pillow between the legs whilst sleeping, or when viewing (perhaps for the first time) a partially clothed or fully naked body, who (of similar age) embrace one another, who discover the joys (and merits) of a tender kiss or caress, or whatever ... the list could be enormous. All of these could be construed as being pleasurable, and I'd have to agree, a child indubitably will capitalise upon these sensations and want to replicate them time and time again; and should be allowed, and perhaps even encouraged, to. They are, after all simply put, a part of the human condition; nature's very own "aide-mémoire" in our growth as sentient beings.
Were we to remove the stigma of a child first experiencing their sexuality "naturally" amongst themselves, it seems likely that societally imposed age old questions which later arise in their lives surrounding the appropriateness of their being either homosexual or heterosexual could well be done away with entirely, and at a far lesser cost to their emotional and psychological wellbeing.
I know this to be true in my own circumstance. I've never really known anything other than my being "gay". I have iterated here, and elsewhere, that I came out of the closet, as it were, wearing "fire-engine red" diapers. My parents, bless them, never certain what to make of it all, not once attempted to channel my impulses in directions they may have thought more appropriate. I was simply allowed to be me. I do know my father wasn't happy about it, whether when he discovered Jimmy (a tender red-haired scalawag of my prepubescent acquaintance) and I canoodling in the crawlspace of my parent's home; or when Gary (another luscious red-haired beauty) and I were cast out my bed for playing the age old game of "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours"; or any of sundry other instances whereby my insatiable curiosity simply got the best of me. This ultimately came to a head, at my then age-17, when I brought home Jon (another red-haired siren, and by far and away the most desirable of them all either before then, or since), the youth for whom my father would later begrudgingly throw in the towel, with him thereafter assuming both legal and financial responsibility for his welfare once it became apparent that, with or without parental consent, Jon WAS MY CHOSEN MATE, and that he and I were going to be setting up house together.
Tasked by others with my behaviour, whether a neighbour, one of the many public or parochial or prep-schools they enrolled me in, whatever, my parents would inevitably respond with "Thank you for sharing that with us; but, we're well aware of our youngest son's peccadillos."
It too, is a cert that my being over 6-feet at age-12 aided considerably in my not being bullied by mates (and their parents) for my, to them abhorrent, attitudes; but, parental support for my being allowed to grow through adolescence into the man I later would become, typically fostered healthy attitudes towards sexuality that hopefully I've been able to engender in my own children.
Warren C. E. Austin
Toronto, Canada
[Updated on: Wed, 13 May 2009 14:21]
"... comme recherché qu'un délice callipygian"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm happy with that.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
