|
|
Macky
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
|
|
|
When I was in high school, well before the Taliban, I read a book called simply "Afghanistan" and it mentioned the sort of activity detailed in this article. So, unfortunately, I believe this is true.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,44067,00.html
Macky
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Macky: Note the date that the article was originally published by The Times:
FOXNEWS.COM HOME > WORLD > NATIONAL
Kandahar Men Return to Original Love: Teenage Boys
Sunday, January 27, 2002
By Tim Reid
Ok, now here is an article from the Ottawa Citizen on September 19th,2009. As you can see, apparently not too much has changed. The question becomes;
As it is happening in a nation torn apart by civil war, is it really the responsibility of Allied Forces to intervene?
According to Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay, when asked, he told the House of Commons that troops would not turn a blind eye to the abuse of children. 'Let us be clear, in no way, shape or form have Canadian soldiers and certainly the Canadian government ever condoned or excused allegations of sexual abuse against children in this country or anywhere else,' he said.
Canadian military aware of sex abuse of boys by Afghan allies
By David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen (September 19) | Army staff and National Defence headquarters officials were told in 2007 that young boys had allegedly been sexually abused by Afghan security forces at a Canadian base in Afghanistan, but the concern at the time was that the incident might be reported in the news media, according to military records obtained by the Ottawa Citizen.
In addition, last year Brig.-Gen. J.C. Collin, commander of Land Force Central Area, passed on to senior army leadership concerns raised by military police who said they had been told by their commanders not to interfere in incidents where Afghan forces were having sex with children.
The newly released records raise questions about a military investigation that earlier this year concluded that allegations of sexual abuse of Afghan children by members of the Afghan army and police were unfounded. The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service also stated that its thorough investigation concluded allegations of such incidents were never reported to Canadian military commanders.
The allegations first surfaced publicly in June 2008 after the concerns about the incidents, originally raised by soldiers and military chaplains, were reported in the news media.
Former Cpl. Travis Schouten told military officials he had witnessed an Afghan boy being sodomized by two Afghan security personnel at Canada's Forward Operating Base Wilson in Afghanistan in 2006. Another soldier also came forward to a Toronto newspaper to report a similar occurrence at the same base in 2006.
A military chaplain talked about the abuse in a report sent up the chain of command at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa. Two other chaplains have also come forward to state that soldiers came to them upset about such abuses.
The issue is sensitive for the Canadian Forces and the federal government as the Afghanistan mission has been promoted to the public as being about protecting Afghan civilians. The Afghan National Army and police are seen as key to Canada's military withdrawal from that country in 2011.
It is the position of the Canadian Forces that its troops have no jurisdiction over the activities of Afghan military and police personnel, even those operating on Canadian bases.
The military records obtained by the Citizen through the Access to Information law note that a 90-minute meeting was held between an army public affairs staff member and a member of army commander Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie's executive staff in the summer/fall of 2007. According to the June 2008 e-mail written by Lt.-Col. Stephane Grenier, an adviser on operational stress injuries, the meeting focused on various controversies that might be brought out in the news media, including, "ANP/ANA members having anal sex with young boys."
ANP stands for Afghan National Police while ANA refers to Afghan National Army.
A second meeting about Afghan police and soldiers having sex with children was held later that week at National Defence headquarters involving senior members of the Defence Department's civilian and military public affairs staff, according to the e-mail.
In addition, on June 18, 2008 Brig.-Gen. J.C. Collin, commander of Land Force Central Area, passed on to Leslie's staff and Brig.-Gen. Ian Poulter the concerns raised by several military police officers. Collin called the e-mail from the military police commander "rather disconcerting."
Included were details from military police who noted it was well known among Canadian troops that ANA and ANP personnel had sex with kids. Another was upset that military police were told not to intervene in such matters, according to the e-mail.
"At this late date I cannot specifically remember who delivered the said briefings however I can say that it was delivered in Gagetown and that it sparked considerable debate amongst the MP pers(onnel)," noted one police officer in an e-mail Collin forwarded to the army's senior staff. The e-mail had been written by Maj. V.R. Ethier, the commander of 2 MP Unit, the army military police unit of Ontario.
"Of greatest concern to the MP members was the belief that if they were (to) intervene in any instances of this nature that they would not be supported by the C o C," the e-mail added. C o C is a military term for chain of command.
Having sex with children is against the law in Afghanistan but some military officers have argued that since it is practised by some Afghans, particularly in Kandahar, then the Canadian Forces should not get involved in what should be seen as a "cultural" issue.
Maj. Francis Bolduc, deputy commanding officer of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, said his organization's examination of the issue found no evidence to support the sexual abuse allegations.
He said a thorough review of military police records showed no complaints were made about the issue and "all the allegations were unfounded." Bolduc noted that the investigation found the sexual abuse concerns were never reported to commanders.
Asked about the e-mails, he replied: "This is outside our lane."
Bolduc said those issues could be looked at by a board of inquiry into the issue that had been ordered by Lt.-Gen. Leslie.
Last June, Defence Minister Peter MacKay told the House of Commons that troops would not turn a blind eye to the abuse of children.
"Let us be clear, in no way, shape or form have Canadian soldiers and certainly the Canadian government ever condoned or excused allegations of sexual abuse against children in this country or anywhere else," he said.
Another incident recounted in the Ethier e-mail detailed how a complaint was made about the sexual abuse of children to his chain of command in 2005-2006 in Kandahar and after that an Afghanistan commander dealt with the situation.
In addition, Poulter received an e-mail on June 17, 2008, indicating that the sexual abuse issue had been raised by a Canadian colonel, a veteran of the war, during a military training session about Afghan culture. "He emphasized that it is not a practice that Afghan men discuss or practise in an open manner . . . one of those things that Afghans know happens but nobody talks about," noted the e-mail to Poulter.
In addition, it appears senior Canadian commanders were also concerned about the abuse. In a June 13, 2008, letter to army commander Leslie, the office of Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier asked that an investigation be started into the sexual assault allegations. "Furthermore, initial queries suggest there appeared to be some concern of the part of the Roto 2 BG chain of command with respect to certain off-duty activities related to the same incidents later raised to the reporter," the letter noted.
The records also indicate the allegations sparked much debate inside the military on what to acknowledge in public. The first response was to deny anything ever took place.
However, a series of "talking points" were produced on June 17, 2008, in which it was acknowledged in regard to "Afghan male sexual abuse of underage males" that "Soldiers are generally aware of this practice taking place in Afghanistan; They know that abuse, let alone of minors is wrong by our standards; They will report this activity to the appropriate authorities."
It is unclear how the NIS investigation concluded the allegations were unfounded when other organizations inside the Canadian Forces were acknowledging that the sexual abuse was indeed taking place.
A board of inquiry, ordered by Leslie last year, is still underway. The board, which has not released its report, will look only at whether the one assault reported in media occurred.
The board is to "identify the actions taken by individual CF members and the chain of command in response to that incident," as well as assess whether medical care was provided to any soldier who witnessed the incident.
Recommendations will be made on how to address future incidents of that nature, noted the board of inquiry outline produced by Leslie.
Leslie will review the contents of the report even though, according to military records, a member of his staff was informed about the sexual abuse issue back in 2007.
Leslie, through a spokesman, declined to be interviewed as the board is still ongoing.
Asked whether there was a conflict of interest in allowing Leslie to review the findings of the board examining how the senior army leadership responded, an army official noted that Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk will also review the records
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Hard to know what is truth and what is propaganda, really. But in that part of the world, and throughout the Arab world, too, young men have traditionally been used for sex by older men. One should not confuse this with homosexuality though.
Homosexuality is a relatively modern 'invention' and not at all appropriate for that part of the world and that set of customs.
We ought to note the age of that report. It also seems to imply that the Taliban is a faded force there.
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: 13800
|
|
|
First and foremost, this is an entirely different culture. This is not Europe, this is not the USA, this is not the English Speaking parts of the world.
This is an old world where old customs happen. We cannot enforce our morality on them (luckily) and we cannot enforce our democracy on them. We ought to know this. The British Empire tried and failed. The Russians tried and failed. The USA is trying and failing.
They have, for years, taken boys as their lovers.
For years boys have been content to be taken as lovers, though not content to be raped.
This is as old as time. It is not a problem. Unless you are a middle aged old biddy living in the bible belt who thinks that the only god is the one of the Old Testament, and you must follow Jesus Christ, who had nothing against homosexuality, or be cast into eternal damnation.
If this were ancient Greece we would approve wholeheartedly. Well, it isn't. It's today and in the news and in Afghanistan. So what?
[Updated on: Sun, 01 November 2009 13:44]
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 have to agree with Tim. There is an arrogance about American/Western attitudes towards other cultures and practises that could be deemed as an offence to their cultural values and society. Unfortunately, at home in Canada, one can find the same types of arrogant and oft times prejudicial outlooks on other cultures.
The conservative outlook seems to be that if its not "Christian" then its evil and should be proscribed & dispatched. This tiny water filled planet, the 3rd rock from the sun to borrow and make a pun, (okay that was truly rubbish, sorry) is filled with people of all kinds, colours, and so forth. Thus what one society deems horrific, another may simply shrug. (This is keeping in mind the difference in societies development over the 1000 plus years of Afghan versus say the under 400 of the United States & Canadian.)
This is not a defence of the practise by the way, merely an acknowledgment of a reality that apparently the Taliban and militant Islamic extremists couldn't stamp out either.
For the sake of conversation mind you I am stating this, not pointing a finger specifically.
[Updated on: Sun, 01 November 2009 14:07] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I want to be able to condemn other cultures and their practices if I think they are wrong. I want to be able to condemn genital mutilation, arranged marriages, the subjugation of women, the restrictions on free speech, the control over religious belief and practice and so on.
I do not think my understanding of human nature is so shallow that I should give up my views when faced with incompatible views from another culture.
Nor do I think other cultures ought to be preserved like some threatened species of wild animal.
And I am repeatedly disgusted by the way western societies kowtow to religion and 'spirituality'. It seems to me that brainwashing is alive and well in western society.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
I fear that is an imperialist attitude. We are not always right. Often "our" christian values have wiped out things in other parts of the world that were great and good.
There are things like genital mutilation that are simply bad practices. Education is a good thing here.
Things like centuries old traditions of taking young men as lovers are not abhorrent, they are simply cultural.
You don't display an understanding of the difference between a forced marriage and an arranged marriage. The difference is huge. You may well understand it, but you appear to have conflated the two concepts.
We are absolutely not always right. We may share our opinions with pleasure, but we are not the moral judges here. We must remain open to being convinced by other cultures that they are right, too.
We also need to understand when things are none of our business.
[Updated on: Sun, 01 November 2009 15:28]
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
|
|
|
I agree with you Anthony,
Just because it is someone else's culture does not mean that we have to squeeze it into out perception of what is right. Where would the world be today if English and American culture never teamed up to condemn slavery? I think that slavery is a good analogy for what is happening in these May/September relationships in Afghanistan.
I guess that it is presumptuous for foreigners to come on and try to stamp out age old cultural norms. US is too involved with Afghanistan right now, and I would say that it is not our place to try to correct their cultural traditions. But taking sexual advantage of a young person's poverty or powerlessness is definitely wrong by my logic. Not my religious sentiments, mind you, but by my logic.
It seems to me that these one-way relationships provide entertainment for the old at the expense of the young. Culture or whatever, it's denying a basic human right. We can't correct all the wrongs of the world, but I feel that we are remiss if we do not at least condemn it verbally. But I doubt that we'll get too involved anyway, because to try to eradicate the practice would put us on the same side as the Taliban, who we condemn for lots of other stuff.
Macky
[Updated on: Sun, 01 November 2009 17:28]
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Macky
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
|
|
|
Timmy wrote, “ We are absolutely not always right”
You seem to feel this is a “centuries old tradition” that should be respected. Well slavery and human sacrifice also qualify as centuries old traditions, along with chopping off someone’s hand for stealing a loaf of bread and circumcision.
Using the phrase “take a lover” is one of the troubling aspects of this practice. Is the boy taken and not giving himself freely? Is he forced by circumstances beyond his control (poverty, power, etc) to do something he would rather not?
Why do you suppose they came up with such a harsh punishment? It seems to me a good explanation would be that those in power at that time did not view this as an benign practice. They certainly wanted to put an end to the practice. Remember they actually lived in that culture. It seems more likely to me that those were men who had been ashna , likely unwillingly, and didn’t like it. The difference between the Greeks and these guys is that the Greeks didn’t pass any laws demanding those that had practiced this 'cultural ethic' die a horrible death.
You are always tempted to use Christianity as a scapegoat. It was not Christians who came up with the wall toppling thing. As a matter of fact Christianity was not mentioned at all until you mentioned it. I don’t think it has anything to do with this particular issue. However; I would say most any person, religious or not, would be opposed to subjugation, slavery, and rape.
Macky
[Updated on: Sun, 01 November 2009 17:33]
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: 13800
|
|
|
Try not to use the arguments that your country and mine have always used.
Where an individual practice is a bad one, educate and persuade that to become better.
Do not create a list of things known to be bad and then add one that may or may not be bad to the list. That is the stuff of rhetoric and has no place here. It is a trick to deceive the audience into following the orator's views, not correct intellectual discussion.
So, to take your example and to compare with slavery, let's do that thing.
Slavery per se, not the US version, but slavery, any slavery, is acknowledged to be a bad thing. We strive to eliminate slavery in the parts of the world that we can influence, and we do this by consent, though organs such as the UN. Thee are very few slaves who would wish for slavery to continue, though some will because it gives them security of a sort, and food and shelter. Slavery is 95% bad, yet 5% is good.
I am sure there are elements you and others can disagree with in that analysis, but that you will probably acknowledge that it is a reasonable summary.
Sex with teenage boys is a separate issue. You may not conflate the two. I will not accept your rhetorical trick of doing so.
First you must look at the age of consent in the country if such an age exists. If it does not exist then you must look at ages of consent in our own society to act as an example of what we feel is appropriate. In the western world the age of consent is, generally, 16, though some nations have higher and others lower ages. One should therefore expect that somewhere between 14 and 18 is appropriate where no such age exists in the nation in discussion.
If the relationship is consensual, provided that age of consent range is kept to, even if it has been consent because the boy has been seduced with presents, status, power or anything else, that it is absolutely not our business. It is a relationship that is normal for our own society and is absolutely fine for us and our laws. Why should that be any different for an Afghan?
And the answer is that it should not.
There are only two reasons why we should be concerned:- Where the boy has been (or is about to be) forced to have sex against his will, thus it is rape, and unlawful anywhere
- where the putative age of consent has not been reached
Poverty does not force anyone to do anything against his will. There is always a choice. The choice may be less pleasant that acceding to pressure, but it is there, and may be exercised. Any force, even emotional force is rape anyway.
Assuming the relationship to be consensual, it is, by definition, approved of by the boy. Since he approves of it then it is better than slavery! It is 100% beneficial, whereas slavery only provides perhaps a 5% benefit.
I could go on for quite a long time. There are some things I disapprove of heartily. Circumcision, male and female, is one such, slavery is another. Neither of these things is in any way consensual. I disapprove of practices where the participants have been denied the chance of granting or withholding informed consent. And I separate the two in my thinking.
[Updated on: Sun, 01 November 2009 17:53]
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very interesting, Timmy, but you seem to me to be verging on moral relativism - the stance that says what may be wrong for you isn't wrong for me and vice versa.
For example you wrote, in response to Macky:
"Sex with teenage boys is a separate issue. You may not conflate the two. I "will not accept your rhetorical trick of doing so.
"First you must look at the age of consent in the country if such an age "exists.
I just don't see that the law has anything to do with it. The age of consent is 13 in Spain and 16 here and I just don't accept that makes any difference to whether sex between, say 15-year-olds is moral or not. I can't see how anyone can maintain that it is always OK in Spain and always wrong here.
And, by the way, I am not a Christian and I don't accept the proposition that I live in a Christian society. I hope, at least, that it is an ex-Christian society.
I'm pretty sure that you and I would take the same line in most of the moral quandaries we might be faced with. It's only when we get into the questions of moral philosophy that we diverge. I wonder why that is.
Maybe I've never been forced to do anything 'against my will' but I'm sure I've been persuaded to do things that were wrong and other things that I regret and things that I now think were wrong. Isn't that the same for everyone?
'Against my will' assumes that I do have a settled will about all questions I might be faced with. I confess I don't. I am liable to be tempted to do things that would be wrong. Aren't you?
But to do something to a boy that would be wrong in England could not suddenly become OK if done in Spain or India or outer space, could it?
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Tcam wrote:
> But to do something to a boy that would be wrong in England could not suddenly become OK if done in Spain or India or outer space, could it?
to do anything TO a boy, a man, a girl, a woman is wrong because it automatically has no consent by its very definition
To do something with consent, something where that consent is ever renewed, that is a very different matter. A shared relationship is not doing something to anyone. The different is enormous.
[Updated on: Sun, 01 November 2009 18:54]
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Macky
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
|
|
|
"Try not to use the arguments that your country and mine have always used."
Just because an argument has been used before does not invalidate it.
"Where an individual practice is a bad one, educate and persuade that to become better."
Agreed. Obviously a certain portion of this population felt this was a bad practice.
"That is the stuff of rhetoric and has no place here. It is a trick to deceive the audience into following the orator's views, not correct intellectual discussion."
What’s wrong with rhetoric? I don't think rhetoric = tricks. And I don't think I exaggerated anything. Isn’t rhetoric one of the things that makes logical discussion possible and enjoyable?
Definitions of rhetoric:
1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.
2. the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including the figures of speech.
3. the study of the effective use of language.
4. the ability to use language effectively.
5. the art of prose in general as opposed to verse.
6. the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory.
7. (in classical oratory) the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience.
8. (in older use) a work on rhetoric.
Could attitudes like this be the reason so few people feel comfortable posting here?
"Slavery per se, not the US version,"
What do you mean? Do you feel the US has some special attitude concerning slavery?
"Poverty does not force anyone to do anything against his will."
This is the elitist attitude. The attitude of those who have never lived in poverty. I know poverty, and I know that a parent will do things totally against their will to support their family. Siblings too will put down their own desires for the good of the family, including dropping out of school and working jobs they abhor. Such was my parents’ lot.
Macky
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Could attitudes like this be the reason so few people feel comfortable posting here?"
That is not only a disrespectful statement but actually could be defined an adversarial position in an argument that leaves no room for intellectual discussions. Not bloody good.
"Poverty does not force anyone to do anything against his will."
"This is the elitist attitude. The attitude of those who have never lived in poverty. I know poverty, and I know that a parent will do things totally against their will to support their family. Siblings too will put down their own desires for the good of the family, including dropping out of school and working jobs they abhor. Such was my parents’ lot."
Okay, that is a huge assumption to make! (Especially since I know for a fact that Tim comes from a modest background himself.) More-so though and having actually lived in the UK, I can see that this is more of a cultures clash than anything else as there are stark differences in perceptions of issues between Americans and British citizens.
And I quote from Tim's header on the top of this page:
I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love.
Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving!
So much is here. help, advice, deep discussions, freedom to do anything except judge, insult anyone or flame them
If you have something to say, break the ice and say it. This place thrives on discussions, even hugely controversial ones.
Please use care and charity when you discuss here, and realise that absolutes are unlikely despite your or my certainty in them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
I think you suffer from the historical isolationism practiced by the USA and which has honed much US domestic opinion. Even today the USa is tempted to go back into isolationism and protectionism. Under Bush it might well have done so. And that argument is persuasive, but unwholesome.
The USA has national opinions on how the world should be run. Under Bush it was evangelical christian and democracy above everything else. Bush even got together with Blair to declare war against Islam and both of them increased any danger form terrorism thereby.
Why is the foregoing relevant?
Historically The British Empire and the US world policeman role have been pretty much wrong. Vietnam was the hot part of the cold war. US strategy, planning and ethics lost that war. Napalming entire communities was at best an imperfect strategy, at worst tantamount to genocide. England has similar appalling stories in its history
We, and you, were wrong in so many things that it is genuinely hard to see the good things we and you have done. And we have each done many. A simple example is that we both profited form the ages old Arab and African slave trading industry. We didn't invent it, but we and you were very good businessmen and traded in humanity.
During the 1930s neither of us realised that National Socialism was planning the holocaust. You and we ignored it or denied it, and we refused panic stricken refugees many of whom ended up in death camps, with their hair, and gold teeth, and even skin harvested for a profit. And the choices those victims were able to make preserved their own dignity. They could choose whether to participate in some unpleasant acts. It was a stark choice, and other unpleasant acts took place instead. But they kept, in their heads, their dignity,
The examples you have given in poverty show choices made. They are not as stark as to die one way or die another way, yet they are choices. In the same manner a boy may choose not to take the bag of money and to refuse to share his body with the older man.
If, then, he is raped, he may hurt, and badly, but he knows it was against his will, against his choice, without his consent.
Ah your definition of rhetoric, culled from some online dictionary. "in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast." I say Trickery.
Rhetoric does not make a discussion pleasurable. Civilised discourse makes a discussion pleasurable. Rhetoric is used by the person scared of losing the argument, or the person with a point to hammer home, such as "Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam" by Cato at the end of pretty much every speech until it happened.
Rhetoric has no place here. How ironic that is. And if people inly post here to use and practice rhetoric - "Could attitudes like this be the reason so few people feel comfortable posting here?" - then they may absent themselves forthwith. All your quoted definitions reinforce to me that rhetoric has no place here. All.
Of course the repeat of "All" is a rhetorical trick. But you have gathered that I am using it as irony, not as a recommendation for others to follow. If there is thus a joke it is against myself as author.
You are by no means unique in having a humble family, by the way.
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 wrote:
>…along with chopping off someone’s hand for stealing a loaf of bread and circumcision. <
I'm against circumcision when it's not a medical necessity, but chopping someone's hand off for it seems to be going a tad too far.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm male-male and female-female sex is illegal in Afghanistan.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anthony wrote
>But to do something to a boy that would be wrong in England could not suddenly become OK if done in Spain or India or outer space, could it?<
If wrong is defined by the law of a sovereign state the answer is 'yes, it could'.
If wrong is defined by morality, the answer is no.
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: 13800
|
|
|
Indeed it is. I was postulating a benchmark by which we might judge 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect that I'm the only one here to actually have had sex with a teenaged Afghan boy, in Afghanistan. The year was 1977, I was 22, he was ... well, I'd guess sixteen, perhaps fifteen, certainly no more than 18. It was entirely his idea.
He'd been extremely helpful to us for a couple of days, tracking down hard-to-find stuff like laundry powder. Obviously, we'd tipped him for his efforts. Did he slip into the shower to join me that evening in the hope of a bigger tip? I hope not (it was clear our enjoyment was mutual), but yes, perhaps I was a bit more generous when we left the following day than I otherwise would have been. This at a time when Afghanistan was fairly stable (before the Soviet invasion), and he certainly was among the better-off of the local people.
It was clearly something he felt comfortable doing: despite it being notionally illegal, it clearly didn't feel culturally uncomfortable for him.
Who are we to judge?
If you really want a quite stomach-turning example of kids of 14, 15, 16 being used for sex as the only route open for professional advancement, take a look at the UK / US fashion model scene. Talk to some of the models. No sex = no bookings, at the start of the career.
Again, who are we to judge?
But if we choose to do so, let our judgement not be clouded by a hypocritical belief that our Western "civilisation" handles such matters any better than other socieities - from the Kingdom of Afghanistan (as was) to Ancient Greece.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
