One Day

Ryan mails: “This piece of art is on display at my local art museum in an "It Gets Better" art exhibit.
It was very powerful to me and I thought I’d share it.”


77 thoughts on “One Day”

  1. When the New Museum in NYC held the David Wojnarowicz retrospective many years ago, this was the work you first saw as you entered the building.

    Worth reading is David Wojnarowicz’s autobiographical comic book about his life as a young boy when he was 9 to 13 years old hustling on “the Deuce” (42nd Street). It was “a John” who tricked with him that first bought him art materials which in essence launched his art career.

    Were he still living, I doubt that Wojnarowicz would take much comfort from the status quo ass kissers we encounter today in what is quaintly called “the gay world”, and I say that with some authority since a friend of mine was very close to him right up to his death.

    Worth reading is this work from Semiotext, one of my favorite publishers:

  2. that causes men who wear the uniform of priests and rabbis [...] to call for his death

    No imams? A rather strange omission, since they represent without a doubt the largest number of clerics who are calling for the death of homosexuals.

    1. I’m guessing Islam wasn’t as established 20 years ago to the writer is it is these days.

  3. This was….
    I am left speechless.
    It made me proud that he would “one day” go through all that to be true to himself. I have had some of these things happen to me already. Its scary.

    1. I’ve missed the drugs, immolation and decapitation so far. As well, i’ve experienced less legal crap with me living in Canada. No doctors so far, though it’s possible. I hadn’t realized when I moved, I had moved to one of two provinces that has left ‘gay’ in the master psych book.

      But ya, it can be scary. The best thing about moving to this province? I’ve actually not had an anti-gay encounter in near 4 years. ^_^ (not that I go out much. I should go to the bars sometime.)

      Oh, and i’m excluding the anti-gay encounters from the pure-race encounters. (since they were more of a rant against everything.)

      1. As someone who lived through this period, the ‘truths’ as exposed, were often horrific. And the more courage you had to stand for yourself and your ‘abnormal sexual deviation’ , the harder it was for you. I had friends in HS whose parents made them submit to electro-shock therapy. One guy never fully recovered. I talked to him at a 20th HS reunion….he was still lost inside his head and paranoid.

        If you were unlucky enough to wind up on the streets in those times, rejected by those who supposedly ‘loved’ you and hungry…..well, it’s not rocket science to extrapolate further.

        1. Real1 – Thought provoking words. We have much to be thankful for nowadays, despite appearances to the contrary sometimes.

          BTW, what is HS?

        2. That was an incredibly different time. Although I hid my desire very well, I have paid a high price.

          1. For the benefit of us younger members, could you explain further what the high costs were to you in hiding your identity? Thank you.

            1. The price I paid was the feelings of guilt, inferiority, failed marriages and subsequent guilt, three attempts on my life, painful loneliness, self defeating and self destructive tendencies, alcohfol abuse for a signicant period of time, an inhibited ability to experience pleasure and fun throughout my teen and young adult years. I could go on but I think you may get the idea.

              I sincerely hope younger members (like you) of this blog can learn something useful from the older members. If only I had someone to talk to about these matters when I was a teen. Take care.


  4. This ought to be properly credited, to the late New York artist, writer and activist David Wojnarowicz (1954-1992) (which explains the lack of reference to imams, as they had not been demonized yet). Pederasts also ought to seriously read his Memories that Smell Like Gasoline, about his experiences with the men who were there for him,though it may be a little less cuddly.

    1. I’ve already credited the work to Wojnarowicz in a post I made hours ago which is still “awaiting moderation”. In fact, it should have been entry number 4.

    2. It’s hard to make out but it looks like “DWojnarowicz” in the lower right corner and dated 1990/91.

      Thanks for the information, though.

    3. Good to see you around Bodmin! I’ve missed you in other forums and heard you were ill. I trust you’re OK now.

  5. ..Ah, .all such beautiful, lovely, socially acceptable thoughts in a time when it is SO safe to do so…

    Now, try making the ‘boy’ just a few little years older (say over 18), and the target of his affection unchanged in age.
    And see what happens!

    Suddenly, yes, of course prison! yes of course a virus in the brain! yes of course lies and misinformation, yes, attempt to silence him, suicide attempts, depression, etc.
    and signed by the VERY SAME person who wrote the such ‘tolerant’ text above.
    The same writer above would scream for the death penalty, denounce him, request social revenge. We’ve seen it over and over again.

    Such lovely, truly vacuous words.

    1. I think that is the price one pays for repressed or opressed desire. You remain stuck in another place and time unable to move on.

    2. Ivan, in what possible way are they vacuous? Because the world is not yet prepared to joyfully accept every conceivable paraphilia, does not mean that we should not rejoice that it has come far enough to start to accept some behaviours that were considered to be aberrent just a few decades ago.

      The problem with pedarasty, paedophilia and ephebophilia, is that the agenda for change or understanding is not in the hands of scientists or psychologists, but in the hands of “news” publishers and politicians who both have hugely vested interests in stoking misinformation and maintaining hatred.

      Add to that the fact that it is too often linked to abusive behaviour, and I think that it is unlikely that people’s attitides towards it are going to change, unless incontravertible evidence is produced that shows that current attitudes in some way increase the problem.

      1. K said: “Add to that the fact that it (pederasty, pedophilia and ephebophilia) is too often linked to abusive behaviour…”

        Have you ever studied the source of the most abusive behavior toward children? Parents blow away every other category by a landslide even in the case of murder. Then following closely on the heels of parents you have caregivers, organizations and schools.

        If you really wanted to prevent the most massive and widespread harm to children you would take them away from their homes and schools. There, there’s your “incontrovertible” evidence!

        OMG! You live in some bizarre world K.

      2. ‘Vacuous’ because what is the point of begging for tolerance for one very specific group of people, and yet exercise total intolerance using the very heinous methods mentioned against another group of people so closely related, just because they are a few years older/younger?
        It is vacuous hypocrisy.
        And no, of course there has been no ‘progress’ at all. Real progress is when one stops simply moving intolerance from one minority to another, to actually open up genuinely differences. This is fake ‘progress’ based a lot on the economic power of homosexuals these days, NOT real tolerance of differences.

        You mention that it is too often linked to ‘abuse behaviour': to date heterosexuality still has the vast monopoly of abuses, and yet is not questioned as a sexuality.
        Each and every intolerance in the history of mankind is based on personal demons, jealousy, guilt. No ‘incontrovertible evidence’ is ever going to make anyone change anything (see Galileo and 2000 years of history).
        Like offering nazis the ‘incontrovertible evidence’ that Jews are actually nice people.
        People will change, yes, and accept, but only the day they get over their own guilt complexes, and demon.
        Or if they discover pederasts to be useful economically.

        1. Very good Ivan. “…only the day they get over their own guilt complexes, and demon.” In other words, the projected and unwanted aspects of themselves.

    3. What you’re saying rings within my head every day. It has made me resent the hypocrisy of the LGBT rights movement.

    4. Yes, what you say is quite true ivan.
      And I agree with tcnc in this same thread. I am nauseated by the LGBT movement, so much so that when people ask me if I’m gay, I tell them no. No, I am not that.

      From the perspective from which you are speaking things have actually become worse today.

      Compare this statement from Larry Kramer. I wonder how many gay liberationists today would be willing to endorse it? Or many of the things that Harry Hay had to say?

      “In those cases where children do have sex with their homosexual elders… I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it, either because of a natural curiosity… or because he or she is homosexual and innately knows it. … And unlike girls or women forced into rape or traumatized, most gay men have warm memories of their earliest and early sexual encounters; when we share these stories with each other, they are invariably positive ones.”
      ~ Larry Kramer, “Reports from the Holocaust”, New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1991

      1. I can concede the possibility that Kramer is right, but I would need to see lots and lots of proof that confirms it because it certainly sounds like a self-serving self-justifying excuse to me. Like a rapist trying to argue that “she was begging for it by wearing a short skirt”.

        I’m sorry, but everyone who is equating the rights of two consenting equals to have same sex relationships, with two unequal same sex partners to have sex are not comparing like with like.

        Yes, society is hypocritical to condemn lust after youth when it venerates youth so much; yes, an arbitrary (and increasing) age of consent is ridiculous (but possibly necessary); yes society is ignorant and insensitive to condemn out of hand, those attracted to minors – even if only because those people are mentally damaged.

        But moving from attraction to actual action seems to me very often to be an abuse of power that has profound effects upon the minor, many of which are not manifested until much later in life.

        As for endorsing paedophilia, of course gay activists do not! It’s ludicrous to argue that they should. The last thing that advocates of gay rights need, is to get their cause linked with the whole NAMBLA movement!

        For goodness sake, SCAT is probably more socially acceptable that paedophilia, and nobody in their right mind would expect the gay rights movement to start explicitly advocating that. Simple self-preservation and marketing would indicate that the last thing a group who is broadly hated would want to do, is to throw in with a group that is universally reviled, even amongst moderates. The enemy of my enemy, in this case, is not my friend.

        1. ‘Abuse of authority’? ‘profoudn effect on the young’? Wow, have you just been invited to speak on the Oprah Winfrey show? Which anti-sex nonesense sensationalist magazine did you get that grotesque idea from?
          Loving a youngster has nothing other than positive effects. Societies insane reaction to it, and their lies they propagate has a desastrous effect on youths.
          You are medieval in your thinking. A short while ago homosexuality was a deep illness, and masturbation was psychologically damaging to youths (as described by the leading medics of the day: Dr Kellog for instance).
          You know not what you talk about. Anyone who has had a real such relationship knows very well it has nothing to do with this.
          Your comment simply REFUSES the younger one any form of desire. THAT is the real abuse over him/her.
          If this relationship is an ‘abuse’ then I am afraid to say EVERYTHING dirceted by adults over the young is an abuse against the young: forcing them to study because adults want them to, forcing do dress like this or that, forcing them to eat this or that food, prohibiting this or that behaviour. It is ALL abuse in that case!
          What is a lot LESS forceful is to respond to a genuine desire, when one is quite separate from the family, from a position of authority (priest, teacher), which the youngster could most easily walk away if he were unhappy.
          Why do you think there is such a hysteria? Why is it so hard to ‘control’ such things? Why, 20 years later do we still find no ‘improvements’ at all in figures, but rather the clear indication that MORE of this seems to go on?
          They are all pre-conceived views which have nothing to do with reality, and based on completely incoherent knowledge of the actual young person.
          One question is worth asking: if one country deems legally acceptable for a 12yo to decide whom he has sex with, and another deems that to be 18 (or 21) years old, is the former country accomplice to enticing abuse of power over the young? Or are they giving them the tools to decide for themselves, and precisely helping them against abuse?
          As for gay activist attacking pederasts as ‘perverts’ which you condone, it is one of the worst form of intolerance, hypocrisy and cowardice I have ever known. Shame, shame on them.

          1. Ivan, you seem to have an absolutist view of this issue that leaves no room for middle ground.

            Because I use powerful terms to describe the potentially harmful effects of sexual attention on minors does not make my words sensationalist, any more than using expressions like “awe inspiring” and “incredible” to describe a solar eclipse or an erupting volcano. Some issues do have effects that are of a magnitude that requires equally powerful descriptives.

            I do not in any way condone anyone attacking pederasts as perverts, and I don’t know what I said that suggests that. The fact that gay activists deliberately distance themselves from pederasts is not the same as condemnation – it’s self-preservation, but I suppose even if they did condemn pederasts as perverts, they are as vulnerable to misinformation as anyone. It’s the nature of man, that most people only apply deep critical thinking to issues that affect them.

            You keep arguing that the fact that youngsters experience desire is justification for adults to enter into sexual relations with them, and that is a complete nonsense. Kids feel desire to eat candy at every opportunity. Kids feel a desire to stay in bed late and not go to school. Kids desire lots of things that are bad for them. Kids are clearly NOT the best arbiters of what is best for them. Jeez, nor are many adults, but let’s not even go there…

            Also to say “the youngster could most easily walk away if he were unhappy.” is overly simplistic and you know it, and this is the whole crux of this discussion, because the dynamic of any older/younger relationship gives the older person additional power and control, simply by virtue of their age, and that is a dynamic that simply cannot be ignored or negated. It’s interesting that you exclude those in a position of authority from such relationships, without acknowledging that the age dynamic carries its own authority.

            The fact that you could cite an example, a hundred examples, even a thousand of kids who have not been harmed by sexual relations with adults does not validate your argument. I could cite tens of thousands of examples of kids who HAVE been harmed.

            Also, the fact that Mexico or Iceland sets the age of consent at 12 demonstrates nothing except the lack of universal consensus on what the correct age of consent should be. I don’t have sufficient trust in these country’s legal systems in general to ever want to entrust my happiness to them, and nor would most westerners, so why attach especial weight to this one piece of legislation – except that it serves your argument? And I’m not saying they’re wrong by the way – I just don’t know what the age should be.

            I’ve worked with 1000’s of 10-16 year olds, and I can tell you this, they are incredible malleable and easy to manipulate, if that is your intention. They are naive and trusting and wonderful, but they are also very open to being adversely controlled by those with more intellect and experience.

            It’s not sensationalist or “medieval” or populist or whatever other patronising expression you choose, to point out that those who are particularly vulnerable to exploitation, should not be placed in a position where they can legally be exploited.

            Yes, an adult expressing love and affection (without sex or religious motive) to a child of ANY age or gender, is a beautiful thing. But when you add sex then other issues enter the mix. Other agendas. In my book, love is about doing what’s best for the object of your love, not guiding them to satisfy your lust.

            You say “Loving a youngster has nothing other than positive effects.” but it very much depends upon how you express that love. There are tens of thousands of alterboys and other church goers whose lives have been scarred by the “love” of their priest. Their sense of identity and self-worth undermined for life. Also, whilst we’re talking about detrimental effects, there is also evidence to suggest that people who become sexualised too young in life often become overly sexualised in adulthood, to the detriment of forming deeper, emotion-based relationships.

            Personally I’m fine with the concept of one night stands and “meaningless” sex (it’s not how I live, but I don’t mind those who do), but most people seem to value relationships with a bit more depth, so setting kids up for that kind of future seems detrimental.

            It really is ludicrous to compare nurturing a child’s health and mind via constraints and education by those charged to do so, with the development of relationships aimed at building sexual intimacy.

            Look if you want to love a million boys, and mentor and guide them, I would be 100% behind your actions. Many great people have been boy lovers in that sense and it’s a wonderful thing. Unselfish love.

            If you want to start having sex with a 7 year old, and using the old “well he got an erection when I touched him” line, then you’re going to lose my support and you probably would deserve whatever happens to you.

            The big question for me, and I think it can only be on a case by case basis, is at what age, a person becomes mature enough mentally to be trusted with such a decision on his own. Clearly such a consideration cannot be left to the individual adult to make, because you’re going to face an endless stream of “well he seemed mature enough to me” cases. So, someone picks a number – say the end or the start of puberty – adds a little safety margin – and voila – age of consent!

            1. it is ME who talks of no middle ground?!! What?!! You didn’t mean the hords of hysterical anti-sex media-inspired nuts who make such inane laws?
              Sadly gay DO regularly attack boylovers (I don’t use the P. word has its lost all its significance), and sometime even when the difference of age is 3 or 4 years with their own likes
              Your idea that kids cannot decide for themselves shows a COMPLETE lack of experience and knowledge. NO, kids don’t eat candy still they turn blue, NO they don’t go to bed late at night, not even if they had the chance: they only do that because it is PROHIITED by adults who treat them like retards. Put candy all over the place, and you’ll see how long their craving lasts_
              You look after teenagers and harbour such demeaning thoughts of them? Please work somewhere else.
              Just travel in any developing country where they don’t repress kids, and see for yourself if they ‘want to go to bed late’!
              The argument still stands that the youngsters can ‘walk away': they only can’t due to the complete lack of responsibility they are given.
              Again, travel a little in lands that don’t repress kids and treat them as morons, and see the difference.
              We are all awaiting your ‘thousands of examples’ of kids ‘harmed’ by a consenting relationship. I have been around 45 years, and not known one. Only in books and magazines, newspapers. And amongst them 100% were of course not affected by the actual act (that they invariably enjoyed, to their own admitting), but by the deep, powerful, monumental stigma surrounding it. Once again, travel to a country where sexuality does not make people turn into rabid dogs foaming at the mouth, and see the difference.
              Your (typically anglo-saxon) point of departure about kids ‘malleability’ is that sex is evil, bad for them. Where on earth do you get that bizarre medieval notion? The pope?
              In your book, bizarrely again, loving a youngster and, naturally wanting to be physically close to him/her is ‘lust’. Wow, you really, really are demeaning, and use sweeping, inconsistent arguments that are simply untrue. Why do you always equate only BL relationships as ‘lustful’? Because you lust after them?
              I’ve never needed to LUST.
              As so many misinformed sensationalists, you use totally stereotypical Oprah-style arguments about priests and their alter boys: that shows what very poor level of understanding you have. A quick one-up-the-bum by a priest with his pretty choir boy behind the alter after communion, though traditional, is hardly what the debate is about: we all know it constitutes 0,1% of the ‘truths’ media want us to believe. Or that you want to believe.
              You say ‘there is evidence to suggest that’ …there is no such thing: it is a complete invention of yours (and others). Please quote your source of a scientifically accepted study that says anything like this. I will then quote the very serious study by the ‘American psychiatric association’ that proved sexual relationships of this sort were, in fact, beneficial (which tried in vein to prohibit).
              You know some african women caress the penis of their sons to put them to sleep. Is that sex? When you say ‘having sex with a 7yo’ what do you mean? The stereotypical deep anal penetration, filling him/her with gallons of semen? Or a gentle superficial massage?
              No, the whole thing is shrouded with utterly dismissive stereotypical views that reflect in no way 95% of those relationships you never hear of (no one’s mad enough). It demeans completely the youngsters ability to decide, and more than anything it reduces any loving man’s desires to the lowest possible form of abuse and lust, when it is clear and evident that, just like teachers adapt perfectly to each and every age group, adapt to their sensitivities, to their levels, so does anyone who loved a youngster. That is the truth. The rest is abuse. The completely erroneous belief is that boylovers ‘abuse’, they don’t (no more than heterosexuals, and probably less). This is a game played by opportunists: step fathers, priests, dormitory attendants, who have a craving for sex in a youthful context: not the philosophy of love of youth in itself.
              No one, not even myself have ANYTHING against a law, and an age of consent. That would be stupid. This is not the debate. It is the thoroughly INSANE manner in which each and every loving contact is treated as something akin to a crime against humanity, blown totally out of proportion. It is the lies, the shameful lies, the manipulation of truth, the harm done of adults and even more so on kids, the increase of abuses this hysteria causes, the paranoia it spreads, the destruction of parent-kid, teacher-kid relationship, the appalling hypocrisy of it, the wrecking of the volunteer system, and (though I’m not religious) even the innocence of the church and how priests DID used to help youngsters for the most part. Such appalling abuse and destruction by self-name ‘child protectors’, at the service of nothing else than badly repressed desires, or women’s vengeful agenda against male sexuality.

            2. Ivan, I’d like to thank you for the civility of your posts. You’ve given me a lot to think about, and it seems that your views and mine and perhaps less dissimilar than you might think.

              You appear to be as opposed to the lustful, opportunistic sexual encounters of “step fathers, priests, dormitory attendants, who have a craving for sex in a youthful context” to use your words. The fact that Oprah and her ilk pick up on these tales is hardly surprising, given by your own observation, that relationships that are mutually enjoyable and satisfying are not publicised by the participants. I don’t think that there is a need to be dismissive of the sentiments of the public in respoinse to these tales, because I think even WE both agree that they are abusive.

              The fact that such shows and articles do not go on to ask, “Are there situations when such relations may not be detrimental” is hardly surprising, given society’s extreme hysteria against paedophilia. In the UK, when there was a lot of this in the news, a PAEDIATRICIAN’s house was burnt to the ground because it has a plaque of the front door declaring his business. Against that level of mindless hatred, on an advertiser funded channel, can you really be surprised that presenters don’t tackle the deeper issues?

              I’ll be absolutely honest, and admit, that even here, under cover of pseudo anonymity, I am nervous to go too far in agreeing with your premise that a sexual relationship with a minor may be good for both. It disturbs me to say it in public. Not because I am repressed, or hostile, but because I think that we live in an age where even suspicion by association can be career and life destroying, especially in the UK, one off the most repressive and paranoid western regimes on the planet.

              Personally, I think the term “boylover” has become terminally tainted and sleaze. The deeper sentiment encapsulated by the words, is noble, but I think it has become irreperably associated with man boy sex.

              As for how kids behave, well I can only speak for those I have encountered, all of whom live with the prohibitions you speak of, so inevitably, when left to themselves, the do run amok. The recent BBC Cutting Edge documentary Boys Alone seems to support my conclusions in this regard, although it may also support your assertion too. :-)

              Now I want to ask you a single question, and I realsie that it leads to a circular argument but;

              given your own comment “amongst them 100% were of course not affected by the actual act (that they invariably enjoyed, to their own admitting), but by the deep, powerful, monumental stigma surrounding it.” which acknowledges that harm does come to boys who engage in sex with adults, even if only because society unreasonably stigmatises the act – can any man who claims to love boys, have such a relationship? Irealsie that in an idea society there may be no stigma and no harm, but that’s not the society we live in. So should a man pursue such a relationship knowing that it may lead to serious psychological damage?

              Thank you again for your patient and reasoned debate.

            3. Hi,
              Two things: much to Anglo Saxon’s shock and horror, I speak freely of consensual sex (and the benefits of the love, for both) with a minor, and even really minor, with experience and knowledge, yet at no point have I ever broken the law anywhere.
              I have had the oddest encounters where I have presented my other half to profoundly shocked observers (Anglo-Saxon always) who immediately jump on their ban-wagons before I tell them the law …PROTECTS our relation. It drives them simply insane. As though the law of their land, as though their moralistic belief was a Universal Truth. Poor, ignorant people who have no idea how the rest of the world lives, and who blindly judge.
              Oh, and the greatest Brit, Shakespeare loved a young minor boy.

              To answer your question:
              you have of course pinpointed the ONE apparently ‘sticky’ question. I am in the best position to answer as I took the initiative of NOT staying in countries where a deep sexual sickness poisons everyone’s mind, most of all kid’s. Teaching in such countries has become …grotesque.
              I’ll remind us of an anecdote I mentioned here some time ago: as a language teacher I showed a 9 y.o. class of mine, as a treat, the film ‘My Father’s Glory’. They were delighted in the story. Until the 10 y.o. protagonist was seen showering under a hose, nude. At which point the class erupted into a complete insane frenzy like I’ve never seen before, and they screamed ‘paedophile! He’s a paedophile!!’ pointing to the boy actor…
              The situation had gone so totally out of hand, I was obliged to switch the film off. It deeply affected the kids to have seen this ‘awful’ scene.
              The profound and disturbing effects on kids, …we don’t even know HALF of it. We have sacrificed an entire generation to this sexual insanity.
              The reason I mention this KNOWING FULL WELL HOW TRULY WONDERFUL it can be for the younger to be loved, is because I turn back the question on you: should you give in to this sexual terrorism? Should you somehow support this insanity? My own answer is no. Would I take the risk for the youngster after his good experience to be brained washed into being sure he is profoundly disturbed (I swear even Jews, even blacks grew up with the same conception of their evil being)?
              My first choice is no, I live in one of the PLENTY of other places that are not clutched by this deep sickness, and actually live a better life there. That’s my choice because I can.
              What is my thought for those who stay in insane countries like England, USA, Australia? Should you love a boy there? …the truth is, it’s often NOT a choice. Love hardly ever is. It just happens, even if its dangerous.
              But in this case, then, you MUST be Truthful.
              Being truthful is KNOWING that that specific boy is the different one, the one who does love you, the one who has that independence, precisely, to think for himself.
              I was once asked why this specific boy of mine: I told them it was not hard: due to my work, I meet and get to know literally hundreds of youngsters. Thousands over the years. And yes, amongst them, will come to you those who JUST ARE like that, will just love you. It’s statistical.
              Then, MOST important of all: tell him the truth! Don’t decorate the truth, don’t lie. They are PERFECTLY capable of understanding. You explain the law, you explain why the law is there, you explain who you are, why you are attracted, the pros and the cons. If you feel shame and guilt, and cover things up, then don’t run the risk, because this relationship is more tricky than any other and MUST be totally transparent between yourselves. If you can’t, then travel for God’s sake. I don’t mean sex tourism, I mean settle somewhere else and work, and love there.
              And no, there is no point in painting a lovely picture of yourself and your sexuality, THEY WILL KNOW. Kids feel things very well. I remember VERY clearly of at least two teachers who were HORRIBLY slimy about their secret desires for little boys, and it bothered me as a boy. And they hadn’t even touched me! On the other hand, I was loved by a man in my youth, and his innocence and serenity will always inspire me.
              Are you capable of what I suggest above? No? Then bugger off to another country. One lives better elsewhere than those three horrendous places I mentioned above.
              But giving into this terrorism, changing the course of natural human history because a few people in power have awful hang-ups about their desires? Of course not.
              So many in teaching, Art, medias, have already given in, don’t do so yourself. Denounce what is going on, point your finger at those who truly wreck youths, love in a less sick land, and wait out until society finds another scape-goat for their demons, or a better way to win votes.

          2. Ivan, I would once again like to point out how refreshing it is to see your viewpoints expressed in such a concise and yet passionate way. Also worthy of mention is the historical importance and prevalence of pederasty, as well as the very definition of ‘homosexuality’ which stems from 19th century medical speculation and does not conform to previous eras’ definition of sexual orientation: the assumption of a dominant or submissive role.

            1. tcnc, so how was homosexuality defined before the 19th century then?

              I’m interested in your statement about the historical importance of pederasty. I know that many leaders of the ancient world kept boys, but would you describe that as important, or mere fact? Not quibbling – but interested in why yo define them as important.

              And then, even if we did recognise say, a 1000 historicaly significant examples of pederasty, would that be reasonable argument for its continuation? I mean, the social care system in the UK just 100 years ago was woeful, just 200 or 300 years ago prebuscents were being executed or sent to Austrlia for life for stealing food. Simply because things happened in the past, even for long periods of time, is no argument for them to happen today.

            2. Homosexuality was not an existing concept before the 19th century. The only consideration was sexual behavior itself, and the act: a sodomite was merely someone who practiced sexual activities other than coitus. There was no notion of homosexual identity, of someone who identifies him or herself as attracted to the same sex. The nearest society got to that was to define orientation in terms of dominance or submissiveness.

              Pederasty in Ancient Greece was a non-coercive, educationally beneficial and institutionalized activity that most males went through. This was also the West’s very first democratic society. Homosexual acts between two adult males, on the other hand, were unusual, and when they did exist they were lampooned and frowned upon, although never prohibited. See Aristophanes.

              The argument that we should use something just because it was used in the past is ludicrous, of course. This happens to be an issue where, in my opinion, the past exceptionally got it right. Pederasty as both a pedagogical and romantic attachment (sometimes even without a distinct sexual component) was an inspiration for philosophers and artists throughout the century, from the aforementioned Ancient Greece to the Uranian poets of 19th century Britain. This important role in the history of homosexuality – which really has no reason to be seen negatively – has been shunned by the modern LGBTs’ androphilia.

            3. Thank you for that backgrounder TCNC. I certainly do appreciate the opportunity to broaden my knowledge.

              Your comment about the commonness of pederasty in Ancient Greece does not meet with the articles I’ve read. To call it institutional seems something of an overstatement. What I’ve read suggests that it was an occasional thing, primarily practiced by the higher classes, which, if I recall, often benefited THE FAMILY of the boy, because they received the patron’s financial support.

              I don’t know to what extent one can be sure that this was non-coeercive, but I do wonder what the societal perspective was that made this relationship inappropriate when the boys grew older?

              Certainly the promise of comfort to the family and education to the boy would seem to me to be powerful coercion. Let’s not forget, that boys of 10 and 11 years old voluntarily allowed themselves to be castrated in Europe in the slim hope of a poverty-escaping career as a choirboy. I would definitely consider this abusive, even though for the most part, the boys themselves chose their fate, proof in any were needed, that boys are NOT mature enough to make rational decisions for themselves at such a young age. Far fewer made it than did not, so one should never under-estimate the attraction of a promised escape from poverty, to say nothing of familial duty.

              Returning to the Ancient Greeks, the question is, does the fact that such relationships MAY have involved coercion, diminish them. After all, kids are coerced to do things that they don’t want to do all the time nowadays. And Ivan, yes, I see your point about school being a form of abusive behaviour in some contexts now.

              I can easily see how such relationships would have been inspiring to the adult, and given the society of the day’s lack of condemnation, not necessarily harmful to the youth.

              Boys and teenagers are uniquely vibrant creatures on this earth, whom I very much appreciate for their lively personalities, and their youthful vigour. It’s easy to be inspired by beauty and innocence.

              I read somewhere recently, a study that suggested that such relationships in Greece were far less widespread than had previously been touted. I have no way of knowing if this is is true or not.

              I can very much appreciate the notion of a romantic affiliation with a boy. Over the years, there have been a few boys that I cared very greatly for, and have been privileged to watch grow into healthy heterosexual adults and fathers, and with whom I still retain close friendships. Although I suppose the opportunity to guide our friendships in sexual directions existed with several of them, I never attempted to, and I am very glad that I didn’t, because those boys can still respect me as adults in the knowledge that their friendship and company, and my desire for their wellbeing were my only motivations.

            4. I’m sorry to have to tell you that my closest friends today, the ones who are always there, and who still respect me when even sometimes my family does not, are my boyfriends now become adults. I am Godfather to one of their kids.
              No, no youth is thankful that you repressed desires.
              In fact it’s worse:
              I remember as a boy two of my primary teachers who were horribly deviant and slimy about what was obviously an attraction to them (I was very cute as a boy). And this disturbed me no end. I was also loved, and caressed all over by a man, whose genuine love, caring and serenity inspires me to this day. I adored him, and discovered what love was.
              I resented the other two, and they had not even touched me!
              No one gains from repressing the natural. However hard you try.

            5. I didn’t repress THEIR desires – I don’t know that had any towards me. I simply didn’t impose mine on them.

              It’s interesting that you quote two of your teachers as deviant in spite of the fact that they never even touched you. What was it about their behaviour that brought you to that conclusion?

            6. Kids, unlike adults ‘feel’ things much more than they listen to words. They just KNOW.
              I knew because of references to me, my beauty, my ‘strong’ legs, their gaze, their gazes in the locker rooms, and a million other things.
              I repeat again, sexuality, in itself is a beautiful act and a loving one, that feels good, and relaxes the two bodies after. It makes a person feel whole, yes, even young boys. What harms is the snide, nasty references to it by the repressed.

              You say you didn’t repress THEIR desires… How do you know that?! Your strict sexual education or reality. If you felt compelled to mention above that there was the OPPORTUNITY to guide the thing in a sexual direction, then you must obviously have felt an opening. And yes, of course there are openings from them! It is the period in ones life when one is most sexually charged, full of questions, doubts, self-hate, complexes, crushes, masturbation, fantasies, etc. What on EARTH is wrong to guide them caringly towards what is the most natural expression of their bodies I am still at a complete loss to understand. Why should sexuality be the ONLY area in which one should not guide the youngster if they so wish? We should deal with absolutely everything from going to the potty to learning maths, via ass-wiping and sexually trasmitted diseases, and yet leave them to their own guilty devices JUST when it comes to one of the MOST important aspect of human behaviour? That rings so moralistic it’s untrue. The same ‘ol, same ‘ol: ‘sex is evil’ notion.
              It’s not a question of IMPOSING anything on anyone, as you repeatedly say, and repeatedly express your ingrained knowledge that you as a human being could not possibly be of any use to the boy(s). They have been taught everything else in their lives, why not introduce the notion, the possibility of sexuality? They are dying to know, to try sometimes. You may not have even realised it, perhaps one had a crush on you, and what better, what more appropriate way to introduce to the world of sexuality through someone they love?
              No, no! Not that. Leave to their own devices, continue perpetuating the notion that sex is evil!
              I knew a 16yo girl (I had known for a long time) who asked me over and over again if I would be the first to penetrate her, even though she knew I was in love with a young male cousin of hers. I asked her why, and she said she wanted to have her first time with someone she trusted fully. I obliged (and rather liked it, so did she).
              What you did was repress not just you, but them as well, and perpetuate a kind of unhealthy silence around something which each and everyone thinks about all the time. A little like a silent circus of the absurd.
              You are now pleased your friends have become ‘good’ heterosexual fathers (yuk), like this was a gauge of goodness. All but one of my past lovers (gay) also have families. They have the advantage of experience, and having been loved and fully valued as youngsters, which helped their self-confidence no end.
              One last note: the notion that young teen boys are ‘straight’ or ‘gay’ is a complete nonsense modern invention. They are sexual, full stop. They are much more relaxed and comfortable sharing sex games with peers at the start, whatever social pressures impose them to say.

            7. Whether it was fully institutional depends on which part of Greece we mean. In Sparta, it was an integral part of the Agoge. Pederasty in Athens began as an upper class characteristic, but with the advent of democracy it spread to most of the population, even though more or less informally. Our very word ‘pedagogue’ comes from the Greek ‘pedagogos’, which denoted a slave whose takes was to regulate the courting of a boy by a man, preventing coercion. Any non-diplomatic action by men upon free (non-slave) boys was a severe legal violation, and the benefits to the courted boy were usually those of prestige and connection building for their future adult careers, rather than mere financial support.

              The societal perspective was not very different from ours: boys grow and mature, and no longer require the guidance they did in the past. To remain submissive is shameful, but pederastic lovers did maintain non-physical friendships (‘philia’) once the boy had grown up. To mention Medieval and Renaissance Europe, along with its practice of castration, is to mention societies with completely different values and socio-economic characteristics. In a way, many of the achievements of Ancient Greece were not replicated again until the 19th century (the natural exceptions are of Humanism and the Arts, which did spring ‘back to life’ in the Renaissance). Boys in pederasty were not autonomous in all decisions: their parents kept a close eye on who suitors were.

              Once again I reiterate the absence of coercion in Pederasty. Greek law was fully on the boy’s side, with trespassing on school grounds warranting the death penalty in Athens. In Crete, boys were legally able to one-sidedly break off any relationship. Parents regulated the behavior of suitors and made recommendations based on the qualities of the suitor; the pedagogical was usually valued.

          3. Ivan, it is pointless to debate with K. He as cunning as it gets when he phrases his statements. It reminds me how the Jesuits lead you along with their logic which is just as flawed. K claims that the gay liberation movement distances itself from pederasts for its own benefit and yet overlooks the fact that people such as Larry Kramer (a founder of “Act Up”) and Harry Hay, considered by many to be the father of “gay liberation”, fully supported NAMBLA even boldly carrying signs to that effect in gay parades and lecturing on the necessity of liberating all aspects of gay life including that gays who like younger boys.

            No, you would be best advised to ignore K. He has the smell of a “social engineer” about him. He begins with an outcome that he has already predetermined and then goes hunting for ways to demonstrate his own bias and prejudice which is too close to the status quo for my own comfort.
            Best to avoid K and all people like him. He’s trouble. He may make himself out to be quite charming and reasonable, but in the end he will only serve to drive you mad.

            1. Sorry if you see a reasoned argument as cunning George.

              I freely admit that have a very poor knowledge of the history of the gy rights movement, so if I ignored actions by its keys figures, I assure you it was ignorance not willful deception. I was not aware of the actions or beliefs of Kramer or Hay, but if they proclaimed those affiliations publicly, it’s no wonder that gay rights has faced such an uphill battle!

              One of the stigmas that gay people have to face is the fact that they are considered by many to be deviants, just a beat away from child abusers. The last thing that the average gay person needs or wants is to be associated in the minds of the public with people who want to have sex with kids, and Larry Kramer walking with a NAMBLA placard probably did serious damage to the reputation of the movement.

              It’s a real shame that that whole child-love movement seems to be headed up by men who are attracted to boys. If it was at least people who wanted to do it with girls too, then at least it wouldn’t be a gay thing, and that could be a separate debate to acceptance of homosexuality.

              I don’t know if the whole pedarast argument is something that can or should be won. I know that you getting in a temper and throwing abuse around at people you have yet to convince is not the way to do it. You’re complaining about not being taken seriously, and when someone such as me does so, rather than provide proof (and none of you have done so yet) you give them abuse and walk away in a sulk, urging others to follow you.

              I have NO agenda. Of course I am the product of a lifetime of social conditioning, so if that means I come with preconceived ideas and conceptions, then you’re going to have to live with it. If you can’t even provide a coherrent argument and convince me (or even stay calm enough to try), a sympathetic homosexual who appreciates young men, then what chance have you got with the rest of the world?

              The trouble is George, you reveal the problem that you and your ilk have in your closing statement. “He may make himself out to be quite charming and reasonable, but in the end he will only serve to drive you mad.”

              I’m not “making myself out” to be anything. I’m trying to remain calm and courteous about a highly contentious issue so that we can discuss it without tempers getting in the way. The fact that you see my behaviour in terms of “cunning” and “deception” reveals more about your perception of the world, than it does about me.

              Like many who are denied what they perceive as their rights by society or “the man”, you see the world in terms of conspiracies. The first thing that any campaigner for change needs, is to be a realist. If you are unable to understand the nature of the “enemy” you’ll never defeat him, to paraphrase Sun Tsu.

            2. There is enemy and enemy.
              In a battle it is good to understand an enemy.
              In this case it has nothing to do with it: the ‘enemy’ in this case has no logic, no thoughts, no sense, no WANT of understanding, it seeks nothing, tries to achieve nothing: it simply lashed out at any and everything that smells, even from a distance of anything relating to youngsters and sex.
              There is no ‘understanding’ anything in their arguments. How could you when it is based at the very best only and exclusively on prison records (how would heterosexuality fare if the same rule applied!), and at worst on a most basic form a medieval blind and foundless anti-sex moralistic superstition?

              An enemy has be intelligent at the very least to be ‘understood’, not be a blind, deaf, dumb rabid dog foaming at the mouth because someone dares to show up their repressed desires or oppose their womanly authority.

            3. Ivan, then do you say that this is an eternally unwinnable battle? That no amount of logic, statistics, psychology and pursuasion will ever enable you to convince people of your case?

              To dismiss the entire population as stupid and essentially uncaring, is incredibly unfair. Yes they, I, may carry the preconceptions and misinformation of 1000 years, but there was a time when the church was executing astronomers for claiming the earth was not the centre of the universe.

              Things change – maybe slowly – maybe by overnight revolution – but things change. Personally, I think that morality, sexuality, and attitudes towards kids are cyclic, and we’re right at the peak of a dark age. Then the pedulum may swing – not necessarily in our lifetimes – and attitudes may become less hysterical.

              Ironically, as we move into the height of an age of science, I feel that that is the thing that will destroy the church’s stranglehold on morality, and when that falls, anything is possible.

            4. ‘convince them of MY case’?
              It’s not MY case: it’s one of the most natural and common forms of sexuality that exist! Shared by millions over the last 10,000 years. And a few powerful Oprah’s are not going to change that, however hard they try.
              I don’t dismiss the entire population: only the anglo-saxons who are at the root of this evil: they always have been in the past with their inability to cope with their guilt and repressed desires.
              ‘misconception of 1000 years’?!! wot? Just 100 years ago there was no such thing as teenage! When puberty was reached, you had sex! You married. This is a stupid invention to curb the desires and freedom on youth in a far too wealthy society intent on control.
              Can you change them? No of course you can’t. You can’t teach an ape to use a mobile phone. Like trying to convince Nazi’s that Jews are useful.

              But they will change themselves, by themselves. It will go down as very quickly as the hysteria came up, when:
              1) they get bored of it
              2) find another scape-goat (witches, Jews, communists, blacks, whatever), and another minority to batter
              3) youths gain more power and decide for themselves
              4) get over this insane pedophile phase that western culture is going through (the basis of their guilt), where the obsession surrounding childhood is akin to the most profound social imbalance we have ever seen.

              I give it a couple more decades at the most, before the insanity bites its own tail. It already is.

              btw, nothing destroys human’s superstition (as seen in the church), not even science. After all, you quoted ‘evidence’ by scientists that sucking off a 13.y.o has permanent damaging effects on him! I mentioned the famous books by the LEADING medics of their time explaining, with PROOF, all the diseases masturbation causes.
              No, we alter and adapt science to what we need, when we need.
              We only just pardoned Galileo!

  6. And all of that happened during a time of peace and prosperity.
    As soon as the supply of cheap food/fuel/resources start to dwindle (things are going that way) then all of this progress, tolerance and acceptance will be a thing of the past.
    As our society begins to crumble out of desperation, the nutters who crave power will take over promising order and safety from the chaos, mass religious hysteria will follow, and in short order, we’ll all be lined up and shot.
    And everything you’ve read about in Human history confirms this.
    I’m all for Harmony and love, and I wish things could continue this way, but that will only happen if we continue to be wealthy and educated, in most places where Humans aren’t, they condemn us as evil, and feel justified in murdering us for their magic sky friend

    1. Jim, I can’t help but wonder if the whole end of food and power scenario isn’t just alarmism. Sure, we may not be putting petrol/gasoline in our cars, and hey, we may have to drop from 3 and 4 car families back to just 1 (a good thing in my book). Maybe we might even see a little less widespread obesity, but we live on a planet of almost limitless virtually free energy, and the means to harvest it. In the UK, we have vast, vast tracts of idle farming land that is only not farmed because it’s economically more viable to farmers not to farm.

      Sure, we may have some lean years, but I suspect governmental self interest will mean that things will change before they get too bad.

      Our only real threat, is that we do like the Soviet Union, and run ourselves to poverty by feeding a bloated military.

      1. K, you just blew the last shred of credibility you ever had on this forum. You are living in la-la land.

        “In the UK, we have vast, vast tracts of idle farming land…” That is the most delusional statement I have heard this decade.

        And then:
        “…but we live on a planet of almost limitless virtually free energy…”
        Another howler!

        1. To be honest, I don’t think you are the arbiter of my credibility or not on this forum.

          The earth is bomdarded by trilliions of megawattts of solar energy, the surface of the planet is scoured with water and wind, both of which can be converted into energy. And then there’s nuclear energy. All of these sources are limitless within the existence of human life on this planet. The cost of harvesting and distributing these sources is high at the moment because there is still insufficient commitment to their development. However, household solar energy, to choose one example, has dropped in price massively over the last two decades, and will continue to decrease in price as government homebuilding legislation about making zero carbon homes continues to drive development.

          As for farming lands, I’m sure that you remember the EU butter mountains, when the EU bought dairy products at an artificially high price, making it more viable to become a dairy farmer than to run agriculture.

          To say nothing of the mega-supermarkets’ strangle hold over pricing that makes it increasingly hard to make a living from farming.

          It’s easy to simply attack another forum member’s comments, and if you have evidence beyond al gore’s highly contentious opinions on the future of this planet’s energy, I’d be interested to hear it.

        2. …Rather gained credibility with me.
          I don’t trust those who just inanely repeat the same ‘ol text-book, Oprah Winfrey style, media-based sensationalist so-called ‘facts’.
          The sort of facts that, like you, never attempt to convincingly explain themselves.
          (or like (more on the subject of this blog) the ‘known’ ‘fact’ that each and every relationship with an under 16 will result in profound and irreversible traumatism)

          1. Ivan, thank you for your comment. I 100% share your opinion that not every relationship with an under 16, or an under 18, or maybe even an under 12 depending on what your country’s arbitrary number happens to be, will result in harm to the youth in question. Indeed, the sexual act itself has only become sanctified due to religious “morality”, which is often more about control than about absolute values.

            Just as I’m sure that you, and all supporters of greater understanding, hopefully share my view, that the most important overriding concern is for the physical and emotional wellbeing of the young person, as the one without the experience or intellect to *necessarily* make wise decisions in agreeing to any such relationship.

            For me, that is the greatest concern. Certainly I can conceive of many situations where sexual contact between a legal minor and a legal adult (which may only represent a day’s difference in age, or many decades) could be not only enjoyable, but positively beneficial for the youth. But I find it difficult to reconcile the potential exploitation dangers if such relationships were legalised.

            I feel as though all of the possible benefits to the youth (a sexual educator, a loyal partner, someone skilled in the ways of sex, and a mentor) can be accomplished with strong non-sexual mentor/friend relationships, and decent sexual education.

            1. @K
              What you feel is a load of bullshit. Have you been sent here by the American “Tea Party” to unload on people who like boys? I think you’re a troll.

            2. @K. Misdiection yes. @Ach Scheiss. Would you care to answer Dante’s question?

            3. Ignore idiotic low level comments like ‘Scheiss”.
              Back to your argument/question: we should once and for all stop treating preteen and teenagers like mental retards.
              Give them the responsibility and the tools, and they are PERFECTLY capable of deciding for themselves.
              I talk not, of course, of clearly abusive situations, which exist in each and every sexuality, and each and every place on earth, which have their own defenses. We are in te midst of hysteria, lies and illogical behaviour because this prohibition is UNWORKABLE. Youngsters can and will decide with whom they express their love and sexuality. You can’t help that. For God’s sake: teenage is a recent invention! Hords of kings, queens, important figures of all kinds and the greatest geniuses on earth for the last 2000 years have had relationships (and married) with what is today deemed ‘underage’. They all were not wrong and abusers. We have just invented an extension to childhood (teenage) in order to continue controlling the young in a completely abusive way.
              In all societies, in all times, but our own in recent history: when they are of age to be able to MAKE children, they are no LONGER children!
              Which absurd human logic that is able to convince people that is not the case is basing on everything but common and human sense.
              True, in this day and age where teenagers have been totally stripped of any say, of any form of responsibility and defense, one must be very wary of not ‘using’ their current defenselessness. But loving them is enough.

            4. If the truth be told Ivan, Ach Scheiss makes more sense to me than K. K is a manipulator of the worst kind.
              He completely overlooks facts of real dangers that kids face every day, such as the fact that the most and worst abuse of children is at home and with parents. Just look at the statistics of murders, beatings, violent abuse of children that takes place. It is parents who are the worst offenders on a scale that is hard to comprehend. And then look at the abuse children suffer at the hands of their own peers. And yet people ignorantly believe that they are safe among their peers. Ah, what stupidity!

              If K really was concerned with the safety and well being of children he would campaign to save them from their parents. Everything else can follow after that.

            5. George you’re talking complete and utter nonsense.

              Nobody is so naive as to be unaware of youth on youth violence, school bullying or abuse in the home. They’re just not factors within the remit of this discussion.

              It’s not manipulation, it’s focus.

              The fact that kids also face other dangers is irrelevant. Those dangers exist whether or not paedophiles are allowed to start having sexual relations with them.

              I have long argued that the right to be a parent should be done on a points system, where having a child is a privilege not a right, earned by a track record of positive and responsible behaviour.

              But your argument is pretty specious anyway. Every child will come unde the influence of carers (parents or whoever) and into contact with peers at school. But most of them will come into contact with perhaps a few (arbitrary guess) paedophiles during their childhood, and likely none who are willing to do more than look – as the law stands. So of course, there are many many more cases of abuse at home.

              It’s still terrible, but this is not an either or situation. You don’t look at a person being attacked by a pack of dogs and say “well, I can only stop one of the dogs for you, but I’ll ignore the rest.”

              But for the record, I’m pretty certain that I’ve done more to improve the lives of kids than you could ever dream of. I introduced an anti-bullying initiative that reaches tens, if not hundreds of thousands of kids a year. I have helped make policy in empowering kids through assertiveness and self-defence training, and daily I coach kids to become better people.

              What have you done?

      2. I wouldn’t count on it. The Soviet Union was a third world country with a first world military: it bankrupted itself through military expenditure because the rest of the economy was managed through inefficient central planning. This is why the United States were able to ‘outspend’ the Soviet Union, winning the Cold War.

  7. Jim:

    HS= High School?

    yes, High School. i think u Brits have a different name for ur schooling during those years [about age 14 to 18]

    1. Primary School 5-8
      Junior School 8-11
      High School 11-16
      Sixthform/College 16+
      University 18+

      All of these are generally considered the norm in the U.K.
      Of course some students are homeschooled if they are
      Rich/Stupid/An Actor

      1. Ahh! Thank you Jim for that info!!!
        I had been previously puzzled by an occasional reference to age-school situations when i would chat with someone, or read something on school/year specifics.
        Here in the States, College OR University is attended by students at (usually) about age 17 to 18.
        {and they could (conceivably) continue to attend said College(s) or University(s) thru age 99 if the student is Rich/Stupid/An Actor}

  8. I was first referred to Milkboys for interesting photos. One day I started reading. It’s remarkable posts like this that keep me coming back.

  9. All the best adjectives have been used to express how I feel about this post. I love it!

  10. omg I just studied and discussed about him in my art class. So sad he art got kicked out of the Sim Art Museum in the National Mall in DC.

  11. Ivan, I have given considerable time to pondering the points that you have made over the past few days, some of which, such as citation of psychiatric reports demonstrating that adult child relationships are not harmful, per se, are quite thought provoking, if not compelling.

    However, it seems to me that the entiire issue comes down to two considerations:

    1. Is such a relationship harmful to kids IN THE WORLD IN WHICH THEY LIVE, not some rarified fantasy world of absolute tolerance and undestanding.

    2. Are youngsters mature enough to make intelligent, rational, informed choices about consent and sexual behaviour?

    In answer to the second question, you cite the supposedly mature behaviour of children in cultures that give greater responsibility to kids as evidence that kids are capable of making informed decisions with the same maturity as the adult seeking a physical relatioship with them.

    This is the issue that I have pondered the most, and I absolutely refute your assertion.

    I think that you are confusing the ability to make decisions, with the ability to make mature decisions. Any child capable of speech can decide betweek black, white or grey. Any child can decide between sweet, savoury or sour. But just as a child’s immature palate is unable to make choices based upon full sensory information, the experience to weigh decisions about physical relationships against their implications is not within the scope of a child or even most teenagers.

    For many younger children, the concept of cause and effect is not well developed, and I submit that the concept of emotional cause and effect (other than as an intellectual abstraction) often does not kick in until late teens or even into the the 20s or beyond.

    You say that the factor that prevents over-protected western teens making proper decisions, is the fact that they are not given the opportunity to do so, thus disempowering them. Again, I would say that there is legion of anecdotal evidence to illustrate that even teens who are more or less free from social constraints make incredibly bad choices in their millions.

    Just witness the numbers of school-age parents, the decreasing age of harmful drug-taking in schools, the prevalance of youth and gang violence, and even the tendency of teen males to drive fast and drink to excess.

    These are all areas where the kids have direct control over their choices, usually away from the influence of adults, and look at how many of them make those choices poorly.

    Of course, many many teens, maybe even the majority, do not behave irresponsibly, but a very significant number do. Significant enough to provide legal protection. Kids cannot drive before 16 in the US and 17 in the UK, they can’t drink till 21 or 18, and I don’t even think that they can influence the future of the country at the polling booth until they reach 18.

    This is not all about suppressing the rights of youngsters to make choices; it’s a recognition that until they have the life experience, and minimal levels of maturity, they should not be the ones to make those choices, and that they should be protected from those who would exploit their inexperience.

    It is no great surprise to me to read you relate that you were party to a physical relationship with an adult when you were a child. The fact that you saw this as non-detrimental COULD have as much to do with your becoming normalised to it, as to its innate rightness, and it certainly doesn’t seem to make you most impartial person to be making the case you do.

    Incidentally, I notice with mild amusement, that in the number of times that this discussion has arisen on Milkboys, not once to my (admittedly limited) memory has a teenager jumped in to express his desire to have relations with an adult, nor even to express support for the legality of such a behaviour. Odd that…

    1. OMG you just don’t give up do you. How the hell do you know how old anyone is here? By what he says? You believe that? Wow are you stupid.

      You are a creep living in the dark ages and you want to spread your prison society mentality on everyone here.

      Get lost creep! You don’t belong here. No one wants you here. Go live in a convent.

    2. I’ll answer a little less brutally as some. It’s hard to escape one’s education.
      Even the greatest humanist philosopher that existed was totally supportive of the complete elimination of the Jewish race.
      If I have been ‘normalized’ to anything, it is that I was an entire an real person who could be loved: not led into playing a silent ‘circus’ of the absurd, where all think the same and no one says or does anything, which you seem to revel in.
      The first point of yours I already answered above.
      The second point is TOTALLY irrelevant. It only has relevance if one has stereotypical views of what sex is, and that sex is evil.
      You talk again of ’cause and effect’ with the same deeply engrained and utterly superstitious belief that sex is evil and wrong, when it is the exact opposite. You simply are incapable of understanding the issue because you equate the sexual act (in whatever its form) into something with dire consequences. That is the medieval part of you. You are equating it with the ability for a youngster to understand that if he rides a motorbike at 200km/h, it will be dangerous.
      How, as an intelligent independent thinker, you come to equate a motorbike crash with a loving caress is simply insane.
      You suggest the such great need of ‘full maturity’ to be able to decide of a sexual relationship. What on earth for? Since when does anyone ask FULL maturity for anything in life: it’s all a gradual process, and ones adults adapt to in accordance.
      It is of course still down to LOVING the youngster and being a support and a guide, and what better person than the very one who loves him as a whole person? Why on earth the debate about having to be fully mature I am not sure: I guess people simply do not understand the concept of actually loving a youth, being a carer and a guide. It’s as though they take their complex, tense, secretive and uncontrollable desires to be that of everyone else’s. It isn’t the case.
      Finally, I must comment (and put a final stop on this debate) on your wholly repulsive last line. You create logic, then self-congratulate yourself on following that logic. You are a true danger to youngsters, and I strongly recommend you avoid talking of this issue or indeed mixing with them. You demesne them, belittle them, and proven to have repressed yourself and them. You wonder why no teen has jumped in and expressed a desire to have sex with an adult?!
      Which adult? A complete stranger? That’s what you think of them, almost as prostitutes? Shame on you! They don’t ‘jump’ in because we are talking of two people bonding through trust and friendship, not them cravong sex with the first milkboys poster. I am sorry you chose to belittle the debate, and stick to your uninformed preconceptions. You do no service at all to yougsters, have no idea what you talk of.
      Truly shame on you for that despicably demeaning last comment of yours.

  12. p.s. It occured to me reading your responses above that you NEVER answer or respond to pertinent questions, and just repeate your view. I gave you real life examples of well balanced past boyfriends (in response to your ‘thousands of traumatized youths you so-called ‘knew’), and as all good sefl-respecting bigot, simply ignore it totally, to further your own uninformed vision. What I said: you create your own (baseless) logic, and congratulate yourself on your own results.
    Nothing wrong with that: you are just one more of the crowd who speak so much about a thing they know strictly nothing about, and do untold arm under the guise of ‘protection’.
    It’s just another example of extremism: like muslims blow others up to ‘protect’ and serve their God.

    1. I didn’t answer some of your questions because I thought you made some good points which I accepted, and others because frankly I could not be bothered to go away and hunt down examples. Also, as you went on to qualify your definition of non-harmed children by excluding those who were victims of priests and step fathers, which was pretty much who I was referring to.

      “Nothing wrong with that: you are just one more of the crowd who speak so much about a thing they know strictly nothing about, and do untold arm under the guise of ‘protection’.”

      And I’m beginning to think that you are one of the people who acts according to their whim, and then attempts to shift the burden of moral responsibility away from their own selfish actions and to claim that it’s all society that is in the wrong. You are right that sex is not innately wrong, although it is intimate. You may even be right that adult child sex/love is not a bad thing, but I would be extremely uncomfortable allowing you or our name-changing participant within the same street as a minor.

      I’m absolutely comfortable with my service to youngsters, and I sleep well at night knowing I have never abused my relationship with them.

      End of conversation.

  13. Brilliant Ivan! With this statement you have exposed this fraud for what he is:
    “You create logic, then self-congratulate yourself on following that logic. You are a true danger to youngsters, and I strongly recommend you avoid talking of this issue or indeed mixing with them. You demonize them, belittle them, and proven to have repressed yourself and them.”

    Just as a suggestion, I think we should now totally ignore this fool. Let him find some other forum in which to spread his poison. I think without any responses he will crawl back under the rock he came from. He desperately seems to want an audience. He has a messiah complex and without a following he will fade into the ether.

Leave a Reply