We're *people* not *Thirds*, turd face.
Submitted by F.O.D. on November 27 2000 06:46:30
In reply to I'm Third submitted by mvanhouten on November 26 2000 08:56:45
|
Actually, I'm not entirely sure where you got the impression we're in denial about boys' sexuality, but you're welcome to your own impressions. Your point about letting oneself be proven wrong by a 12yo is a very good one. I'd love to meet one who could do that. But anyway, you're right, the boy is beside the point. The question isn't about age, it's about conviction and good behaviour. What I mean is, if I decline to enter into glorious congress with a boy, it's got less to do with his lack of voting eligibility than with the lack of lifelong commited relationship. That's how seriously I take a sexual relationship, and that's the point, not the fact that he's just a kid. Then there's the question of gender, too, but again, the age is beside the point. Feel free to argue that this whole ridiculous concept of "lifelong monogamy" is misinformed, but I suppose you won't find too much agreement on that point. The theory of the boy-man relationship that continues so-strong till death do them part is a fine one, but rarely met. I'm only aware of one such couple on the BL boards. The more usual fare in a non-abusive relationship is for the boy to lose interest and move on. So, is your hypothetical boy going to wax on the virtues of non-committedness? Fod |
Follow ups: