Sex and Candy (for Bach, Wolfcub, Ben, and Nate)
Submitted by Splash! on March 16 2002 04:16:51
|
Bach, I've been racking my brain trying to answer your initial questions. I guess it's an area I never really wanted to go. I just want to say "that's wrong" and "that's right" without having to examine if that's really the case (at least concerning this matter). I already believe that boysex does more harm than good, so I've rarely done much thinking about where the sin begins in it. Like Ben said, "For most of my life I never even considered being sexual with a boy. It was so foreign to my upbringing and what I knew was appropriate, it never even crossed my mind." For me, it has crossed my mind, but it's an area that I don't think much about since I don't plan on going that direction anyway. In my heterosexual relationships, I believe the sin began when I started to sexually lust after the women and entertain sexual thoughts. This was selfish of me (not loving). And then the sin continued when I entered into a sexual relationship with them with little thought about the two of us being together forever. I was only into it for the "thrill" of the moment. And the same was true of my homosexual relationship -- we knew we weren't going to be faithful to each other... in fact, we were pursuing women at the same time we shared a sexual relationship with each other. We loved each other, but not enough -- we were looking for something better, if not more acceptable by our family, friends, church, and society. How does this apply to boylove? (Bear with me, Bach). Ben says, "I truly believe that I love boys and that I want the best for them. The ONLY reason that I am not sexual with them is because I believe it is damaging to them... the fact that I am attracted to them does not negate the reality of the love and caring. I exercise restraint because I do not want to hurt them." I believe the same. The MAIN reason why I am not sexual with boys is because I also believe it is damaging to them. I don't believe this same type of harm is possible among adult-adult heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Wolfie asks Ben, "Where does your religion dictate anything about the appropriate age at which to love someone?" Good question. Where does it? When talking about Christian boys, we often talk about the "age of accountability" (when a boy is able to make a knowledgeable/conscious decision on his own). But when does a boy reach this age? There ARE very mature 10 year olds (I knew one), and very immature 13 year olds (I know several). Who are we to say that it's okay (or lawful) for both groups of boys to engage in sex with a man when the boys reach a certain age (e.g. 16, 17, or 18 years old)? Wolfie adds, "I know many 13yo boys who are not interested in sex at all. I also know many 7yo boys who are but have never been taught anything about it, so they'll hump a pole, a pillow or whatever... There's a natural urge to relieve sexual tension." I once knew a 7 or 8 year old girl who I caught humping poles every now and then. Also, many boys start masturbating at a very early age. I believe they find it very enjoyable, and a lot of them probably would enjoy this release at the hands and help of someone else. Is that okay? Why or why not? As an adult, I wouldn't want to take the risk of making that decision and later finding out that it had a horrible effect on the child (even if this type of release could be defined as natural). In my sexual relationships as an adult, I never had to worry about these things. But with a child, it is different. They are so easily molded and manipulated. I don't want to be responsible for causing harm to a child. I'd rather do other things that I know will be greater goods for the child. Wolfie also says, "A very shallow person, who avoids introspection and philosophical thought would be much less prepared to define their 'needs' than even a young (11 or 12) boy who has spent a good portion of his time introspectively questioning his existance." True. But even here, how do we know that a sexual relationship would hurt one boy and not the other. Maybe it would be more healthy for the shallow boy and more harmful to the intelligent boy, or vice versa? We are warned in the Bible not to exasperate our children or cause a child to stumble. Maybe this is why I'm more concerned about NOT causing harm to a child than not having sex with a child. It's as Ben says, "The ONLY reason that I am not sexual with them is because I believe it is damaging to them..." Wolfie says, "It is perfectly valid to think that something is NOT sinful but still choose not to engage in that activity for ethical reasons." Assuming the average case, it most likely is unethical to enagage in certain activities with children, but biblically speaking and considering those outside the average case, it may be possible that these same activities are NOT seen as sinful or unethical but helpful instead. I don't know where, and I don't know how (or want to know how). I'll probably be angry at myself that I even dared say such a thing. But I wouldn't be surprised if I heard that an adult-minor sexual relationship was actually healthy for the child. Nate seems to say so, and I've heard others say so also. Yes, I'm a bit skeptical about it being totally healthy, but I'm open to the idea that it's possible. And in reverse, like Bach said, "it is possible to choose to do something that is sinful for ethical reasons..." Sometimes people use the phrase "the end justifies the means" as an excuse for why they do what they do. If we believe it is "ethical" (because of "the end" we have in mind) to show a boy love through some kind of "sinful" (and illegal) sexual interaction ("the means"), some of us might be tempted to follow through with it. Not I (because of my "more harm than good" philosophy), but other Christians might think it okay. Wolfie says, "...I believe invididuals are CAPABLE of dedicating themselves to NOT manipulating the relationship. If that is the case, I argue that the relationship can proceed into any area that the boy deems appropriate." I will probably always be skeptical of this also. It seems as if we're creating some kind of fantasy boy who knows exactly what he wants and is able to steer an adult-minor relationship into the perfect direction where the outcome will be the best for all involved. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm not sure it's even right for me to think on these things since the chances seem so slim, and even if I thought I found that fantasy boy, I doubt I'd ever dare test him to see if he were in fact that boy. Bach says, "My point is that as a Christian, I should have some theological principles worked out for *all* my relationships, and then see how those apply to a possible relationship with boys. And then it may become more or less clear as to *why* one should keep the relationship non-sexual, or let sexual contact occur." My theological principles for relationships are: 1) No sex before marriage (define it how you will), and 2) Be loving and unselfish. There's several verses that back up each principle, and I've broken both of them many times in my adult relationships; though, even then, I felt I was doing it for "ethical" reasons, especially in my last relationship with the woman. I was her ONLY support (besides some distant relatives), and I sincerely felt I was the only person who could help her and the kids survive and be okay. In my homosexual relationship, I felt I was justified because of the love we had for each other (though there were many selfish elements to our relationship). In fact, we still do keep in touch with each other -- the love still exists. So we return to the question: How does this apply to boylove? Once again let me say that the big difference for me regarding an adult-minor relationship is that even *if* I could think of an ethical reason to engage in a sexual relationship with a boy, I wouldn't want to take the chance that in the end it would cause more harm than good. I feel I have a lot more responsibility in making sure a child is safe and secure since he/she is (in most instances) unable to know or do this for him/herself, than I feel towards another adult who *can* (in most instances) do this for him/herself. I have to admit that I'm still not sure if this is the main difference for me or not. I've always tried to stay away from thinking that boysex was ever okay. But as Nate said, "...I have been in a mood to question my church's traditionally held views, lately... I am feeling like they don't really have my best interests in mind, and I am wondering how many things are said as a way of controlling the masses rather than being a way to persue a right relationship with God." That is exactly how I felt when my last girlfriend got a divorce and the entire church turned their back on her, and I was the only one to give her and her children support. I didn't care if they thought "shacking up" was a sin -- I was THERE for her! Sometimes I wonder how similar this is to the way some feel about boylove and boysex. Nate also said, "I am discerning that there is a difference between Jesus' teachings and the traditional church we have today. I think there are more than a few who like to tie up heavy loads for others to carry, but won't lift a finger to help them." How loving is that? Didn't Jesus always show and teach love? Didn't he even rebel against the church of his day in the name of love? He healed on the sabbath. He touched the unclean. He turned over the rip-off money tables in the Lord's "house of prayer." And then He even died for them. In the church, we work so hard trying to save the lost, and then when they're saved, we kick them and beat them up for every little mistake we think they make. Where's the love in that? They think we're making a mistake (and sinning) by loving a woman... a man... a child. Maybe they ARE the ones who are wrong? Nate continues, "...in my experience... the emotional wounding that can come from sexual activity (not abuse) is almost always the result of what OTHER people think about what happened and due to the judgements that they make." I think this is true also -- not in all instances, but many. One of the reasons my girlfriend and I had such a hard time settling on a wedding date was because we always feared what the church would think ("See, I told you, they DID have an affair, and he IS the reason for the divorce"). Without worrying about the church, we would've been married a lot sooner and most likely would've tried harder to get past our arguments and make it work. I know for me, it was the fear about what the church would think that made me cautious about going forward with the relationship as much as I would've liked to, and most likely should've done. Nate says, "I don't think that I have ever seen a kid messed up by the sex itself. Their confusion and self-doubt and self-loathing happens after somebody tells them what they should feel." I still wonder how much of this is true, and I don't think we'll ever know. Maybe the problem is also when the kid realizes that the adult who had this type of relationship with him was just taking advantage of him (the kid) for the adult's own pleasure? I think that happens MORE often than not in adult-minor sexual relationships. Don't you think? As a Christian adult, do I really want a child to appreciate the love I showed to him through a sexual relationship OVER the love I showed to him through a spiritual (or mentoring) relationship? I don't want to take that chance (in the same way I wouldn't want to take that chance in an adult heterosexual or homosexual relationship). In conclusion, I really like what Ben recently wrote: ...the child doesn't need sex...curious or not, they don't NEED it any more than they need candy... Splash |
Follow ups: