Re: Someone to talk with
Submitted by F.O.D. on May 19 2000 19:43:11
In reply to Someone to talk with submitted by Researcher on May 19 2000 06:57:31
|
Hello Claire, it's nice to hear you looking to honestly understand who we, "boylovers", really are. I hope, and trust, you are sincere about your enquiries (you'll have to excuse a residual degree of distrust. Sticking around and getting involved in our lives is the best way to earn our trust). The way I see it, there are two major errors in the way society at large perceives "paedophiles". Firstly, as you pointed out, there is the assumption that any self-identified "boylover" is sexually involved with some young boy, that he is driven by some devouring need to fufil his sexual desires regardless of consequence and the boy's health and welfare. You can see this fallacy propagated in a couple of posts made just below your own (look for the non-bold names). On the contrary, although I am not privy to all other boylovers' private lives, the impression I get is that only a relatively small proportion of boylovers are actually sexually active with their young friends. Other commit themselves to a celibate life, some are married, some are sexually involved with adult men or women. We find fulfilment getting involved with boys' lives, helping them grow, teaching them, playing with them, being someone who gives them a hug. There's more to life than sex. The second error is essentially an attitude of dishonour and disrespect to the child. That is the assumption that any child sexually involved with an adult has been necessarily "abused" and his life destroyed. This is a difficult point to debate, because of the very real pain felt by those who were abused, but it seems to me self-evident that not every sexually active kid is "hurt" by being sexually active. Rather than presuming abuse, it would a more honest legal process to establish the existence or absence of abuse. That is, putting it simplistically, the boy should be asked if he was abused or not. Why does the Law ignore the child's opinion? This is not to say arbitrary sexual relations are OK, rather my point is to bring a sense of perspective back to the issue. Adult-child sex is wrong in the same way that adult-adult sex is, morally wrong, that is, but not necessarily physically or even psychologically harmful. On what grounds is a young person denied the right to the sexual expression of the love he feels towards someone, even if that someone is older? The law says it's OK for them to have sex when he is older, so the law is not based on any moral foundation of the sanctity of marriage or somesuch. What then is it based on? The law would be more honest if it said no one is allowed to have sex outside of marriage. I hope that gives you a bit to think about, though I suspect you've already thought about these questions before. But you wanted to know more about our real lives. Well you'll have to ask more questions or stick around and listen in, to find out more about that ;) We're still guys, after all... :) Regards, F.O.D. |
Follow ups: