There's been a story running in the news here today that I felt I wanted to comment on, but, for far from the first time of late, I've found myself unable to write about what I really think, because I simply don't want to lay myself open to getting involved in slanging matches. So, just a general postulate - if a boylover has a series of relationships over many years, is still described as 'popular', despite being seen, in conventional terms, as 'getting away with' his 'abuse', then maybe, just maybe - shock, horror - were some, if not all of the relationships....consensual? Thoughtcrime, I know, daring to challenge the orthodoxy of boylovers only being motivated by animalistic lust and the desire for self-gratification. That those of us who are attracted to boys might actually love and care for them as well - unthinkable. But, of course, thinking is what rarely, if ever, happens in this context.
Love & best wishes to all
Sammy B
Love & best wishes to all
Sammy B
Not sure what that story is, though I can tell you that I read a story here where a 17-yo "seduced" some famous people of his time, and those people were "known" "paedophiles". Yet they were celebrated as accomplished in their fields and their peccadilloes were largely ignored. Interesting double standard were either of us to befriend a 17yo in such a way!
ReplyDeletePeace <3
Jay
Hello Jay
DeleteAnyone who uses the word 'paedophile' in connection with a 17 year old quite simply doesn't know what the word means - how many prepubescent 17 year olds do you know? Over here, in any case, 17 is legal with a year to spare, although, in my case at least, 17 is too old in the vast majority of cases. But, yes, double standards are endemic in this subject area, as well as kneejerk reactions that border on the Pavlovian, barely involving higher thought processes at all.
Love & best wishes
Sammy B