Backlash

[bluenix]

I know. I was consigned to die in the last thread I started. But this is not a proleptic message; the wish just didn't take. Weak juju, I guess.

 

'Backlash' refers not to this message board (imagine that) but to an increasingly right wing perspective that sometimes does and sometimes does not gain currency in the various channels of our public discourse.

 

In another thread ssn74 noted the Associated Press "outing" of seven men charged with lewd behavior in an adult video store in Rhode Island. AP even went so far as to describe the occupations of those detained (e.g. high school math teacher).

 

To get angry about this situation strikes me as beside the point. By which I mean, at the same time as there is a broad liberalization concerning homosexuality in society generally, there is also an almost stereotypical backlash wholly alien to liberal anything.

 

How else does one explain the trial, conviction and sentencing of Elton John's bud, Jonathan King. Sixteen-to-twenty years after the fact, "victims," compensated by the state, are paraded through the witness box testifying that they are now, today, as a result of their exposure to homos, made nervous when asked to hold a baby.

 

Was such a ridicuous case thrown out? No. King was found guilty and sits in jail as we speak.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,609185,00.html

 

http://www.kingofhits.com/

[Guest DCescortBOY]

perhaps mr king shouldn't have committed the crimes then?

why do you blame society when a minority or liberal commits a crime?

you're the same kind of person who in his AOL profile claims to be astoundingly open-minded & liberal, then says that he doesn't want republicans to contact him. how open-minded is that?

[bluenix]

No, it's just you I don't want to be contacted by. Go away. Please.

[Guest DCescortBOY]

i'll go away if you promise to kill yourself first.

[bluenix]

>i'll go away if you promise to kill yourself first.

 

I might when I hit 80 or so, but that's probably not what you mean. Anyhow, your proposal lacks traction since you've amply demonstrated you're not a man of your word.

[Guest regulation]

Blue, I don't understand your post. Was there ever a time in living memory when sexual contact with 14 or 15 year old boys by an adult was considered acceptable? The notion that an adult who engages in such conduct should be prosecuted is not exactly a recent development, is it?

[Guest TexasTaurus]

There is a difference between gay sex and child molestation. If he was guilty, and apparently so, he deserves to pay the price.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Was there ever a time

>in living memory when sexual contact with 14 or 15 year old

>boys by an adult was considered acceptable?

 

The answer to your question is yes. Marriage laws have long existed entitling a 15-year-old boy to marry. Since sex is a prerequisite to consummation, sex with a 15-year-old boy was not only acceptable, it was legal.

 

Additionally, there was a time in this country - not very long ago - when sex with 13-year-old girls was not only acceptable, but legal. I believe (without being certain) that 13 is still the minimum marriage age in at least 1 or 2 states in the U.S.

 

There is a time in this country - RIGHT NOW - where one can marry, and thus have sex with, 14 or 15 year old girls.

 

The idea that sex with 14 or 15 year olds is universally rejected and disapproved is false.

[bluenix]

>Blue, I don't understand your post. Was there ever a time

>in living memory when sexual contact with 14 or 15 year old

>boys by an adult was considered acceptable? The notion that

>an adult who engages in such conduct should be prosecuted is

>not exactly a recent development, is it?

 

No, it's not a recent development. What is new, at least to my knowledge, is the vigor with which prosecutors went after King.

 

The charges stemmed from actions sixteen years ago or more. With the help of a conservative newspaper, prosectors practically advertised for victims to come forward, with the result that King was pilloried before he was ever tried. More, victims were compensated for their testimony, with one freely admitting that he needed the money.

 

Stir into the mix all the usual complications with glitz and celebrity, witnessless crimes and horny teenagers who return time and again for more sex. (One kid, now in his 30's, hung around so long, and had sex with King so many times, that his coming forward looks like it could just as easily have been retribution for King's eventually dumping him.)

 

Taken together, I think these extraordinary measures and factors suggest a conservative backlash.

 

It just occurred to me: are priests who have been caught diddling post-pubescent boys tried, convicted and imprisoned?

[Guest Merlin]

In recent years there has been a movement toward zero tolerance for various forms of physical abuse. Spousal abuse, child abuse etc. But this has been a movement from the liberal side as part of the political correctness movement. Much of the impetus has come from the feminist movement. I think the King case is a result of this liberal pressure, rather than any conservative backlash.

[Guest DCescortBOY]

so you're saying that molesting teenage boys is a good thing & we should celebrate king????

[Guest DCescortBOY]

yay merlin! :-)

thanks for making that point!

[bluenix]

>so you're saying that molesting teenage boys is a good thing

>& we should celebrate king????

 

No, of course not. King is a debauched slimeball.

 

What I am saying, though, is that not every sexual encounter between an adult and a post-pubescent teenager qualifies as molestation. And I'm saying that, given how far they had to reach for evidence against King, and given how shakey much of it was, the case took on the cast of a witchhunt.

 

 

Merlin: You're right. I never even meant to write 'conservative,' and I withdraw 'backlash.' Thanks.

[Guest DCescortBOY]

>No, of course not. King is a debauched slimeball.

 

he shouldn't be subject to our legal sanctions (prison) for his crimes?

 

>What I am saying, though, is that not every sexual encounter

>between an adult and a post-pubescent teenager qualifies as

>molestation.

 

yes, it does!

 

>And I'm saying that, given how far they had to

>reach for evidence against King, and given how shakey much

>of it was, the case took on the cast of a witchhunt.

 

a jury of his peers found the evidence sufficient.

[bluenix]

>>What I am saying, though, is that not every sexual encounter

>>between an adult and a post-pubescent teenager qualifies as

>>molestation.

>

>yes, it does!

 

 

Because... ?

 

I surprise myself here: I actually want to know what you think.

 

;-)

[Guest DCescortBOY]

the law would be a good place to start.

 

beyond that, NO ONE under 18 is able to make ADULT choices about sex, ESPECIALLY when faced with pressure from someone older.

 

why can't the dirty old people find someone their own age? must they molest children?

[Guest TruthTeller]

>the law would be a good place to start.

>beyond that, NO ONE under 18 is able to make ADULT choies

>about sex, ESPECIALLY when faced with pressure from someone

>older.

 

But the law in all 50 states allows people to marry when they are younger than 18. In many states, it's 15. For most of the nation's history, girls as young as 13 could marry.

 

And the age of consent law for sex in virtually every Western country on the planet is under 18. Until 1950, half of the U.S. population married under 18, which would make half the country "molesters" in your view. The idea that anyone under 18 is incapable of exercising meaningful consent is completely contrary to the reality of those who are younger. Your opinion about proper age of consent is almost universally rejected among civilized societies.

[Guest DCescortBOY]

>Until 1950, half

>of the U.S. population married under 18, which would make

>half the country "molesters" in your view.

 

yep!

 

>The idea that

>anyone under 18 is incapable of exercising meaningful

>consent is completely contrary to the reality of those who

>are younger.

 

they can't. i speak from experience.

 

>Your opinion about proper age of consent is

>almost universally rejected among civilized societies.

 

so?

 

go on... i'm just a two-bit whore, remember?

[bluenix]

>the law would be a good place to start.

 

No, I don't think it would. The law mostly protects us, of course, but that doesn't make it a good guide to right and wrong.

 

Illinois repealed its sodomy law in 1962. Knowing this, it makes little sense to argue that sodomy in Chicago was wrong in 1961.

 

>beyond that, NO ONE under 18 is able to make ADULT choices

>about sex, ESPECIALLY when faced with pressure from someone

>older.

 

My first sexual experience with an adult male occurred at age 15. I knew the man was gay and initiated the sexual contact with more assurance than was warranted, thinking, naively, that gay was synonymous with sex maniac. And in retrospect I think the guy was really just doing me a favor, because he wasn't much into it. I sure was, though.

 

 

 

In your view that man molested me. In mine he gave me a 3-5 year head start on my life, which is to say, I didn't really begin to understand my sexuality until I'd done the deed.

[Guest DCescortBOY]

>In your view that man molested me.

 

he did.

[phage]

>>The idea that

>>anyone under 18 is incapable of exercising meaningful

>>consent is completely contrary to the reality of those who

>>are younger.

>

>they can't. i speak from experience.

 

You speak from your own experience and maturity level, which is certainly not universal. My experience mirrors Blue’s. I was 16 and knew exactly what I wanted. I had been fooling around with my best friend since we were thirteen and it was much more than playing doctor. I actively pursued a guy in his 20’s and was definitely exercising meaningful consent when I got into his bed – after he had fallen asleep – and started molesting him.

[Guest DCescortBOY]

he's the adult. it is his responsibility to tell you no.

you may be 14 & ask an adult for alcohol, but he's still wrong if he gives it to you. this is precisely the same thing.

[Guest Merlin]

It seems probable that fetishes, perversions and, perhaps sexual orientation, result from incidents in youth, probably about the time of puberty or the years shortly thereafter. It can be shown, for instance, that sadism often results from or manifests itself in cruelty by the young toward animals. Dahmer for instance, started by torturing animals. Anecdotally, a significant percent of gays say that they were molested or had a gay experience at an early change, which may account for their orientation. But of course, not all have had that experience, and many believe they were born gay. Many who were molested as boys seem to have mental or emotional problems in later life. In short, there seems to be very good reason to protect the young from molestation, and the critical age probably varies among individuals. Eighteen may be older than necessary, but it is better to err on the side of safety.

[Guest cp8036]

Setting the age of consent can never apply to every person. The fact that just one date needs to pass, makes it a bit arbitrary. Some kid that is one week away from his 18th b-day is not mature to make a decision about sex, but visit the kid eight days later, and he is fully capable to enter into such decisions. If a 19yo has sex with a 17yo it does not seem to be exploitative. However, when there is a larger gap in age, experience, knowledge, and money I think there are some issues of undue influence and manipulation. I am not sure the cut-off of 18 is univerisally correct, but we have to start somewhere.

 

TT, while not disagreeing about your point on the age of consent in other civilized societies being lower than in the US, I had a thought. I believe in France the age of consent is 15, and in much (but not all) the USA it is 18. With all things equal do you think American and French 15 year olds are on the same level as far as maturity?

 

The King case stinks from both sides. King was wrong to violate the minimum age law, as an adult he knew this was wrong. I don't know how old he was at the time, but most likely there were many large difference in age and experience over the teens. Perhaps, he used his celebrity status to manipulate these guys into his bed.

 

The prosecution seems to have a week case. The motives behind the case were probably skewed by King being gay, thus a gay witch hunt. Financial considerations for a witness will affect his credability.

And, I think most 15yo guys know what they want, and are aware of a sexual decision with someone close in age and/or maturity. The age/knowledge difference made King wrong as he most likely exploited the teen. However, I don't think he took a normal 16yo hetero male and traumatically forced him into a life of butt-fucking and cock sucking. The kid was probably gay all along. I do think, sadly, that many kids in similar circumstances will have some emotional hangover due to being used.

[Guest Merlin]

Statutory ages of consent are arbitrary in the sense that individuals mature at different ages. But laws attempting to deal with consent on a case by case basis would not work. If a young person want to enter into a contract the other party to the transaction needs to know if the youth is able to consent legally. He cannot sell a car and later have the court determine on a case by case basis that the individual kid was not mature enough. The kid benefits by the arbitrary limit as well, since otherwise people would be unwilling to deal with young people as long a legality of consent was an issue. Much of the same considerations apply when consent is an issue for other purposes. If you are going to have sex with a young man you need to know if he can legally consent or not. You do not want a court later to examine in on a case by case basis. Bars need to know whether or not they can sell without fear of the law, etc.