Response from ADMIN at SafeHaven
Posted by Jethro on 2004-07-25 18:58:51, SundayIn reply to Free Speech doesn't exist at the SafeHaven Board posted by Jethro on 2004-07-25 18:55:30, Sunday
|
Hi, This is a quote from the SafeHaven board, quoting ADMIN's response to my post at BC. ------------------ Consensual boy/older male sexual activities In the six and one half years that SafeHaven has been on line, it has generally been agreed that while consensual sexual activities between a boy and an older male are considered illegal, such activities are not intrinsically wrong, nor are they harmful in and of themselves. If there is any harm, it is not the result of the willing encounter, but of inappropriate reactions and wrongful legal sanctions. Such harm is technically known as "iatrogenic." Many years ago, these issues were extensively debated on this forum, the results of these discussions were synthesized in the SafeHaven Philosophy, and have long since been considered a basic and integral position of the SafeHaven community. But periodically there are those who attempt to tear down those established and agreed upon understandings. One such attack recently was attempted by an individual who at some time in the past had managed to obtain a registered nick by concealing his antipathy toward the positions espoused by our community. It is possible that the current research projects, which assume the existence and propriety of consensual boy/older male sexual activities, were the impetus for his attack. This particular attacker brazenly stated that the SafeHaven Philosophy (and by inference the entire SafeHaven community) was seriously faulted, and he proposed replacing the philosophy with one of his own choosing, one he claimed to be importing from another board. His main point was that boys should be taught - indeed, should be forced - to repress their sexuality, and that any boy who is allowed by his older friend to express his sexuality will "grow up to be a wife-basher or a rapist." He asserted "that having sex is OK only when both people genuinely want it," but then demanded that all boylovers should not "want" to have sex even if their young friend desperately wants it. He wrapped up his "logic" with the idea that any boylover who did not frustrate his young friend by refusing to participate in the sexual activity that his young friend wanted would be "setting a bad example." This is not the first time that someone has attempted to take over this board and remodel it to suit himself, and it is predictable that these frustrated subversives almost always will immediately go to another well known board and bitterly complain that they have been treated unfairly. They are, of course, quite free to attempt to create dissent and rancor anywhere else they wish, but we need neither such people nor the divisiveness they engender. ADMIN |
Follow ups: