My response to Admin's post at SafeHaven
Posted by Jethro on 2004-07-25 19:36:19, SundayIn reply to Response from ADMIN at SafeHaven posted by Jethro on 2004-07-25 18:58:51, Sunday
|
Hi again, I'd like to respond to ADMIN's post at SafeHaven (quoted above) by stating the following: 1) It was never my intention to 'take over' the board, I merely wanted to start a discussion about some inconsistencies in the 'philosophy' there. 2) I merely quoted the reference to another board to SUGGEST a few more things that might be added to the philosophy. 3) Quote Admin: "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." It has been many years since these issues have been debated, and the community at SafeHaven has changed since the philosophy was 'synthesised' (I'm not the only one to be banned like this). Since I was not part of the original debate, I wanted to voice my opinion on the philosophy. 4) Quote Admin: "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." The research projects weren't the impetus for the 'attack' as Admin put's it, the inconsistencies in the philosophy were. Ironically, I actually wish him luck with his research projects. 5) Quote Admin: "But periodically there are those who attempt to tear down those established and agreed upon understandings." Perhaps these attemps to tear down these 'understandings' happen because the understandings are flawed and need further discussion. 6) Quote Admin: "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." I never suggested that the boys sexuality should be repressed, merely that the older friend should refrain from any sexual behaviour with his younger friend - purely because of the potential legal consequenses. Perhaps I should have included mentioning my belief that if a young boy wishes to express his sexuality, he should do it with children his own age, and in an age-appropriate manner. 7) Quote Admin: "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." I merely went to BoyChat to state my side of the story, and I never complained about being treated unfairly. I merely stated that my banning was politically motivated, and that the world should know this. To summarise, I'll put it this way: I was only trying to start a debate at SafeHaven to improve the philosophy, but it appears such debate is not allowed. I don't want to go back to a board where you can say what you want, but only as long as Admin agrees with it. I certainly don't want to go back to a board where Admin goes to these lengths to suppress those opinions he doesn't agree with. He accuses me of trying to destroy his board - he is doing more to destroy his board himself (by preventing expression of alternative opinions) than I could ever do. Jethro |
Follow ups: