Threaded index     Date index     FAQ


Re: All boys are rapists

Posted by diogenes on 2024-April-2 07:21:39, Tuesday
In reply to Re: All boys are rapists posted by Pharmakon on 2024-April-2 02:04:28, Tuesday

With regard to the Daily Mail, I think I can distinguish between factual content and the slant or bias of the writer. This piece is written by the actual mother of the boy concerned, not a Mail hack. It is unlikely to be biased by the hegemonic narrative, because the hegemonic narrative is the feminist one that the boy was a predator – and the author admits that she herself began by accepting this narrative when it was given to her by the boy's school at the beginning, and that it was only later that she questioned it, a matter which she now regrets. And thank God this mother was able to get her view published! - certainly The Guardian wasn't going to give a hearing to a woman's voice from outside the feminist narrative.

“It's very possible her son is, if not a rapist, a boy who has absorbed a prevailing sexual ethos that treats girls who are receptive to their sexual advances as sluts.”
And maybe all boylovers just want to groom boys for sex to gratify their lusts with no thought for the boys concerned. This is the same gaslighting that has been the stock in trade of feminism for at least the last 40 years, endlessly repeated until it becomes unchallengeable. But these are narratives that we must challenge if we are ever to be treated as human beings.

Here is a boy who is actually being persecuted for his juvenile sexuality. Furthermore, the object of his attraction was an 'underage' girl. And yet your response is to hurl the rocks with the best of them. What better demonstration can there be that one cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and one cannot make a movement in favour of the sexual self-expression of boys out of feminism?

The struggle of this boy, and his mother, against his persecution is also our struggle. Let us at least not hurl the rocks ourselves.

You criticise the piece because of the presumed social background of the boy. Now, what has the boy's social background got to do with anything? The feminist movement is hegemonic, it prevails throughout society, and middle class boys are not less subject to it than anyone else. You claim that the reach of feminism that is abjecting the boy is “in numerical terms ... very limited”. As the article makes clear, the advice on which the teachers operated is the same as is given to all schools in Britain's highly centralised system, so it is false that working class boys and girls will be untouched by the MeToo movement that the advice embodies.

It is therefore untrue that the current persecution is “within a small segment of the socially privileged” (as though we should dehumanise the boys just because they are “socially privileged”!) nor is the persecution justified because of the supposed persistence of a “legacy of historical injustice to girls” which you claim has not “been sufficiently remedied in the larger community.” - a claim for which you supply not a shred of evidence. It is us who are being persecuted, not women or girls, and it is the boys who are being victimised as a result.

Finally, you contradict yourself rather conspicuously. Having attempted to debunk the whole piece and basically call the boy a sexual predator who treats girls like sluts, you say the piece is “encouraging” (despite its publication in the Daily Mail) because of its “sex positivity.” But how is sex positivity going to flourish if boys who express their sexuality are automatically suspected, in the absence of contrary evidence, as predators? This is the question that the piece raises for me.

Your referencing a couple of feminist writers is clutching at straws. Mary Harrington, whom you reference again, is not our friend. She has repeatedly spoken of Peter Tatchell as a “nonce apologist” (sadly untrue – Tatchell hates us as much as Harrington). Can you reference a feminist writer in the last quarter century that has spoken about us in positive, or even neutral, terms?

I like the 70s too. I wish I lived there. My point about the 70s is that you are still talking as though we are in the 70s, as though feminism can take a number of directions, and that “our activism” might make a difference to which way it goes. This ignores the whole of the intervening half century. The strategy of allying with the “maginalised”, with feminism, gay rights, etc., has been actually tried over the last 50 years, and what is the outcome? Basically, we are now the most hated, persecuted and abjected group in society. Let us just say that the results of the first 50 years of pursuing this strategy have not been entirely encouraging. What this strategy can accomplish over the next 50 years, I dread to think.

diogenes

Follow ups:

Post a response:

Nickname:

Password:

Email (optional):
Subject:


Message:


Link URL (optional):

Link Title (optional):


Add your sigpic?

Here are Seven Rules for posting on this forum.

1. Do not post erotica or overly-detailed sexual discussions.
2. Do not request, offer, or post links to illegal material, including pictures.
3. Don't annoy the cogs.
4. Do not reveal identifying details about yourself or other posters.
5. Do not advocate or counsel sex with minors.
6. Do not post admissions of, or accuse others of, potentially illegal activities.
7. Do not request meetings with posters who are under age 18.

Posts made to BoyChat are subject to inclusion in the monthly BoyChat Digest. If you do not want your posts archived in the BC Digest, or want specific posts of yours removed after inclusion, please email The BC Digest.