Talk:Philosophy of responsible boylove
"The nature, vitality, and duration of the relationship, as well as the extent of nurturing and mentoring, are determined by mutual consent, with the boy's wishes taking precedence." Why, in a mutually consensual relationship, would either party's wishes take precedence over the other's? What would that even mean?
Suppose, for example, a man says to a boy, "I want to have sex." If the boy says no, then the man's options are to either accept that and have a sexless relationship, or end the relationship. So it's not really a case of either's desires taking precedence over the other. There either is a coincidence of wants or there isn't. Neither is the other's master or slave.
Even feminists would never be so bold as to explicitly say that a woman's wishes should take precedence in a relationship, even though they think that men have the upper hand as far as social, economic, and political power and status are concerned, and their proposals tend to point in the direction of giving women's wishes precedence. Lysander (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding your removal of the phrase "with the boy's wishes taking precedence", why remove part of a set statement and therefore making it historically inaccurate? --Etenne (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Establishing a correct historical perspective
Don't you think that knowledgeable people should be editing articles, rather than allowing those with little or no familiarity with history to be editing them? User4 (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- I am not sure that I like the arrangement of the information that you added as this entry is primarily about "the Philosophy of responsible boylove" as developed by the Safe Haven group. The information is great for background and further research into this subject. However, the way it is set up now makes it disjunctive and difficult to connect the to the actual topic of this entry. --Etenne (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
