| |
Re: Yeah, (To Puzzled about the defenition of GL)
Posted by Puzzled on 2002-January-31 09:07:32, Thursday
In reply to Yeah, (To Puzzled about the defenition of GL) posted by Fortyone on 2002-January-30 21:53:21, Wednesday
 |
|
|
|
|
41,
You are right that some, including you, it seems, who do strongly want the term "girl lover" to exclude that baddies, but as a matter of fact there are some people who use the word that way and others who do not. So while you might advocate for its exclusive use the way you prefer it to be, it is not innacurate to use it in other ways.
"I thought it was pretty well known that our feelings for and attractions towards little girls went extremely far beyond the physical/sexual nature. Right? I'm sure you'd have to agree with me there, so i ask you; Why then limit the defenition to only incooperate the physical/sexual? It's like you're insulting yourself."
No, it is not at all like insulting myself. It would be if I were DENYING that I had feelings beyond the sexual ones, but to take "girl lover" as a term that refers to a sexual orientation does not do that. When a heterosexual or a homosexual says "I am a heterosexual" or "I am a homosexual" they are identifying no more and no less than who they are sexually attracted to. They are not denying having other feelings far beyond that for the people they are attracted to. They are not seperating themselves from heterosexual or homosexual rapists by such declarations either. I see no harm and a lot of good to having a term that is as much a parallel to the terms that heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals use. Theirs have no implications of adhering to some moral code of conduct that excludes sexual abuse. To say that we use a term that implies such things seems to me to be an admission that we NEED to do that more than they do, and THAT strikes me as accepting a self-insult.
Now as for claiming the term girl love is derivative of the term "boy love" only makes me laugh and cry. You're saying boy love, boy lovers, the attraction of an adult to a little boy all came first? That's silly."
That would be silly and I am not saying that at all. I made a point about the TERM "boyover," which is entirely different from claiming that there were people who are boylovers before there were people who were girl lovers. The word "boylover" has been traced by some as far back as over 100 years ago (I am not an expert historian on these matters at all). I have seen no tracing of the term "girl lover" at all. But once one has the term "boylover" in the vocabulary it only seems logical to refer to female-attracted pedophiles as "girl lovers." But that does make the TERM derivitave. There is nothing wrong with that, I was just pointing it out as another reason to think that many who have used the term "girl lover" did not intend to exclude the baddies with it.
"Neither one came first and so neither term can be derivative of the other.. Right?"
If there is evidence of this claim, I have never seen it. I have seen evidence that suggests that this is not true. I do believe that "girl lover" is derivative from "boylover" but I also see nothing wrong with that.
"Heck, even if you could actually prove without a doubt that the term "boy love" was coined first i think you should let this whole idea go and agree with me that neither boy love nor girl love originated before the other...."
I never said that either boy love came before girl love or vice versa. I have never believed that to be true. The only point I did make was that one TERM came before the other. That I do think is true.
"i think it is very important to distinguish girl love from pedophillia. That's all. It's not smug.. It's seperating yourself from the people who are also "sexually attracted" to little girls that would harm them etc.. Is that smug?"
There are ways to seperate yourself from them other than doing it with labels. As I said, there is NO label for "all heterosexuals who adhere to a certain moral code in their attraction to the opposite sex that excludes rapists and other bad people." Same for homosexuals. To my knowledge, withall the shit that has been flung over thge years about how bad and evil all homosexuals are, there has never been a desire to have a special term that was exclusive to "moral" homosexuals. The assumption (I would suppose) always was that most are moral and decent and the baddies are the exception and so there is no special need to add "and I am one of the good ones" after saying "I am a homosexual". To feel the need to add "and I am one of the good ones" after saying "I am a pedophile" seems to me to give up on the idea that most of us are good and the baddies are the rare exceptions.
I also think that it is far FAR too easy for the baddies to claim to be non-baddies, thus watering down any claim that a self-identifying label can exclude one from the baddies. Child molesters will use the term "girl lover" all the more vigorously if they think its use migh insulate them from accusations about their true nature.
Finally, on the point of smugness, I DO think it is smug to go around blowing one's own horn all the time, so insisting on using a term (and insisting that others use it) that implies that I am a good person is smug. It would be like an excellent violinist INSINTING on calling himself a virtuoso and insisting that others do the same. It is fine if others want to do that of their own choice, but for the person being described to do it and insist that others recognize his greatness is smug. The parallel holds with one's sexual morality. I know I am not a potential or actual rapist, but to insist that others refer to me by terms that specifically acknowledge that is smug.
I am happy to use whatever terms people are using to refer to sexual orientations, but I am a lot less happy using terms that have implications of certain moral codes attached. If that is good enough for the heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual communities, why should it not be good enough for us?
Puzzled
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
