Responses to assaults on my parenting

[Steve <bboy_mn@yahoo.com>]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Diana <dianasdolls at y...>"
<dianasdolls at y...> wrote:

bboy_mn with a Foreword:

Countless (at least I'm not counting them) posts have been added to
this thread/subject before I jumped in, and countless more have
appeared since then. It should be obvious that the discussion has gone
beyond your orginal post and is now addressing the subject in general.
THEREFORE, not everything said is a direct assault on you. 

A majority of the comments made by me and by other are to the subject
in general, and when you read, you have to temper what you read with
some awareness of what is general and what is specific. 'YOU' doesn't
alway mean you personally, sometime the use of the word 'you' is in
the same sense as the use of the world 'they'. As in the
generalization, 'You know what /they/ say'.

>From your response:
> bboy_mn jumps on the same wagon with both feet:
> >>If the problem is your kids reading my stories, then the problem
> >>is YOU. If your kids are reading racist literature then the 
> >>problem is YOU. If you kids are read about bomb making then the 
> >>problem is YOU. It's not my job to supervise your kids. 
> >> ...edited..
> >> -end this part-

bboy_mn NOW replies:
And you find that to be a mis-statement. Because the alternative is,
if your kids (kids in general which includes your kids) are reading
about making bombs, then the problem ISN'T you? Both generally and
specifically, if your kids are reading inappropraite material based on
any reasonable judgement of inappropriate material, then there is
certainly nothing I can personally do about it. But there is something
that you (referring to kids in general and parents in general) can do
about it. Like I said, I can't come into your (or anyone else's) house
and shut off their computer. So if this isn't your responsibility and
the responsibility of each parent to their children then who's
responsibility is it. ...the government? ...the law? Do you really
want them coming into your house and controlling your lives? I think not.

It IS the parent's responsibility to supervise their kids both
generally and specifically. That is a general fact. A general fact
who's existance in no way implies that you DO NOT supervise your
children. How does saying children need to be supervised imply that I
think you do not supervise yours? You may have inferred that, but I
don't see that I implied that. At least, not when you apply my
statements to the subject in general. In fact, your orginial post
indicates that you specifically do control your children's internet
use, but you are not all parents in general. Again, we must sort out
what is general and what is specific.

>From your response quoting me:
> bboy_mn wrote:
> So back to the question/comment that started all this, I can see why
> some people don't 'get it'. But, personally, I don't get what the
> fastination is with 'Buffy'. Dead boring if you ask me. Solution - I
> don't read Buffy stories. You don't like Slash, you don't 'get it';
> solution - don't read it.
>-end this part-

bboy again repies:
Again... is that a mis-statement? I think not. The obvious solution
is, if I don't like Buffy, then I shouldn't read Buffy. You also
failed to include the part were I said "You have every right not to
'get it'. That is your priviledge.". 

Some people attacked you as homophobic for not 'getting it' when it
comes to slash. I tried to say that making that choice is not
homophobic but the logical choice and a choice that is your
priviledge. I was defending you, your rights, and your choices. That's
why I gave the Buffy example. We all have likes and dislike, we all
have preferences, we all have things we don't get. So we stay away
from them. That is not prejudice, that's free choice.

Common sense says that a huge number of people read slash because they
find it appealing, and equally so, a huge number don't read it because
they don't find it appealing. You don't find it appealing. That is
your right and priviledge, and you can't and shouldn't be attacked for
that. 

Part of the reason I defended you (although, apparently I didn't do it
very well) is that, while uneasy with your use of the word 'normal' I
read your intended use as 'common' or 'norm' as did many other people.

The whole confusion regarding what I wrote hinges on being able to
differentiate between what addresses the subject in general and what
is addressed to you personally. Whether you see it or not, after I
addressed the subject in general, I defended your right to take the
position you did take.

And since by your own admission, you don't get it (slash that is) I
attempted to explain who does get it and why they get it. A very
substantial number of Slash readers and writer are hetrosexual young
women. While logic would make one assume it was all gay men. I though
that was a very significant point. That addresses who; the why is, we
are having fun, and we are keeping our fun contained as much as is
reasonably possible to like minded individuals who seek this
information out.

I think if you go back and re-read what I wrote with a substantial
effort to sort out what is addressed to the subject in general and
what is addressed at you specifically, I hope you will see that I'm on
your side. I was defending your right not to get it.

Sorry if you didn't see it that way.

bboy_mn
 
> 
> Well, that's enough for this novel.  I'll respond more in other 
> posts.
> 
> Diana