[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 123456789[10] ]
Subject: Re: Summer Camps

Odd Job
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 02:12:36 05/05/19 Sun
In reply to: John 's message, "Re: Summer Camps" on 16:49:14 05/04/19 Sat

I've been watching these threads for some time, and while some of this stuff seems unbelievable, I have no problem accepting it. I never experienced anything close to this, only nude swimming in high school; and had I, I probably would have grown up to be a serial killer. (I can already hear the Greek chorus of “it didn’t hurt me” warming up in the background.) I did, however, attend college with a woman who life guarded in YMCA full of nude male swimmers of all ages. It’s just a simple leap to nude swim meets.
If there’s one thing I learned growing up in the fifties through seventies, it’s that you always question the official explanation for anything. It exists to protect someone or something. The official explanation always harps back to the AHA recommendations from 1926, which recommended nude swimming for males only. Apparently, girls’ swimsuits (on average three times as large as boys’) were made of magical material that didn’t clog the filters. And reading the Summer Camps thread, one is prompted to wonder who changed the filters in those lakes. Those suckers must have been huge!
I can’t remember which of the Greek philosophers observed that no one knowingly does evil, some of us just don’t know what is right and wrong. I think you’re being naive to presume the mothers abused their sons, although that’s a lot more common than is recognized. One should not presume evil intent when simple incompetence or stupidity will suffice. Nor is it sufficient to invoke the zeitgeist of the time as justification—that slavery was once common doesn't make it any less heinous.
Justification, no; explanation, yes.
The nude swim meets, the nude summer camps comprised teaching modules that were intended to impart important lessons to both boys and girls.
The boys were nude:
1) To make them docile and compliant.
2) To reinforce their obedience to authority. (Most important, this.)
3) To begin inculcating within them an understanding bodies aren't theirs, but belong to the community, and later, by extension, to the state. (Also really important.)
4) To introduce them to their adult sex roles. As with most of nature, males must mount a display to attract females.
With reference to points 2 and 3, I refer you to the psychologists Zumbardo and Milgram, and their experiments with deference to authority. If that stuff doesn't curl your hair, it mus be made of metal!
The girls were observers:
1) To reinforce their superior role in the sexual dance. They get to choose.
2) To initiate the process by which they make those choices. Evaluating the boys for their desirability would hardly be sexual at that age, but they did gleefully rank their appeal. Note that the ones who took their humiliation with a good grace—not displaying any wimpy, “girly” shyness—were rated higher. This formed the foundation for the selection process that would begin when their sex drives kicked in a few years later.
It must be noted in passing, that there was also, in the background, a subsumed fear of homosexuality. We think little of it today, but it was once considered as linked to pedophilia, and the average family lived in fear that their apple cheeked young boy or halo ensconced young princess could grow up to be a fudge packer or twat licker. It was thought a learned response and the fear was mainly directed at boys, with girls presumed to be ultimately walking baby factories whose desire to reproduce would guarantee their heterosexuality. Boy nudity was linked to this fear, with two competing lines of thought—“manly” men would have no problem parading their junk in front of others, so nudity could identify the wimpy, gay ones; others thought that nudity would identify the gays as the ones who enjoyed it too much. Either view is manifest nonsense, but it was one held at the time and is worth mentioning.
I must clarify that I don't condemn all those women who have posted here of their youthful delight in observing nude boys; I would have done the same thing had I observed nude girls. But these were five, six , seven decades ago, and the innocent girls grew up, as we all did, to understand the concepts of morality, ethics, empathy, fundamental human rights that hold us together as humans in a civilized world. You might think that the passage of decades had imbued a recognition of the unfairness of it, and some small bit of guilt that they were the privileged ones.
Find me some postings that display that understanding!!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Summer Camps

John (Mad)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 04:38:33 05/05/19 Sun

Damn, Odd Job, that was a great post! So much in it to discuss!

First, it is nice to have an alternate explanation of how this could have occurred, other that my conclusion of evil pedofile Moms. I am not convinced but I thought your macro-society molding points very interesting.

My problem with your theory is while the structures were in place (nude swimming meets, summer camps, etc), the parents still had to make the decision to attend them with their forced naked son. If he objected, they still had to overcome his resistance, which I understand usually occurred through beatings (or the more polite term spankings). I have a hard time giving the Moms (who I understand was the primary decision maker in regard to the conditions regarding raising the children) a pass by saying she simply didn't know right from wrong. Or explain the Mom's cruelty as simply due to the group of Moms who participated were somehow afflicated with mass stupidity or incompetence.

So while I would like to exonerate the Mom's behavior as being due to these factors or the result of the government' desire to make males into docile, order-obeying, machine-gun fodder for their various wars, I can't get there. The government might want this, but they have to overcome the Mothers' supposed normal instinct to protect her childen from pain and harm. Unless that supposed instinct is just a myth like motherhood being viewed as close to sainthood, and in reality females have no such instinct or greater empathy than men.

Your ending point about the lack of empathy or compassion of the women's postings on this site was also noticed by me and seems to support the empathy myth. There really is no empathy for the male victims in these postings but lots of joyful comments about the thrill of seeing the boy's humiliation! In these posts, the women posters say they delighted in the boys' embarrassment and humiliation so I believe that the Moms who caused it also delighted in this. Certainly no empathy either then or now exhibited by any of the females involved.

While it might have been the government's desire to mold boys into docile men, there is no mechanism to compell the Moms to be so cruel to their sons. And make no mistake, they were cruel!

The Moms could not comprehend their son's embarrassment and humiliation when it was obvious through the situation, his direct words to her and his body language, what their son's position was and reasons for it clear. Further, it is not believable that the Mom couldn't imagine if she was subjected to the same. To put it a new way, say she took her son to the dentist and the dentist started drilling without administering novocaine and the son screamed in pain, do you think the Mom realistically couldn't understand his pain because she was not personally experiencing it? It was too big of a leap to imagine how she would feel if she were in the dentist's chair instead of her son? I call BS on that defense.

The Mom happily denied all her son's arguments, beat him through naked spankings to overcome his objections, then gleefully attended his humiliating events with daughters and daughters' friends in tow. How, again, was she not evil? And why was she compelled to be evil, if there was no sexual satisfaction need being met? I still conclude she was an evil pedofile because that to me still best explains the Mom's behavior.

Your slave comment was an interesting analogy attempt. I agree that it was similar in that it is a part of our history and it was wrong. But a big difference was it was the law of the land at least in the south and everyone had to participate at some level, even if you were white and didn't own slaves. Not the same here - no one forced the Mom to force her son to be naked. That is all on her.

But while I highlighted our differences, I actually agreed with much of what you said and your tone. Really appreciate your knowledgeable perspective. I am going to have to look up those researchers you mentioned.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.