9.11

[Westie]

You're the kind of guy, I perceive, that is rather callow and doesn't understand respect. There are many forms of respect that don't need to be "developed" or earned. Respect for parental rights would be one form that doesn't need to be earned or developed. A spiteful Wally and Clara could remove the car from Zach and get a restraining order against Will without too much problem because the law still has respect for some relationships, even if individuals don't.

 

Similarly when you are in court, the judge doesn't need to "earn" your respect, he has it automatically otherwise disrespect is dealt with swiftly and surely.

 

Children have to respect their parents authority whether or not they respect the people and the law recognizes that as well.

 

The reason that you respect your elders is that with age comes wisdom.

 

And please spare me anecdotal stories about unwise older people. Society has accepted for millennia that age brings experience and experience wisdom.

Thanks Tim, but I think I completely understand respect. We have two differing viewpoints as to how respect is gained, but I do completely understand what respect is, and I practice it when it is appropriate.

 

I respect my parents because over 28 years, we have grown together with mutual actions to the point that the respect is deserved. They earned my respect by being good parents, with sound judgement, by being honest and caring towards me. I earned their respect by recognising their judgement and ACCEPTING the boundaries they placed on me.

 

I say ACCEPTING, because a Parent's authority does not - to my mind - exist as a right. A parent does not automatically have good judgement, and for that matter an "elder" doesn't automatically have good judgement. You gave the example of a judge, you seem to think that respect is automatic, which of course is complete bull****. A judge's authority derives from the greater society - those whom he has authority over - accepting the rule of law. They also accept that over years of sound judgement through a complex legal system, the judge has EARNED his status. If by some fluke of fate I were appointed a judge tomorrow, I can promise you that nobody would afford me the respect of the position just because of my new office. You EARN the office.

 

As a Parent, from the day your child is born, your actions, decisions and discussions earn you your position. I speak to that based on my Step-father. He was abusive towards me and my brother - and although he held the "office" of a parent, he neither deserved, nor was granted my respect. He never earned it, and he did considerable damage to the little he might have had.

 

Yes, the law might accept a parents authority in certain matters. But a court isn't going to step into the minutiae of domestic life. Parental authority is a great deal predicated on the child or children accepting that authority to begin with. Where I am coming from is that if a parent hasn't earned the respect of their child, they cannot expect to exercise that authority by god given right. God given rights don't exist.

 

It's the same with "elders". The idea that they deserve your respect just because they are older than you is complete rubbish. The idea that experience brings wisdom is only true if you learn from your experiences. You have to have certain temperament, intelligence and humility to gain wisdom from the sum of your experiences. You ask me to "please spare me anecdotal stories about unwise older people. Society has accepted for millennia that age brings experience and experience wisdom." - I say that society is WRONG, and has been WRONG for millennia. Society accepted for thousands of years that I should be stoned to death for being gay. Society accepted for thousands of years that women were less than a man. Only a few hundred years ago, society accepted in the US constitution that a slave was only 3/5ths of a man. "Society accepts" is a poor argument for anything.

 

As a people we are more and more moving towards meritocracy in which your achievements will be valued much more than arbitrary numbers and goals. Respect being earned is an extension of that. Nothing belongs to anyone by right.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Westie

[sat8997]

 

 

1. respect

A quality seriously lacking in today's society.

 

2. Respect

It means valuing each others points of views. It means being open to being wrong. It means accepting people as they are. It means not dumping on someone because you're having a bad day. It means being polite and kind always, because being kind to people is not negotiable. It means not dissing people because they're different to you. It means not gossiping about people or spreading lies.

 

 3. respect

Something everyone expects, but has no willingness to show.

 

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=respect

 

 

I would remind everyone that we are reading fiction, well crafted to be sure, but fiction, none the less. In other words, these people aren't real. I'd suggest we wait and see what his nibs has in store for us in future chapters instead of digging ourselves deeper into a bottomless pit.

 

So...anyone else think Darius and Austin make a cute couple?? Anyone?? Hello?? Is this thing on??

 

Edited December 17, 2013 by sat8997

[PrivateTim]

Thanks Tim, but I think I completely understand respect.

 

You gave the example of a judge, you seem to think that respect is automatic, which of course is complete bull****. A judge's authority derives from the greater society - those whom he has authority over - accepting the rule of law. They also accept that over years of sound judgement through a complex legal system, the judge has EARNED his status. If by some fluke of fate I were appointed a judge tomorrow, I can promise you that nobody would afford me the respect of the position just because of my new office. You EARN the office.

 

I say ACCEPTING, because a Parent's authority does not - to my mind - exist as a right. A parent does not automatically have good judgement, and for that matter an "elder" doesn't automatically have good judgement.

Yes, the law might accept a parents authority in certain matters. But a court isn't going to step into the minutiae of domestic life. Parental authority is a great deal predicated on the child or children accepting that authority to begin with. Where I am coming from is that if a parent hasn't earned the respect of their child, they cannot expect to exercise that authority by god given right. God given rights don't exist.

 

Thank you for proving my point that you neither understand respect, nor the legal system.

 

The respect for the office of the judge is automatic, it is completely automatic. No level of disrespect is allowed at all no matter how egregious a ruling might be. Any display that shows disrespect for the judge is dealt with swiftly and often harshly. And the judge doesn't have to do a single thing to earn the respect, he merely needs to BE the judge. Judges don't earn offices, they are given them. Some states elect lower level judges, but all federal judges are by appointment. It is part of the rules of society that it is this way.

 

Here is some light reading for you. Courtroom Decorum - Rules of Practice

 

Now to parental rights, they may not exist - in your mind - , but unfortunately they do exist. You might was well say the sun does not exist - in your mind - , but it is still going to rise tomorrow.

 

As to rights in general, there are the rights given by government and the rights given by God (or Natural Rights if you prefer). The difference is that what government giveth, government can taketh away. It is to Natural Right that we owe our liberty since government has no right to take those rights they did not give.

 

More light reading. Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government

 

If the Urban Dictionary is an appropriate source to define respect, how much more appropriate is the incomparable Aretha Franklin's definition?

 

[Daddydavek]

 

So...anyone else think Darius and Austin make a cute couple?? Anyone?? Hello?? Is this thing on??

 

 

Darius and Austin--hadn't exactly crossed by mind.   Now Austin and Marie (this gens Claire) I see some possible sparks there.....

[methodwriter85]

    Austin and Darius have a great bromance going on.

 

   As for Marie, I'm digging him and her for a high school fling. Not sure it'd make it anywhere past that, because frankly, Austin doesn't come off as too bright. Marie seems like she's almost as intelligent as Will is, and I can't see her with a dumb-but-sweet type in the long run similar to how I can't Will with a dumb-but-sweet type.

 

   But that's the nice thing about these characters being 15- none of them are thinking in terms of long-term partners and are just having fun. That's what 15 should be all about.

[Westie]

Thank you for proving my point that you neither understand respect, nor the legal system.

 

The respect for the office of the judge is automatic, it is completely automatic. No level of disrespect is allowed at all no matter how egregious a ruling might be. Any display that shows disrespect for the judge is dealt with swiftly and often harshly. And the judge doesn't have to do a single thing to earn the respect, he merely needs to BE the judge. Judges don't earn offices, they are given them. Some states elect lower level judges, but all federal judges are by appointment. It is part of the rules of society that it is this way.

 

Here is some light reading for you. Courtroom Decorum - Rules of Practice

Thanks Tim, that was really enlightening, but unfortunately totally irrelevant to the point I was making. A Judges authority is NOT automatic in any way shape or form. It is exercised because the majority of people accept the societal construct that has been put in place as a method of dispensing justice. And Judges DO earn their position. Whether by election (itself a mandate from the people) or via hard work and qualification leading to appointment. However, If there was a coup in your country tomorrow, and someone with NO legal experience, NO history of hard work, NO mandate from the people were put in that place, he would have no respect from anyone, and would have to enforce tenuous authority by violent means.

 

I know you love having nice "rules" that you can reference and live by and that makes you comfortable, but those rules only exist because the general population accepts them to be fair. When that is no longer the case, you get revolution and overthrow of those figures of authority.

 

Now to parental rights, they may not exist - in your mind - , but unfortunately they do exist. You might was well say the sun does not exist - in your mind - , but it is still going to rise tomorrow.

You again, haven't answered my point. You have just restated your opinion. And you have also changed the phrasing a little. PARENTAL RIGHTS as a legal concept, of course exists, due to the nature of the social construct we live in as I noted above. But as a lawyer you have to be aware of the limitations of those rights - and that they aren't there to enforce parental "authority" (which is what I was talking about). Take the example of being grounded. A parent say's "you're grounded for 2 weeks" - the child can choose to accept that or not. If there is earned respect there, they may very well make the choice to abide by their parent's decision. If the relationship has broken down, the child will just walk out of the house, and the parent will have to enforce his/her authority by other means. Either violent punishment, or by locking the door to prevent escape - because NO court in a civilised world is going to get involved in effectively a domestic dispute.

 

This is my point, if a child chooses NOT to accept the authority of their parents, BUT remains within the law, there is no recourse for that. Which is why relationships have to be built on, nurtured and developed over time in order that BOTH parties accept the extent (and limitations) of authority.

 

As to rights in general, there are the rights given by government and the rights given by God (or Natural Rights if you prefer). The difference is that what government giveth, government can taketh away. It is to Natural Right that we owe our liberty since government has no right to take those rights they did not give.

There is NO right that a government cannot take away, as long as it can enforce it without revolution. Your Patriot Act is a good example. By collective consent you agreed to give up a part of your liberty. The Government of China removes liberty ALL the time

 

There are no natural or god-given rights. They don't exist. The way I know that is that If we were all marooned on a desert island, I could remove your freedom of speech, I could remove your liberty and I could remove your right of privacy - all by tying you up naked to a tree with a gag in your mouth. And the only way to stop me would be if you were stronger than me. The ONLY "natural law" that I cannot see a way to reconstruct is "Survival of the fittest".

 

As to how this relates to the story - we seem to have got away from the point. And we don't know where Mark is taking things. What I would say though is that anyone who expects respect in the story without any justification - merely because of their position - can only expect younger generations to disregard them. It's the way society is changing.

[Kitt]

Food for thought - Just because something is changing doesn't necessarily make the change one for the better.

[mmike1969]

The way I know that is that If we were all marooned on a desert island, I could remove your freedom of speech, I could remove your liberty and I could remove your right of privacy - all by tying you up naked to a tree with a gag in your mouth. And the only way to stop me would be if you were stronger than me.

You say that like he will object to this kind of treatment.

Edited December 18, 2013 by mmike1969

[Mark Arbour]

I had a few questions on the discrimination issue at Triton, and it definitely deserved some comments.  For the record, I'm not aware of any company that had an issue like I described.  It was not a generalizable situation.  So as Tim noted, there's a certain amount of artistic license I'm taking here. 

 

That being said, there are a couple of things that make this plausible.  First are the general attitudes about gay people and security clearance.  Lewis (2002) published an interesting article on attitudes toward gay people and security clearance, and while there was much that was positive in his report, he did find that those who had issues with homosexuality were more likely to deny people security clearances.   I juxtapose that against the general post-9-11 paranoia to suggest that Bock could be just such an individual.

 

The other issue is the well-publicized accounts of the military purging Farsi and Arabic translators from it's ranks when it discovered (after pro-active snooping) that they were gay.  This was done under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" umbrella. 

[methodwriter85]

I am a little disappointed that Cam has disappeared from the story, I thought he was a potential friend/hook up for Will and now we have Josh in that roll. I thought maybe Noah would be another one, even with his involvement with Marie, a lot of guys still have beards, but he is another character that floated in, looked like he could be significant, then faded.

 

    That's life, though. People float in your life, and sometimes they look like they're going to be significant, but then they float out. Especially when you're a teenager/twentysomething, which is probably when you're going to meet the most people you'll ever meet in your life. From what I understand about being in your 30's, I have to look forward to meeting far less people. Which kinda bothers me, actually. *pouts*

 

    As for Josh, it's nice to see him, but he's also a junior (he was a sophomore transfer when Wade met him during the 2000-2001 school year), and I can't really see him being that big of a factor aside from Will possibly hooking up with him a time or two. Which is fine. It's more realistic that Will has all these acquaintances that go to Stanford and he can hit up when he wants to hang out/party/hook-up. Lots of high school townie kids would hang around college parties in college towns, especially if they're like Will and they don't look out of place at a college party.

 

 I can definitely see Will with a younger guy when he's older (maybe early-mid 20s), but now, as he has for so long, he's looking up in age, where he feels more of an affinity.

 

     Just please don't hook Will up with high school guys when he's in college. You've avoided doing that with Matt and Wade as protagonists; keep that up with Will.

  

      Although, I've gotta say...I kind of wondered if Will would be the type to always look "up" when it comes to age...like when he's 20, he'll start being interested in 35-40 year olds, and so forth. But from what you're saying, Will is going to be completely in line with normal 22-year olds.

 

  

I think the big difference here, as has been noted, is that Matt and Will are nominally brothers, and that gives Will the right to expect that his boyfriends (or some variation on that theme) are exempt from predators within his own family.

 

     Which is interesting, because while JJ definitely sees and treats Matt like a brother, Will doesn't really seem to do so all that much, other than the decree to Tony about not getting with Matt. He didn't even ask Brad for a painting of Matt, which makes sense, but still- not so big on the brotherly bond here. I do think you can see in this chapter why it's good Matt and Will aren't all that close- two Alpha Males in close proximity is pretty explosive, and if Matt and Will tried to spend any significant amount of time together they'd get into massive fights similiar to Will and Brad. I think that's why it makes sense that they were drawn to Omega Males for brotherly bonding- Will to Wade, and Matt to JJ. Wade and JJ both have much more of a "Omega Male" personality type.

 

     I'm kinda surprised that we're apparently going to avoid having brothers fight over boyfriends. I totally thought we were going to have JJ and Will fight over a guy somewhere down the road. We got a preview of that with Evan Lysacek, which whetted my appetite for it, LOL. Oh, well.

 

      Anyway...something I'm wondering about...am I the only one who didn't try and join up a GLBT club in college and didn't really relate to those? I came to meeting one time in 10th grade, but to be honest...I felt like GLBT clubs were either support groups for people that had majorly struggled with being GLBT, or they were for people looking for dates/hook-ups, but neither of which appealed to me all that much. I mainly just hung out with straight people with a few gay friends. I came out at 15, and I didn't have any internal struggles with being gay after I was 17. In my entire life, I've only lost two friends after coming out to them, and they were just acquaintances.

 

     It kind of makes me feel like an outlier since the narrative that I always read is that you're supposed to come out and then become active in your GLBT, and it made me feel like a "bad gay" because I really had no interest in doing it. About the most I got involved with GLBT campus life was when I'd watch the Haven Drag Show, lol. There was also this one-act play showcase I took part in, where the host tried to base the entire theme around Britney Spears's "Circus" video complete with his Britney Spears drag act and a dance performance to "It's Raning Men", but that's about as gay as it got for me in college.

Edited December 18, 2013 by methodwriter85

[Mark Arbour]

    That's life, though. People float in your life, and sometimes they look like they're going to be significant, but then they float out. Especially when you're a teenager/twentysomething, which is probably when you're going to meet the most people you'll ever meet in your life. From what I understand about being in your 30's, I have to look forward to meeting far less people. Which kinda bothers me, actually. *pouts*

 

    As for Josh, it's nice to see him, but he's also a junior (he was a sophomore transfer when Wade met him during the 2000-2001 school year), and I can't really see him being that big of a factor aside from Will possibly hooking up with him a time or two. Which is fine. It's more realistic that Will has all these acquaintances that go to Stanford and he can hit up when he wants to hang out/party/hook-up. Lots of high school townie kids would hang around college parties in college towns, especially if they're like Will and they don't look out of place at a college party.

 

 

     Just please don't hook Will up with high school guys when he's in college. You've avoided doing that with Matt and Wade as protagonists; keep that up with Will.

  

      Although, I've gotta say...I kind of wondered if Will would be the type to always look "up" when it comes to age...like when he's 20, he'll start being interested in 35-40 year olds, and so forth. But from what you're saying, Will is going to be completely in line with normal 22-year olds.

 

  

 

     Which is interesting, because while JJ definitely sees and treats Matt like a brother, Will doesn't really seem to do so all that much, other than the decree to Tony about not getting with Matt. He didn't even ask Brad for a painting of Matt, which makes sense, but still- not so big on the brotherly bond here. I do think you can see in this chapter why it's good Matt and Will aren't all that close- two Alpha Males in close proximity is pretty explosive, and if Matt and Will tried to spend any significant amount of time together they'd get into massive fights similiar to Will and Brad. I think that's why it makes sense that they were drawn to Omega Males for brotherly bonding- Will to Wade, and Matt to JJ. Wade and JJ both have much more of a "Omega Male" personality type.

 

     I'm kinda surprised that we're apparently going to avoid having brothers fight over boyfriends. I totally thought we were going to have JJ and Will fight over a guy somewhere down the road. We got a preview of that with Evan Lysacek, which whetted my appetite for it, LOL. Oh, well.

 

      Anyway...something I'm wondering about...am I the only one who didn't try and join up a GLBT club in college and didn't really relate to those? I came to meeting one time in 10th grade, but to be honest...I felt like GLBT clubs were either support groups for people that had majorly struggled with being GLBT, or they were for people looking for dates/hook-ups, but neither of which appealed to me all that much. I mainly just hung out with straight people with a few gay friends. I came out at 15, and I didn't have any internal struggles with being gay after I was 17. In my entire life, I've only lost two friends after coming out to them, and they were just acquaintances.

 

     It kind of makes me feel like an outlier since the narrative that I always read is that you're supposed to come out and then become active in your GLBT, and it made me feel like a "bad gay" because I really had no interest in doing it. About the most I got involved with GLBT campus life was when I'd watch the Haven Drag Show, lol. There was also this one-act play showcase I took part in, where the host tried to base the entire theme around Britney Spears's "Circus" video complete with his Britney Spears drag act and a dance performance to "It's Raning Men", but that's about as gay as it got for me in college.

 

Based on the description you posted of Omega males, I'm wondering why you classed Will as an Alpha.  A lot of that sounds like him.

[methodwriter85]

Based on the description you posted of Omega males, I'm wondering why you classed Will as an Alpha.  A lot of that sounds like him.

 

     I think he's way more aggressive and controlling than an Omega male, though. I feel like the "laid-back" part of Will's personality has been hard to remember because we've seen him in near-constant battle mode.

Edited December 18, 2013 by methodwriter85

[PrivateTim]

I had a few questions on the discrimination issue at Triton, and it definitely deserved some comments.  For the record, I'm not aware of any company that had an issue like I described.  It was not a generalizable situation.  So as Tim noted, there's a certain amount of artistic license I'm taking here. 

 

That being said, there are a couple of things that make this plausible.  First are the general attitudes about gay people and security clearance.  Lewis (2002) published an interesting article on attitudes toward gay people and security clearance, and while there was much that was positive in his report, he did find that those who had issues with homosexuality were more likely to deny people security clearances.   I juxtapose that against the general post-9-11 paranoia to suggest that Bock could be just such an individual.

 

The other issue is the well-publicized accounts of the military purging Farsi and Arabic translators from it's ranks when it discovered (after pro-active snooping) that they were gay.  This was done under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" umbrella. 

 

The trouble with Lewis's paper is that it was already dated when he published it. Quoting sources and studies from the 1950's and 60's has no relevance to what the world was like by 2001, especially in states like CT that were early adopters of gay rights.

 

Even studies that were done later that he cites were dated.

 

The proper title should have been, A History of Barriers to Security Clearances for Homosexuals, since by 2001 those barriers were gone. What the bottom line was for Lewis's paper was it was a call to arms for his fellow academics out of fear that the new Bush administration was going to discriminate against gays in its administration, which didn't happen.

 

 

From my review and Mark's response that Jeremy alluded to:

 

I always find it funny that Will thinks he can define for others (Matt) what their behavior should be, but he goes nuts when someone puts limits on him. He had no moral qualms about sleeping with Eric (or was it Kyle?) and said it wasn't business to police their relationship.

 

 

Reply from Mark Arbour (author)

 

I think the big difference here, as has been noted, is that Matt and Will are nominally brothers, and that gives Will the right to expect that his boyfriends (or some variation on that theme) are exempt from predators within his own family. That makes the picture completely different than it was for Kyle/Erik.

 

 

 

And to me, it is part of the dichotomy that is Will and all who believe in moral relativism vs standards, whether they be universal or societal. He doesn't believe in right or wrong until he needs right or wrong to serve his purpose.

 

In the same moral space where Will ignored JJ's request for sexual restraint in Norway, ignored the social norm that says you don't become "the other woman" in a relationship as he did with Kyle & Eric, now he wants Matt to practice restraint and he laid out boundaries for Tony, who he isn't even in a committed relationship with.

 

Will chafes when people want to put constraints on him and maybe even pushes the envelope because of them.

 

I hope he catches Tony in bed with Matt and puts a bullet between his (Tony's) eyes.....  it would warm the cockles of my heart.

[Mark Arbour]

The trouble with Lewis's paper is that it was already dated when he published it. Quoting sources and studies from the 1950's and 60's has no relevance to what the world was like by 2001, especially in states like CT that were early adopters of gay rights.

 

Even studies that were done later that he cites were dated.

 

The proper title should have been, A History of Barriers to Security Clearances for Homosexuals, since by 2001 those barriers were gone. What the bottom line was for Lewis's paper was it was a call to arms for his fellow academics out of fear that the new Bush administration was going to discriminate against gays in its administration, which didn't happen.

 

 

 

Actually, the data I was looking at was the attitudinal stuff he culled in 1998.  I didn't read the call to arms you perceived, but then again, I wasn't diving into his discussion as much as looking at the conclusions. Regardless, it makes sense that someone who is less friendly towards homosexuality would transfer that onto attitudes about security clearances for LBGT people. 

[PrivateTim]

Actually, the data I was looking at was the attitudinal stuff he culled in 1998.  I didn't read the call to arms you perceived, but then again, I wasn't diving into his discussion as much as looking at the conclusions. Regardless, it makes sense that someone who is less friendly towards homosexuality would transfer that onto attitudes about security clearances for LBGT people. 

 

The call to arms was the last paragraph of the paper.

 

And since Dr. Lewis designed the regression analysis of the answers given by respondents in the GSS and given his standing as former Chair of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Political Science Caucus, American Political Science Association I am inclined to look askance at his objectivity, especially when he ends the paper the way he did.

[methodwriter85]

In the same moral space where Will ignored JJ's request for sexual restraint in Norway, ignored the social norm that says you don't become "the other woman" in a relationship as he did with Kyle & Eric, now he wants Matt to practice restraint and he laid out boundaries for Tony, who he isn't even in a committed relationship with.

 

 

    I get what you're saying, but Will learned his lessons with that stuff. He worked things out with JJ, and he came to an epiphany about the Erik/Kyle thing.

 

      I do think that if Will got into an all-out fight with Matt, things would not be pretty. Matt is not an easy push-over, and Will doesn't have the benefit of being deeply loved by him like he did during his battles with Brad.

[apjordan]

      Anyway...something I'm wondering about...am I the only one who didn't try and join up a GLBT club in college and didn't really relate to those? I came to meeting one time in 10th grade, but to be honest...I felt like GLBT clubs were either support groups for people that had majorly struggled with being GLBT, or they were for people looking for dates/hook-ups, but neither of which appealed to me all that much. I mainly just hung out with straight people with a few gay friends. I came out at 15, and I didn't have any internal struggles with being gay after I was 17. In my entire life, I've only lost two friends after coming out to them, and they were just acquaintances.

 

I'm from an earlier generation. But when I came out as a college student in the early '90s, I also found that the community of our LGBT student group wasn't a community I was interested in. Students who were active in the club were interested in casual hookups, radical political action, or both. The former didn't interest me and I wasn't ready for the latter. I knew a lot of openly queer students on campus, the vast majority of whom weren't associated with the student group. After I graduated, I believe a new student group—focused more on simple social interaction—formed for awhile. But like most student organizations, it fizzled when the leadership graduated.

 

So no, you're not the only one. I don't think it's possible for an LGBT group to cater to everyone in its defined community—that's one of the reasons why we have so many different organizations today—but campus-based student organizations are especially prone to changing focus with the leadership and membership. We saw this a bit at the end of Bloodlines. The club as it had been run by Jason, as it was imagined by candidate Jerry, and as it was imagined by candidate Wade were all quite different. Each of those versions of the club would certainly attract and retain different students as members.

[Mark Arbour]

    I get what you're saying, but Will learned his lessons with that stuff. He worked things out with JJ, and he came to an epiphany about the Erik/Kyle thing.

 

      I do think that if Will got into an all-out fight with Matt, things would not be pretty. Matt is not an easy push-over, and Will doesn't have the benefit of being deeply loved by him like he did during his battles with Brad.

 

This is one of those issues where the reader responses just puzzle me.  Sometimes, I'll throw stuff out there, expecting a firestorm, and I'll get a 'meh' from readers, and I'll stare at the screen in relative amazement, then move on.  Then there are times, like this, where the issue to me is so incredibly clear cut that it's not even debatable, and I'll have people who see the gray. 

 

There is no comparison between Will sleeping with Kyle/Erik, or any of the other hookups in this series, with one big exception:  Sam and Jake.  Brad brought Jake along on that trip to Claremont in Be Rad, and Sam slept with him.  Brad was Sam's stepson, for all intents and purposes, and what made it wrong was that Sam slept with the guy his stepson was dating.  No gray area there: Wrong.  In this situation, if Matt sleeps with Tony, Matt is hooking up with a guy that Will is really into.  Will is the reason Tony's been around.  It's not about fidelity, and Tony keeping his word, it's about Matt not screwing the dude his brother is into. 

 

What if John brought a girl to Escorial for dinner, someone who was really important to him, and then Darius decided to fuck her?  Would that be alright?  I don't think the family would think it's OK at all.  And even if Matt doesn't really consider Will to be his brother, they are clearly family members, so no matter how deep the bond is or isn't, that alone makes screwing around with the guy a problem. 

[methodwriter85]

And even if Matt doesn't really consider Will to be his brother, they are clearly family members, so no matter how deep the bond is or isn't, that alone makes screwing around with the guy a problem.

 

  Does this mean we won't see JJ and Will fight over a guy? God, I wanted to see that. If Evan Lysacek was any indication, JJ will go absolutely apeshit if Will poached a guy that he was into. I thought that was a benefit of having JJ be bisexual- Will and JJ could fight over a guy, and Darius and JJ could fight over a girl. I'm so disappointed, Mark.

Edited December 19, 2013 by methodwriter85

[Kitt]

  And even if Matt doesn't really consider Will to be his brother, they are clearly family members, so no matter how deep the bond is or isn't, that alone makes screwing around with the guy a problem. 

Before the forum blows up again, may I add?

 

Yes - Will was wrong to have slept with Kyle knowing  the boy was attached to Eric.

 

Yes - Matt would be wrong for sleeping with Tony knowing Will is into him, even tho they are not as yet "together".

 

But they are both wrong for TOTALLY DIFFERENT REASONS and in my mind not comparable.

[PrivateTim]

There is no comparison between Will sleeping with Kyle/Erik, or any of the other hookups in this series, with one big exception:  Sam and Jake.  Brad brought Jake along on that trip to Claremont in Be Rad, and Sam slept with him.  Brad was Sam's stepson, for all intents and purposes, and what made it wrong was that Sam slept with the guy his stepson was dating.  No gray area there: Wrong.  In this situation, if Matt sleeps with Tony, Matt is hooking up with a guy that Will is really into.  Will is the reason Tony's been around.  It's not about fidelity, and Tony keeping his word, it's about Matt not screwing the dude his brother is into. 

 

What if John brought a girl to Escorial for dinner, someone who was really important to him, and then Darius decided to fuck her?  Would that be alright?  I don't think the family would think it's OK at all.  And even if Matt doesn't really consider Will to be his brother, they are clearly family members, so no matter how deep the bond is or isn't, that alone makes screwing around with the guy a problem. 

 

So doesn't all that affirm my point that there are, or ought to be, accepted societal norms (standards) for right and wrong behavior and that not everyone gets to create their own moral code (moral relativism)?

 

My point with Will is he wants to use the moral code rule that says a family member shouldn't sleep with the boyfriend/love interest of another family member to his benefit, but not adhere to the moral code rule that says you don't sleep with someone in a "committed" relationship, or the moral code that when a family member asks you to back off in a situation, you do.

 

Will may have come to the realization that he was wrong sleeping with Eric (or with Tony when he had a girlfriend, which I don't think he has acknowledged yet) late, but at the time he had no problem in justifying it. He hasn't yet seen anything wrong with going around Wally & Clara to buy Zach a car (and a lot of others here don't either) and he may never see that as a misstep. I hope I live long enough (and for Arbour to live long enough and want to write still) to see Will have children and see how he reacts when people get in between him and his kid, maybe it will happen with Maddie.

 

I do get that Will is in the process of growing up and maturing, but one of the reasons everyone gave to justify Will's emancipation was his "maturity" beyond his years so it seems disingenuous to fall back on excusing his actions on "well he is young still."

[methodwriter85]

   That is a pretty valid thought, I believe. Will chose to be an adult before he turned 18, on the basis that he can handle himself like an adult. So it makes the times when Will acts like a child, particularly in this chapter, really annoying. He's not held to the standard of a high school sophomore. We're supposed to hold him to the standard of a college-aged person, and there are times when he displays a stunning amount of immaturity.

[B1ue]

My point with Will is he wants to use the moral code rule that says a family member shouldn't sleep with the boyfriend/love interest of another family member to his benefit, but not adhere to the moral code rule that says you don't sleep with someone in a "committed" relationship, or the moral code that when a family member asks you to back off in a situation, you do.

 

Will may have come to the realization that he was wrong sleeping with Eric (or with Tony when he had a girlfriend, which I don't think he has acknowledged yet) late, but at the time he had no problem in justifying it. He hasn't yet seen anything wrong with going around Wally & Clara to buy Zach a car (and a lot of others here don't either) and he may never see that as a misstep. I hope I live long enough (and for Arbour to live long enough and want to write still) to see Will have children and see how he reacts when people get in between him and his kid, maybe it will happen with Maddie.

I thought your entire post was well reasoned, but there is one difference between the situations that I wanted to bring up.

 

Specially, that Kyle isn't family, and so in a great many ways, his pain doesn't count. Intellectually, it should, but I have to admit that my own clannish mindset goes to a place that what you pull against a family member is wholly different from what you can pull on someone who is merely a friend. Which frightening whenever I pause to think about it, because my family has pulled knives on each other. I think we've seen enough evidence to believe Will and, indeed, most of the cast, work in the same way.

 

A better comparison might be how Will refused to honor JJ's request to not sleep with his fellow competitors at Norway, which we've already discussed, but let me explain fully. Lined up with this incident, it's a pretty clear double standard, and the mindset that allows Will to make it is troubling. He makes his demand to Matt, because he takes himself seriously and it is set into his bones now that everyone in the family will take him and his desires just as seriously. Which, fair enough, he's in several ways no longer a child. But he was not completely willing to accede to JJ's quite similar in spirit demand, because he didn't consider JJ's reasons important. Now, I would have pulled that against my cousins and siblings when I was thirteen, but I was not a paragon of maturity, even if I'd seen and done, and survived, actions at that age many my current age have not seen and done (it frightens me how soft so many of my peers are, even the gay ones). I don't think I would have looked for ways to evade such a stricture now.

 

Edit: I also have to add a great big "whatever" to not becoming the other woman. When it comes to Kyle, I actually agreed with Will's initial reasoning. Wasn't his job to keep Eric honest, no matter to what conclusion he eventually came. In the case Mark proposed, it wouldn't have been Darius's job to keep John's girlfriend from cheating on him; he'd have not fucked her because he owed John that consideration, not her.

Edited December 20, 2013 by B1ue

[Mark Arbour]

I thought your entire post was well reasoned, but there is one difference between the situations that I wanted to bring up.

 

Specially, that Kyle isn't family, and so in a great many ways, his pain doesn't count. Intellectually, it should, but I have to admit that my own clannish mindset goes to a place that what you pull against a family member is wholly different from what you can pull on someone who is merely a friend. Which frightening whenever I pause to think about it, because my family has pulled knives on each other. I think we've seen enough evidence to believe Will and, indeed, most of the cast, work in the same way.

 

A better comparison might be how Will refused to honor JJ's request to not sleep with his fellow competitors at Norway, which we've already discussed, but let me explain fully. Lined up with this incident, it's a pretty clear double standard, and the mindset that allows Will to make it is troubling. He makes his demand to Matt, because he takes himself seriously and it is set into his bones now that everyone in the family will take him and his desires just as seriously. Which, fair enough, he's in several ways no longer a child. But he was not completely willing to accede to JJ's quite similar in spirit demand, because he didn't consider JJ's reasons important. Now, I would have pulled that against my cousins and siblings when I was thirteen, but I was not a paragon of maturity, even if I'd seen and done, and survived, actions at that age many my current age have not seen and done (it frightens me how soft so many of my peers are, even the gay ones). I don't think I would have looked for ways to evade such a stricture now.

 

Edit: I also have to add a great big "whatever" to not becoming the other woman. When it comes to Kyle, I actually agreed with Will's initial reasoning. Wasn't his job to keep Eric honest, no matter to what conclusion he eventually came. In the case Mark proposed, it wouldn't have been Darius's job to keep John's girlfriend from cheating on him; he'd have not fucked her because he owed John that consideration, not her.

 

Actually, Will honored JJ's request in Norway.  He was pretty clear about that, in basically telling JJ that if he wanted him to back off Evan, all JJ had to do was say so.  He's doing the same thing to Matt now, expecting a similar acquiescence. 

[B1ue]

Hmm. I thought JJ's original request was for Will to not sleep with anyone there, and they bargained down to Evan was off limits, and no more than 1 per day. I'll reread it when I have time, I suppose. They were interesting chapters anyways.