Graeme

I didn't think that many people (if any) would agree with me. There's a difference between playing along because he wants to and being forced by circumstances into playing along. I agree that he's showing confidence and there is absolutely no doubts that his love for Steve is helping him do these things, but I still think Steve is being too manipulative. He's controlling what Chris is doing and I think that it is becoming unhealthy. Please note that I still believe that Steve is doing it for what he believes are the right reasons -- as well as being playful -- but that doesn't necessarily make it right. Both boys expressed shock at learning that pictures of them having sex were available on the internet. Steve seems to no longer mind, but forcing Chris to wear speedoes when he clearly doesn't want to after that incident (and knowing that some of those that have been looking at those pictures were in the room) I think is going a step too far. Steve may feel that it is the best way over the situation, but I don't think Chris does. Steve isn't giving Chris a chance to express his opinion -- to the best of my knowledge the two of them haven't had a good heart-to-heart on the subject, either (though that may have occurred in one of the sections not detailed in the story). If you will excuse my taking things to an extreme -- Chris has been sexually abused (I believe having explicit photos taken of him without his consent would qualify). Steve seems to think that continuing the abuse (even if it is in a reduced form) is good for Chris. To put it bluntly, while Steve may be right, he may also be drastically, dangerously wrong.

If you'll take a suggestion, maybe he can let you win a few games of basketball as payment?

You don't believe in the barter economy? How about if this poor, struggling young man offers services instead of cash? I'll leave it to the two of you to sort out. PS: This is why I have never bought anything online except from reputable companies. I've looked at eBay and decided I wasn't interested in taking the risk of being defrauded.

Very true Almost certainly not. I'm honest enough to know that if it had been more then $20, I probably wouldn't have done anything. Between $10 and $20, I don't know -- maybe, since I was in a good mood.

Good catch! I hadn't spotted that potential issue. Where is the airport located? If it's not in Lonesome Valley county, I'm guessing that it's not in Piedmont's either (they wouldn't be that stupid), but is it in a county where the Piedmont sheriff can call in a favour? I'm still not sure how the story will pan out, but it looks like they are mainly playing for time. One thing that I suspect most people will disagree with me about, but I'm starting to dislike Steve. His manipulation of Chris, even if was originally well-intended, is now at the level where I think it is unhealthy. Veronica is not helping either. While she probably thinks it's just teasing, that jigsaw puzzle, combined with everything else that is going on, runs the risk of pushing Chris too far. Remember, he suffers (present tense -- he's not over it) from self-esteem issues. Continual recalling of mistakes he's made, or embarrassing episodes he's been involved with, is not likely to help him to overcome them. For C James's sake, I'm willing to put up with Steve and Veronica for a bit longer, but the way they are at the moment is turning me off... Note: The excessive use of italics in this post was in an effort to try to be helpful to CJ, since he couldn't use them in the chapter itself.... We don't want him to suffer from italic buildup, after all

And there we have a difference of opinion I don't see the satisfaction for doing an act of kindness to be the motivation for doing it. It is a component of that motivation, but it is insufficient by itself to explain why I do an act of kindness. Do you do them because they make you feel good, or is this a normal outcome that helps motivate you to do something that will also make others feel good? If the satisfaction was the only motivator, then I probably wouldn't do acts of kindness -- I'd but myself some chocolate or cream-cake instead. I get as much satisfaction, at least, albeit of a different nature, from eating one of them.... A few years ago I was travelling on a tram in Melbourne (heading back to the office, I think). There was someone who was an obvious tourist (from Canada, it turned out), who was struggling to find the right change to put in the ticket machine (yes, the ticket machine is located ON the tram, and it doesn't take notes -- this system was designed by agents of the government -- enough said). I pulled out my wallet and paid for the lady's ticket myself. Why did I do it? Because I was in a good mood, it didn't cost me much, it made her happy, and it made me happy. The last one wasn't sufficient by itself to justify why I did it. Indeed, because I was in a good mood anyway, I don't believe it was a conscious factor in my decision to do this "random act of kindness". That is why I feel that an act of kindness isn't motivated by the feeling of satisfaction that comes from doing a good deed. That answer is too simplistic.

I think we've got a misunderstanding, rather than a disagreement. I agree with what you say -- everyone makes cost/benefit calculations when they do things. Where I think we have a misunderstanding is the viewpoint of my comment. I wasn't looking at it from a societal point of view, but an abstract point of view (which is what I thought Eliot was trying to do). If feeling good afterwards is the reason for doing a particular deed, then how do you distinguish between the good deed and the bad deed? I was proposing that it be based on the motivation, and your cost/benefit view fits into that.

I'm coming in late to this discussion, but I haven't had a chance to read the article before now. One thing that struck me is the dichotomy that the researchers implicitly apply to sexuality. They appear to be researching on the assumption that a person is either homosexual or heterosexual. I personally believe in the Kinsey model where there is a spectrum from purely homosexual to purely heterosexual (this was referenced once in the article, but almost in passing). As such, many of the attributes they are researching can be distorted because most of the subjects in question are neither purely homo- nor heterosexual. Of course, the study on the biological reaction of men to pornographic images appears to indicate that there is a dichotomy, at least with males, but what was the sample size tested? Could it just be that there was insufficient numbers to identify those that lie more in the middle of the spectrum? Overall, an interesting read. Thanks, Jack, for posting the link for us.

Why do you always put these things up when I'm just starting work... I'll try to read it at lunchtime.

CJ, I've just realised -- this probably means you can edit your post count back to its "correct" value. After all, a lurker can't have a post count that's fast approaching 4000...

Mahatma Gandhi once said "Peace is its own reward." This was then taken and used with lots of those things replacing the word "Peace". In this case, "Kindness" fits very well. Kindness is its own reward. While it is not altruistic, what it means is that doing kind deals has a purely internal reward for the person doing the deed. They don't need external benefits to do what they are doing. To move away from the pure form that Mark was originally talking about, this would be the closest to "True Kindness" -- in that the only reward/benefit that is being received is that internal good feeling that they have done something "good". But Eliot has raised an interesting point. From a high level point of view, what distinguishes the person who does a good deed and feels good, and the sociopath who does a "evil" deed to feel good? I think the answer lies in the motivation. The first person is not doing the good deed to feel good -- they expect to feel good as a result, but the intention is to help someone else. The second person's motivation is purely internal -- they are doing the deed because they want to feel good.

Happy Birthday, Viv! I'm not so stupid as to mention the age... so I'll just say I wish you all the best and hope you have a great day.

Goat jokes should still be allowed, but be careful of unexpected consequences.... I wouldn't use the H word too much when referring to CJ. Haven't you seen the pictures of him without his sunglasses? Congratulations, C James!

I don't think we can have a discussion unless we define what is meant by "true kindess". Kindness almost always brings some benefit to the one doing the kindness -- even if it is just getting a "feel-good" feeling. Being kind to someone brings its reward in feeling good about what you've done -- and I believe that that is a major part of why people do it. Being kind when you don't feel good about it is something that is very, very rare -- I can't think of a single situation where I've ever done that. So, my view is that "true kindness" that is "completely independent of the thought of any reward or benefit to self" is almost non-existent. If I go for the spirit of what you've said, then I would have to agree -- being kind because you expect or require something tangible in return could be considered to be enlightened self-interest, rather than a pure altruistic act.

I'm guessing that that is circumference, not width....

Welcome! You've already got the main requirement to be an author -- the desire to write Posting to eFiction is straightforward, though it's just gone through an upgrade so there is the possibility of a couple of hiccups along the way. You can wait until you have five posts on the forums so you can PM JSmith or you can email joe@gayauthors.org and ask to have yourself added to the "Authors" group. There is also the Sneak Peeks forum (once you have five posts) where you can put up a sample of your writing for comment and constructive feedback, before posting it publicly. Good luck! Graeme

Don't put your own piece down so much! Writing a realistic tale from the point of view of a pre-adolescent is not easy. You did a great job and showed a wonderful loving family.

Happy Birthday, Tony! I hope you have a great day and an even better year ahead.

I have to admit that I got a pleasant surprise this morning -- a Father's Day e-card from one of my readers. I was very polite and didn't mention that it wasn't Father's Day in Australia and just sent back a thank you. They replied and said that they have since been informed by their other Aussie friends that it wasn't Father's Day....

I like the celtic armband style tattoos on a muscular bicep, but otherwise tattoos don't really appeal. I doubt I'd ever get one myself.

Conner is the faun (half goat), while C James is a goat, so Conner is on the left, and C James is on the right (ie. the one staring intently at the faun's groin... ) By the way, nice muscle tone, Conner!

There are three ways that mankind has been able to initiate fusion. 1. In a Hydrogen bomb. The problem is that exploding a nuclear weapon isn't very useful when you want to turn the energy produced into electricity.... 2. Using a electromagnetic fields to contain and squeeze plasma until the pressure is sufficient to cause hydrogen atoms to fuse. 3. Bombarding deuterium/tritium pellets with either lasers or particles from particle accelerators, and the resultant pressure causes some of the atoms to fuse. The problem with both 2 and 3 is that neither has been able to produce a net positive energy. It takes more power to initiate the fusion than the fusion generates (most of the atoms are NOT fusing). For option 2, stronger fields should allow most hydrogen to fuse, but we don't currently have the technology to produce fields strong enough. I can't remember the problems with option 3, but I believe it is again hitting the pellets with sufficient energy to make enough atoms fuse. They either need more powerful lasers (with a corresponding higher energy requirement) or faster particle accelerators. The other issue is that they need to keep exploding multiple pellets so they keep a steady supply of energy. If you like, what they are trying to do is to explode miniature hydrogen bombs inside a containment chamber and harvest the energy that results. They just haven't mastered the art of making small pellets of deuterium/tritium to explode properly.... If economic fusion power ever IS mastered, it will make a huge difference to the world. Hydrogen is one of the most plentiful elements in the universe, and easily found on Earth (it is easily separated from sea water given a sufficient electricity supply).

Melancholia is a mental health condition linked to depression, and as such, no, it isn't a good thing. Feeling sad, however, is a normal mental state and yes, it is healthy. It is, for example, part of the normal grieving process. If you try to avoid it, then this doens't help you to work yourself through the issues that have caused the grief. I wouldn't want to go out looking for it, and I think "welcome" is too strong a term, but we should accept it as a very human condition and one that everyone experiences from time to time. Dewey (the author of For The Love of Pete, and the follow-up stories) wrote an essay on emotions. We are too quick to suppress emotions and this is bad thing. Sadness is just another emotion and we should accept it as such.

The next one that is already here is labeled Internet 2.0. It's the advent of user participation on the internet, and it is already having a major impact on internet-aware society. Think of the impact of blogs, YouTube, MySpace and similar sites -- the way user feedback is becoming faster and faster is altering so much of society. The one after that... I think it will again be something basic to human society. I suspect it will be in the entertainment industry and will involve personal interaction -- rather than watching a movie, you will be in the movie and influencing the outcome.

And to all the fathers out there, remember you get to celebrate again in September when Australia has its Father's Day For some reason, Mother's Day is celebrated at the same time in most countries, but not Father's Day...