InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "Go see...Banana Fish."

Charlus Potter (charlus_potter) wrote,
@ 2009-09-01 03:50:00

There are certain days in which I wish we had rules against drinking under a certain age.

I just had a fairly inebriated young woman come into the church and proposition me in the middle of a rather important conversation with a worshiper. Thank the Lord for discreet stunning charms.

Girls under the age of 17 should not be allowed out so late without a chaperon. Perhaps it is sexist, but it is reality. There are far too many dangers for children like she. Though I am also of the distinct mind that no woman should be allowed out past a certain time without a chaperon, even if I do realize how unrealistic this is.

It would still be nice to see men act as men should, and fathers do the same. It is a damned shame such a pretty girl is so lost at such a young age. Makes me dread the idea of what pains she will go through as a result of this lascivious behavior.

(Post a new comment)

	tracecontrol 2009-09-01 12:57 pm UTC (link)
	You are so old fashioned, Mr. Potter. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	charlus_potter 2009-09-01 05:23 pm UTC (link)
	It cannot be helped. You know how I am. I pity any fool who attempts to date Sally. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	tracecontrol 2009-09-02 01:11 am UTC (link)
	I do, and that is why I respect you. That poor guy will have everything working against him. Then again, we may never know until Sally goes home, confused, because a boy either kissed her or asked her out. Actually, do they still make chastity belts? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	charlus_potter 2009-09-02 11:14 am UTC (link)
	Sadly, I doubt it. Though perhaps we could always use a few well placed hexes to get the buffoon were he to try it? A booby-trap of sorts.... (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	tracecontrol 2009-09-02 12:03 pm UTC (link)
	I think we may have a while before we have to worry about that. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	charlus_potter 2009-09-02 12:40 pm UTC (link)
	You never know. She could meet someone quite dashing. Or quite stupid. She is a very pretty girl, you know. It will not surprise me if the boys trip on themselves in an attempt to catch her eye. This was never a problem with James. The only falling anyone did for him was while they were trying to runaway. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

tracecontrol
2009-09-02 12:52 pm UTC (link)

Oh, I know she will have boys going after her and trying to catch her eye. That doesn't mean she will pay much attention to them, or even notice them. As much as I love her, I think she would be a little oblivious to boys' actions for the next year or so.

That's horrible! I've never met your son, but now I have the wonderful visual image of a smaller version of you attempting to woo a girl who is tripping over herself while trying to run away. Now the people around me think I've gone mad.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

charlus_potter
2009-09-02 01:13 pm UTC (link)

Yes, but I would rather start before she notices than too late.

Well...we were very much alike, though he in his teens was more like myself shortly before I turned 20. He pursued the female he wanted for many years before she said yes, and from what I understand, she did trip rather regularly in her attempt to flee from his affections.
James had a bit more liberties than I did at his age. But he was a good boy.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

tracecontrol
2009-09-02 01:17 pm UTC (link)

And how, exactly, do you think you can stop the boys from going after her? I'm going to have to protest if I see her covered from head to toe. Though the chastity belt is still an option as a last resort.

Mr. Potter, I think everybody may have more liberties than you did. At least that's assuming you haven't changed too much since then.

On something similarly related, can you and Nick just agree to disagree? If you are both trying to convince each other of your own views I don't see it working.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

charlus_potter
2009-09-02 02:27 pm UTC (link)

As I said, there are subtle hexes which will give the first male attempting to do improper things to her quite the nasty surprise.

Quite the contrary, actually - I am liberal compared to my youth. I daresay wild. I am content with only changing my clothing twice a day - one outfit for the day, and another for sleep - instead of Father's mandated four times - not including our sleepwear. It took me until I was 30 to not feel an overwhelming shame for doing such childish things as playing in the snow. Luckily, I overcame such ingrained phobias before my son was born, and his mother did well where my own Father's strict lessons had clouded my judgment of "normal".

I suppose. I did not mean to disagree with him in any heated manner. It is a topic I do enjoy discussing. Reminds me of Bartholomew, whom I hope one day you shall meet. He was one of us during the war in the other realm, and quite the Libertine. He, oddly, became more coherent when he was drunk . . . we spent decades attempting to persuade each other to the other's side, until we finally gave up and used it as an excuse to drink. I claimed liquor would loosen his denial of his own guilt, and he claimed it would loosen the "stick shoved up my arse" (excuse my language). Oddly, I miss him.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

tracecontrol
2009-09-02 02:33 pm UTC (link)

What if she is at school? You'd have to wait until she brings the boys home. Unless you mean to put subtle hexes on her. Please tell me that is not an option.

Four times? Times really have changed. I never imagined you were from that far back, but doing the math it does make sense. Did you at least get to play in the snow with your son?

It isn't heated at all, I think Nick is actually enjoying your debate. Now this Bartholomew does seem like a funny guy and I hope he is here someday. I would like to meet anybody who would have the nerve to tell you that you had a stick shoved up your rear end. Drunk or not.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

charlus_potter
2009-09-02 02:52 pm UTC (link)

Why would it not be an option? I cannot follow her everywhere, can I? I think it is perfectly logical!

Ah...do not assume it is just a product of my time. I was born in 1915. Father was a very domineering and religious man. He believed that magic was not a gift, nor that those who possessed it were human. Instead, he was under the impression that we were demons, and the only chance we had to enter the Kingdom of Heaven was through complete discipline and dedication to the word of God. Jesus died for the sins of Man, not for the sins of a cursed creature of Hell. Therefor, we had strict rules to follow. We could not play as the other boys were allowed, nor speak to the females in our church. We were to either be studying our lessons or the bible. Anything less than perfection would earn us damnation.

Yes. I did. And very often. It took James' birth for me to realize that while I may not be a saint, my son was certainly no devil. He was raised free of such fears, and with many snowball fights instead.

You hold me in too high regard. I hear it very often. Bart simply said it the loudest and most colorfully. I do believe I once counted 37 different ways for him to refer to my stodgy ways in a one hour time frame. He may have been an absolute whore, but at least he was a creative one.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

tracecontrol
2009-09-03 12:55 am UTC (link)

There's just something wrong with putting hexes on a living person. Let alone it be an innocent person. Maybe you should speak with her first and get her permission.

That's horrible! Well, you obviously have advanced since your upraising with your father so that is a lot to be proud of. I'm sure you loved your father, but he sounds like a religious fanatic.

It's not that I hold you in that high of regard, but that I see as an intimidating figure that few would dare to insult. Is it horrible that I'm curious as to how he could come up with 37 different ways to insult you like that? Now, as to the word 'whore', you may need to rethink the word. What type of whore was he? A ladies man? A prostitute? Or just the general insult of 'whore'?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

charlus_potter
2009-09-03 03:26 am UTC (link)

She trusts me enough that I could convince her quite easily, without she suspecting that it is wrong. Is it more terrible of me to use her naivety against her? Or to covertly work in a way that may allow her to become angry with me and find that spark of independence they had tried to beat out of her?

...loved him? Tracey, I am ashamed to say that the happiest moment of my life was not the birth of my son nor being accepted to the Hallowed. It was the day that bastard died screaming.

I am glad you see me as intimidating, though I am not certain it was meant as a compliment. And no, not horrible at all. I stopped being insulted and more amazed near the very end. I never knew someone with such creativity.
Though I think you misunderstand the term Libertine. Bartholomew was not a ladies-man. He was more of an....anything slightly warm, man. Pulse not required. Nor being a biped.
Man, woman, animal, mineral, vegetable...I am quite certain he had shagged it all.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

tracecontrol
2009-09-03 07:39 am UTC (link)

As much as I would like to see that independence she has lost, let it be somebody else who brings it back. She trusts you and to use her naivety against her is one of the worst possible things you could do.

That... really is horrible. I thought you had to love your father.

If you mean me calling you intimidating, it was not an insult either. You can consider it close to a compliment, I suppose. It wasn't the term 'Libertine', but your use of 'whore'. I would ask how he could shag a vegetable except now my mind is already giving suggestions. Ew.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

charlus_potter
2009-09-03 08:00 am UTC (link)

Not ruining her trust or taking advantage of her. By convincing her to let me, I would be doing that. If she were angry at me, it might have a different outcome.

No.

No.

The only emotion I have for that man is hatred and fear. Had you known him, you would know the beast he is. I believe in hell only because I need the comfort of knowing he is burning in it to stop myself from going mad. His death was too easy. Too quick. Were I able to go back and do it again, I would have taken my time to make sure he screamed for every bruise he left on my mother's flesh.

Yes. Whatever you think of, Bart had done it.
He was a whore, in that he never slept alone. But he was a damn good soldier.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	tracecontrol 2009-09-03 08:20 am UTC (link)
	I suppose this is the point where I tell you that you are her father so it is up to you what you do. I would never want her angry, but it may be different for you. He was an abusive man? Then maybe it is a good thing he is not around. Unless you would be making use of him as a soldier it sounds as if he could get into an amount of trouble. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

charlus_potter
2009-09-03 08:45 am UTC (link)

Temper is good. It can get across a point. Though one must be careful with her. She needs to learn, though, that is all right to be angry, and that she will not be punished or lose my love for lashing out. I worry that she is currently too fearful.

I suppose one could apply that term. There are a few more choice words I can think to apply, but abusive works.

His trouble was always the fun sort. I had never met one such as he. He was...brilliantly audacious. Never regretted a single day of his existence. The few shames he felt he reveled in and laughed about. I believe I envied him his freedom, while he envied me my self control. He was a good man, for all his flaws.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	tracecontrol 2009-09-03 12:14 pm UTC (link)
	Do what you will. I'm just worried about if she goes from one extreme to another. I worry too much about her. I find it slightly ironic that you, a priest has used more curse words in our conversation than I have. It sounds like you were both very close. I hope he arrives here someday. He sounds fun. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	dontbedeceived 2009-09-01 03:35 pm UTC (link)
	And what of boys out in the night to cause mischief? Should they also have a chaperon? It is my distinct mind that women would not need a chaperon if naughty boys weren't there to lead them astray. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	nothingsinister 2009-09-01 03:41 pm UTC (link)
	It is the women who drive them insane. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	dontbedeceived 2009-09-01 03:48 pm UTC (link)
	Sadly I have no argument to that... Perhaps only that it is terribly difficult not to fall for some men worthy of being led into the night for...and if it is the heart that wants for it, it must be alright. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	charlus_potter 2009-09-02 12:41 pm UTC (link)
	They would not women could they not tempt us to madness. (Reply to this) (Parent)

charlus_potter
2009-09-01 05:25 pm UTC (link)

Boys out in the night to cause mischief should not be out. That is where the role of father's come in. Were they young enough to need their supervision, they would be home where all proper boys belong, learning with strict rules the meaning of keeping wandering hands out of a woman's skirts.

And if they are old enough to be out without their father's permission? Then they should not be acting as boys, for that means they are men. But sadly, there will always be idiots amongst my sex, and it is up to the respectable ones to protect the most important part of our society from the brutes that would sully them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	sanguinespirit 2009-09-01 03:44 pm UTC (link)
	Terribly sexists, my good sir. In fact, going backwards. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	charlus_potter 2009-09-01 05:22 pm UTC (link)
	Sexist it may be, but appropriate for my time. For all the flaws of the world in which I was raised, it did have its good sides for those who were righteous. Abstinence before marriage, manners, respect - it was no perfect by any means, but I believe it is better than this moral decay. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

sanguinespirit
2009-09-01 05:43 pm UTC (link)

I do believe that most generations, having been raised through 'gentle breeding' and instilled with strong strong moral virtues, value those very same traits. I personally feel that manners and respect for all living creatures is of the utmost importance.

However abstinence before marriage is a very silly idea that has never worked. For your time sir, for any time. Any sort of sexual corralling only leads to oppression and very odd suggestions of sexual superiority.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

charlus_potter
2009-09-01 05:54 pm UTC (link)

Perhaps, but it seemed more a standard in my time. One never fully knows, I suppose. I was not of the...average populace. My father was rather strict, even for those days.

Abstinence is respect. My religious values aside, abstinence is a manner of saving oneself for your mate - it is the greatest gift you can give to the person whom you wish to be with.
Though sexual superiority?

I do not believe that it goes with abstinence. Men must refrain as women do, and while I understand the misconception in some societies of a woman raped is a woman sullied, this is not a teaching of abstinence. What the true teaching is, is to respect your body, and your partner. We did not have the same methods of birth control as future generations did.

And there is no superior sex. Women are powerful, as men are. They are compliments. Men do not own or control women, as women do not own or control men. There is a certain beauty to the balance, when two married individuals are comfortable enough to find it. Man can shed his seed endlessly and uselessly, and it will do nothing but a wasteful venture until a woman is present. Only through she can true miracle occur - only through she can it be made meaningful.
Women are precious. They should be protected from the brutes who would use them without thought. They are the calm in the storm to men who's own wills and foolish minds cast them so oft into trouble. They are the voice of reason when our temper forces us to lose our own. They are softness in the brittle and sharp world of male competition and corruption. A single woman could start a great war, and that same woman could end it with a soft brush of her lips.

Sexual superiority does not come from abstinence.
The idea of it comes from fear.
Men cannot stand to be caged and controlled. We seek to dominate and belittle that which holds it's will over us, and that, good sir, happens to be not the more intoxicating sex.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

sanguinespirit
2009-09-01 06:15 pm UTC (link)

It is the greatest misconception that generational values change and fluctuate through the ages. One longs for a different world, when in reality the traditions that seem so high up on pedestals are still alive and well and ever haunting each generation.

Abstinence reeks of religious doctrine and of a time when it was perfectly acceptable for a man to be promiscuous and a indecent for a woman to be sexual. While I agree that it is a fine gesture indeed for a man and woman to couple themselves with the promise of having touched no other - greatest gift does abstinence not make. The greatest gift to give to your partner is the utmost understanding and respect, and of course to love that person as no other has and ever will.

I think I must have misunderstood you. If you truly believe there is no superior sex, then why would you have women be constantly protected and chaperoned? It strikes me as controlling and misogynistic - as though a woman is unable to handle her own feminine charms. In fact, the very idea of a woman being precious and unable to control the power that she has over men rings somewhat unsettling to me, as though they have grand control over the opposite sex and are too weak to protect themselves because of it!

You befuddle me, sir. I feel that ideas like sexual abstinence have led men to dominate the 'fairer sex' for years and years - but you are correct in one thing, it has started as a fine idea and has been abused to suit the purposes of the fearful and controlling. However I also believe that this stunts our growth as humanity as a whole, to cage your passions as such and to allow ourselves to categorise the sexes. Women are precious, true, but they are also strong and capable and should, I believe, be allowed to be as promiscuous as they so desire, so long as they are safe about their choices. Likewise, it goes the same for males. Some men are brutes, but most are not. This corralling of the sexes can only lead to oppression.

Do forgive me if I have stepped on your toes.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

charlus_potter
2009-09-02 11:30 am UTC (link)

I have had my toes stepped on aplenty by those with sharper heels than you, good sir. You must understand that I fought beside many witches during a time when my views were deemed less than popular.

It is not that a woman cannot control herself - quite the contrary. Wish all we want, there is still the sad and very true fact that remains that it takes but one savage to damage a civilization to its core. It is not our job to control them - it is our job to ensure they reach their destination safely. Though as a parent, it is also our job to ensure our children, most especially daughters, do not do anything untoward or so dangerous as to be out on such a late night, inebriated, in clothing that barely counts for undergarments and completely incapable of protecting herself should someone decide to take advantage.

I am a priest, and was raised very heavily in religious faith and ideals, and it is something I try very hard to remove from much of my conversation with others, but this one area where I simply cannot. Sexual promiscuity is, in and of itself, a dangerous game indeed. Yes, it would be ideal to have whichever partner you wanted, and be as open and free as you desired, yet this is not the case.

There is obsession, emotions, and feelings. One may all for another without the emotion returned, and in turn feel used. This can sprout violence or hatred, obsession, depression, and a myriad of other things. It can spread diseases, cause unwanted offspring...there are far too many downsides to this supposed liberation.

Women can protect themselves, and men can as well. But even a man can fall easy to an enemy who comes at his back when he is not looking. A woman should not need to defend herself. She should not need to hone this skill unless she wants it. When she is young, she should have that freedom that safety brings, escorted by a father or guardian who can protect her and allow her to grow without fear. She should not need to defend herself. And since there will always be those seeking to destroy that innocence of youth before she is ready to surrender it, we must always be ready to protect it. It is not that they are incapable - it is that they should not have to. I have seen the horrors of war and death, and felt the strain of terror. I have been subjected to violence and many other terrible things, and have known what it is like to suspect every shadow.

It is not out of lack of their abilities that I believe they should be so protected.
It is out of respect. Out of, perhaps, a desperation to hold onto the primal instincts that linger in the back of the mind. A desire to protect one's mate. To keep safe the only home some men will know, and that is not a place, but the touch of his wife. There is a sanctuary and peace offered through the touch of a woman, and while she could defend herself, it enrages me to see these idiots trouncing around without any idea how valuable of a gift they so easily use and discard.

My ideas, as I have often been told, are old and outdated. I do not tend to begrudge people their own morals and takes on such roles, and believe any should find the life which makes them happiest.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

sanguinespirit
2009-09-02 03:18 pm UTC (link)

Shoe metaphors. I do approve.

I do think it a parental responsibility to monitor one's progeny, despite the sex. Furthermore, not just the daughter and her innocence, but a son must also be taught to respect and treat others in a decent manner - which I am sure is something we can both agree upon despite obvious differences.

As much as I would like, I will spare you a debate on religion. I fear I am unfair to certain opinions as they feel mired in Christianity and unable to progress much further. And it does not make for nice and even debate, as I understand that faith is a strong thing indeed and would not wish to attack yours or anyone's for that matter.

If your ideas are old and outdated, sir, why then mine must be ancient indeed. You see, it is by looking backwards that I see the progression of the present, and it does please me. You speak of violence, and I do not doubt that those terrors can affect a person greatly, as war and death and great horrors are in my past as well. However one should always look forward, or rather, I look forward. I have lived in the past for too long, you might say. Both women and men are far more capable than anyone throughout history have been willing to admit, and despite this seemingly pessimistic attitude on the lack of value of a good woman, I find that has never really been the case.

Perhaps the view is a little too generalised. Perhaps it is too widely thought that a woman needs cherishing and a man should protect and value her, when easily these roles may reverse. I merely speak for equality, as I have seen women abuse men and become used and tossed aside.

I wish for you not to doubt that in many ways I share your morals and your self-proclaimed outdated notions. It is just that I have seen good intentions become warped far too easily, and traditions turned into a means of which to oppress and belittle. Marriage, for instance, has always been a wary idea for me - not because of the wonderful thing that it can and should be, the utmost perfect and equal partnership and friendship - but because of what it has become in many aspects.

Tis a good spar, sir.

(Reply to this) (Parent)