Of Boylove and Boylovers

Re aatish:

``you are all just talking nonsense. See #48``

Sorry no one got back to you.

Let me just pose one question to you: Should I condemn all heterosexuals and heterosexuality because last month my sister was raped by one? (and a very manipulative one at that. Let`s say it was date-rape)

Of course I`m being hypothetical, but that`s not the point.

Regards,

PM

Waheed,

In regard to your query about ``why is it we never hear from the boys who grow up to say they had positive pedophilic relationships as boys``, it just occurred to me, I remember reading somewhere that it is a federal crime in the US (or was it Austrailia, or both? I`m not too sure) to speak favourably about such expereinces in hindsight.

That, if true, would both, answer your question and support my argument that pedophilia is the state`s favourite whipping boy.

Btw, I agree with you on that ``there is nothing brave about my writing. Honest, yes, but I don`t claim that to be a virtue, either. It`s the only way to go. Too bad you can`t see what you can`t see, otherwise you might begin to understand, if still not support.

Regards,

PM

Dear Kafir

Thanks for the grade. However, I do not look upon this exercise as test.

``However, you have failed to convince me (and probably others) that the nature of your relationships with your boylovers is consensual and not coerced. If your relationships are truly consensual and you can prove that, then we can discuss the issue further.``

I suspect nothing I could ever say would be believed simply because, to you, I am a Pedophile, which makes me a predator almost by definition. Why is my integrity even called into question. Well, for practical reasons of time and space, I could never ``prove`` to you that my relationships are non-coercive. Another reason is, as I thought I`d made clear in my article (or was I too subtle) that I haven`t had any experience with a child that could be labelled sexual since Nomi sat on my lap for about 15 seconds all those years ago. However, I don`t see myself not ever having one.

Buy wait a minute. This is not supposed to be about me anyway. It`s about the motivations and dynamics of man-boy relationships per se. Even if I DID convince you of my own integrity in this regard, that wouldn`t necessarily be saying anything about these relationships in general. For evidence about them, we need more substantial, less anecdotal data, which I`ve provided in my article, and of which tonnes exist on the web if one cares to search.

A good starting point would be - say it with me, people - ``Pedophilia- The Radical Case``. Run a search.

``Do your friends with young sons offer them to you for the boys` sexual education?``

No, I`m afraid none are that enlightened.

Do you seek out lonely and vulnerable boys in public places?

That wouldn`t be a bad idea. Why should my longing for a relationship with them, and my deep feelings for them, come in the way of their being `helped`. When it happens in adult relationships, we get songs that go ``I was nobody until you found me.. I`m everything I am because you loved me``. When a similar thing happens in a cross generational scenario, and is discovered, the adult gets 20 years and the boy---spare a thought for the boy, please (w all know how much an adult can mean to us at 12) - - ends up losing a source of support and love, and gains guilt and when he `learns` from society`s moral watchdogs that he`s been abused.

Hope that answers you questions adequately, even if they were asked somewhat teasingly.

Of course it would be okay for the parent to be the teacher - although like I said, I have misgivings about cross gender intergenerational relationships But I can`t really justify my misgivings so I reserve final judgement n that issue.

``Wouldn`t it be better for a child to have a parent teach him about sex rather than a stranger?``

Where would you go, buddy? No not `where would you have your son go?`` Where would you go? TO each his own. Remember, my article is as much about recognizing children`s sexual rights as it is our own.

``Also, what happens when a man-boy relationship becomes abusive? What recourse does the boy have? He is obviously physically, intellectually, and emotionally inferior to the man, so how is he supposed to respond?``

Lemme see now. Assuming we`re talking about a society in which such a relationship isn`t taboo. I`ll let you answer this one by examining the options available for redress in any non-taboo relationship that exists in current society. (Obviously, you`d have to discount the married relationship in Pakistan now) (j/k)

If you`re stuck for an answer, try ``by informing parents, friends, the cops`` See, if we didn`t make it such a darn taboo issue, the opporunity for abuse wouldn`t be as great. Children wold be free to say ``Enough, or I`ll tell my dad!``

You won`t buy this, of course, because it all sounds too simple, and you`re convinced that sex is inherently complicated.

Regards,

PM

Oh, what exactly do you mean by ``It would have ruined the gradual process of sexual awakening and maturity that I, like every child, am entitled to``.

Care to explain this gradual process of awakening and why it would have been disrupted with adult assistance/interference (whichever way you want to look at it)?

Re. JR:

``PM, do you know there are adults who want to do it to babies too. Yes, pedos don`t just act on a specific age group. Now are you going to say that that is okay too. Where do you draw the line?``

Have you even bothered to read the data from FBI presented in my article on who commits these crimes?

Suggestion: Re-read. er.. This time without the blinders.

I draw the line at the point where we can agree the child knows what he wants (and doesn`t) and can say yes or no. Where exactly that line falls is culture, class and individual-dependent, but I would generally place it around 12 (the age of consent, in fact in the Netherlands).

Also, there are different forms of sexual activity that can be though of as appropriate/inappropriate to a given age. This principle is already in use in many of the American states. Kissing and fondling, after all, are miles away from, say, sodomy.

``You need to focus your energies on remedying your emotional problems rather than trying to take the easy path of justifying them by quoting examples from history.``

Yeah, you`re so full of it,aren`t ya!? Leaving aside my emotional problems, why, exactly, would it be wrong to show examples from history WHERE SUCH PRACTICES WERE CARRIED OUT WITHOUT THE CONSEQUENCES WE FEAR. Well, not always, but then, nothing`s perfectly safe in life.

re kafir

damn, you beat me to it!! :)

yes, what ABOUT incest? why is that wrong or right?

Patrick,

Your handicap is both physical and mental. I understand that you cannot help the position you are in, because like a homosexual, your body and mind choose to behave the way they do, more driven by passion than reason. However, trying to justify your position the way you do is stretching it a little too far. It is like a quadriplegic trying to fly a fighter plane.

Sex is a very complex activity even for normal adult humans. An 11 year old is by no means physically or mentally grownup enough for even the simple task of driving a car. We are talking about just driving a car here. How can an 11 year old be expected to handle the emotion and physical responsibility of having sex then? Who is going to stop the 11 year old from behaving that way to a 2 year old? Does he know any better? There are probably many 11 year olds who feel they can drive a car, but how many parents will confidently allow their 11 year old to get behind the wheel? Why not?

PM, do you know there are adults who want to do it to babies too. Yes, pedos don`t just act on a specific age group. Now are you going to say that that is okay too. Where do you draw the line?

Most sexual abuse is about power and not about sex at all. The very fact that you enjoy being with children and also making love to them says a lot about your emotional problems. You need to focus your energies on remedying your emotional problems rather than trying to take the easy path of justifying them by quoting examples from history.

Re: PM # 84&85

PM, first of all, please note the time on my reply #77, to which you have responded with mutilple replies. As of this minute, I have been up for 32 hours without any sleep since I am trying to finish this damned project and this is just a mental break from that chore......so, please excuse me if I do not answer all your objections and points that you have raised.

To summerize what I felt about ``...not trying to convince us...``, it was to each his own. Personally, I do not agree nor will I condone your actions, but I understand how each person has to follow the muse of his/her own happiness or inspiration. I was not inferring that you stop writing, but only that you are addressing an audience, which in majority is not in sympathy with your views and there is no point in pushing this proverbial cart any further, because the issue lines have been well drawn in the cyber-sand and there will be no compromise on opposing positions on this issue and it is futile to try so.

As to civility and objectivity of others, that is beyond my powers. I have done my best to keep my posts civil, but given my strong dislike of the subject matter, my objectivity is questionable.

PM, what we have here is a basic failure to see eye to eye. In Utah, where I live, the legal age of consent is 16 years old; it was 14 a year ago before the State legislature amended it. I still think that it should be 18 years and I do not care what the legalities are, because if something seems wrong to me, I will say so. You may disagree with me and you can call me prejudicial, because, in reality, my personality is the sum of my prejudices. I do not deny that, because they are the traits, which define my attitudes.

Yes, the state does not always knows what is the best, but to accomodate your perspectives, we would have to change a whole corpus of law on a highly incindery topic and that will never happen. Asysmmetrical relationships, when it deals with children are not necessarily exploitive, but the potential for exploitation is always there and that is what the laws are supposed to prevent. This a simple case of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few and in this case, your individual perferences.

PM, there is huge difference between giving the children the choice and having them excerise that choice. If the child, for what ever reasons is afraid to excerise that choice, then he or she ipso facto does not have that choice and it is incumbent on those who have the power or the final say to uphold that choice for them.

As I have been saying on this issue, it is about personal choices and the society as a whole does not have to subscribe and re-think its entire outlook on the basis of one person`s feeling about a certain affair d`couer. You can be as objective and rational as you like, but does that condone your actions? PM, I will gladly stand up and defend your rights to shout out your opinions, but I do not have to agree with them, because to me, in this case, they are wrong!

As a tangent, if you think my post was a personal attack on you, then you are wrong. It was not. We can drag this tete-a-tete along, but it will be useless, because I have already stated my positions on the matter and those are, that I disagree with you and if this act, what ever you want to call it, is an act of prejudice then I openly support it, because of the benefits it accurues for the child in question in protecting him or her from the potential abuse of an asysmmetrical relationship.

I hope that I have answered all your objections and if I do not reply post-haste to your reply, it will be, because I opted for sleep!

PM, let just ask you point-blank that if all other things were being equal, what you or how would you envision an ideal situation in your case and why?

PM:

Well, I must admit, you get an `A` for persistence in responding to the chowkwalas. You seem to have mastered the art of rebuttal, are excellent at pushing arguments to their logical limits, and astutely point out inconsistencies in people?s responses. However, you have failed to convince me (and probably others) that the nature of your relationships with your boylovers is consensual and not coerced. If your relationships are truly consensual and you can prove that, then we can discuss the issue further. However, if they are coercive in nature, then your actions are unacceptable and no amount of erudite logistical gymnastics and historical precedent will justify them.

Specifically, I would like to know how you go about meeting your boys. You mentioned that you don?t solicit your students, so where do you find these children? Do you attend boylove social mixers or conventions? Do you search on the internet? Do your friends with young sons offer them to you for the boys` sexual education? Do you seek out lonely and vulnerable boys in public places? How do you hook up??

Also, if you think that children are intellectually and emotionally ready to handle sex like an adult, do you think it?s proper for a parent to have sex with his/her child in order to educate him/her about sexuality (what your `dogmatic moralists` call `incest,` in case I`m not being clear)? Why or why not? Wouldn`t it be better for a child to have a parent teach him about sex rather than a stranger?

Also, what happens when a man-boy relationship becomes abusive? What recourse does the boy have? He is obviously physically, intellectually, and emotionally inferior to the man, so how is he supposed to respond?

Finally, to second Feroz`s question: In your ideal world, how would society accommodate boylovers?

I remember having a huge crush on my Phys. Ed. teacher when I was 12 years old. He was very handsome, kind, generous, encouraging, supportive, humorous, and an all-around nice guy. I fantasized about spending time with him, and my heart would race every time he patted me on the shoulder or smiled at me. However, now having been in adult relationships and having understood the emotional and intellectual faculties that are needed for a healthy one, I can tell you with absolute certainty that I would NOT have been able to handle any sort of sexual relationship with my gym teacher, no matter how much I may have wanted to at the time. It would have ruined the gradual process of sexual awakening and maturity that I, like every child, am entitled to. I`m of course speaking from my own experience (which is all any of us can really go by on this issue), so I just cannot buy your premise that a child is capable of informed and mature consent in matters of sex.

Dear saaf-go: (Ferozk, some issues you brought up are addressed here)

The analogy with honor-killings is most intriguing. Thanks

You asked for my views on matters of morality. I agree that society`s are built on dogma. I`m no sociologist (heck, I never went to college, actually) but I have the feeling that societies couldn`t be built without dogma, without a common sense of, and somewhat unanimous agreement about, certain basic principles.

But to suggest, as Ferozk seems to, that this dogma is to be viewed as sacred, is I think, quite ridiculous. If that were the case, societies would never evolve. When dogma is questioned, society may evolve, and sometimes even go backward (mostly in cases where the baby is thrown out with the bath water).

The fact is, I don`t call myself a liberal because that term has come to be associated with an acceptance of value-relativity (something I find morally unacceptable). Having said that, I value the libertine values such as the freedom of expression, not because I think everyone has something of worth to say, but rather because somebody, even saying something seemingly ridiculous or radical, just might have a case. Experience has taught me this lesson. (I used to be what you might call a dogmatic fundamentalist in my teens.)

So, how do I feel about current sexual mores? Let me quote from my article:

``Whether a relationship is degrading or uplifting is determined not by its label but by its motivation, method and result. We apply these tests everyday to most relationships-marriage, teacher-pupil, parent-child.``

I think you get the spirit. We naturally need to be careful when challenging dogma, since it usually has built around it elaborate social structures that nobody would want to see come crashing down all at once. All the same, if we believe that societies can and should evolve, I think we are necessarily saying that there is at least some dogma within it that can be questioned. (I understand that some people believe that we have received the blueprint for the perfectly evolved society centuries ago, but I don`t think any among chowk`s readership would seriously defend this particular `dogma`).

Challenging dogma usually gets to be dirty business, and is met with opposition on all fronts. I don`t believe in challenging it for the sake of challenging it, and think that it is always an undertaking that should be approached with as broad a view of it`s consequences as possible. A time comes when, however, it needs to be done. When individuals and groups get about doing this, they are often confronted with accusations for instance, that (?gimme a second to find that posting?)

``you are advocating a deregulation of pedophilia, which is a criminal act, to lend credence to your acts, which are punishable by the law.`` (Ferozk, #77), a cyclical argument really, often `supported` by attempts at rationalizing the status quo:

``Regardless of what you might think, the state, which enforces the legal ordinances, has a vested interest in this matter and it terming the act of pediophila as a crime originates in the collective opinion of its populace from which its legitimacy to rule derives from:`` (ibid)

This is often accompanied as in the case above, by a convenient confusing of issues and an appeal to the passions by rhetoric that shows scant respect for evidence (even empirical) that might expose the emptiness of the rhetoric:

``This leads us into the rights and obligations of a given law and its intent and in this case the intent of the law is to prevent children, who are unable to protect themselves, from acts or consequences, which could be construed as harmful to their normal development.``(ibid)

A common, though ultimately dishonest, method of thwarting challenges is to launch subtle personal attacks on those who launch it. (It always helps to do so under the guise of reason, to which it is actually opposed):

``In this, PM, you have seemingly miscalculated, because you sought equate liberalism with AMORALITY, but could not due to a society`s basic system of dogmatic core values and beliefs...`` (ibid) (my caps on `amorality`) (ibid.)

So, do I oppose dogma? No, not necessarily. Do I believe we should question it? You answer that for yourself now.

I`d just like to address the accusation of amorality:

Suffice it to say for now, that if I hadn`t believed that there are morals (and absolute one`s at that, not relative) I wouldn`t have deemed it necessary to construct a lengthy argument to try and show that there is a common truth we can argue about in order to reach. Contrary to what others would like to think, the purpose of my writing was not to seek society`s approval of my beliefs (``actions`` being absent yet) - except incidentally. Do you think I give a damn what people at chowk, whom I`ll never come in contact with, think about me personally? Do you think I`d be so naive as to expect them to agree readily? Why do you think I`ve withheld my name?

No, I approached the undertaking with a genuine desire to educate. Hence the heavy reliance upon researched data and long-thought-out reasoning to support my arguments *whatever their ultimate veracity). In the end, I sent it to chowk, because I felt it my moral duty to enlighten the public to the prevalence of a prejudice. (And stop chuckling, there! I`m serious.)

With rejoinders such as yours, I feel it hasn`t been a total exercise in futility.

Regards,

PM

Ferozk

(Re #77):

If you`d care to re-read my posting regarding my disillusionment, you`d find that it was with the general lack of civility, and of the capacity to be a little objective. Nowhere did I state or imply that I was disillusioned by the lack of support. Perhaps your eagerness to see it that way has to do with your annoyance that I refuse to be dragged down to the level of mudslinging. You suggest that:

``Depsite your clever attempts to disquise this issue within a realm of sophistary and an impartial demeanor, this is, on your part, nothing more than an attempt to assauge and balm the anguish, which seems to be related to your own behaviorial dysfunctions in this reagrd.``

Wow, not only do you make an accusation of use of sophistry without bothering to elaborate, you seem to already know me inside out. Heard of Projection? Hey it`s even true that (being a product of the same society as yourself, there has been anguish to deal with, but can you consider for a moment that I might have gone past that?

Okay, I admit, the ``impartial demeanor`` is not completely natural (although it`s now becoming like second nature). It was a conscious choice of strategy because I think that if we`re going to make any progress, at least one party needs to keep a cool, rational head. I don`t think I`ve failed in either objective.

I haven`t got the time to reply to all of your contentions now, but ,er?

I pontificate? I think pontification connotes not just moral but dogmatic elements. While I have made certain statements of a moral nature such as ``I think this such-and-such lacks integrity``, you can hardly accuse me of being dogmatically moralistic about anyone`s position.

In fact, I can readily accept when someone disagrees with my contentions on purely moral grounds. I can respect the person who says ``I disagree on purely moral grounds``, or ``my beliefs on the matter have to do with 6th century dogma``. In such cases, we have a difference in basic values that can appreciate and respect the right to hold even as I might be thoroughly disgusted (inwardly) by them.

What I cannot respect, however, is the attempt to first justify morals on grounds of rationality or practicality (for instance, citing issues of abuse, protection etc.), and then, when it suits one, to switch to axiomatic justification (``It`s just wrong/right because it is period``). That , my friend is morally objectionable to me. Take that as an instance of pontification if you want.

A few questions your last response raised (and if you`re going to dismiss them, please don`t do so on grounds of sophistry. I still have some respect for you)

You say that gay rights issues can`t be equated with pedophilia (I never did equate them in the first place. I only used the former to show that the criminality of a practice is not necessarily linked to its intrinsic good or evil). Anyway, you say they can`t be compared because the latter is an asymmetrical relationship. Now,

Are asymmetrical relationships necessarily exploitative? If not, does the inclusion of sex necessarily make them so? If so (sex=exploitation), is that because adult also enjoys the experience?

Let`s put it another way: (And please, this is completely hypothetical reasoning here:

Is it okay for, say, a gymnastics coach to enjoy the experience of teaching even while his/her gymnast

Should this be any difference if the nature of enjoyment involves sexuality? Why?

As for the protection issue, you would have us believe that what the state thinks is the best form of protection is always true. Ponder on the plight of Pakistani women for a minute, whose perceived vulnerability is under the protection by all and sundry. THIS IS NOT IRRELEVANT. At core is the same problem: a patronising attitude. Consider if you will, a state where the age of consent is, say 12. (the legal age, in fact, in the Netherlands, and one less than that in Spain and some other European countries) Consider that every child will be taught to say NO or Yes, based very simply on whether or not they find the experience enjoyable.`` As someone put it, instead of positing that children cannot make the decsion, why don`t we give them the choice and see what they choose.

Yes, this sounds totally radical, and I admit, we are light years away from a setting where this might even be possible to try out (Although it has been tried in certain whathyamightcallem communities in Europe that are autonomous (like the nudist resorts). For an eye opening account of one such community, and the effects of `free sex` look up Pedophilia_ The Radical Case. The book is available on line, free)

I suggest all of the above, in principle, to counter your arguments that make adolescent-sex a ``protection`` issue. Needless to say, if it`s simply a BASIC, unquestionable, moral issue, you can simply ignore it all and pray for my soul.

Regards,

PM

Btw, you said ``please stop trying to convince us..``

With all due respect sir, if you don`t care to ``be convinced``, just don`t read. To ask me to stop writing is a little .. .er.. . stupid.

Ferozk

(Re #77):

If you`d care to re-read my posting regarding my disillusionment, you`d find that it was with the general lack of civility, and of the capacity to be a little objective. Nowhere did I state or imply that I was disillusioned by the lack of support. Perhaps your eagerness to see it that way has to do with your annoyance that I refuse to be dragged down to the level of mudslinging. You suggest that:

``Depsite your clever attempts to disquise this issue within a realm of sophistary and an impartial demeanor, this is, on your part, nothing more than an attempt to assauge and balm the anguish, which seems to be related to your own behaviorial dysfunctions in this reagrd.``

Wow, not only do you make an accusation of use of sophistry without bothering to elaborate, you presume to already know me inside out. Heard of Projection? Hey it`s even true that (being a product of the same society as yourself, there has been anguish to deal with, but can you consider for a moment that I might have gone past that?

Okay, I admit, the ``impartial demeanor`` is not completely natural (although it`s now becoming like second nature). It was a conscious choice of strategy because I think that if we`re going to make any progress, at least one party needs to keep a cool, rational head. I don`t think I`ve failed in either objective.

I haven`t got the time to reply to all of your contentions now, but ,er?

I pontificate? I think pontification connotes not just moral but dogmatic elements. While I have made certain statements of a moral nature such as ``I think this such-and-such lacks integrity``, you can hardly accuse me of being dogmatically moralistic about anyone`s position.

In fact, I can readily accept when someone disagrees with my contentions on purely moral grounds. I can respect the person who says ``I disagree on purely moral grounds``, or ``my beliefs on the matter have to do with 6th century dogma``. In such cases, we have a difference in basic values that can appreciate and respect the right to hold even as I might be thoroughly disgusted (inwardly) by them.

What I cannot respect, however, is the attempt to first justify morals on grounds of rationality or practicality (for instance, citing issues of abuse, protection etc.), and then, when it suits one, to switch to axiomatic justification (``It`s just wrong/right because it is period``). That , my friend is morally objectionable to me. Take that as an instance of pontification if you want.

A few questions your last response raised (and if you`re going to dismiss them, please don`t do so on grounds of sophistry. I still have some respect for you)

You say that gay rights issues can`t be equated with pedophilia (I never did equate them in the first place. I only used the former to show that the criminality of a practice is not necessarily linked to its intrinsic good or evil). Anyway, you say they can`t be compared because the latter is an asymmetrical relationship. Now,

Are asymmetrical relationships necessarily exploitative? If not, does the inclusion of sex necessarily make them so? If so (sex=exploitation), is that because adult also enjoys the experience?

Let`s put it another way: (And please, this is completely hypothetical reasoning here:

Is it okay for, say, a gymnastics coach to enjoy the experience of teaching even while his/her gymnast

Should this be any difference if the nature of enjoyment involves sexuality? Why?

As for the protection issue, you would have us believe that what the state thinks is the best form of protection is always true. Ponder on the plight of Pakistani women for a minute, whose perceived vulnerability is under the protection by all and sundry. THIS IS NOT IRRELEVANT. At core is the same problem: a patronising attitude. Consider if you will, a state where the age of consent is, say 12. (the legal age, in fact, in the Netherlands, and one less than that in Spain and some other European countries) Consider that every child will be taught to say NO or Yes, based very simply on whether or not they find the experience enjoyable.`` As someone put it, instead of positing that children cannot make the decsion, why don`t we give them the choice and see what they choose.

Yes, this sounds totally radical, and I admit, we are light years away from a setting where this might even be possible to try out (Although it has been tried in certain whathyamightcallem communities in Europe that are autonomous (like the nudist resorts). For an eye opening account of one such community, and the effects of `free sex` look up Pedophilia_ The Radical Case. The book is available on line, free)

I suggest all of the above, in principle, to counter your arguments that make adolescent-sex a ``protection`` issue. Needless to say, if it`s simply a BASIC, unquestionable, moral issue, you can simply ignore it all and pray for my soul.

Regards,

PM

Btw, you said ``please stop trying to convince us..``

With all due respect sir, if you don`t care to ``be convinced``, just don`t read. To ask me to stop writing is a little .. .er.. . stupid.

re PM

cant respond to everything you have said, but just a few things:

thanks for the references. will look them up.

i never said the analogy was flawed, i said its use was appropriate.


you said:
BG`s need to remind me what he says holds only ``assuming [I] am being truthful about my emotions and extent of actions.`` This betrays a certain distrust of myself [no doubt owing to my pedophilia] that makes one wonder how objectively
one may view the subject.

this is what i actually wrote:
``1. please read the paragraphs addressed to you with the caveat: assuming that what you have stated in your article, about not using manipulation and coercion, is true.``

i admit i have a hard time accepting that there is no manipulation or coercion in a relationship which has such a huge power imbalance (age and student teacher relationship), something i have stated clearly in another post.

i have tried to read what you wrote open mindedly and questioned myself what it is about boylove that bothers me. and, i`ve told you its because of the focus on youth and the intellecutual, emotional and power inequity. i cannot be objective about this subject matter and i dont pretend to be. in any event, ``objectivity`` is a farce (and long time tool of science-in-the-service of imperialism and industry).

having girlfriends with whom you ``go through the motions`` is meaningful?

regards

lost in all praise of the piece, everyone waxing philosophical on the joy of writing, the comparisons (please) to nabokov, is the fact that the author IS, after all, a child molestor.

i`ve read it twice now as well, kinda like driving past a car accident and looking in the rear view mirror.

yeah, the guy writes well, he`s found justification for his condition in the most unlikeliest of sources. but, in the end, he is someone who would defile the innoncence of youth for sexual pleasure. a young boy to him is not a naive child, one who needs nurturing and guidance from the adult figures in his life, but, and excuse my tastelessness, a good lay.

isn`t there a point when even an open mind must close itself off?

LONDAYBAAZI, CHOWK AUR HUM



(Frankly I never dreamt I`d ever use this word in conversation, let alone in writing. I wish to sincerely apologise for any offence caused. It is not me. But I had to.)


LondayBaazi is the definitve cultural, clinical and vernacular word to describe a longing for young boys. In classical Urdu literature, we find verses galore from Ustaads to mediocre poets. Ustad Mir Taqi Mir to Faraz to lesser poets have recited shae`rs in praise of young(er) boys. Even in some `divine` scriptures young boys are promised as a reward in the hereafter.

There is nothing new in the thoughts expressed by P.M. Whether these intitals stand for Patrick Masih or Pervaiz Musharraf is not relevant. LB is centuries old and was prevalent and documented in the eighteenth /nineteenth century Oudh and its remnants are to be found in present day areas of NorthWest Pakistan.

With this dubiously rich `cultural` heritage why do we find this confessional so antagonising? It is not the purpose of this essay to argue the merits or demerits of LB. The proper place to do so, now that the article as surfaced on page 1, will be in the interacts to that article.

I would like to initiate another discussion. Should such articles find a place on this chowk?
Should chowk draw a line across literary sand? Let me throw in some subjects for discussion. Tell me if we can have a well informed dialogue on such topics.

---eating human offal for pleasure.
---consuming urine for inner cleanliness.
---menage-a-trois with a young boy AND his father.
---OR with a young girl and her mother.
---fantasies about a prostrating Imam.
---gang rape for pleasure and profit.
---safe sex with goats

The written Word can and has been interpreted every which way. We find doctors` studies that indicate red wine is good for the arteries. Then we find other good doctors who say red wine is bad for the arteries. Salt is good. Salt is bad. Carboyhdrates are good. They are bad. Protein rich diet is good. Protein rich diet is bad.

No matter what the impulse, craving or fetish, we can find studies supporting or opposing them. And there will be a few persons in a million or ten million who can articulate or extrapolate their impulses citing `scientific` studies. Should they all find space on page one?
Are we prepared to discuss each and every thought or impulse?

I am open to listen to others about God, Allah, Muhammed, Kor`an, Love, Hatred, Regression-----but there is a line one has to draw somewhere. Let this be a catalyst to define the outer limits of our tolerance on chowk.

In my humble view this Chowk that I consider my second home is not the place for such articles. They should be directed toward Psychology Today or other Psychology Digests or even the Journals of Medicine. But not here.
regards
-

Kamran and SR:

Your comments made me go back and re-read PM`s essay - was I missing something in terms of the brilliance of his prose?

I think that if this article was submitted to me as an editor, and I had to make the decision to publish, I would probably excise the ``essay`` part of it and focus instead on the ``personal account``. With some polish, this could be a strong story if left to stand on its own.

However, I think a comparison to Nabakov might be a little optimistic. I have not read enough Nabakov to make the judgement, but I`d like to reproduce a paragraph from Amy Tan`s essay on Nabakov and specifically Lolita.

``I often reread passages of ``Lolita`` for its exquisite language. To me, ``Lolita`` has no message, no purpose, other than to exist as a marvel of literary creation. It has wit, intelligence and style. It pointedly makes no attempt to serve a higher moral purpose, and previous attempts by critics to find one have proven ludicrous. The annotated edition is accompanied by a brilliant afterword by Nabakov
that is a lucid reminder of the pure joy of writing, its interplay with life. He also provides the truest definition of pornography I`ve ever found, likening it to mediocre literature and the ``copulation of cliches.`` I`ll keep this in mind if I ever get around to seeing the latest makeover of ``Lolita`` on film.``

I do not get this sense from PM`s writing in this essay, though perhaps Nabakov is one of his influences.

And, a sentence from Lolita itself:
I insist the world know how much I loved my Lolita, this Lolita, pale and polluted, and big
with another`s child, but still gray-eyed, still sooty-lashed, still auburn and almond, still
Carmencita, still mine...

This is gorgeous.

Go this site: http://www.userpage.fu-berlin.de/

RE:PM # 65

Glad you have realized that the negative reaction to your article is coming, most likey, from questioning people`s deepest believes. There are certain believes, which are held as sacrosant and woe unto to those who question them.

PM, regarding your disapproval of those who have, in your words, adopted a pontificating attitude, I think in many ways you are quilty of such a behavior yourself. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion on this matter, but when you bemoan a lack of acceptance on their part of your opinions, you are likewise quilty of being blinded to what they are saying, against the sort of relationship, which you have invoked in your article by your perchant to some how legitimize how you feel about this highly sensitive topic. Just like your detractors on this InterAct!, your views on this subject are prejudiced by your own experiences and thus, you have a vested interest in this topic and because of that you, yourself, can not be considered as a fully impartial participant in this debate either.

I will grant you the argument that there is nothing wrong with debating this issue, but it is a wrong approach, undertaken by you in your agruments, which seeks to cast a pale of bigotary, narrow mindness and a sense of provincialism on those who chose to, for reasons of their own believes, disagree with you on this topic. PM, you are trying to convince your detractors of the asendency of your position on this topic, but you will convince no one if you persit in belittling their believe systems, because it does not agree with your perspectives on the issue.

In its simplest sense, this issue hinges on the personal believe and the values of an individual. Their final objectivity and decision on this matter will be decided by what consitutes as their core moral believes and what they hold to be as wrong and right and you can question those believes, but you can not change or amend them unless the individual wishes to oblige you in this matter and willing agrees to your view points.

PM, realistically speaking, it is quite evident that you are a highly intelligent person as can be discerned from the articulation of your replies, but you would be extremely misplaced to assume that there is no distinction between debating this issue and condoning your proclivities in this matter. This issue is, as you have rightly pointed out, not about free speech; it about your sense of having a society accept your devotion as something de jure and accordingly condone your acts, what is generally considered righly or wrongly, as an example of abnormal behavior.

It seems from your posts that it is you who is craving for societial acceptence of your conduct and your anger and resentment, though clothed in intellectual nuances, stems from the society`s refusal to condone your actions in this matter. Depsite your clever attempts to disquise this issue within a realm of sophistary and an impartial demeanor, this is, on your part, nothing more than an attempt to assauge and balm the anguish, which seems to be related to your own behaviorial dysfunctions in this reagrd.

Furthermore, it is highly disingenious of you to compare this issue and your lack of objectivity, as seen by others, on the matter with the issues of gay rights. The fight for gay rights, even as a cause celebre, has more to do with with consensual rights of adults and not de-criminalizing an asysmetrical relationship, such as your case of pedophila might imply. In other words, you are advocating a deregulation of pedophilia, which is a criminal act, to lend credence to your acts, which are punishable by the law.

This leads us into the rights and obligations of a given law and its intent and in this case the intent of the law is to prevent children, who are unable to protect themselves, from acts or consequences, which could be construed as harmful to their normal development. Regardless of what you might think, the state, which enforces the legal ordinances, has a vested interest in this matter and it terming the act of pediophila as a crime originates in the collective opinion of its populace from which its legitimacy to rule derives from. In other words, it is the consent of the people that pediophila is wrong, which the state is obligated to enforce despite your misgivings on such a law being prejudicial and in your case, the law imposes a penalty for your actions, which you obviviously do not want to pay and hence, your attempts to lessen the risks of your acts by having the society condone the illegality and abnormality of your acts.

Finally, your growing sense of dis-illushionment, at Chowk, is a reflection of the general readers` not to accept and condone your acts and in a more germane sense is a failure, on your part, to translate the liberal educated implusives of Chowk readership to accept and legitimize your errant behavior. In this, PM, you have seemngly miscalculated, because you sought equate liberalism with amorality, but could not due to a society`s basic system of dogmatic core values and believes, which rebelled against your notions of pedophiliac love.

It seems that on this matter PM, you have gambled and you have lost, so please stop convincing the rest of us, who do not agree with you, to agree with your view, because we will not despite your best intended arguments and this has nothing to do upper class mentality or such; it has to do with a personal choice, which causes us to disagree with you and there is nothing you can do about it!.