Of Boylove and Boylovers

PM

I just re-read your piece again. The second reading makes it even more appealing. You are an excellent writer and you have passion. However, I till think it would have been a better tactic to make it a two-part essay. At first only the issues so they could be discussed (without the readers shifting the focus to your personal life) and then you could have published the personal account. I don`t mean to imply that your personal feeling are something you should feel the need to hide or be ashamed of, no. I`m only suggesting this becuase now we have hind-sight. The issue has simply been drowned out in hysteria and you have become the personification of Lucifer the child molester. This is what I wish could have been avoided so that people could have faced the issue in the abstract hypothetical form. Its less threatening that way. But now, there is so much dust and smoke of personality that the deeper and more subtle questions will be lost.

I`ve glanced through the responses again and I forgot to mention Ibne Sina among those few who were civil (one should generally mention no names, becuase then if one forgets a `credit` one risks affrontry). Also, Kamran69, your response was very well written, it gave me the impulse to read PM`s piece again.

I`m afraid by the time I log-on next time, there will be a hundred others responses and its going to be hard to carry on any debate. But PM you are doing such a great job. But you know what, I don`t think they are actually READING what you write. Either you`re style is too subtle, or the emotive index is running too high and it all gets drowned out in adrenaline.

One last thing. Zehra kept referring to you as Patrick, which you`ve disapproved of. In her defense, I`ll confess that I too thought you were Patrick, since he too goes by the initials PM. Furthermore, his writing style is almost as good as yours (only minus the passion) and he too seems to be christian. Whether he`s Catholic or not, I`ve not read of that myself.

PM

You sure have managed to land yourself in a lot of hot water. Or is it oil? Don`t you know that you must never break their taboos or the natives will cook you in boiling oil? I bet you didn`t count on such a riot, did ya?

As I was reading your piece (especially the `essay` part - prior to the `Dear Abby style confessional` which perhaps you could have saved for later publication - for that (personal episode) has obscured the `issues` at hand and landed you in this snakes` pit) I didn`t imagine that it would invoke the wrath of so many with such fury. I was surprised at first, but as I read on I got irritated and then disgusted. My disgust was at what the self-appointed custodians of virtue wrote in some of their responses. Some of them really demonstrated how poor their reading and comprehension skills really were. They (with some notable exceptions) have, for the most part, misread and re-interpreted what you wrote.

I`m exhausted after reading all the `hate mail` you`ve got, but I`m sure glad I logged on to Chowk tonight and read the article. Your writing style is brilliantly clear, eloquent and forceful, albeit, a trifle pedantic (I do believe you must be an excellent `teacher`). As a person you are very brave and honest, and whereas I do not empathize with your proclivity for prepubescent lads, I don`t think you are a dangerous monster, by any stretch of the imagination (however, it takes a TWISTED imagination, of which your detractors have much abundance, to declare you a menace to society - but more on that later). Of course, I can only take you at your word so I do not second-guess your `hidden motives`, as some others have (who basically call you a liar, fail to read what you`ve actually written, and superimposed their own prejudicial images onto you). Strictly based on what you`ve written, I won`t even fret your presence in my own home. I have an eleven month old son, and though he is already the most precious treasure of my life, I do not feel that you would be any threat to him ten years from now (and, of course, certainly not now).

There is much, too much, that can be discussed about the `issues` at hand (and on many a point we don`t exactly see eye to eye) but time and energy are in short supply right now. Nonetheless, I InterAct now becaise I felt that a word of support was warranted. Wildflower, Kafir, Zehra, BG, Rishi, digit, firaq, saaf-go, Jay, arif and AmirM, are the few who, regardless of their divergent views, have responded with reason, intellect and civility. The rest, for the most part, were ready to send you to the gallows. Seeing the way you have fielded their vituperative invective, I`d say that you don`t need any outside help. However, there are some unnamed others here who have really aired their own demons in the guise of righteousness, and time permitting, I`d like to write a few more words about that. Perhaps some more on the weekend. Good luck.

…SR

PS: To Chowk Staff

You are the real winners here. Congratulations for your courage and steadfastness in publishing this controversial material. Don`t listen to the champions of censorship and go on airing all kinds of laundry. You have my utmost support in the `jihad` against the `self-appointed morality Gestapo`.

someone (I think it was Bina) said:

``THis account is from a pedophile, so it can`t be object/ must be discounted`` (not the exact words)

Well, I guess we`ll have to discount every married persons account of marrid life, since, being an involved party, he/she couldn`t possibly present a ``true`` picture of things.

Oh the infinite wisdom of these writers nowadays!

Waheed,

I don`t normally respond to hysterical ranting such as your, but, what can I say, I`m impressed that you`re at least debating it.

I`d like to point out here that all you impassioned argument, all your name-calling , all your ranting is based on your belief that ``sex is bad for children.`` Period.

What can I say? Would Freud interst you? Read ``The sexual Enlightment of children``. Who knows, you might even get some.

``Every parent, at one stage or the other talks to his childern about ``good touching`` and ``bad touching``...why...? you think all parents are homophobs...?``

When a society is such, what do expect, buddy?

``How many Nomis are there? or how many Nomis have come out and said to their peers, oh, btw I am absolutely in LOVE both emotionally and sexually with this man who is 35...and I have a grip on this relationship...? So how come, all the accounts even spread over the context of history comes from Adults, saying Oh, I was in love with this boy and that boy and we were sexually active...and Not from boys who become adults...?``

You are merely airing your ignorance-born-of bigotry, my friend. Look up internet chat sites, and other tonnes of information, including many studies (some of which I`ve cited) for the ``other`` perspective. Now, these perspectives are just not allowed to reach public consciousness (yet) because it`s just not fashionable. There are thousands of others like you, after all, baying for blood.

``TO DENY...????? you pervert, why don`t you say , TO ALLOW YOU...instead...``

This is just as much about the adolescent`s right to say `Yes` as it is about my choice to go along, even to pursue. But you wouldn`t be able to see that if it hit you in the face.

For every unhappy, unhappy ``Ali``, I can find five ``Alia`s`` -- victims of heterosexual rape. Should we, on these grounds alone, condemn heterosexuality?

I repeat, your problem with accepting the sexuality of children has little objective basis.

And when I said that sex can .. . range from purely physical pleasures to the spiritual, sublime, I didn`t say which I thought applied best to the intergenerational scenario.

Grow up a little, will ya? Read some history too. It can be edifying.

And one more thing: you rally don`t scare me.

z,

im not giving you my opinion... im givin you god`s opinion.

too bad that you read two extra years of wajib namaz.

On Another Account I would like to add the following:

As Shakespeare said:

``Nothing is Good or Bad but thinking makes it so``.

The ardent admirer thought, how do we relate to good or bad ? Based on our childhood teachings, our readings, our upbringing, our surroundings ? What develops the minds of kids, youth, adults, elderly beings ? Probably something that they learnt when they were growing up.

The fact that one negative influence (And I have no doubts on the negativity)negates any positive influence of equal weight is very scary to think of, in Nomi`s life.

Sayings like : A person is judged by the company he/she keeps and many other ``words of wisdom`` do hold some weight here.

The ``saddest point`` is that East tries to emulate West in all the worst imaginable practices. Where we can/should compete or try to emulate we refuse to do that and blame or environment.

What is the % of professional scientist, engineers, doctors, teachers(phds) immigrants in US ? Well, it is quite ironic that we are letting the economy of West grow and when it comes to holding on to the roots of East, we are letting it go down to drains.

Dear BG

(and anyone else who might be interested in delving deeper into the issue of pedophilia with serious interest)recommended reading: ``Pedophilia_ The radical Case`` by Tom O`Carroll, 1977.

Great thing is it`s HTMLixed and freely availbale on the net. Run a search on any engine for it.

Oh, those with merely a prurient interest need waste their (download) time.

BG, forgive my innocence, but could you explain to me why the analogy (I never drew anyway) is flawed? I`d love to lern why. Write me at postmatser@yahoo.com. Note the spelling.

Regards

PM

Dear Zehra,

Some advice for what it`s worth: Look upon ambivalence on an issue as a chance to grow. The discomfort, even perhaps angst, you probably feel sitting on the fence is your mind saying to you ``Jumping ain`t gonna be easy, baby, but there`s a bigger world of ideas out there than you thought.``

And oh, please don`t feel sorry for me. There`s much more to life than sex, you know. Aristotle said that man has two peak experiences in life: one from the acquisition of knowledge (contemplation of truth) and the other from truth sex. I generally agree with this (although I tend to add bungee jumping to that short list). And like I said before, the pleasure of sex isn`t necessarily found in consummation. Besides, I have many wonderful same-and other age friends I share so much with, I really don`t feel sorry for myself at all, so why should you or anyone?

Best regards

P.S. Would you kindlly quit call me Patrick!

Question: How many pseudo-intellectual expat Pakistanis does it take to blow out a candle in the dark?

Zahra:

``There is no connection with comparing your acts to the Prophet`s life. The Prophet (PBUH) married Ayesha (RU). I do not want to bring religion beyond that.``

If u say so. I can see the sound rationality in your style of argument, which you point out is lacking in my essay. Thank you for the edifying experience.

Further, you say:`` That is where I felt quite bad that you lack the sense of responsibility [as a teacher]``

See, you`re just making my point. My interest in boys has you assuming that my sense of responsibility as a teacher compromised. Did it occur to you that I might simply take a deeper interest in their welfare for it? Or are you completely intransigent on the pedophilia-as-exploiter typecast?

FYI, the boy I mentioned wasn`t even my pupil. To the unclouded mind, the impracticality of having a relationship in school is readily apparent.

you said: ``Had you been so comfortable with your actions, then you would never have chosen a thesis to support your arguments.``

Lady, just take a moment to listen to yourself!

``Otherwise a murderer and honor killer can come and narrate a story how their expression of emotions resulting in killing are JUSTIFIED``

In case, no one`s pointed it out to you, the hallmark of a civilized society is a system in which we`d have to hear them out before throwing them to the lions. If we`re really interested in truth, and aren`t completely convinced of our moral perfection, we`d even keep an opening mind while they speak.

Regards,

PM

Bina,

If you find my piece had no informational or literary value, that`s fine, but it`s your opinion. If you cared to read some of the responses, you`d find that that is not a position shared by all readers. You might also find yourself lacking a little in the ability to see things clearly at this point. If I were you, I`d recommend a visit to the shrink, but then, I`m not. I only ask that you come off your high moral horse and ask yourself why you are as offended by this piece as you are. Is it a perception-of-desi issue perhaps? After all the trouble I`ve taken to show that there is a world of a difference between pedophilia and child abuse, you still seem to lump the two together. I guess there`s just no getting through to those who`ve already attained metaphysical moral perfection.

I`m going take a leaf out of your book and speak express my sincere FEELINGS now:

You are an arrogant, self righteous, slightly bigoted person so full of yourself you probably will never be the writer you want to be because you lack one essential element needed for truly good writing: the capacity to understand that others might have experiences you cannot (yet) fully understand.

There. I feel so much better now. Should have taken your cue about ``feelings`` long ago.

If you think you can honestly look me in the eye and say that my essay has no more informative or literary value than, say, ``One Morning in Queens`` . I`d also then suggest you posed this question to your best friend ``Do you think I can sometimes be too full of myself?`` And then listen.

Diminishing regards,

PM

I`ve read, thus far, 49 replies to the article.

Generally speaking, they`ve been negative, which is fine. I never expected people to thank me for questioning their deepest held beliefs and prejudices.

Now, the outright flames I can deal with-I have no time for small-minded bigots. But what has irked me considerably is the pontificating attitude which many other respondents have taken. Even while admitting that the subject should be debated. Case in point: 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. Now, if I`d been writing on a more fashionable minority issue, say Gay Rights, I wonder how many respondents would show the same degree of righteous indignation, would feel so free in questioning the veracity of statements of a personal nature.

This lack of basic respect, this smugness, this complete lack of humility, the humility to consider that others may have experiences that one may not be able to relate to and should therefore reserve final judgement about; the lack of this humility so vital for objectivity, is what has disillusioned me more than anything else on chowk these past two days. But maybe that`s just the upper-class Pakistani mentality.

On the subject,

The chowk staff and others appear to be justifying my article`s existence here on the grounds of freedom of expression. That`s a lot of bull, I think. With such limited space, this piece couldn`t have seen the light of day unless someone somewhere though it went beyond empty rhetoric, and did raise valid questions. It appears that many readers who defend it`s publishing, including the chowk staff, just haven`t got the balls to come out and say so. So they take the position of: ``Hey, people out there need to know about the good and bad of society, and that`s why this deserves to be here``. This, to me, is a pitiful cop-out, betraying lack of integrity.

Re: SR

I don`t and never have claimed intellectual accomodation, liberlism, or consideration of the likes of you, a dozen people you mentioned and the chowk staff. I grew up in a very black and white world, the little grey if there is any was probably due to my own experiences over time however little time or experience I had. So Sohail Sahib, I would use ``courage``, ``honesty``, and ``bravery`` for some one who has been a rape victim and talks about, a victim of a child molestor, a person coming out of the closet...yep even that...but not for a person like PM. I am speechless when I see people including yourself comending PM on his courage, honesty and bravery...am I to take this man is actually being lent moral support...? when he professes his ``love`` for young boys...? I guess then I am incapable of understanding this form of ``don`t ask don`t tell`` sort of morality. One more thing, how come PM`s ``courageous`` talk about loving 13 year olds is brave...and my disgust with it bigotry...and self righteous/virtues babble...? Is it not fashionable any more to even have an opposing view...?

re: Digit # 58

You misunderstood me. My comment was not a defense of liberalism or anything like, but just an observation on why people are reacting so verbally to this article.

I was merely trying to say that what ever our political leanings, we all have a basic core of values/believes and when those values and beleives are threatened, we react. I think this article touched a raw nerve and this argument is more about basic personal mores than it is about a defense of liberalism per se!

It must be good to get this off your chest, PM. Such a long, heartfelt, and empirical treatise. How you must have dwelt, agonized, edited and re-edited drafts of it...should I say this or that...how will the reader react to this or to that. And then to see such impassioned, numerous responses must feel good, at least on some level. You must feel proud of your work. This work, ``Of Boylove and Boylovers``. It`s excellent writing, I have to say. You said you sought ``to strike a balance between a passionate tract and an icy rationale.`` You did a commendable job.

I read this twice. The first reading was tinged with emotional reaction. I held back my impulse to respond. The second reading was more of an intellectual inquiry. You often come close to a convincing case. Other times you don`t but I won`t dwell on that here since there are 50 people before me who already have (not to mention the 50 likely in tow who no doubt will again). But I too am the victim (if you will) of social conditioning ``born of centuries of Puritanical influence,`` to use your words. I`ve more or less fought off the blinders (blindfold?) of organized religion, or as you call it (and I concur) ``mostly simply brainwashing``. But, help me here, PM, for better or for worse, other values remain. As much as I want your ``scientific`` argument to appeal to me (and I`m easy audience when it comes to science), a gut-wrenching reaction forces me towards rejecting what you are promoting (emotion prevails). Again I quote you, ``The truth is I do not know and don`t expect to know what part is played by nature and what part by nurture.`` You are referring to your boylove proclivities and I`m saying the same about my aversion to them, a feeling that comes as easily (I won’t say naturally) as heterosexual love with a female. I grant that as I get older I find myself more and more physically attracted to women progressively junior to my age of 29 but I draw the line well above the legal adulthood age of 18 in my state...how boring, you must think...thank goodness, I think, for my already complicated life would be so much more so otherwise. :)

I tend to think (and therefore agree with you) that the aversion in all likelihood is societally influenced. And the social mores change all the time as you convincingly point out. I dusted off my copy of ``Lolita`` (c`mon, it`s at least marginally relevant, give me that) today and read Nabokov`s epilogue which I will reproduce here: ``The refusal [of the first 4 American publishing houses] to buy the book was based not on my treatment of the theme but on the theme itself, for there are at least three themes which are utterly taboo as far as most American publishers are concerned. The two others are: a Negro-White marriage which is a complete and glorious success resulting in lots of children and grandchildren; and the total atheist who lives a happy and useful life, and dies in his sleep at the age of 106.`` It`s interesting to note that the last two taboos Nabokov mentions in 1955 (time of the writing) are no longer considered taboos (although the word ``Negro`` certainly has become one), certainly nowhere close to the degree they perhaps were in the America of 1950s. The last one, intergenerational (heterosexual) love, remains taboo to this day. But not nearly so since Hollywood has already made at least 3 movies based on ``Lolita`` to my knowledge. Boylove, however, has ways to go, I don’t have to tell you.

Although I`m incapable of relating to the object of your affection in the manner you are, I envy the love you felt. At times, your prose is transcendent (touches of Nabokov, I`ll even grant): ``It was oceanic! Ego-boundaries evaporated, I found the awareness of my incompleteness enticed by the promise of wholeness. Years of diligent self-construction came crashing down: I was no longer the most important person in my life.`` Although this feeling is so uncompromisingly fleeting, I`ve felt this way before. You don`t want to come down from that high. ``There is something deeper than sex that needs gratification, fulfillment. It is Eros, and sex is just one of its vehicles.``

-!K!-

There is a difference between defending liberalism or conservative principles or an any ideology and defending this article. Even the liberal ideologies are rooted in some sort of a common moral perspective, which instintivily resists an open attack on its own core value systems.

The reason why most readers have posted such a strong dislike of this article, goes far beyond the scintilla of political philosophies and develes into our own notions of raising children. As human beings, we are extermely protective of our children and naturally resist those forces, which seek to harm our children. In this case, the author`s intent and that of the article was seen as something as being harmful towards a child.

The author has every right to have his views published under the umbrella of free speech, but that right is flexible, depending on the mores of a society. Free speech can be resistricted or even curtailed if it seems to pose a clear danger to the welfare of a society and a government, which is entitled to protect its citiziens from harm, will act to stop such an instance of a free speech. The determining criteria, which resinds the right of a free speech in a democratic society, is maturity level of its audience to hear such views that in turn instructs the government as to the most proper course of action in protecting the right of its citizens and ensuring their continued safety.

Consquently, this article has registered such a strong back-lash, because not only does it appear contary to our core moral values or principles, which shape our political ideologies, but it has also negativily appealed to our protective nature vis a vis securing our children`s happiness and welfare.