Of Boylove and Boylovers

Dear Rishi (re.#165)

Did I mention you added some great perspective to the issue. More power to you.

Your demonstration that ``Thus society to an extent does condone a boy-woman`` was eye-opener even for me. (Yes, I`m being a little condescending. Shoot me!)

Take care.

PM

Dear Soldotna (re.#160)

Hey, that was good poetry. Really! Poetry-wise. (even if still born of paranoia)

Some friendly advice: if you (somehow) land a job as a consultant psychologist, don`t give up the night job (poetry).

Regards,

PM

Dear BG

Morning having broken, and I having `recovered` from that bout of whatever-it-was (sigh!), let me say this once again to you: You`re one heck of a sonnovabitch.

(Hey, chill. I mean this in the nicest of ways. In the way I call my best friends m.f.s as I slap them on the back in gestures of camaraderie.)

Why? Well, you take my one perceived slip up after maintaining integrity and showing incredible respect for all, through 150 postings, as a reason to pass final judgement of me/boylovers. C`mon, that`s just not on!

That`s it. Bye.

PM

Oh, and don`t tell me you really believe there was no difference between that other guy`s tone and intent and mine.

re. BG

Whether you believe it or not, the expletives (even the ``sonnovabitch``, which I realize WAS directed personally) were meant to nothing more but express emotion, not intent, and certainly not to slander (as if that is even possible!)

You seem to have reacted to it too, you know.

re-regards,

PM

re. Ferozk (#167)

``... His simple answer was that even though the ACLU is a legal champion for individual rights, in this matter it would be concerned, because it would entail legalizing a right, which in of itself does not offer any benefits to the society in general.``

You sem to have missed one point of my argumentation all along. This is as much about re-evaluting children`s rights as it is mine, and so, I beg to differ with ``..does not offer any benefits to the society in general.`` I submit that a more rational treatment of the issue will lead to a lot less suffering by many individuals (shildren and adult alike) stemming from any number of sex-related inhibitions and fears. Please don`t be so shallow as to treat this as a case of extrapolative projection. One of modern society`s biggest challenge is dealing with the rotten fruits of repression and denial of sexuality-- not juat that of children.

Thank you for taking the trouble to take this up with your friend. That kind of change in attitude is more than I bargained for from this undertaking. I don`t expect society to change overnight, but who knows, with a hundred other chorangis around the world....

regards,

PM

Dear Rishi & BG

(re. #164):

[This is no intellectual masturbation because in an identity less virtual world , i satisfy only my personal ego. How does it matter to your ego in the finer scheme of things that you abused a virtual personality in a virtual world.]

Identity-less world? Virtual?

Excuse (f.u.c.k.i.n.g) me! (expletive included, of course, for literary effect)

Am I to believe that the change in your demeanor (in your heart, if you will) that has come about since your first posting has been effected in a vacuum? Conversely, am I to deny the feeling of genuine human warmth I get from your last posting because it comes from `just` a virtual, `faceless` entity?

Wake up and smell the roses honey. This is where the virtual and reality meet. Where the Word becomes Flesh. Let`s not kid ourselves on the insularity of this forum. Unless we`re totally schizoid, we`re touched, sister. And we`re changing.. ..we all are.

(Now go ahead and touch the screen... DO it for Jesus, honey! Touch it!)

Okay, bad joke. But you get the message.

BG, I get outta bed at 3:30 a.m. to write this. I am prompted by an irresistible urge to express my demurral with your contention that ``it comes down to a power trip.`` What could possibly have brought it on??

For the past eight nights, (intriguingly coinciding with the lifespan of my piece), I have shared a bed with a fifteen-year-old son of a friend, who is all the world to me. He does not know exactly how I feel for him, although he does sense I care for him deeply. It is a bed on which I have had more thoughts run through my head than on all others put together. It is a bed on which I have slept little; not just because I have been excited, challenged, and touched by the goings-on on this page. Sleep has equally, and happily, eluded me for the many hours I have spent holding his hand under my cheek, caressing his arms, fiddling with his ear-lobes and whispering sweet nothings (really!). And staring at his angelic face and to be reminded that there IS a God, after all.

BG, punish me for being a crazy romantic if you will, but please, please, don`t start to tell me that what I feel for Aadu is rooted in some power-play, some need to feel superior. Give me a little more credit than that.

Can you understand why I would get so hot under collar at your accusation, while I managed 101 other ten-times more vituperative posts with equanimity? You, my friend, were among the few to try and understand, to defer judgement, to hear me out. In doing so, your crossed the threshold between the virtual and the real. And you gained the power to hurt me, the ``insularity`` and distance between us not withstanding.

An apology would still mean a lot to me.

PM

P.S. Note the time of this posting if you will.

I happened to be away for some days and interestingly ``still`` found the article on the front page. I anticipated the logical and inspirational discussions to reach their max. limit(200) and then the server says good bye to the article and the responses. :-)

(Counting)how many more to go....?

Obviously when the intent was to prove Newton`s Third Law of Motion, then of course there will be crashes, breakdowns and Thah Thah Thuk Thuk.

Mr. PM: Lo and Behold! I guess you need some rest. What if all your energies are consumed in retorting the ones with raised eyebrows ? What if you consume ``all`` your intellect on this post and are left with none for the Class you have got to teach ? What if .....

I am also wondering how many hours are there in a day in KHI ? 48 !

Reason: Superior Intellect on the motherland.

Later,

Note: As the discussion is not worth my time I thought I would rather start a commentary on the Sooratae Haal.

re PM

``Hey, wait a minute! Re-read my `abusive` post. Not once did I tell BG to f... himself (a la Waheed,``

my, waheed is the gold standarad on chowk etiquette, or lack thereof?

i guess we can go around saying where the f.u.c.k. you get off saying this, etc. to all and sundry and explain that as long as we dont ask anyone to go f.u.c.k themselves, its not abuse, ala PM. and i guess sonovabitch is a term of endearment? try that on your next boylove...

``I repeat, I was NOT offensive or abusive towards BG.``

puhleeez. you were abusive and offensive. deal with it.

you have revealed a great deal more in these replies about yourself than what you wrote in you article.

here`s a cyber chill pill.

Dear PM,

These damn F-Words

blocking interact transmissions



Making out

behind flowery prose

so ugly

Watching boys suffer

through the panel

on your belly

These interact fights

across lightyears

wear me out

These interacts

makes me think of you

falling into a sun

Circuitious interacts pass

leaving a trail

of desert planets

Yellow clouds form

piles of orange ashes

burning weird philosophies

north star nova

sparks life

in another universe



Your iridium joints ache

as you constantly generate heat

ripping a human apart

(Dis)Regard,

Soldotna

Re: PM

Just a few points.....

Yes, I would agree with you that, in a teaching format, answering question with a question is a valid approach, but in this case it is not. PM, in this argument, we have progressed well beyond the definations of the act and the argumentive lines have been well drawn. Agreed, that your approach was one of philosophical discourse to the problem, but you really need to conceptulize your rhetorical logic into a practical consideration as to how you are going to compromise your proclivities, in this matter, without infringing too much on your, ``pursuit of happiness``.

PM, with all due respect, I am finding it increasingly difficult to balance your assertion that people, in this InterAct! forum, are incapable of sharing an affinity with your sentiments, because they have not shared a similar experience. My friend, it is akin to suggesting that just, because I have not murdered a person, I should not be offended and nor should I judge a person who has committed a murder too harshly!

Yes, you are right. There is a difference in the Greek, American and Islamic versions of democracy, but this issue is not about democratic rights or free speech, as I posted earlier. It is about your personal behavior, which rightly or wrongly, does not appeal to the majority of the society and your attempts to justify your personal inclinations in matter of inter-generational love.

PM, for your information, I had a serious dicussion with a friend of mine, a lawyer who does pro bono work for the ACLU, and I told him about your case and asked him if the ALCU would be willing to handle your case. His simple answer was that even though the ACLU is a legal champion for individual rights, in this matter it would be concerned, because it would entail legalizing a right, which in of itself does not offer any benefits to the society in general and the advocacy of a such a legal matter, though a freedom of choice issue, is not a legal right per se within the consitutional defination of a legal right itself.

As for your information, I am not a parent.

My friend, you can not change the system, unless the system wants to change itself!!

re. Rishi (#161) and BG (#159)

[... and why would a sane man resort to something that pulls down the respectability(!!) of his article with an abusive reply....

Shame on you patrick ..]

Hey, wait a minute! Re-read my `abusive` post. Not once did I tell BG to f... himself (a la Waheed, which, incidentally, no one except SR thought was being shameless``

My use of the four letter words was a literary ploy designed for maximising effect. It was supposed to let readers know that there is only so much of personal attacks on integrity even a `pedophile` can take. That even pedophiles can get mad. It was means of saying, ``Hey, what the hell? would you be doing this to anybody else?

I repeat, I was NOT offensive or abusive towards BG. Angry, definitely (Still Am!), but abusive, c`mon.. don`t start this...

will answer other queries tomorrow, though I getthe distinct feeling this train has run outta steam.

regards,

PM

re. Rishi (#161) and BG (#159)

[... and why would a sane man resort to something that pulls down the respectability(!!) of his article with an abusive reply....

Shame on you patrick ..]

Hey, wait a minute! Re-read my `abuse` post. Not once did I tell BG to f... himself (a la Waheed, which, incidentally, no one except SR thought was being shameless``

My use of the four letter words was a literary ploy designed for maximising effect. It was supposed to let readers know that there is only so much of personal attacks on integrity even a `pedophile` can take. That even pedophiles can get mad. It was means of saying, ``Hey, what the hell? would you be doing this to anybody else?

I repeat, I was NOT offensive or abusive towards BG. Angry, definitely (Still Am!), but abusive, c`mon.. don`t start this...

will answer other queries tomorrow, though I getthe distinct feeling this train has run outta steam.

regards,

PM

re. Rishi (#161) and BG (#159)

[... and why would a sane man resort to something that pulls down the respectability(!!) of his article with an abusive reply....

Shame on you patrick ..]

Hey, wait a minute! Re-read my `abusive` post. Not once did I tell BG to f... himself (a la Waheed, which, incidentally, no one except SR thought was being shameless``

My use of the four letter words was a literary ploy designed for maximising effect. It was supposed to let readers know that there is only so much of personal attacks on integrity even a `pedophile` can take. That even pedophiles can get mad. It was means of saying, ``Hey, what the hell? would you be doing this to anybody else?

I repeat, I was NOT offensive or abusive towards BG. Angry, definitely (Still Am!), but abusive, c`mon.. don`t start this...

will answer other queries tomorrow, though I getthe distinct feeling this train has run outta steam.

regards,

PM

Saint Patrick, you beat your drums as if you were a career pedophile and then when the replies started coming in, you quickly put on a façade of being just a pedophile-inclined-adult who had only a 10-15 minute, non abusive encounter with Nomi. You know damn well that taking advantage of a person, who is in a position of less power, is WRONG. I am not talking about sex alone.

Nomi might have been attracted to you or just curious, especially given his age. How could you tell the difference? Oh, because you know? The very fact that you were able to assume things about Nomi, without any specific proof of his consent, shows that you had complete control over the situation. In order to allow Nomi to sit on your lap and then make sexual movements, you must have facilitated the situation. You must have led him on, you must have watched him over long periods, studied him, gauged his strengths and weaknesses, and then created a situation where the two of you could be alone and when the time was opportune you went for the kill.

Saint Patrick, if you don`t know already, let me enlighten you. You are a sexual predator. Who are you trying to kid? Can you prove that Nomi was in a position of equal or more power in order to make a sexual advance on his male teacher? If you cannot prove that, then you are admitting that you abused your position of power and assumed things about Nomi and acted from your position of advantage to satisfy you sexual cravings, not Nomi`s. This is exactly how a predator works. Patrick, this is not how sexual relations between two consenting parties take place.

All your arguments about decreasing the age of sexual consent to 12 etc are all just bull shiit. A person with your mental disposition is not going to ask a child`s age before plotting an attack. Also, there is no way you can automatically turn off your attraction to the child when he announces that he is 11 years and 10 months old. Don`t kid yourself by camouflaging your weakness in flowery prose punctuated with tangential arguments. You are abusing your position of power as a teacher and you are a sexual predator. It takes an enormous burden of proof to show that you as a teacher, can keep your sexual intentions aside when dealing with your pupils. The reason, your position of POWER.

One more question, do you think you are a NORMAL person? If you think you are, then you are far away from reality. If you think your behavior is ABNORMAL, then you should be asking yourself ``WHY?``.

All said and done, from a moral perspective, anything that mentally HARMS, physically hurts, destroys the confidence of , subjugates and shames another person, especially a child, is wrong. It is extremely hard for you to prove that your actions are not having such effects on your victims.

re: Patrick Reply #: 99

`` Implicit in your plea is the assumption that I `go after` the sex, an assumption no doubt rooted in your perception of the pedophile as a predator. (I really don`t blame you-it`s the damn media!) Also implicit is the contention that sexual activity will ``rob them of their innocence.`` If `innocence` is defined as a lack of sexual feeling and activity, then we are saying nothing. But is it true?? Over a hundred years after Freud showed us that children are sexual, and over fifty years after Kinsey demonstrated that this sexuality is more than mere curiosity, we still hang on to the child-innocence myth. Let me ask the reader to remember when he/she first touched him/herself (God, how I hate using these euphemisms). Did we require to know all the emotional/intellectual/spiritual ramifications of sex life to enjoy that experience? Why should it be any different in a consensual inter or intragenerational setting?

``

-- have to admit you do have a strong case, here. Yes, there is an assumption that the pedophile is a predator . (BTW, if you don`t go after sex, i do owe you an apology. but then in which case the answer was not directed towards you but toward a pedophilic predator). The reason is , that freud or not, it is difficult for society as it stands today to distinguish sexuality in children on a case by case basis.

-- I agree that there are children who are sexually active even while they are less than 7 years of age. But then i would also agree that there are children who are not sexually active (also emotionally) until a much higher age. Since society or law cannot study these cases individually, we have certain standards such as age (16 yrs or whatever) to gauge sexuality and power dynamics. Thus, sex between a 15 yr old and a 30 yr old is considered predatory while sex between a 16 yr old and a 30 yr old is consensual.

-- In your defense, Now we all know a great many 15 yr olds who are much more mature than a 16 yr old. on the same token we can also agree that there are many 12 and 13 yr olds who are more mature (both sexually and not ) than a 16 yr old . Is a sexual choice made by a 10 or a 12 or a 13 yr old in having sex with a 30 yr old in the USA anything worse than an uneducated 16 yr old village girl in pakistan being married off legally to a 50 yr old man . Where does the power dynamics lie heavily. And why is it wrong for a 50 yr old man to have sex with a 13, or a 14 yr old, when two 13 yr old boys explore their sexuality with all the power dynamics involved. Again, as you ask, when did we all consider ourselves sexually active atleast mentally ? Was a choice that we made for ourselves any better than a choice our children would make for themselves ? Did`nt most of us fall in love with our history or english teacher during our school days ? I can remember my first love in my 2nd grade still. Was that a latent form of sexuality that freud so skillfully identifies. ? I agree i would have been hurt rather painfully and scarred deeply if i had been approached my any of my male teachers say during my 7th grade. But can i say that i would have been equally scarred if my english teacher ( a lovely soft speaking lady of 30 yrs who especially appreciated the way i wrote the autobiography of a horse ) had approached me the same way . Is it possible that for most of us (males ), if such a thing happens it would be a matter of pride till this date. Would we be bragging to every other man in the vicinity that we were ``man`` enough even in that tender age. ? Would the lady , even though she manipulated the power dynamics, be doing us a favor rather than scarring us. ? Or to put it in more plainly, are we bothered more about homosexuality here . ? Will we all be so agitated if patrick here speaks about how as a 10 year old, he approached (and not his teacher, mind you ) his english teacher ( a woman) provided him with a limited encounter and later stopped it since she thought it lawfully wrong, but that he knew that she enjoyed the encounter as much as he did too. ? Does the scenario appear different based on who speaks it and the hetero/homo sexual dynamics. ?

To conclude, after raising these questions I agree i would have been hurt rather painfully and scarred deeply if i had been approached my any of my male teachers say during my 7th grade and probably not if i had been approached by an attractive female teacher. But then i would be equally scarred if my male professor at my post-graduate had touched my crotch. So the issue for someone such as myself would be the fact that my choice is not homosexuality. The only difference between those two age groups ( 7-16 yrs) and (16-23 yrs) is that in the latter i would be better placed to retaliate and protect myself. The age groups that i identify again changes across culture, individuality, nations, and society.

Therefore, society and law generalizes such a situation and idenfies two major parameters, power dynamics and maturity. Therefore two 13 yr olds (male-male or male-female) experimenting with sexuality is not wrong morally , sexually and lawfully , but a 30 yr old experimenting with a 13 yr old (male-male or male-female) is wrong atleast lawfully if not morally and sexually regardless of who initiates the encounter. Thus even if i as a 12 yr old fondled my teacher (a woman) , and if she reciprocates likewise, she is still on the wrong side of the law......

And based on the risk of a predatory , homo-sexual relationship (abhorred by the society both individually and together ) in such child-man or in particular (boy-man) and (girl-man) and (girl-woman) relationships , society also abhors pedophilia.

Thus society to an extent does condone a boy-woman

relationship. But the law does not allow any of them.....

The law might be an ass, but we need it to carry our burden..

-- Rishi..

p.s: when i referred to innocence of child in my earlier reply, i do not refer to lack of sexuality but to the maturity that they lack to protect themselves against a predator..I accept and agree that most children are sexually aware and a few are also sexually active.....But then the law views it differently. As i said earlier The law might be an ass, but we sure need it to carry our burden..

Take care patrick, and i hope you especially take care that you don`t cross the law in this matter..

re PM

oh, one more thing:

``former is applied to adult relationships, and the latter to parent-child``

i agree with the former, adult relationships based on body alone do objectify. hello? seen any mainstream movies or magazine covers lately?

yes, there is clear dominance and heirarchy in parent-child relationships also, but they are at least meant to be non-sexual. that is why incest is considered abuse -- use of a parent (usually father)`s power over children to use them as sexual objects. the power dynamics hold. so why is this inane or contradictory to what i am saying about man-boy sex?

Re: Patrick

`` Where the f.u.c.k do you get off presuming to tell me from the insularity of your living room 10,000 miles away that MY (and don`t hide behind generalizations!) is a f.uc.k.i.n.g power trip???. Who the f…. do you think you are to tell me that my feelings have baser motives??? ``

`` BUT DON`T presume to second guess my motives from where you are, you self-righteous sonnovabitch! If you had an iota of decency in that pompous heart of yours, you`d apologize. ``

-- What did you expect when you wrote the article ? Roses and Bouquets ? The primary thing that you should be open to when you pen an article of any nature is to be open to criticism . And the critic has a right to be heard. When it pleases you from head to toe while receiving commendations from your critics and readers, you also need to have the capability to take negative criticisms ( that too given the fact that you too live in an insularity of your drawing room 10,000 miles away ) . And it is a wiser man who does not use abusive words in the same insularity of your drawing room 10,000 miles away, because they really don`t matter (and particularly when you author an article and the replies are in response to it). This is no intellectual masterbation because in an identity less virtual world , i satisfy only my personal ego. How does it matter to your ego in the finer scheme of things that you abused a virtual personality in a virtual world. Does it make you feel good about yourself now that you did that ?

And even more importantly, does it add any weightage to your article ? Aren`t you defending your article and your choice all thru your postings ? and why would a sane man resort to something that pulls down the respectability(!!) of his article with an abusive reply.......

Shame on you patrick ...

-- Rishi

Hey Chowkstaff!

What in the world happened to the post-150 posts? Hey guys, I had my `closing` arguments in them. C`mon, you can`t do this. PLEASE, PLEASE get the problem (assuming it`s that) fixed. It would be e pity to end the discourse hanging in the air, as it were, and not give me the op. to thanks everyone for their input.

Thanks