Of Boylove and Boylovers

Looked in the test-tube

My baby was gone.

Changeling child.

Quanta fluctuate.

Manifest. Unmanifest.

Primordial soup.

Scoured mould off teacup.

Whole civilisation

Destroyed utterly.

Grandad tells stories

about planet Earth. Green forests?

Trees are purple here.

Don`t look now, but it`s

got tentacles, and it seems

to be gaining on us.

stars are winking out

one by one. The nine billionth

rationalization has been found.

Addicts wander

across the galaxy

juggling realities.

Strange how the frogs

invented interstellar

travel. Old pond.

Each choice makes a new

universe. Endless branches

on the cosmic tree.

Two works of love-inspired (or, as BG would have it, domination seeking) poetry by Willian Shakespeare. (To 10-14 (?) y-o William, Earl of Pembroke). Note the desperation about on the ``short summer`s lease``

XIII.

O, that you were yourself! but, love, you are

No longer yours than you yourself here live:

Against this coming end you should prepare,

And your sweet semblance to some other give.

So should that beauty which you hold in lease

Find no determination: then you were

Yourself again after yourself`s decease,

When your sweet issue your sweet form should bear.

Who lets so fair a house fall to decay,

Which husbandry in honour might uphold

Against the stormy gusts of winter`s day

And barren rage of death`s eternal cold?

O, none but unthrifts! Dear my love, you know

You had a father: let your son say so

XVIII.

Shall I compare thee to a summer`s day?

Thou art more lovely and more temperate:

Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,

And summer`s lease hath all too short a date:

Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,

And often is his gold complexion dimm`d;

And every fair from fair sometime declines,

By chance or nature`s changing course untrimm`d;

But thy eternal summer shall not fade

Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest;

Nor shall Death brag thou wander`st in his shade,

When in eternal lines to time thou growest:

So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,

So long lives this and this gives life to thee.

re PM

you crack me up. man, you gotta chill out. being abusive, sarcastic, etc. doesnt do anything for your argument or your point of view. you think i cant use four letter words? especially on an online forum, where no one knows me?

dont get so defensive, i said you would have gone on with your life, not you should.

in this instance, if you put the body and the mind together, the holistic experience is still one of dominance. so?????

ok, if you only want to talk about the ottomans and greeks, then why had you mentioned tribal societies as examples of man-boy sex right off the bat?

again, why did you offer examples of going-through-the-motion girlfriends when i had asked you if you have had any meaningful adult relationships?

in some ways all these questions are rhetorical, you dont have to answer them, especially if you arent really going to answer them, just react to them.

i`m outta here...

regards.

Re. BG (#152)

``the point is that if it were just love we were discussing -- a desire to love, nurture, mentor, share, cuddle non-genital body parts, etc. -- without the sexual interest, you would have had a baby by now and gotten on with your life.``

Oh, another one onto the Sanctimonious Anonymous bandwagon. (sigh) Disappointing!

First, I never said `cuddle non-genital body parts`. I`d have to re-learn all the erotophobia I`ve overcome to be able to say that. I said ``non-penetrative sex``. In any case, where do you get off telling me what to do with my life?

``it is the sexual aspect of your `love`, which makes your interest in boys `controversial`. so, no matter how much you try to tell people that its not just sex, that is what people find controversial, so that is what they will discuss.``

My, what a penetrating observation!

``i did look up some websites that provided examples of cultures and contexts which ritualized man-boy sex. generally, man-boy love existed in some rites of passage and initiation into adult male society.. ..it has become clear to me, after reading your replies and some other websites on this subject, that these relationships are about dominance.``

If you`re talking about ritualized man-boy sex (for whatever purpose), you are NOT talking about man-boy love, are NOT dealing with subject I addressed in the article. Sure, such forms of man-boy have existed in most primitive tribes. I chose not to use them as paradigms of boylove, using, in their stead, instances from more advanced civilizations (Greek, Roman, Ottoman) that manifested a pedagogical eros, even if in an institutionalized context. So, please, don`t extrapolate too much only from examples you`d LIKE to see.

``all the talk about beauty and energy and youth is just talk. that is why men (and sometimes, women) seek out sexual partners who are 10-15 years old because they have more power in the relationship.``

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??? Hey, go ahead and spin your theories about how this might be compensation for some lost love, or the manifestation of arrested development. THAT I will consider, ponder on. 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.

There! I feel a little better now!

[its a given that your love is defined by the youth of your beloved. which includes a young body, and a young person (intellectually and emotionally immature). if the focus is on the youthful body, then its objectification, pure and simple. if the focus is on the intellectual and emotional immaturity, then its about dominance, pure and simple.]

Leaving aside the inanity of the contentions taken separately, which becomes readily apparent if the former is applied to adult relationships, and the latter to parent-child, your separation of the two aspects (body and mind) just represent a poor, last-ditch effort at bad neoplatonism which seeks to mutilate an essentially holistic experience.

[you still didnt answer my question: .. ..you find relationships with women, in which you `go through the motions` meaningful?]

No, on the contrary, I made it clear I DIDN`T, which is why they ended.

No regards anymore,

PM

Dear Mubbashir, (#150)

``well, i lived in Federal B. Area at that time. so there goes your assumption that kids from lower or middle classes dont mind getting molested.``

C`mon mubbashir. You sound like a sociologically-savvy guy. Don`t pretend to say that sociological theories can predict individual outcomes, because that just does not become you. In any case, you probably come from any educated family, with all the right-wing trappings of sexuality educated folks are usually indoctrinated into. I said probably. Even likely. AM I being presumptuous here?

``what scares me about your attitude about intergenerational love in Pakistan, is that a great majority of the children in Pakistan have little or no rights or protections against extreme kinds of exploitation. And there are people like you who believe that these kids don`t mind being molested or touched.``

Yeah, and like I`m shouting out ``Legalize sexual abuse in Pakistan!`` My discourse thus far has been limited to the philosophical realm. Practicality of course follows, but that`s another thing altogether. What I DO contend though is that a more rational treatment of sex per se, not just child-sexuality, will inevitably serve to break taboos and guilt and fear and make sexual abuse, like any abuse, more transparent, hence more accountable. Comprende?

AND I NEVER SAID THAT `kids don`t mind being molested``. This ranks in the dishonesty dept. with Anarchistan`s second-last posting. I said ``SOME even admit to enjoying the encounters``, and I used the term ``sexually touched`` which IS NOT NECESSARILY sexually abused. But you wouldn`t be able to see a difference, would you? Well, ask saaf-go, if it helps. He says he`s been in close proximity to such action. But please, I never expected you to start misquoting this way. Maybe you`re doing it unintentionally, which would only say something about your judgement when it comes to the issue.

``one can only give consent as long as one feels that s/he has the right over her/his body, or that person understands what s/he is giving acceptance or approval to.``

Do you ask your kid for his/her consent the first time you take him/her to a park, or to the beach (where you might terrify her all in the name of teaching her to swim)? Does s/he need to know about rights over her body to say yes? Does he/she understand what s/he is giving consent to? How is s/he to UNDERSTAND without ever EXPERIENCING (if in ever-little incremental does)? Do all pleasurable experiences necessitate an `intellectual` `understanding?` This is just a whole lotta bull that is used as a `rationale`, foundational defense against child-sex. Hey, if you cite `greater possibility of exploitation`, as does Ferozk, I`ll agree with you all the way, buddy, but just take a second to question the premisses above.

``some 12 years olds might be capable of this but i suspect most are not, esp when the situation involves a more mature and manipulative adult like you.``

What is this? When you run out of rationale argument, or start to sense the other guy is making more sense, do you resort to personal attacks? I mean, where on earth did you pick up the ``manipulative adult like you`` bit? That is just plain CHEAP, nothing else.

To answer to your final enquiry, Plato`s discourses (anti-sexism as they were) included no women for the same reason our discourse here hasn`t included adolesecents: The prevailing conditions (laws, mores, taboos) OF THE TIME rendered women less than capable of that level of discourse.

You quote me (#134)

[[Mubbashir`s contention about boys being in soul-mate substitutes for women]]

and say that

``i did not infer such a thing, i think your deluded self-rightousnous is in full swing and it is getting in the way of you fully reading people`s replies. i did not say that boys were looked as replacements for women but instead that they were thought to be the ideal love object choice because only they were thought to be capable of ascertaining honor.``

Same difference, my friend. Honour would have been directed towards women had they been thought capable of acquiring it.

So long...

Re. Jay (149)

[Good and bad cannot be the outcome of a logical argument, it will have to be agreed upon, a priori.]

Wow, Mr. Hume, then perhaps you will agree that there is no point (or never was a point) in arguing about the following a priori axioms of good and evil thought to be good AND bad at different times or by different peoples:

Eating pork is haram/halal

Polygamy is okay/mortal sin.

Killing off of grandmother`s (as did Eskimos) or widows is okay/ a heinous act.

Honour killings are matters of honour/ indefensible acts of murder.

Need I go on..?

``I doubt whether this article could have been written in urdu, I doubt whether the language is verbose enough to support it.``

Maybe that`s one reason why the Urdu speaking world languishes where it does, riddled with corruption, and gross social injustice.

I contend that there is a pace for reason in ethics, so long as we have a foundational ethical principal. Mine is ``do no harm`` or ``greatest good for greatest number``. Hope you can start to appreciate this before you go on to unwittingly make a case for value-relativism.

Regards,

PM

re. BG (#152)

shucks, just when I thought I could retire on 150...

Hey, I`ll reply tomorrow. Note the time (in Karachi).

Dear Ferozk

(re. #145)

``I do not know about your motivation in this matter [answering a question with a question] for employing such a tactic, but when I answer a question with a question, in the majority of the cases, I am on the defensive and do not have a credible answer.``

I really don`t know. Haven`t thought about it much. Having said that, I don`t know how in the world that charge was made against me, and I certainly have not felt - not once- that I haven`t had a credible answer. Honest. What I DO feel, is that sometimes, nay often, a persons can get his answer by reference to an analogous query. As I teacher, I unconsciously apply this technique all the time to help my students ``discover`` answers for themselves as well as draw vital links between different, yet related, areas of information. I actually think it a very good tool.

``There is nothing wrong with such a tactic, but to those who use it frequently, it strongly hints of a defensive tactic and creates the impression or lends itself towards a circular argument, which this debate is boiling down to.``

If this debate appears to be going in circles, it is, I think, mostly because others are constantly making false or unproven assumptions not only about things I`ve said in the article, but what I continue to say in these posts. Also, you`ve gotta admit, there`s been a tragic incapacity displayed by most release themselves of the intense distrust they have of anything I say, and to even start to accept, just a teeny weeny bit, that maybe, just maybe, I am privy to an experience, to feelings, that they cannot relate to (at this time). Hence, we have enough projection.here to sustain a Pak-India war.

``there is difference between Plato or the Greeks or the Spartan`s idealized versions of this topic and quoting Shakespear does not justify what you are suggesting.``

There is quite a difference between Greek, Islamic and American version of democracy, isn`t there? What do we do? Need we choose ONE? Need we choose ONLY FROM, even if in fusing? Are you gonna accuse me of being defensive again?

And I never quoted Shakespeare et al to `justify` completely. Let me quote from a recent post of mine addressed to Kafir:

``All I attempt to do is show that these feelings have existed in men through the ages, and have been given expression by many of the greatest of them. This does not in itself legitimize the feelings, but if you say it doesn`t at least lend credence to, and should be a cause to start thinking deeper about, the issues, then I just cannot agree at all.``

Now can you see why this debate seems to be getting circular? Here`s further cause of this circularity:

You said:

[In order for you to prove otherwise, I think, you would have to provide a corpus of evidencary evidence, which does not rely soley on the historic experience, but proves beyond a doubt why your actions in the present should not be considered as harmful,...]

I had already said/asked (#134)

``.. . And to this end have furnished with both, examples from history as well as evidence from studies in the present era. (WHY HAS EVERYONE OVERLOOKED THIS COMPELLING EVIDENCE SO CASUALLY???)``

A word on the `proves beyond a doubt` clause up there, Ferozk. Bina said something similar early on and my (somewhat petulant reply was): ``lady, what are you going to feed your children [especially in Karachi]? Or are you going to then compromise on the act-only-when-absolutely-sure principle.`` You get the idea. I can understand the onus of proof being on my shoulders, what with Western civilization`s hang ups over sex, but Ferozk, what is not in the public consciousness is that THERE IS CONSIDERABLE EVIDENCE in support of consenual intergenerational sex, even evidence that it benefits the youngster. (Search the net for studies conducted in the Netherlands, under the supervision of high court judges, that concluded that criminally deviant adolescents who were `given` a loving, sexual relationships with an adult became less deviant. This study led to the lowering of the age of consent to 16 some decades ago. And then there is Baurmann`s study of 8,000+ cases, and the American review of 30+ studies conducted, all pointing the same way. BG, take note please.

And what do we have by way of ``evidencary evidence`` / *against */ consensual pedophilia? What do we have apart from the infinite wisdom of the child abuse industry and the sexperts in tow (.. .and Soldotna)?

``I think your greatest challenge is proving to the parents, not necessarily to the society, that you pose no harm to their children. Can you really convince the parents that your actions are harmless?``

You`ll be amazed at how easily parents will acquiesce once society does. (Hey, aren`t parents members of society?) Remember even upper-class Pakistani parents` reaction to dating even 20 years ago? Don`t underestimate the power of the media. Anyway, I have to work on the principle of `little steps...``

Btw, was that a question from a parent, as a parent?

Best regards,

PM

Re. Anarchistan (#147)

``you win. i am convinced.`` (said with a touch of `absurdity`)

(Anyway,) glad you`ve finally realized it. I`m not gonna respond with ``hey, c`mon, this wasn`t really a battle between us for one to win`` because we both know it bloody well was. A battle of wits and demonstration of logical consistency (more on this later). I dare say I ran you into the ground. And I take the trouble to say so (even as I know that 1001 chowk reader this instant are going ``Anarchistan was right, this guy IS immature!``) because I think you entered this forum not to debate but more to slander me, possibly in an effort to dissociate yourself, Anarchist #1, ``trusty a.c.l.u. card`` and all, from the likes of me.

[man, you`ve got alot more stamina than i. the article, and ``debate`` have long since entered absurdity and, as such, that is the only way left to respond...]

You may think it`s reached absurdity, but, barring Soldotna, it certainly has not!

[if you will indulge me one last observation... all your paramour could come up with was ``burra mazza aya.`` i don`t know, that just kinda struck me.]

Well, we choose our different ways in which to respond. Apart from the fact that ``burra muzza aya``, in black and white, doesn`t say anything about the emotional index, or tell of the accompanied sparkle in the eye,`` you must realize, if you could just allow your min to broaden in this area, that he was replying to (and I was asking) a question about how he had felt about the TOTAL experience we`d had. I suspect he would have completely forgotten about the incident I related which to him would have just been one of the many naghty things he`d done in his childhood. There were a few others that involved me, but like I said, compared to some of the other, completely non-sexual, antics and happy incidents, they just faded into oblivion. (And let`s not call this repression, please!)

So, Anarchistan, please don`t let your imagination run wild like everyone else`s when I say, ``I asked him how he felt about the time we`d spent together`` [from the article]

re PM

its true what aatish (i think) said, you are trying to justify/explain/rationalize your sexual interest in boys by quoting history and literature. as far as i am concerned, what dead white men said and did, doesnt mean diddly.

the point is that if it were just love we were discussing -- a desire to love, nurture, mentor, share, cuddle non-genital body parts, etc. -- without the sexual interest, you would have had a baby by now and gotten on with your life. it is the sexual aspect of your `love`, which makes your interest in boys `controversial`. so, no matter how much you try to tell people that its not just sex, that is what people find controversial, so that is what they will discuss.

secondly, i did look up some websites that provided examples of cultures and contexts which ritualized man-boy sex. generally, man-boy love existed in some rites of passage and initiation into adult male society. whether or not these rites were patiarchal, i was not able to glean, though i suspect they were. but, they were clearly extremely hierarchical. and, that is exactly what you argue against -- heirarchy and authority by suggesting that children must be free to give their own consent. and, yet you offer example of heirarchical initiation rites as evidence for the justification of man-boy sex. you also dismiss the very clear power difference between a man and a boy, yet historical examples are all about power play and dominance.

it has become clear to me, after reading your replies and some other websites on this subject, that these relationships are about dominance. all the talk about beauty and energy and youth is just talk. that is why men (and sometimes, women) seek out sexual partners who are 10-15 years old because they have more power in the relationship.

its a given that your love is defined by the youth of your beloved. which includes a young body, and a young person (intellectually and emotionally immature). if the focus is on the youthful body, then its objectification, pure and simple. if the focus is on the intellectual and emotional immaturity, then its about dominance, pure and simple.

you still didnt answer my question:

you find relationships with women, in which you
`go through the motions` meaningful?

rgrds

I agree with Jay (#149) that the discussion has boiled down to splitting hair between ``boylove``

and ``child sex addiction``. Addicts are infamous for justifying their behavior and couching it in

flowery literary terms. Alcoholics justify their addiction by hiding behind the ``social drinking``

label. Cocaine and crack addicts justify their addiction by rationalizing it as ``recreational use``. A classic example of a sex addict is our president, Bill Clinton, who rationalizes his addiction merely as a ``relationship``, never admitting to a sexual addiction. Just like PM, who is a pedophile addict, Clinton hides behind technical details and minituae of defintions to rationailze his sexual addiction as ``girl-love`` or ``intern-love`` relationships. Addicts only seek counseling and help when they realize the harmful nature of their addictions, either to themselves or to others. Clinton is said to be going through spiritual counseling. PM, in my opinion, is going through a similar conversion, by seeking out and crying out for help here on Chowk.

first of all i want to make clear that i have gotten over what happened to me a long time ago, because it was never repeated and that man was never seen around my neighborhood after i told my parents what happened.

you wrote: re 134

[Maybe it`s because I have lived my life in lower-class neighbourhoods that I have reason to believe that Karachiiites (or the lower and middle-class ones, anyway), when it comes down to it, DON`T deny their sexuality and that of others...Maybe. Or maybe it`s because God made kids from Defence and Clifton different from those in Saddar and Korangi. I`ve have many friends (from the latter areas) who can relate how they were sexually touched by older neighbours, and boarding school wardens. Fact is, they are not any more harmed- certainly do not feel any more scarred - than by other, non-sexual abuse. Some even admit to enjoying the encounters. But then, those are kids from the other side of the bridge.]

well, i lived in Federal B. Area at that time. so there goes your assumption that kids from lower or middle classes dont mind getting molested.

i will rephrase my earlier reply very simply. in terms of consent laws, i started talking about the fact that there is a lot of hesitance to talk about childrens sexuality. children, especially children who are deemed sexually, or genderwise ``abnormal`` remain very vulnerable to dominant cultures assumptions about normalcy. this in despite of all the gains of the queer movement in the west.

i hinted that there definitely should be more flexibilty in evaluating consent laws, and young people`s rights over there own bodies. the boundary between mature self and protected subject should be re-evaluated, to secure more rights for young people who are otherwise forced into mental institutions, just because they like to act or dress like they are not ``suppose`` to. here i thought you brought up a good point.

however this does not mean that a 4 year old should be left to have sex (or more like be molested) by a 23 year old with a cherub fetish. you might cry outrage at this proposterous scenario, or that i am misconstruing what you are saying, that you are talking about 12 or 14 yr olds not 4 year olds. but by this distinction (if you choose to make one) you are drawing a boundary of what is acceptable. as subjective or relative as we like to be there is always a boundary drawn, if you want to be a college student than you can say that its all about the `discourse` or knowledge-power thing but in the end we all make crude and essenstial borderlines.

what scares me about your attitude about intergenerational love in Pakistan, is that a great majority of the children in Pakistan have little or no rights or protections against extreme kinds of exploitation. And there are people like you who believe that these kids dont mind being molested or touched.

one can only give consent as long as one feels that s/he has the right over her/his body, or that person understands what s/he is giving acceptance or approval to. some 12 years olds might be capable of this but i suspect most are not, esp when the situation involves a more mature and manipulative adult like you.

also: re 144

[Mubbashir`s contention about boys being in soul-mate substitutes for women is one that conservatives have traditionally used against the gay community that cite history. However, even in Plato`s scheme, WHERE WOMEN ARE TO BE RECOGNIZED AS INTELLECTUAL EQUALS, man-boy relationships have a special place. Read R.H Crossman`s Plato Today. Cossman is deemed a pre-eminent Platonist.]

i did not infer such a thing, i think your deluded self-rightousnous is in full swing and it is getting in the way of you fully reading people`s replies. i did not say that boys were looked as replacements for women but instead that they were thought to be the ideal love object choice because only they were thought to be capable of ascertaining honor. As far as Plato`s feminist credentials, how many of his discourses involved women.

After more than 150 replies and responses, what have we learned. Yes, any thing can be rationalised.

Good and bad cannot be the outcome of a logical arguement, it will have to be agreed upon, a priori.

There is large scale economic exploitation of children in the third world, there is an organised `rearing` and desensitisation of the children in the west.

In the indian languages `bringing up` of the children, `palna posna` is closer to nurtuering. I doubt whether sexual abuse has any role in palna posna.

I doubt whether this article could have been written in urdu, I doubt whether the language is verbose enough to support it.

Re: PM`s post to anarchistan

PM, anarchistan asks a really good question about use of answering a question with a question.

I do not know about your motivation in this matter for employing such a tactic, but when I answer a question with a question, in the majority of the cases, I am on the defensive and do not have a crediable answer and by turning the answering into a question, I am deflecting intent of the question without compromising my own position.

In other words, one uses such a tactic to answer a question when there is no answer to it and to give the impression of answering the question without actually saying anything on the matter/subject raised by the questioner.

There is nothing wrong with such a tactic, but to those who use it frequently, it strongly hints of a defensive tactic and creates the impression or lends itself towards a circular agrument, which this debate is boiling down to.

In a earlier post I asked you, and it was seconded by Kafir, to define your own ideal state of affairs on this subject. PM, I think you have done an excellent job of defending your position, but there is difference between Plato or the Greeks or the Spartan`s idealized versions of this topic and quoting Shakespear does not justify what you are suggesting.

In order for you to prove otherwise, I think, you would have to provide a corpus of evidencary evidence, which does not rely soley on the historic experience, but proves beyond a doubt why your actions in the present should not be considered as harmful, leaving the merits or demerits about wrongness of your actions aside, towards children, with whom you may come in contact with?

I think your greatest challenge is proving to the parents, not necessarily to the society, that you pose no harm to their children. Can you really convince the parents that your actions are harmless?

man, you`ve got alot more stamina than i. the article, and ``debate`` have long since entered absurdity and, as such, that is the only way left to respond...

you win. i am convinced. is there some kind of persecuted pedophiliac fund i can donate money to? other than that, i will lobby my congressman for legislation re: a boylove day (summer is currently devoid of holidays...maybe something in august?)

if you will indulge me one last observation...

you have spent many thousands of (admittedly eloquent)words and countless hours trying to explain to us mere mortals the ascendancy of pedophilia, from quoting plato and shakespeare, to waxing poetic on the merits of the love that dare not speak its name.

yet all your paramour could come up with was ``burra mazza aya.`` i don`t know, that just kinda struck me.

I grew up in the poor neighborhoods of Karachi. And I have seen non-manipulative boylove relationships. I can say non-manipulative because I grew up with them - I knew them. Mostly boys with other boys. At the time I just thought that it was wrong and they were committing a Gunah. Having to think about it myself is more difficult. I wish for divine guidance. Not the kind I see in the responses though.

To think of boylove does turn my stomach but so does the thought of my parents doing it. Should that stop us from thinking.