Of Boylove and Boylovers

re. #221
Thank you, Asif. It was nice of you to comment.

Zordeck, brother, I hear you! I am so touched, first, by your kind words: it is extremely gratifying to know that my efforts have helped you in some way, if only by helping you articulate your feelings and thoughts better for yourself, and maybe by helping remind you that there are people like yourself all over the world. (Yes, I am from Pakistan)
I am also moved by your own sad account of how you were stopped from performing a duty that I`m sure you were better suited to carry out than most.

Sir, if you wish to contact me, you might visit the ``off-the-wall`` section of the UNPLUGGED Area here on chowk and give me a holler there. I look forward to that.

Best regards,
PM

a very interesting, well-written, article. which makes a lot of sense...

Amazing, amazing!

I am so fortunate to come across this article written by you, PM. I am too, like you, as in also a boylover but from Malaysia. A few of my friends I know are BLs too, and we`re mostly underground. I cannot tell you how much I enjoyed reading this article and the arguments that you have made on behalf of all people like us.

Besides a few other understanding non-BL friends who know about my love for boys, it`s generally been an extremely difficult for me to explain to people what it means to be a boylover. Among the misconceptions of these people is the children are asexual beings (which I countered: so they magically become sexual the moment they hit puberty? What about an 11 year old boy who is an early bloomer?), incapable of expressing and comprehending erotic love and to just plain ignorance and malice. It is sad really, and sometimes I give up hope even trying to argue with these people about the legitimacy of boylove.

I assume that you are from an Asian country. Even better as many also think that boylove and paedophilia is a `Western` occurrence. What about the Japanese? They typically worship boys (& girls) that they have special holidays commemorated for them! The old samurais too, have the same sort of culture as the Greek Spartans as in they have consorts and some, if not most, are boys. If this is such a normal practice in those ancient times, why is it so bad now?

Sigh, it`s a tough world we all live in. I used to be a schoolteacher (teaching History and PE) at an international school but I got fired when some teachers find it uncomfortable that I am physically affectionate with my male students. How d I teach PE if I`m not suppose to touch my male students?? Is it so wrong for me to hug, kiss and pat a crying child?? (They said that I should have handed the matter over to a female teacher). It`s so sad. But I moved on from that chapter of life now.

All the more reason why I decided to educate these youngsters the difference between what is right and what is wrong. And for me, boylove is not wrong. Being a homosexual is not wrong. When you hurt someone, that is wrong. But then again, I don`t feel obliged to explain or be answerable to anyone except my God. He alone is the Judge of my fate.

I cannot thank you enough to know someone like you, who is willing to put in quite a considerable amount of time and research into this topic which I feel people must talk about openly and rationally. If we want change, that is the only way to do - through research, education and debates. Keep all emotions and feelings aside and look at it objectively.

Anyways, more power to you, sir!

articulating miaN,

Thanks for the compliment re my reasoning skills. I wish I could return it but, alas, the content of your post -- which purported to start off well-meaningly and objectively enough but soon degenerated into the usual confused tripe that is almost expected -- prevents me from doing so in all sincerity.

Thankfully, i don`t have to sit now and attempt to rebut your many points. They have all already been dealt with in the interacts.

All I will say is that you need to distinguish between intrinsic harm and that caused by external circumstances, and recognise better what the argument is. Your point about the extrinsic harm caused by such encounters are, actually, not really supported by empirical studies, which I went to some length to point out in the essay. You seem to have demonstrated the lack of comprehension that was almost the hallmark of respondents on this board. (Conclusive evidence of this is your repeated references to FEMALES who have been abused-- though I took pains to point out that all studies show that BOYS are a different kettle of fish altoghter) But even if i were to accept your contentions on extrinsic harm as (partially) true, you fail to realize that this esasy argues for nothing less than a revolution in these very EXTERNAL circumstances that cause such harm. And this is not going to happen as long as sex is seen as being bad for children. In fact, exactly the opposite is true.

Do read the interacts if you are truly interested in debating this issue.

rgds,
PM

iam 23 m khi , need Some gud friend like mature woman who understand me or bold lady if you are and if you think so plz be my friend i will be thank full to you here my email:ndcap1@hotmail.com
contact:03002201914
i will wait for yor reply in these contacts
have nice day take care bye

I know I am late in expressing my opinion, but I guess its never too late!
Not only is this article (I came across it in the archive) one of its kind, the author demonstrates excellent reasoning skills. The comparison between the two kinds of teachers, one who mistreats and the other who makes love to his pupils is not justified. Its like, why accept back in the society an alcoholic and not a cocaine dealer. I don’t think anyone will deny that seducing children is far more easy then seducing an adult or even a young adult. the molestation with or without penetration has dire effects but so does lovemaking, though the intensity does vary. early exposure makes people promiscuous when they grow up. It might not make the child feel victimized but he or she does feel guilty for cheating on ones parents and it inculcates the idea in them that they are bad boys or girls. And this tag of being bad often becomes a good excuse for not refraining from sex. Take the case of Opera Winferey ( though she got it treated) who was raped at 9 and molested at 14. Marilyn Monroe ,Michael Jackson and even Cleopatra ( she had sex at 12) had the same problem. All three were promiscuous. I don’t care if you accept promiscuity or not, but its dangerous. And such people often confuse love with sex and try using sex for relaxation but only end up in frustration. Our understanding improves with age , especially when it comes to sex which is more of an adventure back then. Sooner or later the kid realizes that sex is not to be taken casually, especially in our society. Remember , sexual acts with children even with their consent is illegal in the west and they sure have a wisdom behind it. And I know why you keep mentioning “without penetration”. A child under 12 will have a genital or anus too small for penetration. And if it does take place, you cannot continue to pretend it was an act of love because it would become too gruesome. There is a hell lot of difference between falling in love with children and falling in love with same sex adults.
I have seen several cases in which the person acquires the habit of bed hopping. In fact a girl I know, she had conjugal relation with her father. Now, she always claims that no man can resist her and she tries seducing every man crossing her path. I don’t think you will be surprised to know that the males she pursues are always middle aged. Some people might accept it as normal but to me it appears to be a manifestation of a problem.
Now lets come to Nomi. First of all Nomi was 11 when you met him (thank god). Pedophiliacs can fall for toddlers even. The younger the child, the more adverse the consequences. You took advantage of a neglected child to whom you were assigned to teach. Having sex with your student (even without penetration) when you are supposed to be teaching him is not acceptable. People are not honest with there work and this is one of the reasons Indo-Pak are backwards. You think you were parenting by giving him attention and affection? Good parenting has no sex involved. This is equivalent to saying ‘I saved a woman from rape by murdering her.’ Nomi’s parents didn’t want you to parent him, they wanted geography to be taught, which you didn’t do. Now you say you would have married your “boy-love”. If I love marry a woman, she will grow old but still remain a woman. But if I marry I fall for a little boy , he will grow old and become a- man. Then what? You will write an article on gays then? The fact that Nomi still remembers those times as pleasurable is a proof that Nomi at that time was still too young or else it was just a different kind of hiking trip for him unlike you for whom it was life-changing ( or perhaps catastrophic). Just ask your Nomi after he has kids of his own, would he prefer you to teach geography to his son. The fact that you are an adult means u have skill to rationalize. Children don’t by attracting and then becoming indifferent to each other. This shows you are one cunning adult. And according to Quran you can have sex in paradise to women without marriage but that’s not allowed one earth ( now anyone can say it is allowed on earth too ) and the same is true for boy-love. The Chinese, Romans and Arabs were not always right! And if you can write an article debating you are right, why did you hide your identity? This indicates something…….. Why don’t you give the name of the school you work in or tell the parents of you preys what your are up to. You did behave like someone lurking in the dark not literally but technically.
This article seems to be the wrong choice for creating awareness. Just like a XXX rated movie can do little to create awareness about AIDS.
Don’t get defensive, but you don’t need a counselor. You need a psychiatrist. Just go to him and present this article and maybe he could contribute an interact too. Your fantastic debating skills can be useful to humanity ( unless you become a serial killer and start defending them ).
After reading this article , I wonder who felt that “barha mazaa aya thaa” …………because……………mujhey nahi aaya!

I feel sick but have no place to vomit.

Someone like PM will probably never have children but for anyone who has children or contemplates it, people like this man are a parent`s worse nightmare.
I wish he had been caught with that child thrusting on his lap so he would have been flayed by the parents, the police, and the rest of society. PM should have his face permanently blackened. He is a nothing less than a danger to every male child he is around.
I really do pray that this man gets caught and punished to every extent of the law.

Oh and btw, really disappointing that chowk gave this monster a forum to spew his filth.

PM your writings here remind me of our qari saheb`s suspecious looks and his asking me to massage his legs with mustard oil. later in school our islamiyat teacher sitting on the edge of my bed early in the morning (his hand in his dhoti) to wake me up for fajr prayers. 2 of us (good looking boys) in class being his favorit students.

Dear Chowkstaff,

The latter half or so of this article is missing. I`m wondering if that`s because of the length of the interacts present on the page currently. If this is the case, could you please delete the last post by mumbaikar, which is totally irrelevant to this thread anyway.

Thanks

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Hi PM, i`m overwalmed by your assay, i have no words to explain what i feel. i guess i am too stupid to come up with something original :)

Nevermind the bad contributions of those brainless people, don`t let em hurt you. You`re better than that. a warm salute and good wishes to you this new millenium, have all the love of the world and even more if you can, these are my desires to friends like you. i`m Alexei n. 22 years old, (and BL too) from Mexico city.

oh yes, another little thing, what``s-- “burra muzza aya tha” -- means?

love above it all, Alexei.

I feel a sense of debt to a number of respondents, (too many to name) for various reasons. Some exhibed an open-mindedness that was generally in such short supply that I wouldn`ve quit the debate early on were it not for them. Some showed concern even as they pulled the opposite end of the line. It is always good to know that we may disagree but still repsect each other, as persons.

This closure would be incomplete without my special thanks to SR and Kamran, who went beyong maintaining a helthy skepticism to trying to actually empathise. Your replies were extremely well worded and inspiring. Thank you for taking the trouble. SR, if you are the doctor who periodically contributes to chowk, I think your estimate of me as a good writer is reward enough for me.

Ferozk, man, tumharay saath mathay laranay to kuch aur he baat thi. Thanks for the advice on taking this from the theoretical to the practical, but, given the many other problems that demand more immediate attention here in Pakistan (education, economic injustices et al) I don`t think I would want to invest my energies towards sexual liberation. (That would be an almost impossible task here anyway)

Peace.

PM

It was good to see the responses stuck at 195. At least it saved the server from crashing and the Crash Boom Bang!

Somehow or other the ``Bada-e-Saba`` seems to recite:

i`ve been away from my computer for a while and
have missed one of the most interesting debates on
chowk, but heres my two bits anyway. this wasn`t
just one of the most interesting articles on chowk
it was also one of the best written, issues were
tackled in an analytical way, and i think the
author should definitely be commended on his
honesty and courage in dealing with such a
controversial issue. i think he proved through the
resulting interact and his consistency that he is
sincere. i think he managed to make the point that
the notion of pedophile as a monster is not the
rule. can people help the way they feel? if we
have become acceptant of homosexuality is it
perhaps just a matter of time when sex with young
people is going to be okay? the limits of
acceptable behaviour are set by soceity, and
society evolves, can a host of hostile belief
systems shape peoples perceptions towards a
possible threat to their financial and economic
power? was there a reason the Prophet Mohammed
married a very young girl? what is the measure of
maturity? is it purely physical? if its mental
then aren`t most of the women married in pakistan
children in terms of intellectual and emotional
maturity?
this article made me think of all those issues. i
think this itself should have been sufficient to
have stopped the `remove this scandalous material`
though process that dominated the earlier
interact. how can we claim to be an evolving
community if we react this way to something
radically different? we should at least listen, if
not agree. or even agressively disagree. if
nothing else it will help us understand the
mechanics of our

Re: PM # 190

Thanks for the detailed explanations and points.....

With reference to your second paragraph, but more specifically to your statement about allowing children to experiment and learn about their own sexulity, it is an idea, which will avail to nothing.

PM, please do not misunderstand what I am saying. In of itself, in an ideal situation situation, that idea has merits, but we do not live in an ideal situation and in our present reality, something like that, which you are suggesting, will never be allowed. You have made your points, in regard to my numberous posts, and have rested your case well.

Just allow me to say one thing and then I, too, will rest my case!

PM, our present political, and social enviroment will resist such an undertaking aggressivily. You are correct to infer that I am having difficulty in translating, what you are advocating, into a realitistic practical scenerio. The reason for that is, because the present day societal environment is not at all pre-disposed towards this idea and will rebel against it. As someone, who is involved in politics, I have to react to situations and hypotheticals within a frame work of realistic conditions and determine, what will work and what will not work realistically. With that in mind, I do see how this idea can be transformed from a theory to reality and be accepted.

Nothing in life is ever certain and these societial conditions may change over a period of time. PM, you have done an excellent work of defending the logic of your arguments, against your detractors, including me, but you seriously need to take this corpus of arguments, if you are serious about this topic, which I still think are in the theoretical state and mould them into a concrete program of intentions, which can be politically debated. In your last post, you started down that road by clearifying your intentions, but you need further tine tune those intentions and explictily demostrate your specific points.

Once you have a political plan of intentions, a platform, then the real debate can begin on whether to accredit this issue with a legally defined right or not. PM, you really need to get past the theory, which you have already debated well, and instead you need to start concentrating on the practical art of turning the theory into a reality.

When you get to that state, give me an e-buzz, and I will be happy to brain storm with you!

In any case, thanks for an interesting and thought provoking debate on a highly controversial topic.

Ciao!

Dear Ferozk

(re. #185)

You seem to have great difficulty accepting that I view this as a matter of children`s rights. That is understandable: an effective ploy by any minority seeking to bring about change for itself would be do demonstrate that change would benefit the majority.

And yet, I do not see myself intrinsically as a minority here. If I have been able to retain equanimity (for the most part) during this InterAction and exhibit the immense stamina others have referred to, it is because I do not view that as a Me-versus-Society battle at all. I see it more of a `battle` between erotophilia and erotophobia. My (unstated) position through-out has been that as members of modern-day society, we are indoctrinated OUT OF the sensitivity to eroticism in certain areas. Incredulous as this may sound, what I`m saying is that we are turned into pedophobes by an insidious process of systematic erotophobic education. As such, I hold that the pedophobe is a more real social-construction, sexual-identity than the pedophile. Put another way, I am saying `Pedophiles R Us`.

So, a point of my argumentation, whether you can accept it or not, IS about children`s rights to experience their sexuality, their rights even to be educated about their sexuality (by parents, teacher, caring adults, in a monitored environment in the best of worlds) just as they are educated about other things in life. I`m not merely talking of what is called `sex education` in Western schools, which inasmuch as it serves to de-eroticize sex, goes against the ideals of a true education. I am speaking, quite simply, of teaching children to understand themselves and the world in as personal a way as possible. I am speaking of NOT teaching our children things that make them feel innately bad about a natural part of themselves, so much so that they grow up feeling ``intense repulsion and abhorrence`` for certain practices for reasons they cannot really name (even as they accept that in other times, there existed no repulsion or abhorrence to these practices in society)

Naturally, a liberation of children`s sexuality will have positive ramifications for those already liberated enough to partake of the fruits of this openness. To suggest that this will necessarily be an exploitative scenario is to do little beyond betray one`s own erotophobia. Elaborate legal arguments can be forwarded to hide this basic fear, all the time overlooking the benefits to be accrued, simply because these benefits cannot be measured quantitatively. (`number of times fondled` can be counted, while emotional/intellectual benefit from the WHOLE experience will not register on any instrument.) Love is filtered out of the legal argumentation (for what exactly is its worth anyway?) and legal concepts of `asymmetry`, `disbalance` and `reciprocal rights` are invoked to pass absolute judgement on matters essentially of the heart. Legality is called in stamp out they desperate voices that shout ``Wait, there is much much more! This is not just black or white! Our realities (sum of experiences) may be different!``

I rest my case.

Dear Ferozk

(re. #185)

You seem to have great difficulty accepting that I view this as a matter of children`s rights. That is understandable: an effective ploy by any minority seeking to bring about change for itself would be do demonstrate that change would benefit the majority.

And yet, I do not see myself intrinsically as a minority here. If I have been able to retain equanimity (for the most part) during this InterAction and exhibit the immense stamina others have referred to, it is because I do not view that as a Me-versus-Society battle at all. I see it more of a `battle` between erotophilia and erotophobia. My (unstated) position through-out has been that as members of modern-day society, we are indoctrinated OUT OF the sensitivity to eroticism in certain areas. Incredulous as this may sound, what I`m saying is that we are turned into pedophobes by an insidious process of systematic erotophobic education. As such, I hold that the pedophobe is a more real social-construction, sexual-identity than the pedophile. Put another way, I am saying `Pedophiles R Us`.

So, a point of my argumentation, whether you can accept it or not, IS about children`s rights to experience their sexuality, their rights even to be educated about their sexuality (by parents, teacher, caring adults, in a monitored environment in the best of worlds) just as they are educated about other things in life. I`m not merely talking of what is called `sex education` in Western schools, which inasmuch as it serves to de-eroticize sex, goes against the ideals of a true education. I am speaking, quite simply, of teaching children to understand themselves and the world in as personal a way as possible. I am speaking of NOT teaching our children things that make them feel innately bad about a natural part of themselves, so much so that they grow up feeling ``intense repulsion and abhorrence`` for certain practices for reasons they cannot really name (even as they accept that in other times, there existed no repulsion or abhorrence to these practices in society)

Naturally, a liberation of children`s sexuality will have positive ramifications for those already liberated enough to partake of the fruits of this openness. To suggest that this will necessarily be an exploitative scenario is to do little beyond betray one`s own erotophobia. Elaborate legal arguments can be forwarded to hide this basic fear, all the time overlooking the benefits to be accrued, simply because these benefits cannot be measured quantitatively. (`number of times fondled` can be counted, while emotional/intellectual benefit from the WHOLE experience will not register on any instrument.) Love is filtered out of the legal argumentation (for what exactly is its worth anyway?) and legal concepts of `asymmetry`, `disbalance` and `reciprocal rights` are invoked to pass absolute judgement on matters essentially of the heart. Legality is called in stamp out they desperate voices that shout ``Wait, there is much much more! This is not just black or white! Our realities (sum of experiences) may be different!``

I rest my case.

Dear Karakoram,

(re.#188)

[Your fetish is ill defined and unexplainable even by you (it may be my ability to understand)]

My `fetish` is, to me, best described by the what folks usually call romantic love (although there are some differences, such as my not needing reciprocal attention in equal measure.). Can you - or anyone - explain love? Should we even try? Words can only ever give an approximation of experiences. (Zen teaching)

[The parents take decisions:

To attain a goal (e.g. my kid will learn to swim, will become a doctor, should get married, or even let the kids do what they want to) that they feel benefits, provides security or prepares the child for the world. ]

Does the setting of GOALS (self-interested as they often are), in itself, render `control` desirable?

[What is it that you are trying to impart to these boys ? Where do you fit in ? Your argument seemed to suggest that you have as much control over them as their parents.]

First, what arguments have I forwarded that suggest that I even take the opportunities presented me to influence boys. I mentioned ONE relationship with a boy, which was more of an awakening than an ideal situation. Please remember, we are still discussing this hypothethically.

What can I impart? Well, let`s consider the relationship with Nomi. I offered him companionship, security, an ear, a trustworthy (YES!) relationship with an adult, a feeling of being special, lots of advice on how to deal with the problems any 12-yo faces, and (if I may be allowed a little immodesty) a little knowledge of the world.

[The secretive nature of your relationship is a big issue.]

Let`s get one thing straight. There was no `big secret`, the sex-play not being a vital part of the bond. There are some things people keep secret about almost every relationship. This secrecy needn`t define the relationship. It certainly didn`t mine. The public perception, in highlighting the sex part of the relationship, naturally supposes that the whole relationship is secretive.

[The fact that your actions are hidden make them more dangerous...]

I would much rather you said ``makes them POTENTIALLY dangerous``.

[... for all we have are your slippery responses and your word. ...: why should society accept them ?]

Excuse me? Slippery?

Anyway, you, or society, have to accept them in this case simply by the principle of take-all-or-nothing. It applies here because that`s all you ever had to go by. You accept what I say about my feelings (which I was under no compulsion to divulge), so why do you have problems accepting my word motives, or actions?

[How do you explain the relationship to the boys ?]

Puhleez, now. Relationships happen. They are not contracts the dynamics of which are set out in advance, or need redefining during. Perhaps your question relates to the sexual side (assuming it exists). Unless I was forcing it down his throat, or manipulating him, there would be no need for explaining.

[Do they know its `wrong` to tell their parents and to keep quiet about it?]

Wouldn`t you? At twelve.

[Are they even aware of how much it means to you ?]

Assuming `it` refers to the entire relationship, since `sex` doesn`t really mean that much, well, I guess some do and some don`t... depends on their intellect/emotional IQ.

[Although I still don`t understand the special importance you attach to nurturing young boys, as opposed to the mundane `other` nurturing meant for everybody else.]

Well, I`ve tried to avoid saying this throughout, but I guess there`s no other way to put it than ``You have to be there. In it``

[All this is of course assuming that there is a purpose behind your actions and this is just not something you do to escape reality.]

Is there a `purpose` to your falling in love (other than in the biological sense)? And we each create our realities to a large extent. If you`re wondering if I am able to function as a `normal` contributing member of society, well, why should you believe me if I said I was every bit a model citizen (my `fetish` aside)? Incidentally, I`m hoping for a character witness to give her testimony. Not because I need you readers to trust me for my own well-being, but because `Patrick Masih` is a project, a mission. Let`s see…

Hope that settles some of your queries.

regards,

PM

Dear Ferozk

(re. #185)

You seem to have great difficulty accepting that I view this as a matter of children`s rights. That is understandable: an effective ploy by any minority seeking to bring about change for itself would be do demonstrate that change would benefit the majority.

And yet, I do not see myself intrinsically as a minority here. If I have been able to retain equanimity (for the most part) during this InterAction and exhibit the immense stamina others have referred to, it is because I do not view that as a Me-versus-Society battle at all. I see it more of a `battle` between erotophilia and erotophobia. My (unstated) position through-out has been that as members of modern-day society, we are indoctrinated OUT OF the sensitivity to eroticism in certain areas. Incredulous as this may sound, what I`m saying is that we are turned into pedophobes by an insidious process of systematic erotophobic education. As such, I hold that the pedophobe is a more real social-construction, sexual-identity than the pedophile. Put another way, I am saying `Pedophiles R Us`. (naturally, that is.)

So, a point of my argumentation, whether you can accept it or not, IS about children`s rights to experience their sexuality, their rights even to be educated about their sexuality (by parents, teacher, caring adults, in a monitored environment in the best of worlds) just as they are educated about other things in life. I`m not merely talking of what is called `sex education` in Western schools, which inasmuch as it serves to de-eroticize sex, goes against the ideals of a good education. I am speaking, quite simply, of teaching children to understand themselves and the world in as personal a way as possible. I am speaking of NOT teaching our children things that make them feel innately bad about a natural part of themselves, so much so that they grow up feeling ``intense repulsion and abhorrence`` for certain practices for reasons they cannot really name (even as they accept that in other times there existed no repulsion or abhorrence to these practices in society)

Naturally, a liberation of children`s sexuality will have positive ramifications for those already liberated enough to partake of the fruits of this openness. To suggest that this will necessarily be an exploitative scenario is to do little beyond betray one`s own erotophobia. Elaborate legal arguments can be forwarded to hide this basic fear, all the time overlooking the benefits to be accrued, simply because these benefits cannot be measured quantitatively. (`number of times fondled` can be counted, while emotional/intellectual benefit from the WHOLE experience will not register on any instrument.) Love is filtered out of the legal argumentaton (for what exactly is its worth anyway?) and concepts of `asymmetry`, `disbalance` and `intelligence` are used pass absolute judgement on matters essentially of the heart. Legailty is called in stamp out they desperate voices that shout ``Wait, there is much much more! This is not black or white!``

I rest my case.

Silent Readers, Thought Provoking Writers, Learned Participants, Participants - Providing Mental Stimulation, Participants - Repeating their versions with flowery language:

Well, we are still on 188th post. 12 more to go.

Current Situation:

Status: Mr. PM is apparently a stand alone entity. There are some liberals who appear to be on his side. Though these liberals do not approve of his actions but they think everyone is unique so they just add some ``Hulkee Phulkee`` arguments.

Now on the other hand, some hard hitters are giving MR. PM tough time. They are carefully scrutanizing each and every thought in Mr. PM`s brain and each and every feelings in ``His`` heart.

Well, as per the current status: It seems a lot of mind readers, intuitive folks and careful scrutanizers are coming forward to outwit Mr. PM but ``Majaal Hae Kae Mr. PM Kae Sur Pur Joon Tuk Reeng Jayae`` :-) As a result Newton`s 3rd law has been proved 180 times. (To Sir Isaac Newton: Salutes)!

What happened next ?

Please stay in tuned!

PM:

Your fetish is ill defined and unexplainable even by you (it may be my ability to understand). You compare what you do to children with the worst of what some parents have done. The parents take decisions:

To attain a goal (e.g. my kid will learn to swim, will become a doctor, should get married, or even let the kids do what they want to)that they feel benefits, provides security or prepares the child for the world.

Or- the parents are very religous and follow and force on their children all injunctions and interpretations they believe.

Or- the worst case: they abuse their children and care not for their welfare.

What is it that you are trying to impart to these boys ? Where do you fit in ? Your argument seemed to suggest that you have as much control over them as their parents. The secretive nature of your relationship is a big issue. The abuser parents hide their actions because they know society will react (maybe not everywhere- but most abusers are cowards and abuse behind closed doors). You may hide them because society does not accept them. The fact that your actions are hidden make them more dangerous, for all we have are your slippery responses and your word. And we know how much you value that (with the children`s parents). But to rephrase the question above: why should society accept them ? what is it that you are offering through these relationships ? and why are you so bent on defending the right to sex with these boys ?

Also curious about the following:

How do you explain the relationship to the boys ?

Do they know its `wrong` to tell their parents and to keep quiet about it?

Are they even aware of how much it means to you ?

The nurturing aspect of your relationship is not in question. Although I still don`t understand the special importance you attach to nurturing young boys, as opposed to the mundane `other` nurturing meant for everybody else.

All this is of course assuming that there is a purpose behind your actions and this is just not something you do to escape reality.

Let me help you make the 200 mark.

Peace.

Re: PM # 175

On the contary, PM, it seems that the recourse to this and seeking to legalize it, has more to do with your ``rights`` than would be a boy`s, who happened to be your object d`amour. As far individual rights go, even though I detest and abhor this practice and do not condone it, I have no right to impose my character perceptions upon you. However, I think that this character trait, or what ever, you prefer to call it, is wrong, but that is my opinion for what it is worth and I will stand by it.

I did not miss the intent of your argumentation, because, as you said it, it is about a right to choice, but where I disagree with you is on the justification of that right within the contextual parameters of your intentions.

PM, even in my most lucid, aggressive moments of advocating liberalism`s cause, I fail to rationalize how you could equate a balance of mutual rights, between an adult and a child, as being a reciprocal right. I just do not see such rights as being equal given the imbalances of inter-generational differences and the separte, but not equal, experiences and maturity levels of the participants in such a relationship. This intergenerational abyss of experiences, age, muturity, though it may seem in theory to be abridgeable, in reality it not so easy to over come.

Like I said before, this is just my opinion and I do not begrudge a person his individual choices, even though that person seems to be intent on tilting at windmills.

Dear Karakoram;

Re #184:

(Treating the questions hypothetically, since I`ve yet to commit an act legally wrong:)

[Is what you`re doing wrong ? You tell me.]

Without getting into epistemological definitions of right & wrong, I`d have to say (from my heart as much as my mind), NO, not necessarily. That`s my answer.

[Are you sure that you are being entirely honest with yourself and the children in these relationships?]

Yes!!!

[Are they mature enough or independent to make their own decisions ?]

You would still have to define `children` here. No one would be so silly as to assume that the decision making ability of a 16 year old is the same as that of a 4 year old-both children in the eyes of the law. But let`s apply the question to 12-year-olds.( my choice of age-of-consent, for reasons we cannot go into here)

Can/should they make decisions? About what? Whether they should drop out of school? No! Whether they should take drugs? No! Whether they choose a religion of their own choice, rather than be mentally abused into following one? Yes! Whether they should be subjected to the fears of learning swimming against their will? Yes! Whether they should be allowed to experience pleasures of their bodies? Yes!!! (Of course, the issue here goes deeper, since we must guard against abuse, but that`s not what the question is asking)

[You are violating their parent`s trust by engaging in activities which they may not deem beneficial for their children. That`s one wrong.]

Call it a lesser evil. Parents may be screwing up all the time. No one complains about the wrong there.

My question to you: Should simply `being` a parent even give one sole right over the life-decisions of the child? Actually, it doesn`t, since the state / *does */ have a say, but certainly, and more so in Pakistan, the child`s rights are taken away to the point of him/her being rendered little more than a piece of mouldable clay, with parents having the power to shape it any which way they`d like to. You don`t see this as at least slightly wrong!?

This is a complex issue, and the answer to your question has to be case-sensitive. A teacher may be violating the trust of the parents in, say, informing a girl of 16 of her legal rights viz. marriage. Or more simply, more commonly, by preparing children for the real world in stead of for exams, which the parents would prefer.

[But why are you a prejudiced nurturer. Why only young boys ? There is something else wrong (not with the relationship, but with you) if you can`t treat people equally, and nurture people of all ages and any sex. Especially if sex is not your goal. ]

I have to work with the `gifts` I have. If I cannot relate to adolescent girls, should that be reason to withhold the love I have for boys? To keep you from putting the question back to me, I say NO!! And there is nothing wrong with the relationships, or me, for it being that way. Further, why do you assume that I ``can`t nurture people of all ages and any sex``? Nurturing takes different forms, which have different motivations. Pleasure is not an evil motivation in my books.

[It just don`t make sense.]

Makes perfect sense to me. But then, I have the feelings, the natural motivations. And you probably have a slight prejudice.

[You`re hiding something and not just from us, from yourself]

I shall take that under advisement, though, quite honestly, I think not. If I were less introspective, I`d say you`ve got some nerve making that contention, but I won`t.

Peace to you to,

PM

baRa mazaa aaya!

Thank you Chowk for drinking this zeher-bhara GhooNT. A rather enjoyable read!

Even though most liberals (whatever that means) have to draw the line somewhere, the presence of this lolita-infatuation is counted upon for many of the successful rishtas in our arranged-marriage setup. When was the last time you heard of a ``momentary lapse of reason`` in the functioning of an otherwise ``enlightened`` brain when presented with a Chayay ka cup by a 15/16/17/18/19 year old?

halaNkeh is say farQ to paRta nahiN....

PM, enjoy the teekhay waar, you could be on the show (from my teenage years, where were you?) ``You Asked For It!``

PM:

Is what you`re doing wrong ? You tell me.

Are you sure that you are being entirely honest with yourself and the children in these relationships ? Are they mature enough or independent to make their own decisions ?

They are young, in fact so young that their parents are in charge of their intellectual growth. The parents define the DOs and the DONTS at this age. You are violating their parents trust by engaging in activities which they may not deem beneficial for their children. Thats one wrong.

What good do you see coming out of these relationships ? The nurturing part is fine and well. But why are you a prejudiced nurturer. Why only young boys ? There is something else wrong (not with the relationship, but with you) if you can`t treat people equally, and nurture people of all ages and any sex. Especially if sex is not your goal.

It just don`t make sense. You`re hiding something and not just from us, from yourself.

Peace.

Dear PM,

Although I totaly disagree (and then some) with your rationalizing pedophile addiction under the guise of ``boylove``, I have come to respect you as a person during these close to 200 interacts. You defended your position very well and spent a lot of personal time and energy to answer each and every interact. I admire your principled stand on the issue and would like to compliment you on your stamina and not getting out of the kitchen when it got hot. PM, here are some lyrics dedicated to you to the tune of ``Hey Macarena`` ....

Macarena: Los Del Rio/featuring The Bayside Boys

Album: Macarena Club Cutz

Source: Sabrina E. Jara (barnaby@ix.netcom.com)

Dale a tu cuerpo alegria Macarena

Que tu cuerpo es pa` darle alegria y cosa buena

Dale a tu cuerpo alegria, Macarena

Hey, Macarena

When I dance they call me Macarena

And the boylovers they say que soy buena

They all want me, they can`t have me

so they all come and dance beside me

Move with me, chat with me

and if I could I`d take them home with me

(rpt 1, 1)

Now don`t you worry about my addiction

The boy who`s name is Nomi

I don`t want him, couldn`t stand him

He was no good so I

Now come on, what was I suppose to do

He was out of town and his other friend was so fine

(rpt 1...1)

Come find me, my name is Macarena

Always at the party con las chicas que estan buenas

Come join me, dance with me

And all you fellas chat along with me

(rpt 1...)

Don`t Get Caught Slow-Dancing Behind the Town Square:)-

XXOO,

Soldotna

re. Karakoram (#179)

[Maybe everyone has PM pegged down wrong. He`s not the abuser of power, at least not consciously. He needs unquestioning adoration and focused attention. He himself is a child (emotionally). He cannot face the reality around him and finds solace in spending time with children who are not fully aware or worry about the complexities of life that he deals with. He feels some pride in imparting his wisdom to these children, who most probably are enamored by him, due to the amount of attention he bestows on them.]

Hmmm... Interesting. You may even be right. My question is, even if you are right, ``does that in itself make the relationships `wrong`? Can no good come of them merely because I have my problems with `reality`?

jus` wondering...

[He doesn`t like girls because they remind him of the unsuccessful attempts he has had with more mature women...]

C`mon! That`s a laugh. Go go on confusing cause with effect, buddy.

[...and the fact that people in Pakistan are more careful with their daughters...]

I`m trying very hard NOT to see this as an instance of homophobia-couched-in-concern, now.

But thanks for the input anyway. Hell, it WOULD be nice to have that double hundred!

regards,

PM

RE: PM

Hey ``Love-Joy``...??? I normally behave myself, i.e avoid F words...but when I come across crap like yours, pandaled as ``literary pursuit of knowledge`` that just does it for me, I suppose I could have used ``carnal knowledge`` but the four letter word really does it for me...and while we are on the subject of my net ettiquettes, please try to take it in the true spirit of ``fag ghaziness like yourself`` and think of my indiscretions as ``emphasis`` or ``exclamation points``...and not some ``rude`` ``bad words``.

Also, Sohail Saab thinks I am a shameless creature, who accused you of ``screwing (feel better) 13 yr olds`` in fact the fact of the matter is that you just don`t screw `em, but ``think and fantasize`` about screwing `em. I wonder how did that vital point escaped me...( which btw I am still trying to deal with ) since you somewhere ``rejoiced`` that you can`t be held ``legally responsible`` cause you committed nothing and admitted nothing, ( which on another level tells me you are a coward too ) but then again probably my brain polarity is all hozed up. What`s the point of all this you ask my boy lover person, I saw my name tossed around because ``civilized people`` on this forum think I am vulgar, may be so, but I think, If you can post such garbage indisguise of ``quality literature`` may be I can have have my opinion too, its just that I don`t say it in too many words like yourself, and ``the rest of the civilized bunch should really tune my noise out and see if there is any content besides it, like not grab the F word and run but more like, OK waheed stop cursing and do you have something to contribute to the discussion, and you know sometimes the only thing to contribute could be utter disgust, ain`t nothing wrong with that`` but I still dont` mind the occasional public embarrassment when ``good people`` tell me to shut up and think about what I said, its the part of the package. something like that``, plus I really don`t feel its such a shocker, is it..? and I still think you are full of s-h-i-t!

Chowkies, I am sorry if I offended anyones F sensors, I am taking remedial ``ettiquette classes`` soon...Happy...!

Maybe everyone has PM pegged down wrong. He`s not the abuser of power, at least not consciously. He needs unquestioning adoration and focused attention. He himself is a child (emotionally). He cannot face the reality around him and finds solace in spending time with children who are not fully aware or worry about the complexities of life that he deals with. He feels some pride in imparting his wisdom to these children, who most probably are enamored by him, due to the amount of attention he bestows on them.

He doesn`t like girls because they remind him of the unsuccessful attempts he has had with more mature women and the fact that people in Pakistan are more careful with their daughters.

Sex may just be a natural progression of events, not the goal per se. In short PM is doing the best he think he can and due to his fear of reality he believes it to be what he actually wants to do.

Just a theory.

Peace.

Dear Zahra (#173)

Good to see you `join` us again!

[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 .....]

Hey, believe it or not... I`m infused with renewed vigour with every post I send. No kidding. Maybe this WAS a cartharcic (sp?) experience after all.

regards,

PM

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

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