Of Boylove and Boylovers

Hey Alexi,

goodto see your reply posted here. Hope to contact you on your home-page sometime. How`d you come across my article anyway??

Yours in bl,

PM

I cannot imagine that you are allowed to walk around freely in a culture which is far far superior to the kind you are trying to promote & emulate.You are a walking wart on the face of this earth.You are a disgrace to the name of the prophet whose name you carry(Masih---the annointed one,Hazrat Eessa to us muslims,who have more respect for him than your kind),to the vocation you are in,to the country you are allowed to live with such perversion.I would urge the authorities to locate you and unceremoniously dispense with you( in case you have any grand notions about youself as a pervert).

Somehow you have this psychopathic tendency that simply because you are demonically sick it places you in the league of some creative geniuses who,even if they were such kind(for argument`s sake) who did not need this sickness to be what they became...& that itself is not a justification to let them off the hook.We can enjoy somebodys work(be he/she a scientist,writer,artist etc etc & we can still sen him/her to the gallows for the pervertedness.

The world has seen this all before.You are not the modern or the radical one.The ancient writings and scriptures are full of the admonishments.The world now or ever going to allow you to flaunt your depravities.

If you need to fart please do not do it in the living room & in the company of civilised people & particularly among advanced civilisations( Muslim,Indian,Chinese,Egyptians,Mexicans,Peruvians) Maybe Europeans will tolerate you(the brown haired & blue-eyed ones) The black haired ones at least did have a civilisation(Romans & Greeks)for some time.

Farangi_Kush:

I am convinced that you either have not read my

article in it`s entirety, or else have read it but

suffer from very poor comprehension skills. (But

don`t worry too much on that count -- you`re in

very good company there, I assure you!)

Well, where do I begun to rebut your terribly

confused post? hmmm... to begin with, if you

didn`t see the world in such black and white

terms, and didn`t attribute everything you

perceive as evil to the ``corrupt civilizations of

the West``, you might begin to understand that my

arguments were directed strongly against the

double-standards in the West. Unfortunately, you

seem to be among those who have unknowingly

subscribed to Western norms of sexual mores (at

least to some extent) and in your ignorance,

attempt to show that such ``vices`` have no place in

what you regard as the ``advanced civilizations``

I guess I can do no better than point out the

prevelance, even extolling, of boylove in all

those cultures. I would look forward to your

response.

You said: ``If you need to fart please do not do it

in the living room & in the company of civilised

people & particularly among advanced

civilisations(

Muslim,Indian,Chinese,Egyptians,Mexicans,Peruvians

) Maybe Europeans will tolerate you(the brown

haired & blue-eyed ones) The black haired ones at

least did have a civilisation(Romans & Greeks)for

some time.``

Lemme see now, Romans and Greeks. Heck, this

one`s too darn easy. I don`t expect even you to

be so uninformed as to not know of the tradition

of pederasty in those great civilizations. It has

been argued that these cvilizations could not have

produced the great warriors (esp. the Spartans)

were it not for this tradition of male bonding (I

mean reeeeally bonding!)

Muslim civilzation next: My friend, for one who

is supposedly proud of his Arab lineage, you are

deplorably ignorant of Arab history. (or perhaps

jsut very selective in what you believe). The

Arabs are second to none in their homoerotic

poetry, in which the boy, not the man, by the way,

is extolled for his exquisite beauty. Neither was

this limited to the erotic poets. I quite from my

article:

``The average Joe on a NY street, or for that

matter, Yusuf on a Jeddah one, would be surprised

to learn that boylove was extolled by such sufis

as Ahmad Ghazzali, Awhadoddin Kermani and

Abdol-Rhaman Jami, who ``witnessed`` the presence of

the Divine Beloved in certain beautiful boys, or

that until recently, pederasty was deemed a

facilitator to the teaching of pupils in [Muslim]

seminaries in Morocco.``

``Muslims can be only slightly less embarrassed-at

least the boys promised to them in Paradise might

be of an ethereal nature.  You’ve no doubt heard

of the beautiful dames waiting for righteous men

in Heaven-seventy-two for every man, to be exact,

each with “beautiful fair skin”. What you may not

have heard is that “round about them will serve

boys of a perpetual freshness; if thou seest them,

thou wouldst think them scattered pearls.” (Quran

76:19)``

Want more? Well, read up on the what the grooming

practices of boys in Ottoman courts involved.

But forget history. By what stretch of

imagination (or even bigotry) can you begin to

ridicule present-day Western civilization on this

count, with their draconian laws against these

practices while you extoll a culture like

Pakistan`s where child sexual ABUSE (not even

consenual sex-play) is widely known to be

practiced in home and maddrassahs?? Time for a

reality check, Mr. Foreigner Killer.

Next: China: Again, long tradtion of boylove. I

could diret you to Chinese fable sites dedicated

to the subject. Suffice it to point out for now

that in China, this is love known as the the

Passion of the Cut Sleeve, after the Emperor Ai,

cut off his sleeve rather awake his boy-love who

was sleeping on it.

Egyptians? Sorry, I haven`t much data there, but

would Morroco do?

As for Mexico and Peru, well, sorry again, but if

the findings of anthropoligists about

homoeroticism in the South Sea islands are of any

use to you, I `d be glad to provide references.

As for India, could I interest you in some ofthe

works of Mir, and Ghalib? Of course, they don`t

exactly represent civilizations, but the fact that

they could get away with souch explicit musings in

their time says soemthing about how the culture

might have viewed the issue. Which brings me to

the accusation you made about my trying to seek

legitimacy for my `perversion` by pointing out

it`s existence in many greats in antiquity.

Hello? Doesn`t it`s unusual prepondenrence among

great minds say something about the issue if

viewed rationally? It wasn`t as if these people

were saying, ``Hey, pay heed to our greatness, but

please excuse this inexcusable perversion we

have.`` THEY CELEBRATED IT! It was almost

inseperable from their greatness. They were

saying ``Hey, look, it`s not a big deal. No one`s

getting hurt.`` So, please, don`t even try to

equate historical pederasty with crimes like

murder, for which people would need to be ``sent to

the gallows``

In the end, FARANHI_KUSH, you have displayed

nothing but your ignorance, the same ignorance

that feeds your hatred and fears of `the other`.

It is always easier to see the world in

black-and-white, good-guys and bad-guys. It is

the truly brave who can question their values and

look beynd crude generalizations. Admitting one`s

own (or one`s culture`s) faults and the virtues of

others` is not a weakness, my friend. I hope some

day you will come to see this and then dispense

with the horrible nickname you

I didnot know of the existence of this article till today. I wish to express my extreme horror at chowk.com providing a forum where the sanctity of childhood is up for debate.

Better not to have a website at all and to retreat to forests and hang from trees than to plot the emotional and other abuse of innocents using the power technology and intelligence have given us.

Sadhana

PM:

Thanks for your ``prompt`` reply.

I cannot respond if you insist that I did not read or understand your article.You have shut the door of a reply completely,but nevertheless I`ll try......because you specifically asked for it.

My straightforward question to you is this:

Do you condone it or condemn it..er this depravity ?.

Do you practise it?

Do you do it to your pupil/s?

Are their parents aware of it?.

Can you say it with pride to your employers that this is what you think & do?

....Please answer a clean yes/no to above & only then proceed further to read .........

Any third rate person who has been educated in an english-medium school or the western social sciences/humanities is fully aware of the `knowledge` exhibited by you.All the example you have given are from literature & poetry.All religions inculding Hinduism & Buddhism deplore it,shun it,& punish its practitioners.What you fail to understand that in the farangi-lands such kind of depravities are gradually becoming not only acceptable but also glamorous.It is the religions which are being sent into closets.Depravities & unchristian practises are becoming legal.Prostitution,gambling,adultery,pornograpghy & what not is legal & pretty soon incest & bestiality would follow---there are already muffled talk about it by the present day liberals & humanists(which is you & your ilk...former socialists,communists,atheists,agnostics,& secularists).Now don`t give me your bull that since even Christ(pbuh)---naoozobillah... has been reported to have done it & a movie is a `proof` of it so therefore you are just following in his foot-steps & are therefore still a christian.The farangis & the freako-farangis(that is the west-bootlickers of India & Pakistan) shall never ever be allowed to practise their demonic depravities by Hindus,Muslims,Christians & all other advanced & superior systems.

You not only want your skeletons to be out of the closets but you are insisting upon putting up a public display of them by bringing them back to life through tissue cloning.This is your definition of `progress` & liberality & `freedom`.

All this has happened earlier in human history,just look at their ruins:Be a little honest at least to your own creed....or are you a maseeh in name only?

It is one thing for something to exist & another to have a societal acceptance of it.

A simple yes & no to the above few questions would be sufficient answer to this, rather than a winded drivel about western & eastern literature about which I have more than sufficient information to talk to somebody who makes a living out of it.

Dear sadna (#202)

I think invoking the ``sanctity of childhood`` or

the ``protection of children`` are disingenious

attepmts at preempting rational debate of an issue

that one would rather be informed on by one`s

passion and dogma.

I imagine that the protagonists of ``honour

killings`` would resort to the same sort of

invocations. (``sanctity of marriage``, ``izzat``,

etc.).

It was rather dissapointing that an outspoken

defender of democracy should so register such

outrage at an legitimate exercise of freedom of

expression (I don`t remember making any threats of

any sort, endangering anyone), and, out of hand,

dismiss all validity of my views.

I would be even more surprised if you did so

*after * going through the entire article. And I

would lose much respect for your intellectual

honesty if you did so *after * having read through

the even more informative interacts.

One question, though: At what age, precisely, does

the putative `sanctity` get (presumably)

corrupted? And are your notions of sanctity (I

read that roughly as `asexuality`) based on

relgion/science/tradition or all of the above?

Hoping you will answer, despite your earlier

contention that the issue is below debating (which

is, incidentally, a view that many enlightened

chowkies held and then rejected in the course of

the interact).

regards,

PM



This space for adverising

Farangi_Kush:

I do not see why my aserting my conviction that

you failed to understand my article should keep

you from countering my arguments and, frankly, my

contention that you are just airing your extreme

prejudice against the `evil` West. I don`t know

if I can put it in any simpler terms: Even if I

were to agree with you that this attraction to

boys is some form of depravity, I would not, by

any strectch of the imagination, be able to see it

as a `Western` one. You state that the examples I

have quoted are from literature. Hello? Read any

Arab or Greek history lately? And since when did

the Holy Quran come to simply a work of literature

by you??? Now, now, please, stop frothing in the

mouth. I am not seeking to belittle the Quran,

for which I generally have much respect (perhaps

because I have read it with an OPEN mind!).

My point is that you are taking a practice that

has been ACCEPTED throughout histroy (except in

societies influenced by the teachings of Paul and

Augustine -- not even Christ himself), are putting

a patently Western spin on it (``depravity`` etc.)

and then attempting to show that it originated and

prevails in the West, not in the ``superior``

civilizations of the East. That, to me, is just

ludicrous. At least have the intellectual

honesty, no matter how you view the issue, to

admit that it is historically a more accepted

practice in the East than West. Assuming you are

from Pakistan, where the practice in it`s more

horrific forms (that is, actual MOLESTATION-- not

consensual sex) flourishes in the NWFP and

Baluchistan (read up on the reports of WAR

concerning incest), I find it all the more ironic

that you should regard this as

farangi/atheistic/communistic tradition.

You said: ``What you fail to understand that in the

farangi-lands such kind of depravities are

gradually becoming not only acceptable but also

glamorous.``

Again, if you how much out of touch you are with

reality. Only last year, Clinton passed a bill

that made it mandatory for `sex-offendors`

(anyone who so much as engaged in petting with a

minor) to register themselves with the police

whenever they entered a new State. Not even child

murderers have their civil liberties restricted

to this extent! Also, in 1998, US senate passed a

law that made it illegal for Americans travelling

overseas to engage in sex with anyone undert 18

years. (Guess in which civilization Americans

were seeking out sex with minors??) Canadians are

calling for sex ``offenders`` to be `put into prison

and ``throw away the keys``. Hardly a ``glamorous``

treatment of this `vice`, Mr. Farangi_Kush.

On the other hand, what do we have in, say, the

Islaic republic of Pakistan? A minor girl (or

boy) can be raped to near-death, but in the

absence of four male MUSLIM witnesses, she is to

be held guilty of zina. Very glamourous indeed.

You also talk about

``Prostitution,gambling,adultery,pornograpghy &

what not is legal `` being depravaties of the evil

West. Now, coming from a Christian, I could

understand this, but from a proud Muslim, I`m

afraid I just have to smile at the contradiction.

I mean, what are you, as a Muslim, advised to do

if you are not carnally satisified with your

wife/wives and yet have not the means to suport

another? Hint: concubines.

But I suppose you confer a higher moral value to

concubinage and slavery than those despicable

practises of voluntarily seling pleasure (i.e.

prostitution).

Oh, by the way, please note that I am not engaging

in ``[long-] winded drivel about Eastern and

Western literature`` here. These are the

day-to-day realities we live with.

Do you have the honesty to go beyond your

black-and-white worldview and admit that all in

the West is not evil and all in the East not

superior. I`m not asking you to see eye-to-ey

with me on the issue of boylove. (that would be

preposterous), but if we are going to sustain any

sort of serious intellectual debate, you have to

show a little more respect for FACT, such as are

to be drawn from a slighly more objective view of

the world and it`s goings on. I can understand

your need to call for respect to be shown to

ancient cultures and religions, but you are doing

no one any favours, least of all the followers of

those traditions, when you spew your ignorant

venom they way you do. Gone are the days when the

world could be run by `badmashes`, where `truth`

is equated with blind conviction, and Might alone

was Right (although, I admit that regrettably,

that last dictum is still practised sometimes --

Chechnya, Kuwait, Iraq, Kashmir). But I digress.

You mentioned that ``All religions inculding

Hinduism & Buddhism deplore it,shun it,& punish

its [boylove] practitioners``

I would be interested in see the sources in this

regard. As far as I know, there is nothing

hard-and-fast about Hinduism or (original)

Buddhism. Please do provide references, if only

for my information.

Now, You have asked questions that have nothing to

do with the issue, per se, but with my personal

life, which I don`t see the point in answering.

After all, this was a philosophical treatment of

the issue, designed to encourage debate. However,

I will answer you in the spirit of honest

disclosure, with the request that you answer the

questions I pose too.

You questions (and my replies:)

``Do you condone it or condemn it..er this

depravity ?``

Assming `it` refers to violent, nonconsenual sex,

yes, I condemn it. But if `it` refers to

sexuality in a loving, caring setting, I definetly

condone it.

``Do you practise it?``

As much as I would like to, I am not of bold

enough temperament to even let the boys I find

attractive know how I feel. (I thought I had made

this clear in my essay-- again, poor

comprehension? or just reading into somehting what

you want to?). Intersting,though,that you should

use the word `practise`. That suggests that I

seek this with some sort of regularity and

structure. To undestand how odd the questions

seems to me, picture me asking you if you

`practice` going to the beach.

``Do you do it to your pupil/s?``

Get real, buddy!! Do you imagine that I ask boys

to meet me in the toilet for a quickie? Or perhaps

wait after school, when we can do it on a desk.

There is a theory that the ``pedophile`` is a

construct of all the repressed desires of `normal`

folks. I can see wher this question might come

from. And again, your use of the phrase ``do it

TO`` suggests that I could only be the `active

participant` which says something about the images

you are conjuring up in your mind. It also says

something, once again, about yor ablity to

comprehend the passages I have quited about the

type of sexual activity involved in most

intergenrational relationships.

``Are their parents aware of it?``

Aware of what? Oay, assuming that I were to enjoy

physical intimacies of whatever kind, of course I

wouldn`t want their parents to be aware of it.

Just as you wouln`t want your gorlfriend`s

(astagfirullah!!) parents to know of those phone

calls you were making her every other night!

(by the way, the issue of parental involvement has

been discussed somewhere in the 180s, I think!)

``Can you say it with pride to your employers that

this is what you think & do?``

Again, assuming there WAS actually something (??)

that I did, No, (duh!!!). But are you suggesting

that NOTHING done in private can ever be MORALLY

right?

Those are as close as yes/no answers I can

provide.

Now, a few questions for you:

Do you accept that homosexuality (in fact, man-boy

sex, often coercive) is prevalent in the norther

and western provinces of Pakistan?

What is the age at which a child (either sex) can

be thought of as able to give consent?

Are slavery and prostituion unislamic, and

strictly products of the evil West?

Did not prphets Ibrahim, Solomon and jsut about

any other rich Hebrew of those times keep

concubines?

Is concubinage any different from keeping

mistresses? Prostitution?

How old was Hazrat Ayesha when wedded?

How are you able to rationalize reviling

homesexuality (I assume you do) while condoning

child marriages (which of course, were not only

practised by the Arabs but by the Hindus since

time immemorial)? (These are not trick questions.

I am sincerely awaiting answers.)

regards,

PM

P.S. regarding the ``prompt``-ness of my earlier

reply, I obvioulsy do not check this board on a

daily or even weekly basis. It was a bit of idle

re. #202

``Better not to have a website at all and to

retreat to forests and hang from trees than to

plot the emotional and other abuse of innocents

using the power technology and intelligence have

given us.``

Which forests do you think Plato, DaVinci,

Shakespeare, Wilde and Whitman (to name but a few

of them boy-loving barbarians) came from? I really

wouldn`t mind living in those, than among a buch a

hatemongers and nuclear-trigger-ready hoardes. (Oh

just as long as tere are some pretty boys there

too) :-)

Uninformed rhetoric from the hip doesn`t become

y

Farangi_K:

``...or are you a maseeh in name only?``

Can we drop the pontificating attitude, please?

Ill practice my religion he way I want to and you

do yours. In any case, if you truly read and

comprehended my essay, you would have the

unequivocal answer to the que

Farangi_Kush:

something I forgot to address earlier...

``Now don`t give me your bull that since even

Christ (pbuh)---naoozobillah... has been reported

to have done it & a movie is a `proof` of it so

therefore you are just following in his foot-steps

& are therefore still a christian``

This may come to a shocker to you, buddy, but not

everyone forms their impressions of others (be it

individuals or cultures) from the media.

Furthermore, not everyone shares your conviction

that one must always follow the religion which, by

pure accident, they are born into. It makes still

less sense to suggest that the world would be a

better place if everyone followed their parents

religions to the tee, since, taking that argument

to its logical conclusion, Muslims would have to

get rid of all the Hindus, Buddhist, Confucists

and everyone else not ahle-kitab SINCE THEY ARE

KAFIRS. Please don`t put me through the trouble

of fetching the verse that calls for the killing

of all kafirs. I`m sure as a devout Muslim, you

are already aware of it.

As for your polarising the world in believers and

kafirs, take a little reality check buddy

(Remember, the U.S, U.K, France etc, are the evil

secular nations CVhinese are communists,

atheists-- also scum, right? )

Who came to the rescue of the Kuwaitis? Who were

the aggressors?

---ditto Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo ---

How many Muslim (or Christian, or Hindu) nations

are behind Pakistan on Kashmir?

Who gets shitt shoved over them in the Middle

East-- Paki/Indian Muslims or Americans?

Since you brought up AIDS in another board, where

did it originate, where is it killing most people?

(Hint: southernhemisphere continents)

What were most Muslim nations` wars fought against

in the past 25 years? Kafir nations or Other

Muslims/``Religious`` nations?

And one last question: I nderstand that you are

living here in Farangi Land. If so, how do you

justify it?

Please think about these questions before spewing

your next offering of ignorant, xenophobic (and in

the end, imbecelic) hate.

PM,

Since we have exchanged ideas before on chowk, I will explain my visceral reaction. Visceral reactions are sometimes product of our backgrounds, sometimes just things we have accepted without thinking through, sometimes due to deeply-held values accepted and reaffirmed during a lifetime of pondering/evaluating and sometimes reflex actions or life-saving impulsive reactions which we are taught in biology class many species including humans possess. I ascribe my visceral reaction to deeply-held values and life-saving impulses, not to anything else.

Let me clarify. Just switch now and then to the Discovery channel and watch baby animals stumbling to the protection of their mothers. Watch how even animal parents nurture their young. Watch the orphaned baby elephants they keep showing and in your personal experience how even cats and dogs abandoned at birth become emotionally insecure and scared-at-shadows adults without nurturing, especially by mothers. The need for emotional nurturing in infancy to become a viable adult is a inescapable requirement of nature, most so in humans, where both the parents have to `do the job`.

In human society as it has evolved, a child requiring nurturing is brought up to trust its parents and a selected group of adults. A child cannot be brought up to distrust everyone, he would otherwise grow up with a paranoid or sociopathic perspective of the world. Hence there is a set of adults who are admitted into a `charmed circle`, from whom he expects no harm as opposed to strangers who he is warned against. In a sense the child is vulnerable to this `charmed circle` of adults, because he has a inbred trust in them and accepts their moral authority over him, expects nothing but more nurturing as he gets from his parents. The trusted adults in every child `s life thus are surrogate `nurturers` and are bound by an understanding to promote the child`s interest. Its like a covenant and if this were not the case, the parents would have taken steps to exclude uncooperative adults from the `charmed circle` of trust.

As a child grows emotionally, he is better able to deal with unfavorable circumstances and individuals and requires less protection. However, how constructive his adult interactions are depends a lot on his emotional/physical security as a child.

Now any adult who is put in this position of trust and still doesnot accept the responsibilty of nurturer is just refusing to grow up. If the adult then uses his `privileged` position or position of moral authority that the child has granted him to exploit the child`s trust for his personal satisfaction, well thats what is called abuse. Children are wonderful things, they seem to have a clear moral vision and sense of individuality from a very young age. If a foul-tempered father comes home everyday and berates his child, that child may be able to undo the emotional scars and forgive the fathers abuse later in adulthood if he realises the stress of circumstances or character which made his father a bad nurturer. However, any self-serving behaviour on the part of a parent or adult will always be remembered as such in adulthood consciously or subconsciously and extreme anger and rebellion against being taken advantage of in a vulnerable position will result in an extremely angry adult.

Such a situation can arise even between adults. Say between brothers:there are close emotional bonds and one brother looks up to the other with respect since childhood. Then he finds that his trust is being used against him(cheating him in a money transaction, say), it will lead to a bad estrangement and loss of faith in the world at large. Respond to the innocent trust of a child with self-serving behaviour with sexual overtones, and you have committed the worst breaking of faith ever.

Now to the question of what age does such `nurturing` become `not required` and can a equal consenting relationship between adults begin? Well, a large difference in age ought to be a good indicator of how right or wrong something is. An age of 18 is the standard arrived at for good reasons, though understand, at any age if someone assigns a role of benign benefactor to you and you indulge your personal emotions at his cost, there is something very wrong.

As I said before, any adult who is put in a position of trust wrt a child and still doesnot accept the responsibilty of nurturer but looks to further his personal emotional agenda at the childs expense is just refusing to grow up. Also, its very self-serving not to recognise any restraints on yourself and your emotions but ascribe adult-like comprehension and self-awareness to 13-14 year olds. I don`t want quotes from any old masters and thinkers. Just because they have been misleading people for so many generations doenot mean that one can mislead succeeding generations. Also for every master that may have been in `favor` there are plenty others who werenot. Lastly, how many of your adult sympathisers have told you: yes, we were in such relationships as children, we advocate this as a good thing for all children.

Sadhana

PM(from another board)

Sanctity of religion and sanctity of childhood are totally different things. One involves beliefs of thinking and self-sufficient adults, other involves protection of the un-formed innocent and helpless minds. You may or maynot want to join your compatriots and tar everything with the same brush, its your choice. Its not good feeling to be at odds with those whom one agreed with before, but you have to realise its a let down both ways. I am better able to deal with it because I have not posted an article on chowk.com front page, practically inviting comments.

Sadhana

Sadhana,

I guess your last para provides the gist of your

long argument against my postion:

``As I said before, any adult who is put in a

position of trust wrt a child and still does not

accept the responsibilty of nurturer but looks to

further his personal emotional agenda at the

childs expense is just refusing to grow up.``

IMHO, this argument rests on a number of untenable

premisses:

1) Furthering one`s personal emotional agenda and

that of the minor are incompatible ends.

What does that say about teachers (like myself)

who teach for the sheer joy in witnessing

adolescents finding the joys of learning? Let`s

not kid ourselves, Sadhana: except with

self-abnegating martrys, all our acts of caring,

nurturing, etc. are tied to our `personal

emotional agenda`. Be it ammiji waking up at 5

a.m to prepare roti for the family, or abbaji

breaking his back to send the kids to college.

Why does the addition of mutual (erotic) pleasure

into the equation somehow make it immoral? (These

questions have been dealt with at lenght both

inthe article and the interact).

2) Your mention of ``at the child`s expense`` begs

the question of real harm caused. It also

presupposes that the `child` (is there no

difference between a 6 yo and a 12 yo?!) will

necessarily be harmed in such encounters. Again,

research (not even the word of masters- but

`scientific` research, and the word of actual

experts in the field) strongly contradicts that

belief. (I trust you are able to differentiate

between direct and secondary causes of harm). And

I`m afraid your attempt use zoology in your

defense actually ruins it: at least 450 species of

mammals are found to engage in same-gender

sexuality. (So much for the ``Unnatural`` argument

religionists are so wont to spout!).

But I am really doing myself a disservice in

bringing biology into the argument, for I feel

that the attraction often transcends mere physical

affection. That is the most difficult thing to

convey to those that do not share this feeling;

not so much because it is a different

`orientation` than because there is this terrible

myth prevailing that children are not erotic

creatures and cannot possibly desire satisfaction

in this regard. I believe this myth is rooted in

our civilzation`s erotophobia rather than in any

`instinct` to protect our children. If the latter

were the case, there would be at least as vehement

an outcry against, say, madrassah education

preparing children for jehad, as against letting

them interact with pederasts.

3) You suppose that such intergenrational activity

takes place only in situations where the adult has

been placed in a position of responsibility over a

minor. What about childen who seek out adults?

Why is it so difficult for most to even start to

accept that eroticism is to be found somewhere

along the continuum of physical, emotional and

intellectual bonds, for childen every bit as much

as for adults? Why is it imcomprehensible to you

that childen just might enjoy such experiences--

even purely physical ones?

Sadhana, I do not pretend that, given the current

atmosphere of sex-negativity and hysteria about

cross-generatonial relationships, there are not

serious issues to be discussed wrt to power

imbalances, exploitation, and harm that may come

merely from society`s take on the issue. But that

is quite another thing from stating that children

are asexual or that they will always be harmed by

such encounters.

``Also, its very self-serving not to recognise any

restraints on yourself and your emotions but

ascribe adult-like comprehension and

self-awareness to 13-14 year olds.``

Oh, I don`t think it`s self-serving at all (which,

to prove, I observe abstinence). However, I will

defend my position vehemently as long as I feel

that there is something terribly wrong in denying

children their sexuality and in treating those who

might take pleasure in obliging them as some sort

of depraved beast.

Furthermore, I fail to see what ``adult-like

comprehension`` attends the enjoyment of eroticism

between adults. Again, this needless

intellectualization has been dealt with at length

in the interact.

You mentioned that your position was based on ``

deeply-held values accepted and reaffirmed during

a lifetime of pondering/evaluating``

I do wonder to what extent your

pondering/evaluating was based on assumptions such

as the asexuality of children and the impossibilty

of love in such realtionships. (For the purpose

of this argument, let`s define `love` as an

emotion that would seek to put the interests of

the significant other before one`s own). To what

extent has the paradigm of coercive sex (rape)

defined your understanding of adult-child

sexuality? (You don`t need to answer any of these

questions)

I am curious to know one thing, though: have you

actually read my article through?

If you did, maybe you missed the part that should

answer your last question to me. But I`ll answer

it anyway: Yes, I have been fortunate in a sense

to have been brought up in a low-income

neighbourhood, where it wasn`t difficult at all to

come across men who had been in such encounters as

youth. I`d have to say, though, that while most

didn`t denounce the experience, they didn`t extoll

it either. Fact, is, it was just one of those

things that happen. They didn`t talk about the

joys they had in flying kites either. A few

register very postive reactions-- those who were

in caring relationships. But don`t take my word

on it... read up on research conducted in Holland,

Germany. The US is too caught up in hysteria to

allow any such reports to some to light. Still, if

you`re really intersted, there are literally

hundreds of boylove sites from where you might get

further information.

Suffice it to say that, following objective

research in Holland, the age of consent has

gradually been lowered to 12 years. I suspect that

if such was the case the worldover, few would have

reacted viscerally to this article.

I would like to know whether you have actually rad

the article, and if so, with what degree of

`disinterest`.

regards,

Anyone interested in an hysteria-free treatment of

the subject may visit www.boylinks.net/scholar.htm

and www.nambla.org (this site contains links to

research pointing out radical findings on effect

PM

Well, now yes, I did try to read through your entire article, couldnot, even for the sake of making a suitable retort. I have no interest in `peeping` into others personal matters. Civilization has created the concept of `privacy` for a good reason and I will not be drawn into breaking it or discussing it.

Trying to convince the unconvincable is a futile task. The points you have raised about the `feelings of a child` and why it is or is not right to `let him indulge them for his own good, who knows` are not borne out by anything in my or many others life experiences, infact the opposite.

You can hardly say that your own life experiences and selected `masters` actions ought to hold more weight than others.

I say again: ascribing critical and self-aware intent to those who donot grasp all of life`s realities is too self-serving. If children were so capable of functioning as full adults in some spheres, why donot they not leave home and set up house themselves and work for their keep? Why don`t they vote, drive cars, file taxes, practice law, become doctors, adopt children? Why aren`t you fighting for those `rights`, too? I can now understand why many Europeans are coming down to Asian countries to engage in their `new/old love` and are pushing poor children into prostitution. I will not be a party to debating whether such a thing is justified or not. I would rather debate how to get them out of such a situation.

Its best not to proceed further.

Sadhana

Sadhana, (#210)

Funny, but I thought `sanctity` had the same

meaning whether related to personal, social or

whatever, values. :-)

I am unable to reconcile the characterization of

minors as ``un-formed innocent and helpless minds``

with ``Children are wonderful things, they seem to

have a clear moral vision and sense of

individuality from a very young age.`` Part of

this is because I think the

emotional/intellectual/spiritual difference

between a 6 yo and 12 yo (both children in the

eyes of the law) is far greater thatn that between

a 12yo and an 18yo, generally speaking.

Personally, I favour the latter view; I just don`t

see how their clear moral vision and clear sense

of idividuality should render them sexless beings,

though. To the extent that the former is true, I

believe that the status quo actually perpetuates

the `unforming` and ignorance of youths` minds in

its patently patronizing attitude towards that

section of society.

As for my handling the disappointment of `strained

relations`, do you really think I expected you to

wave a flag for boylove? The reactions

(initially, anyway) of all and sundry on this

board taught me long ago what I was to expect from

even the otherwise most rational of minds. But

that`s okay! I never expected roses for

challenging people`s sacred beliefs. I am happy

enough (in case you haven`t noticed ;-) ) to

engage others in debate on the issue if I feel I

can do my bit to correct some misconceptions that

I think result in grevious injustices.

regards,

PM