Of Boylove and Boylovers

Myth and Reality: The Power of Propaganda

Anatomy of a Pedophile, or, How to Create a Monster:

The Neglect of History:

A Personal Account

If I asked you (yes you, dear reader), if you
thought it particularly perverted of me to be falling in love with more than
one boy at a time, I wonder how many of you would say yes. Not many, I suspect.
The readership on this site after all, prides itself on being open minded and
liberal, especially, it would seem (by the general temper of responses to some
articles) on matters relating to sexuality.
We’re all liberated enough to not mistake dependence, or possession, for
love, and mature enough to understand that the touchstone of true love is
openness, freedom; not restriction or possession -it’s where Eros meets Agape,
right!?

Okay, now here’s a twist to test that
liberality: I’m not a female. The
name’s a decoy.

Well, what do we have here now? I see sixty
percent shrugging their shoulders (not quite spontaneously though-and only
after blocking the gut negative reaction with the reminder that “hey, this is
the nineties, right?”); twenty percent going “Weeell, I’m not so sure, I mean,
I’m not homophobic or anything, man, but isn’t that the lifestyle chiefly
responsible for the spread of HIV?” The remaining twenty percent, the ones
seemingly most eager to read on, are going something to the effect “Damn right
you’re a pervert, but glad you could be here so we can heap scorn (along with
our repressed demons) upon you”

Well, around seventy percent isn’t exactly
discouraging, so let me raise the bar one notch higher: (Remember, you think
that it IS possible to love more than one person at a time (okay, maybe a
little lust mixed up in there, too, but nobody could ever accuse YOU of being
erotophobic); and why should it make any difference whether it’s same- or
cross-gender? Love after all, isn’t gender-specific, right?)

All right, one last confession: When I say
“boys” I’m being completely literal. I
don’t mean men; not even young men. I mean the prepubertal male members of the
species, the 10-15 year-olds.

Ahh, so now you get it: I AM a pervert
after all. A - what’s that word? … pedophile… pederast… yeah, a child
molester! At best seriously sick and at
worst the scum that hangs around dark alleys waiting to prey on little
children.

Okay, perhaps your characterization of the
pedophile takes neither of the forms above: perhaps you, ultra-liberal that you
are, believe that the pedophile is just like “you and me”, only, he’s looking
for easy, commitment-free, sexual adventure.
Perhaps you’re even psychologically savvy enough to ‘know’ that the REAL
problem with pedos is that they just haven’t come to terms with adulthood, and
seek with their ‘victims’ a regression to halcyon past.
Or, maybe they’re just emotionally
inadequate looking for a relationship with a nice power imbalance.
Either way, they spell trouble for our kids,
whom we need to protect. Right?

So what you’re saying then, all you Nineties
people, whether you know it or not, is:

It’s possible to love more than one person at
a time,


Love knows no (sexist) boundaries,


When we talk of love, we don’t exclude sex,
though it’s not the main thing.

but:


It isn’t possible for an adult to fall in
love with a kid or kids,

And when such claims are made by an adult…


he’s primarily looking for sex, kidding
himself about the love.  After all, what
kind of a “relationship” could there possibly be between two generations?


Also, any sexuality that might take place can
be termed abuse or, at best, manipulation, because we all know that the child
could never want it, being the sexless sylph God made him/her to be until after
puberty.


Well, insofar as the above follows your line
of reasoning (and with apologies to those who perhaps have gone beyond these
commonplaces), allow me to point out a few irrational jumps:


Okay, first, I mentioned boys, but perhaps
you were quick to allow girls into the scenario, right!? (skip to next
paragraph if ‘wrong’). Not that I’m
about to cast stones at intergenerational heterosexuals here, but I do think
that people will often tend to think in terms of the more ‘innocent’ ‘child’
than the more mischievous-and therefore more involved, more culpable - ‘boy’.
The difference is subtle yet crucial. 
We’ll come back to the significance of ‘boys’ over girls later.


Second, there’s this belief that sex is the
main end of such relationships, and is always initiated by the adult.
Of course, underlying all this reasoning is
the unquestioned-unquestionable-belief that sex is just bad news for children,
especially in an intergenerational scenario.


This is a much longer essay than I had set
out to write. It was however,
inevitable that it be long. A cursory
treatment of the issue is just not possible.
There are too many questions to raise and answer, too many stereotypes
to break and too many myths to explode on the way.
Above all, the issue has to be viewed in its proper sociological
and historical context.


Before we proceed, allow me to confess one
other thing: I’m often a real pedant of a teacher… I often say and do things
that erode my pupils’ self-confidence.
Sometimes I’m even nasty in a way that is bound to leave emotional scars
on them.  But then, I’m only like most
teachers, right? Why am I babbling on about this here? Well, there’s a reason.
I’ll explain later.


Although I think that with most boy lovers
(to whom I’ll limit this discussion, since I have little information on, or
experience of, cross-gender intergenerational relationships) sex is NOT the
main thing (and certainly, where it may happen, not the only), I believe that
any discourse on the topic that skirts the issue of sex would be a little less
than ingenuous.  It is, after all, that
element of the relationship that most would find unacceptable, to put it
mildly.  It is important to be very
clear about what exactly we mean when we speak of sexual activity, and to
understand that studies conducted both in Germany and the States conclude that
over 90% of sexual activity in intergenerational encounters is
non-penetrative. (And need I point out
that some activity considered sexual in one culture may not be so construed in
another?). This I need to point out to
counter the stereotypical image of the pedophile most have: the man in a dark
overcoat buggering little kids behind
the bushes.


I expect many boy lovers to not be too
charmed that a major portion of this essay revolves around the issue of sex, even
if treated in a somewhat scholarly way. 
There is the danger that the pedophile-as-child-molester typecast will
actually be reinforced.  Perhaps with
those impervious to reasoned argument that will indeed happen.
But as much as I too would like to write
passionately of the intense love I have for boys, of the rapture I feel in
their presence, and of the extraordinary beauty I see in them, I know I risk
being perceived, at best, as a madcap, and defeat the purpose of this
undertaking. (You see, such expression of love is appropriate only to same-age
heterosexuals.)  So I will seek to
strike a balance between a passionate tract and an icy rationale.

Myth and Reality: The Power of Propaganda


We (even in the oh-so-liberal West) live in a
more conformist society that we are led to believe, rendered more so by the
subtlety of means to enforce this conformity. 
The propaganda is insidious and often cloaked with the respectability of
science: witness the diagnoses of ‘creeping schizophrenia’ meted out to dissidents
in the former Soviet Union, for instance.
It wasn’t so long ago the only right place for a gay man in America was
the therapist’s. In several States,
he’s still a legal pervert and felon.


The propaganda is also integrative, of
course, and uses language above all to further its ends.
As kids, we only hear of the prince and
princess living happily ever after, never of the Medieval knight in shining
armour who went to bed with his page.
We study Plato, and the Ottoman Empire, but prefer not to touch on the
portions that speak of supreme beauty of boys, and the central place of a
pedagogical eros in these cultures. 
Indeed, we corrupt language to the extent that when we do use such terms
as ‘pedophilia’, they have a meaning completely opposite to what they once
did-and should still have if examined etymologically.
It is ironic that a word that has ‘paides’ (=boy) and ‘philia’
(you know this one) should come to mean something that epitomizes antipathy
towards children (for how else are we to see acts of violent sex other than
hate operating at some level?)


Perhaps you will argue that the love spoken
of is nothing but lust. Well,
fortunately, the Greeks, (from whom, remember, we get these terms) had
different terms for lust and love. Of
course, physical, sexual attraction was never seen as necessarily exclusive of
love, or vice versa. The love/lust
dichotomy began quite recently with the related separation of mind (or heart)
from body-at best a cognitive convenience. 
But wait a minute… there’s more: The Greeks also had a word, paiderastes,
from which we derive the English ‘pederast’ and ‘pederasty’.
The latter half of this word has it’s root
in ‘eran’ which unlike ‘philia’, meant more that just ‘to love’; it meant ‘to
fall in love’.  A pederast (English)
would therefore be, literally, a man who falls in love with boys.
Now, my 1995 version of the Webster's
dictionary doesn't contain a listing for the word "pedophilia".
It does, however, contain one for
"pederast":

ped.er.ast [Gr. paederastes. Lover of boys:
‘pais’, boy + ‘erasthes’, lover < erasthai to love.] One who engages in anal
intercourse, esp. with a boy.


Is it obvious what the Webster's Dictionary
people have done here? They went, from a simple definition by separation of the
word--which stresses love, not "sex", not "abuse", but
love-a definition which is not acceptable by the masses, and then quickly
redefine the word "pederasty" to mean "One who engages in anal
sex with boys."  So much for
honesty!


One might wonder how such blatant misconstructions
are even constructed, let alone permitted. 
Well, in an atmosphere of intense prejudice and/or paranoia it may
happen all too easily.  Witness the
constancy with which the adult in even a consensual non-penetrative sexual and
loving relationship is branded a ‘molester’, and the adolescent his ‘victim’-
tantamount to equating any adult illicit love-making with rape.
Umm, in fact, I know of quite a few people
back here in Pakistan, and at least one prophet, for whom the distinction
between the latter two is very blurred indeed. 
Reason not being a faculty applied to such taboo matters, they are
deprived of the ability to see clearly, to understand.
Once this happens, people are of course
guided by their worst fears.  (Remember
how you felt about those damn Commie nations and all the amoral Commie bastards
living in them, before the Cold War began to thaw and the (US) Government
relented on its propaganda). 
Preconceived, or prepackaged, ideas kick in fast, and images of violent
lewdness are conjured up in the blink of an eye.
(Freudians might say ‘shored up’, from one’s subconscious.)


Some readers might register disbelief that
children could indeed enjoy such relationships, let alone be the
initiators.  Children, after all, are
basically asexual little beings until they’re 18 (or 16, or 12, or 21,
depending on which state you’re from). 
And in any case, whether they would want it or not, don’t we all know
that it’s bound to cause deep emotional trauma?
Surely, somewhere down the line if not immediately?
It must, otherwise … hell, otherwise sex
wouldn’t be such a big deal, and maybe then we’ll all end up having to scout
elsewhere for the excitement (villains, scandals, the taste of forbidden fruit)
in our lives!  And imagine, if children
were freer to experiment sexually, that would be one less ‘adult’ domain by
which we can demonstrate our obvious superiority over those pesky kids.
No, kids are just not ready for any sexual
experience, least of all those involving adults! Of course, adults are great for
initiating kids into other aspects of socialization-education (usually ‘mind
bending’) and religion (mostly simply brainwashing) to name a couple, the
(quite valid) argument being that there are things that adults can teach kids
how to benefit from maximally. Sexuality, however is to be exempted from such
areas of experience because we know that sex is bad for children. (Hey, don’t
bring up Native American and Papua New Guinea kids - they weren’t civilized
children, so they don’t count.) 
Besides, kids will learn all about sex - erogenous zones, differing
needs and libido etc.- left to their own devices- no doubt from the best of
sources and in the best of situations.


The medical profession’s endorsement of the
conservative view rests on the fact that-read this carefully-no one has come up
with any data to prove that NO harm is done to children either in the long or
short run.  Note where the onus of proof
lies now: It is not merely enough to show that there is no evidence that
children are harmed by such relationships; no, now we need proof that they are
NOT harmed. (For how long? One month? One year? Twenty?) Until Researcher
so-and-so can say “hey, I’ve done a study, I’ve followed x number of kids over
their life-time, and I’ve found that sex causes them no harm” - until such
time, we are to assume that it does.   
This type of proof is of course needed because we live in a world where
everyone is guilty until proven innocent, and all food is forbidden unless
specifically permitted by the FDA, right!? 



So when noted psychologist Chris Brand (of
the ‘g-factor’ notoriety) speaking in defense of 73-year old Nobel laureate and
altruist Daniel Gajdusek (who was charged with ‘sexual abuse’ of one of eight
adoptive sons, on a complaint made 15 years following the alleged abuse),
claimed that “Academic studies and my own experience suggest that non-violent
paedophilia with a consenting partner over age 12 does no harm so long as the
paedophiles and their partners are of above-average IQ and educational level”,
the university establishment wasted no time in distancing itself from him…
physically, that is.  A well meaning
ex-colleague, in his infinite wisdom later suggested that “Brand would have
been on safer ground claiming that paedophilia had not been proven always to be
harmful to them.” Diddledee diddledum.


As a matter of fact, Brand did provide as
compelling empirical evidence as is possible to support his assertion.
I can do no better than quote him at length
here:

“I will only quote just a little [from Baurmann's
ten page summary in English of his 791-page book]… "In the present study
about half of the victims of indecent assault (42.8%) showed no injury at all,
about 18% a lower index and about 34% a higher or very high index of injury.
\*The injured victims were all female.\*

\* 'Injury' was assessed on a scale to which
children's own later reports of social, psychological and sexual problems
contributed 50%; a further 25% was contributed by answers to a check-list of
possible injuries drawn from available literature; and the remaining 25% was
based on psychological testing. Final scores ranged from 0 (no injury at all)
to 100 (maximum injury). That \*none\* of the boys showed evidence of injury
should surely give child sex puritans and the anti-elitist Clottish press food
for thought. -- Or perhaps these twerps would even be shocked to learn that
Dante's lifelong love for the beautiful Beatrice Portinari first blossomed when
the two of them were just nine years old?

[And who was Baurmann? -- An official of the
Department of Justice of the Federal German Republic and of the Department's
Office for Criminal Affairs ('Bundeskriminalamt'). And do other researchers
find similar results? Yes. A US review in 1981 of 30 major investigations of
the effects of adult/child sexual experiences (from 1934 to 1981) concluded
that harm was done only when the child was sexually ignorant or had not freely
consented.]

Knowing that some of my critics will be
unimpressed by studies from Germany and the USA, I seek the wisdom of modern
British psychiatry (R. E. KENDELL [only recently retired from his Chair at
E.LU.] & A. K. ZEALLEY (1988), 'Companion to Psychiatric Studies',
Edinburgh, Churchill Livingstone).

//////////// Paedophilia (pp. 618-9) ....no
category of offence is so strongly reviled by the general public. The strength
of this social reaction is by no means always justified. The majority of such
offences are not violent and in some cases the child not only consents but
appears to enjoy the experience. Often the principal trauma to the child
results from the reactions of parents, society and the legal system more than
from the offence itself…\\\


One could scarcely be attracting more
opprobrium than in going public with one’s findings (not even beliefs, but
researched findings!) that go against officially sanctioned demonology.


For good measure , I include an article
appearing in the Sydney Morning Herald of March 20, 1996 in which Louisa
Hatfield reports:

“Not all children are victims; some of them pick the men". So says
feminist and sociologist Beatrice Faust, who has launched into a controversial
debate on the victims of paedophiles. 
The author of "Women, Sex and Pornography" believes many
children who end up having a relationship with a pedophile actually went out
looking for it. She told the Herald that not only do they often precipitate the
relationships, but also enjoy them.

Professor Neil McConaghy, professor of
psychiatry at the University of New South Wales, an expert on child abuse, also
believes many of those who end up in such situations are not harmed by them and
in fact some do initiate them. Faust, who began studying the subject when it
was embraced by feminism in the 1980s, believes the experts on child abuse have
known this to be the case for at least 15 years but just refuse to talk about
it. "My views are not controversial in the sociological area", she
says. "People are just too frightened to speak out. They don't want the
fuss and harassment, and that is most unfortunate".

couple of paragraphs of predictable rabid backlash from the child-abuse
industry snipped ]

Faust believes that "Many of the 11 to
14 year old kids are looking for sexual adventure. It probably depends on the
children, but there is some element of cruising for sex with boys". Faust is
not talking about very young children. She says children as young a four or
five are the minority of victims.

"Paedophiles like a relationship; they
like conversational relationships. There was a survey in England on paedophiles
and the younger the children the less interested they were. Many of the men go
looking for a boy who is looking for adventure. They do not force themselves
onto a boy who will be shocked or hurt. It is like flying a kite, testing the
water to see if they are interested.  If
it is not happening then they will back off."

"Some of the lonely children can actually benefit from a
relationship. The guy will be kind to them, interested in them; they give the
child security. Often the children enjoy it because they get so much from it".
"I have spoken to men who admit they had a relationship with a
schoolteacher, a scoutmaster and say 'it didn't do me any harm'. They don't
appear to be harmed. They appear to be normal and appear to be functioning
well", says Faust.


What is interesting is how perceptions can be
distorted when language is used to service hysteria.
How often have we heard the informed voices from the child abuse
industry warn us that the pedophile is indeed not the man lurking in the dark
alley, stalking your kids, that he is often someone you know: your child’s
teacher, your neighbor, youth leaders, coworkers, scoutmasters, store clerks,
coaches.  According to the new paranoia,
everyone is a potential child molester, and no one is to be trusted.
These new ‘findings’ are supposed to help
make us more responsible by being more ‘aware’.
Tellingly though, the awareness that all these otherwise
‘normal’, even caring, characters might be attracted to our children hasn’t led
to a rethink on the supposed pathology of the phenomena.
Instead, conclusions must be bent to fit
premises.  An interesting analogy comes
to mind: In middle-class India and Pakistan, young women are increasingly
taking to western dress, probably influenced by satellite television. This, we
are told, is ample proof of the innate immodesty of women.

Anatomy of a Pedophile, or, How to Create a Monster:


There is perhaps no sociological issue that
has been subject to as much distortion and irrational speculative leaps as has
pedophilia.  With complete abandon of
statistical methodology, the experts, especially from the child abuse industry,
reinforce the idea that the pedophile is always in our midst (quite true,
actually) and that there is always clear and present danger since they are
‘after one thing only’ (almost completely untrue).
And how are these myths perpetuated?
Well, acquiring a semblance of scientific authenticity never
hurts.  All you have to do is play a few
clever verbal tricks, lump together essentially different phenomena, and you
can show that most blacks are criminals, or most Catholic priests homosexual
(er…bad example maybe).  Or that all who
profess a deeper than ‘usual’ interest in children are only out for sexual
gratification. 


In fact, studies have also shown that among
the convicted child molester community, an alarming number of them are not
pedophiles, but heterosexual men seeking sex with weak partners (Harrington
Press, 1991). A study conducted in The United States among 269 males convicted
of sexual activity with children from twelve to fifteen years of age showed
that only 17 of them preferred that age bracket sexually. In that same study
they also interviewed 244 males convicted of sexual activity with children
under age twelve, which showed that only two of them preferred children
sexually (Harrington Press, 1991). But, you will point, these men were just
giving "socially acceptable answers".
Not likely, this same group of men also admitted to a whole
sleuth of crimes that they got away with but still ran the risk of being
convicted for.  In this same study, men
who were never convicted of any crime were also interviewed; this portion of
the study revealed a much higher percentage of men admitting to having sexual
feelings primarily for children. The study also showed that men whose lives
were deeply interwoven with boys (i.e. hung around and befriended boys, or
worked with boys for a living), and also had sexual feelings for boys and were
convicted for sexual acts with boys, were not the ones who used coercion, or
force in their sexual contact with boys


But the self-proclaimed ‘sexperts’ know
better.  Sample for instance, the
statement of psychologists Ralph Underwager and Hollander Wakefield in a
damage-control interview in the States. (This interview took place even as the
duo were the objects of a smear campaign for positing a pedophilia-positive
stance in a prior interview with the scholarly, pro-pedophilia, Dutch journal
‘Paidika’, in which Underwager went on record as saying that “Paedophiles can
make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose.
With boldness they can say, "I believe this is in fact part of God's
will.”)  Now, back in the States and
with daggers pointed squarely at them from all directions, Underwager (a
respected Ph.D. with 40 years’ experience in the study of child-abuse) changes
tune so quickly it is frightening to fathom the depth of the revulsion directed
towards them.  Now, “Pedophiles are
individuals who haven’t evolved a fully orbed sexuality…
their libido is primarily genitally
focused…” All this is of course, little more than toeing the establishment’s
line. Notice the attempt to impress with nice, medical sounding terms: “fully
orbed sexuality”, “genitally focussed”. 
Right, we’re supposed to believe that a) adult-adult sexual encounters
are “fully orbed” and that b) these learned experts have the requisite wisdom
to credibly negate the consistent findings that even in the minority of boylove
relationships that sexual activity does occur, only 5-10 percent is penetrative,
and most is merely fondling and stroking. “Genital” my ass!


The question again arises: How do so many get
away with such unconscionable waffle? Well, 
there are fashionable and unfashionable oppressed minorities.
These days, to be Jewish, gay, or black in
the West is to belong to the former category, the rights of which are more than
protected by the Political Correctness police. 
To belong to the latter, as do pedophiles and Arabs, (and now, Chinese
Americans?) is to be the whipping boy of a society haunted by its own
insecurities, fair game for the projection all demons born of repression.


The Neglect of History:


That present-day America is hopelessly
ignorant of history is no secret. 
Indeed, as Alan Bloom eloquently pointed out in “The Closing of the
American Mind”, Americans not only neglect history, they despise it too.
The combination of a Puritanical history,
economic success, and the sexual revolution (did someone say ‘capitalism’?) has
resulted in an almost fanatical focus on the here-and-now.
Having jettisoned the prejudices and many
mindless traditions of history, the New American can start afresh, with a blank
slate.  There are no lessons to be
learnt from a history replete with instances of oppression and suffocating,
unnatural traditions.  It is therefore,
not surprising that most otherwise educated Americans would not have read the
Symposium, where Plato suggests that the love of a boy by a man was the highest
form of love, since it went beyond mere necessity, to serving a pedagogical function.
The idea that males across generations can
bond-were designed to bond-in a manner so as to facilitate the socialization
process (in earlier times, hunting, gathering, surviving) will be met with
sardonic smiles at best.  We, after all,
live in a society where a boy of 12 would rather be seen dead than hugging his
dad outside the school gate.  The
Individualist Creed teaches that each must find his own way, true to his ‘own’
feelings (as dictated by the media and peer groups).
Any dependence on others (not other substances, though)
for emotional well being is a sure sign weakness.
Man-and I’m being gender-specific here- after all, stands on his
own.  That, at least is the de facto
credo of the Youth of America.  In
practice, however, behind closed doors, and deep within closets, the reality of
our nature resists these empty moral abstractions.


American school curriculum has for long
reflected the view that History and other cultures can scarcely teach us about
ourselves, what is common to our nature as humans.
Instead, we teach a dictum of Value Relativism and Cultural
Diversity (with little attempt to see through the differences, to what might be
universal). Our knowledge about our nature comes from the Law (civil and
religious) and whatever school of psychology happens to be in vogue at the
given moment.  So we don’t need
Shakespeare or Homer to tell us about love and passion, or Aristotle or Spinoza
to guide us on ethics and the human soul. 
We’ve got all the answers (or are getting them from our rock idols and
politicians, anyway), thank you.


Dan Akroyd, playing a learned philosophy
professor in a movie I watched recently, presents the issue of universal versus
situational ethics thus:  “Pedophilia,”
he begins, “used to be practiced commonly in Ancient Greece.
Nowadays it is considered a heinous crime.”
And then continues with the leading, loaded question: “Can something considered
heinous today be all right back then?” 
Okay, the idea is right: we need to ask such moral questions.
We need to seek a universal ethical
system.  But the issue is a lot deeper
than can be treated by a comparison of particulars out of context.
Especially when dealing with practices
across ages and cultures, we’d do well to stay mindful of the error of
de-contextualization and of making judgments with incomplete data. It’s
sometimes called making an educated assessment: We’ve all heard the accusations
hurled on Islam for its advocacy of blood-killing, overlooking the fact that in
7th century Arabia, failure to avenge a killing would be read as a
weakness by the opposing tribe, and an invitation to overrun it.
And here’s one for the Hindu/Indian readers:
Suttee, a practice that for long has put the egg on the faces of Hindu apologists,
was born out of the widow’s will to choose death over surrendering to her
husband’s marauders.  But I digress
here.


I suspect that the average English Literature
reader would be surprised to learn that the best of Shakespeare’s sonnets,
those immortal love poems, immortalized not Lady so-and-so, but 10-year-old
William, Earl of Pembroke.  Fascist-like
misinformation has kept hidden from millions of Shakespeare lovers the simple
fact that the Bard’s most moving poetry is a love/angst concoct, despairing
that ‘summer hath too short a lease’ on the boy/s of his desire.
(Boylovers are justifiably annoyed that
Brian Ferry should choose the 18th sonnet as a paean to a dead
princess, even as they are amused at the irrelevance of the second half of it
to a woman).


Indeed, the persistence of the tradition from
Ancient Greece to Medieval Europe to Modern Marrakech is scarce evidence for
the morally smug that men and boys will always naturally feel drawn to each
other in an intimacy that covers both body and mind.
Many Muslims, Jews  and
Christians will indeed be taken aback to learn that the attraction to boys is
given recognition in their scriptural traditions (although, it must be said, in
a manner present-day boylovers would balk at for the suggestion of
exploitation): The Good Book (if you’re Christian/Jewish) has Moses (as always,
inspired by God) saying to his soldiers after a conquest:
"But all the women, children, that have
not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. [after killing
off the rest]" (Numbers 31:18). 
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)

Now, after you’re done allegorizing the above, you might consider that
perhaps the Arabs (who have an extensive boylove poetic tradition) weren’t
really perverts for their attraction to boys; just less “dogmatized” and more
open to what may, in the end, be something completely natural to us as humans.
(Of course, I think they were perverts for
other reasons but we’ll leave that for the postings.)
For the time being, note the stress on the ‘beauty’ (not the more
earthy ‘sexiness’) of boys.  In the
absence of a taboo on sex, this often translated into unabashed erotic poetry
that unfortunately does little more than scandalize, if titillate, our
sex-negative twentieth century sensibilities.  
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 seminaries in Morocco. 
But we know that this, and a similar tradition among the ancient Greeks
and medieval Ottomans are just more examples of self-deception serving
lasciviousness.  Because we’ve got the
world figured all out like never before.

Similarly, it is more likely that readers would come to lower their
estimates of The Bard, Auden, Blake, Whitman, Alger, Mackay, Gothe, Wilde,
Barrie and (T.H.) White - all well-documented boylovers- rather than begin to
accept that there is something about boys that the freely creative male mind
can appreciate and is drawn towards. 
Because we know that boys cannot enjoy, much less benefit from, any form
of sexual activity, period.


“But”, you may object, “so what if boylove
has a long history? So does slavery”. 
True.  In response I can only say
that we need to look beneath the surface, going beyond crude generalizations to
an examination of particulars: Whether a relationship is degrading or uplifting
is determined not by its label but by its motivation, method and result.
We apply these tests everyday to most
relationships-marriage, teacher-pupil, parent-child.
But blinded by hysteria, we seem to be unable to paint pedophilia
with anything but an airbrush; and see no shades of grey.

Indeed, if the
treatment of pedophilia by the media teaches anything, it is of the propensity
to obscure the truth from ourselves when we allow ourselves to be informed by
fear and prejudice rather than facts and open-mindedness.
Sample one of the more ‘tolerant’ appraisals
from a web site that claims to ‘understand rather than condemn’:

“They [pedophiles] have set up several web
sites with online chat forums. Through the medium of Internet networks they
create a global community in which they receive support and confirmation of the
"legitimacy" of their feelings.”

Strange how
perfectly legitimate practices come to be colored with distinct shades of
yellow,  and what would otherwise seem
to be a godsend to silenced minorities, i.e., the opportunity to freely
express, exchange and propagate their points of view- and yes, to know that
they ‘are not alone’- now become part of some informational vice list!
The generous appraisal continues:

“The general feeling among them has become
that they have some special understanding of children that straight, non-pedophiles
do not have. They feel it only right that they offer those needy, neglected
boys the benefit of their love and affection.”

This (special understanding) of course, cannot possibly exist, because,
as we all know, a child in love with her kitten, a teacher who loves his pupil,
or indeed, a woman in love with a man, cannot possibly be better ‘tuned in’ to
the needs of the object of their affection than can ‘neutral’ observers!
The crux, however, comes in the concluding
paragraph:

“Of course, a great deal of this is
self-deception. Much of their desire to "help children" is
fraudulent. They often mistake sexual attraction for love, and they frequently
deceive themselves about the harm they are doing.”

Implicit in the argument is the assumption,
no doubt born of centuries of Puritanical influence, that sexual attraction and
love are mutually exclusive emotions. 
Ever wonder how that intense sex-negativity could dissipate in less than
a generation (in the sexual revolution)? 
Ever wonder how it was possible for Stonewall to defeat the Vatican with
barely a skirmish?  Well, stop
wondering; it didn’t.  All the
negativism, all the repression, was simply redirected.
Consciences could live with co-habitation
and homosexuality, so long as they were assured that sexual evil did indeed
exist and lurk elsewhere. 

There is, at the end of that web page,
generous advice to boot:

“Also, journalists might talk to
psychologists about the condition of pedophilia, and in their coverage, focus
on the "self-deception" aspect, exposing it for what it is. The
group-think psychological condition and its negative effects is very well
documented.”

Right, and if we were in the sixties, we could be expected to learn
from these psychologists exactly how homosexuals became the way they are
because their mommies were the dominating parent. Or maybe we can ask the
Repressed Memory Syndrome experts to throw some light on this (That's a real
laugh, isn't it?). (Or, drawing from another field, maybe we could ask
political experts in Tehran or Beijing to expose the pro-democracy leaning of
their youth “for what it is.”  Their
“group think psychological condition and its negative effects are [also] very
well documented.”)  Who needs the
conclusions of extensive studies conducted by the Germans, the Dutch and even
the FBI, when we’ve got God’s own gifts to the truth-seekers in our very midst,
uh?


A Personal Account

I haven’t always
been a boylover; not consciously anyway. 
And, despite the strength and depth of feeling I have toward most boys,
I cannot say for sure that this is something genetic.
Sure, every fiber of my body feels it completely ‘natural’, but
that, in the end, is subjective. It scarcely helps being an agnostic either,
for I cannot proffer the argument that this being part of the Almighty’s
design, it could only be ‘right’.  No, I
take full responsibility for this facet of my life, even if it might (?) have
been shaped more by circumstance than by biology.
The truth is I do not know, and don’t expect to know what part is
played by nature, and what by nurture. 
However, the question to me is irrelevant.
Those expecting an apology for my pedophilia here will be
disappointed: I’d sooner apologize for encouraging my students to think for
themselves in a society where rote learning is the norm; or for wearing shorts
to the park in Karachi. 


Although I always did have a certain gift for
relating to boys, there was nothing recognizably sexual in the attraction until
a few years ago.  I decided early on
that I wanted to teach, a decision that had much more to do with the charm of
unknown possibilities than with the power to influence (which was, of course, a
factor too).  The potential to open
minds, if somewhat a preposterous ambition for an awkward lad of seventeen, was
what drew me to the chalk and board the moment I had my high-school diploma in
hand.  Alas, it wasn’t long before I
fell victim to the terribly stifling school environment, and lost sight of what
it was I had intended to do.  What’s any
of this got to do with pederasty, you ask? 
I’ll explain. In a moment.


It wasn’t until I was in my mid-twenties, and
privately tutoring 11-year-old Nomi that I was awakened to the deeper levels of
my attraction to boys.  I remember
remarking to my best friend, barely a fortnight after meeting Nomi, that I had
never been in love but thought I knew what it must feel like then.
It was oceanic!
Ego-boundaries evaporated, I found the awareness of my
incompleteness enticed by the promise of wholeness. Years of diligent
self-construction came crashing down: I was no longer the most important person
in my life. I could think of nothing but pleasing the lad, who seemed to be
every bit in love with me as I was with him.


And despite this rapture, there was the
constant awareness that at hand was a task demanding immense
responsibility.  I would obviously be in
a position of great influence.  How to
use it?  Was it even right to do so?
The answers came surprisingly easily: better
me than trashy TV (or, for that matter, his clearly corrupt, hypocritical
parents).  Feigned modesty would be
dishonest.  And only an unnecessarily
abstract, irrational morality could ever hold that it was right to withhold
this immense love, to waste it.  Self
deception?  Well, you have to be there.


The time Nomi and I spent together soon
became the time my day-my life! - was scheduled around.
I couldn’t spend an enjoyable moment in his
absence not thinking how much more wonderful it would have been with him
there.  He was, in short, the very stuff
of life for me: fully alive, spontaneity personified, with eyes that I couldn’t
but dance with, and a naughty chuckle that melted my heart out of its stuck up
adulthood.


The more psychologically astute reader will
no doubt have sensed the root of my problem by now: A reluctance to grow up- a
case of arrested development.  Well,
call it what you may, you twentieth century instant sage.
If it puts me in the company of all I have
mentioned earlier, if it helps me see the beauty and naturalness in this
otherwise programmatic adult world, and most of all, if it enables me to share
a love and intimacy in a way I cannot even begin to with others, a love for
which I’d give my life, then hell, I don’t mind having my development
arrested.  If development entails the
forgoing of the above, hell, don’t just arrest it-go ahead and put it on death
row!


Or maybe I should grow up, be the good
Catholic my parents prayed I’d be and get a ‘real’ job with a Multinational
Company (thereby fulfilling the expectations of all near-and-dear). Or maybe I
should graduate to Computer Geekery, spend 12 hours a day doing thoroughly
‘creative’  programming, and have a
condo and a long line of ‘rishtas’ to show for it in a couple of years.
Maybe I should then seriously think of
taking the plunge, and let the security of a wife to come home to, and the
responsibilities of fatherhood, put an end to all this nonsense of
boylove.  When things get tough, in
moments that I am faced with the utter despair of living a lie, I could always
escape into one of the many alienating activities modern life offers: lose
myself to the beat of some good ol’ rock n roll, maybe. Then there’s always
cricket on STAR TV to save the day.  Pot
is a viable option too - I could always afford it here in Karachi.


Problem is, I want more.
Or maybe just this one thing that feels
‘real’ (actually, /\*magical/\*).  I’ve
had a taste both ways, and I know I’d never be satisfied with one, especially
when balancing both has, historically, proven to be possible.


Yes, the relationships I have had with
girlfriends (not many, to be sure) were just /\*that/\*: Relationships.
Full of commitment (time-limited,
thankfully), and with a definite sense of 
project, of deliberateness.  No
passion, no all-encompassing desire. 
Nice, structured, relationships; not mad, blinding, love affairs.
I have often been told by well meaning
friends that my inability to sustain a relationship (with women), and indeed my
desire for ‘unattainable’ boys (or so they think), is symptomatic of a fear of
commitment.  I disagree, first because I
don’t really see commitment playing a role in most people’s decision to marry
(in Pakistan anyway); just the desire to legally own the object of desire.
Secondly, I know that if tomorrow something
equating to marriage between boys and men were to be instituted, I’d commit my
life and everything in it to my boy-love without blinking an eye.
‘Commitment’ is only called for when other
motivation is lacking.


Had it not been for Nomi, I’d perhaps never
come to have known the strength of physical attraction.
I’d never have thought that those Archie
comic-books jokes about accidents caused by drivers staring at beaus could be
based in reality.  I’d continue to lack
the inability to see how otherwise intelligent men and women could be seduced
into doing the unthinkable. I would have been the world’s most intractable
rationalist, unable to understand what ‘good’ it did Juliet to kill herself; or
incapable of seeing-of feeling-how it was possible for anyone to kill for
love.  I’d have continued patting myself
self-righteously on the back for never staring at other men’s ‘beautiful’
wives, never mixing lust with my ‘pure’ affection for the ladies in my life.
(Interesting thing is, they loved me most for this).
Silly me, not realizing that the reason I didn’t act was that I
didn’t feel.


Even before Nomi one day sat himself on my
lap facing me, groin on groin, and proceeded with repeated thrusting movements,
did my notions of a ‘mature’ love, bereft of jealousy, fall casualty to a
newfound appreciation of the romantic. 
And well before he got physical in any sense of the word, did he have my
heart to do with as he wished. 


The friends to whom I was out about this love
questioned whether I didn’t really just enjoy the power imbalance of such a
relationship.  No, I’d have to say I
didn’t really mind the fact that he wielded all the power, with the knowledge
of how much anything he said or did affected me.
Furthermore, there was the perceived danger that one fine day he
might find that he didn’t love me anymore (or wasn’t supposed to!) and decide
that I was the initiator, and he the helpless victim, of whatever little
intimacies we’d shared.  Still, the
affection I felt for him enabled me to live with these insecurities.
Now, five years on, I can happily report
that my fears had been unfounded. 
Although we have drifted apart, and he has a girlfriend, there remains
between us a warm glow of affection when we occasionally meet.
Last year, to my almost apologetic query on
how he feels about the time we shared together, he responded with the same
spontaneity I had fallen in love with, “burra muzza aya tha”.


A word about the ‘muzza’ wouldn’t be out of
place here.  In the sixth grade when I
first met him, he was a precocious bundle of energy waiting to be
channeled.   It didn’t take me long to
recognize and fall in love with that boundless energy (though not quite in that
order, I think), that teasing smile, and yes, that naughty, yet generous
nature.  Very soon we’d turned his
kitchen into a science lab, his car park into a basketball half-court, and his
mind into a time-and-space machine.  My
paycheck? Well, I got to travel with him. 
Funny how far a history textbook can take you when you’re in love with
your travel-mate; or how much more a B.Sc. can learn from a sixth grade science
book when he’s truly teaching for understanding.
Funny how easily one re-discovers the simple joys of
hill-climbing in Safari Park, or how easily one acquiesces to bowl AND do be
the only fielder, when the asker is your love.


Not so funny, though, was the pain of the
abrupt break up when his father put my over-zealousness down to an interest in
his wife (to whom, I must admit, I was drawn to by a sense of a common purpose,
of nurturing Nomi).  Although we managed
a few daytime trysts, it could never be the same… there was no time to build
anything anymore, no opportunity to grow, few to embrace.
The pain was the more acute for my not
having a paradigm to express it in.  The
Internet was but a buzzword then, and I had therefore not heard of the almost
ubiquitous boylove tradition.  Ignorance
hadn’t really stop me from enjoying the wonderful experience while it lasted,
guided by the truth of our passions, and never having been a stickler for
convention. I didn’t fully realize that I was, to all intents and purposes,
madly in love.  However, the break up
was different.  I felt disoriented and
incomplete without realizing that these were the legitimate feelings of a
frustrated lover. Perhaps it was for the best that I didn’t know.
Perhaps I gained strength through it instead
of feeling victimized.


Life, of course, was not to be the same.
Nomi had opened my eyes, and raised my
consciousness, to see beauty in a way I never did before.
The sight of a comely lad now turns my head
every time, and I sometimes despair of only having close-but-no-cigar
experiences.  Other boys have entered my
life, almost able to recognize and respond to a mutual need.
The friendships have all been non-sexual, if
what is meant by that word is genital non-involvement.
On the other hand, they have been full of
the erotic-full of possibilities, full of the promise of completeness, of
excitement about the undiscovered.  If
they haven’t ventured into the physical realm, it is not for want of opportunity.
Boys have been more than coy in expressing what they want.
But I carry too much conventional moral
baggage with me that takes away the spontaneity that is vital for fulfillment
in that area.  Presently, I suffer from
a bad case of neo-Platonism: there is much form but no substance. You could
almost say I draw boys toward me only to shut the door to further
intimacies.  Is this reason to
despair?  Hardly.
Sex would merely be the icing on the cake.
It isn’t the ‘ultimate expression’ of our love any more than dinner is the
ultimate purpose of an evening out with my friends: sure it would be terrific,
and is something I’d look forward to, but it but it doesn’t define the
relationship.  There is something deeper
than sex that needs gratification, fulfillment. It is Eros, and sex is just one
of its vehicles.


Which brings me finally to the issue of
needs. I am often asked by friends what I could possibly share with a boy
barely 13, with whom I am told I can really have nothing in common. Silly me,
thinking here that having myself gone through a certain stage of development as
the boy in question, I’d have a lot more in common in terms of experience with
him than with the woman I should be dating. 
Silly me too for thinking that the supply of the “understand the
opposite sex” genre of paperbacks has anything to do with demand!


Intergenerational relationships, I am told in
the end, would always be defined by an inequality of needs.
Nothing, to me, better betrays the
de-erotocizing of love in our post-modern worldview than the above argument. According
to this view, equality, not complementarity, of needs is what matters.
We are asked to believe that there even
exists such a thing as ‘equal’ needs- in ANY type of relationship. We overlook
that the best relationships are not between equals, who by definition, have
little to offer each other.  What, then,
can a boy get out of such relationship? A friend with experience and stability
whom he can trust with his inmost fears and desires, with whom he can be himself,
explore himself, free from stifling peer pressure; one who puts the boy’s
welfare before his own.


People who know me well refrain, “Well, we
know YOU wouldn’t exploit a child, but most men would.”
I see this as little more than a throwback
to the old sex-negativism that ‘turns every man’s penis into a monster’, as
someone on this site poignantly put it. 
The reasoning seems to be “It will almost certainly be exploitative
because it is sexual.”  And what of ‘protection’?
In shielding children from sex, are we
really more concerned about protecting them from harm, or is it rather
protection against the offense to our own sensibilities? To put it another way,
do we bother to actually ask, “Okay, let’s see, how is this going to cause
harm?”, or do we stop at “eek! This really makes me sick, so it’s gotta be
stopped.”  Here’s a little acid test to
help you: picture yourself walking into your 13-y-o son’s classroom one
afternoon, and finding him in a warm embrace with the 35 y-o teacher he adores.
There’s a bit of fondling going on too, and
he seems to be enjoying it.  What’s your
reaction? What’s your rationalization for your feelings? Okay, just hold on to
those thoughts/ feelings. 


I’ve already given you another scenario: At
the beginning of this essay, I said that, like many teachers, I say and do
things that must damage my pupil’s self-esteem.
I even resort to a bit of corporeal punishment.
Hell, why not? Back when I was in school,
everyone did so. We all know that this is only too common a reality.
And we all know that this erosion of self-worth
has long-term effects on individuals. But now I ask you, compare the way you
feel about the teacher-oppressor with the way you felt about the
teacher-lover.  Is there really any
justifiable reason to presume greater potential damage from the latter?
Yet, what annoyed you more? What, really, is
the issue then? Protection of our children? Or protection of our sensibilities?


Granted, it’s not an either - or situation,
but clearly, most people would need to question the relative weight they
ascribe to their concerns. I agree, the issue of possible exploitation must be
addressed.  But can it all be done so in
an adequate manner in an environment of hysteria and paranoia?
And is the banishment of pederasty for fear
of exploitation not analogous to the banning of swimming for fear of
drowning?  Should we not rather equip
our children to handle inherent dangers, allow them to first taste the fruit,
then let them decide whether they want it or not - all in the protective sight
of the public eye? We all agree that there should be no coercion one way. By
what right do we force upon them the other? Is this not, at heart, child abuse
- abuse of their right to sexuality? Maybe when we come to recognize the extent
to which our lives are dogged by the idea that sex is dirty because we learn so
as kids, and when we come to see more clearly how this sex-negativism and
repression impacts on our everyday living, creating needless unhappiness and
guilt (and yes, molesters) - maybe then we will begin to sit down and attempt
to answer these questions somewhat rationally.
Until then, may the hearts and minds of boys and men (and indeed
of all who find love in whatever setting) continue to dance to the resonating
beat of each other needs and desires.