Of Boylove and Boylovers

Re. Anarchistan (#138)

(What are you, a masochist or something?)

Okay, here we go:

You spewed:

``1)Concerns about your being a teacher are relevant, since you are in a position to tutor pre-pubescent boys.``

My friend, I don`t know if it dawned on you, but one doesn`t need to be school-teacher to be private tutor. The school is certainly not a favorable place for the kind of activity your convoluted mind imagines I seek, and certainly, (to spell it out, duh!) if I, or you, were to be seeking such activity, we could just run an ad in the `tutor available` section of the classified pages of the newspapers. (Of course, it might be difficult for YOU to succeed as there is usually a minimum I.Q requirement for tutors)

``2)From the immaturity of some of your responses, you seem to be young. Where, exactly, do you see yourself going with this five years hence?``

What is this? Feigned concern cushioning a barb? C`mon, lose the supercilious tone already. You of all people can least afford it. (or have you not read post #96?)

``3)Why do you always answer a question with a question?``

Why do you keep asking these irrelevant questions? Is there a point? (See! that`s TWO questions)

``4)Your acquaintances who have been sexually abused are most likely to become pedophiles themselves. That fulfills the criteria for past sexual abuse harming one later in life. It is not, as you want to contend, a class issue``

Oh, so now Dr. Anarchistan comes up with theory #1037. ``Sexual abuse makes pedophiles``. (That`s a laugh!). Read up O wise one. The least you could do is provide some references and case studies AS I HAVE. Also, you seem to be assuming that the acquaintainces I mentioned in my post to mubbashir are pedophiles presumably because they are my acquaintances??? Where do you get off with these ridiculously inane leaps? And I`m the one who`s immature!?

continued below...

re. Anarchistan (continued...)

``5)I don`t see what was so confusing about Mubashir`s response. It seemed Cristal to me.``

I explained the cause of confusion. But I guess some people needed second runs, so here: In one statement he says that ``foundational lines (re-)drawn on what is acceptable [in a given society]`` and later, that ``?the fact that anyone below the given age of consent is held by the state as a minor.`` Now, given that age-of consent may vary from 12 to 24, if you can`t see that the first statement doesn`t well support the second in absolute terms, you`re well, challenged, in some way.

``...?Greek thinkers thought women incapable of, as Mubashir wrote, rational thought? That provides a context for their behavior. You, being enlightened and all, know women can, indeed, be astonishingly intellectual. Yet you still see kids as ``...full of the erotic.``

First, I see my RELATIONSHIPS with the kids ``full of the erotic``- -which I went on to explain as `` 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.``

Your quoting me out of context and playing around with the reflexive words is not only patently immature but blatantly dishonest.

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

I told mubbashir I would get back to him on that later because I was gathering references (something you might consider doing sometimes). In any event, the removal of the initial justification for boylove, that is, the inferiority of women, DOESN`T NECESSITATE the end of boylove. If it `worked` formerly, there is no reason to say it shouldn`t continue to `work`. Btw, this is one of the foremost arguments feminists bring up against man-boy intimacy.

``6)Anyway, trying to put yourself in the company of Shakespeare, Plato, and Mohammed is delusional, to say the least.``

No one could ever accuse me of trying to identify with ALL three of those people, but for the sake of argument, assuming I did, why would that be delusional. Please enlighten, even at the risk of ``lending [further] credence to my arguments``

Dear Atish,

I was not trying to cut you short. But how can I answer questions that are based on completely erroneous suppositions of my behavior and motivations. You keep calling me a child molester, when all you have to go by in this regard is my mention of a 15-second or so incident initiated by the kid and stopped by me. Perhaps I was too subtle, but you don`t seem to have understood very much of what I`ve been saying. Please re-read my article and the replies. The questions you asked that are valid I have already answered in many posts. Please understand, there is a limit to how many times I can repeat myself. I have a life to live.

I do understand that your questions are completely honest, and that you are not just one of those out to slander me for my deviancy, which is why I am not annoyed by you. All the same, there are limits to how much I can reply to.

Please read SR rejoinder to Waheed, somewhere in the 100s I think, for some answers to your queries.

Regards,

PM

Re: Chowk Staff

I don`t know why did the chowk staff felt the need to defend posting of this article. Are we afraid to think?

A few months ago I read translation of an article from a bigot mullah which was nothing more than a pack of lies and I did not see such groveling defense from chowk staff.

Taqleed ki ravish say to behtar hai khud kushi

Raasta bhi daikh Khizr ka souda bhi choor day

Despite your response I do commend you for publishing the article.

First of all, I would like to thank Allah for sparing me from teachers like PM or I would have really lost my childhood memories to dealing emotionaly with a sexual monster.

Secondly, I would be very hesitant in referring CHOWK.COM to any of my friends or relatives as long as this VOMIT stays here.

From the article:

``Even before Nomi [age 11] 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.``

1)Concerns about your being a teacher are relevant, since you are in a position to tutor pre-pubescent boys.

2)From the immaturity of some of your responses, you seem to be young. Where, exactly, do you see yourself going with this five years hence?

3)Why do you always answer a question with a question?

4)Your acquaintances who have been sexually abused are most likely to become pedophiles themselves. That fulfills the criteria for past sexual abuse harming one later in life. It is not, as you want to contend, a class issue.

5)I don`t see what was so confusing about Mubashir`s response. It seemed Cristal to me. And what of the argument that the Greek thinkers thought women incapable of, as Mubashir wrote, rational thought? That provides a context for their behavior. You, being enlightened and all, know women can, indeed, be astonishingly intellectual. Yet you still see kids as ``...full of the erotic.``

6)Anyway, trying to put yourself in the company of Shakespeare, Plato, and Mohammed is delusional, to say the least.

fin pour moi

Dear Waheed

(re. #133)

Glad to see the posts are now conversational.

Nope, never heard of Nusrat Rizvi.

so long,

PM

Dear Zahra,

Point taken on my eagerness to see this as a challenge. Fact is, most people have just trying to put me on trial here, hence the somewhat programmed reaction to your queries.

Also, if you not the time of posting, and convert to Pak. S.T., you`ll see why I wasn`t too keen to answer in detail.

Your concern (though I still feel, unwarranted) is truly appreciated.

PM

Dear Zahra,

Parting words:

Don`t be so judgemntal. Listen without pre-conceptions as far as possible.

Don`t be so afraid of different, even radical ideas. The world has always seen them, and, whether accpeted them or rejected, survived.

Relax, I don`t sodomise kids, and don`t know if I will ever touch one sexually either, the law being as it is. My argumentation on the subject was primarily philosophical.

Thanks for the sincere (those I feel misplaced) concern.

Take Care,

Patrick

Dear aatish,

What more can I say?

You seem to know me from the inside out, and also the dynamics of my every interaction with Nomi.

Your gifts for extrapolation and projection are unique.

so long,

PM

Dear Mubbashir

You say (#118) that

[The justification for the different treatment of young people appears to be based on the supposition that between adulthood and childhood there lies a corresponding ideal boundary between mature self knowledge and a still forming identity that makes children `legitimate` subjects to the disciplining powers of the school, psychiatrists office and the courts.]

and also that:

[.. ..there is still a big a taboo against dealing with children`s sexuality. I am not talking about pederasty or your chosen terms like intergenerational love (more on that later). But the fact that anyone below the given age of consent is held by the state as a minor.]

and

[when it comes down to it there is always a foundational line that is (re-)drawn to separate the acceptable from the unacceptable, newer parameters for deviancy.]

Now this confuses me. Maybe it`s my never having been to college, or never having learnt the art camouflaging ambivalence in hyperbole, but tell me, very simply, based on the statements above (to be clear, not reproduced in same order as presented): ``Is it okay to question taboos? Is it okay to suggest that the state ``re-draw the ideal boundary between mature self knowledge…``? Bear in mind… this ``ideal boundary`` ranges from 12 to 21 internationally.

For that is mainly what I have called for. And to this end have furnished with both, examples from history as well as evidence from studies in the present era. (WHY HAS EVERYONE OVERLOOKED THIS COMPELLING EVIDENCE SO CASUALLY???)

What dub call my ``carelessly romanticizing and idealizing of intergenerational love``, I see as treating with more rationality. You ask how I can do this

``in a country rife with sexual violence. Where there is so much denial of sexuality that the whole country seems ready to explode with frustration.``

Excuse me, but let`s not confuse issues that easily. While there is a great deal OFFICIAL denial of DEVIANT sexuality, there is, even in Pakistan, a tacit acceptance of the sexuality, even of children, that is often far deeper than in the West. You have but to stroll down Frere Hall Park on a Sunday evening to witness the ease with which gay men have their rendezvous, which hardly raises the eyebrows of those around. To a large extent, even when pedophilic relationships are discovered, a boy of about 12 is at least deemed slight culpable, since there IS an acceptance of his sexuality, even if we may not openly talk about it. Maybe it`s because I have lived my life in lower-class neighbourhoods that I have reason to believe that Karachiiites (or the lower and middle-class ones, anyway), when it comes down to it, DON`T deny their sexuality and that of others. Not until they get married, anyway.

You say:

[Maybe I cringe because I was violated by a tutor when I was eight years old, or how some of my closest friends can recall how they were susceptible to sexual advances by their Quran teachers, tutors, acquaintances, etc.]

Maybe. Or maybe it`s because God made kids from Defence and Clifton different from those in Saddar and Korangi. I`ve have many friends (from the latter areas) who can relate how they were sexually touched by older neighbours, and boarding school wardens. Fact is, they are not any more harmed- certainly do not feel any more scarred - than by other, non-sexual abuse. Some even admit to enjoying the encounters. But then, those are kids from the other side of the bridge. Maybe God DID indeed make them different. Maybe he neglected to include FMS in their make-up. Or maybe it was just that the idea of sex is not surrounded by fortresses of fear and guilt in lower-class neighbourhoods. This idea seems to be endorsed by Baurmann`s finding on the long-term effect of sexual encounters on the lives over 8,000 adolescent from the lower Saxony area.

NEEDED to say, I am not endorsing coerced sex; merely questioning the value of some cliched assumptions.

[As far as the romance and eros of pedagogical relations; i.e. the Symposium, Plato and the Greeks. You more than anyone else on this forum should understand that sexual identities are constituted by sets of social practices/conventions/discourses that are contingent to different times]

And how, exactly do `times change`? Is the calling for it (change) by furnishing arguments for it not one way to go about it, no matter how radical? Or is there, behind all the erudite words, just another hard core conservationist?

I must go now.. I`ll address your contention of the non-applicability of the Greek paradigm to current times, and your accusation of my irresponsibility-in-writings later.

Regards,

PM

Re: All...?

Oh gosh, come to think of it...PM sounds so much like someone I have read couple of years back, this champion was Nusrat Rizvi...on scp...PM any links there with NR...? he had the same ability i.e turning someones stomach...

SR:

Sir Ji, saary, mein kaull toon kaum day toour tay Ja`rayaa aN...par meinoo thanD haalay ve nain pa`ee...:-) could you kindly byte your email address to me...try New_Arrival@yahoo.com for me I would sanseerly appreciate that...

This writing has to be a new low for CHOWK.
By the way what can a ``Content Associate`` do
so we don`t see such crap on CHOWK in future?
I want my name associated with freedom of expression but not with such vomit.

Ras

PM:

My question was for thy conscience.

I guess thy conscience needed a thought provoking dose and NOT Any more Challenging queries. You have been on the ``Challenging Ride`` since the very first response.

Note: This will be my last response. It is not worth any more of my precious time.

Though please do knock at the ``stubborn`` door of thy conscience. And do not go to the beach to jolt it. Meditate in a quiet corner, Oh and not infront of thy PC as well. Quiet....... Corner! you may get some revelations.

Take Care

Mubbashir & Zahra,

FYI, I thought I might mention that I teach 15-17 y-os Computer programming; not Sex Education, or even History or Literature.

So I guess you two can give your parnoias about debauchery and/or manipulation a holiday.

regards,

PM

Dear Mubbashir,

Please expect a reply to your post in a couple o days. I`ve too much on my hands right now to give your reply the time it merits.

PM