Do Foes of Gay Marriages Simply Fear Joy?

Urstruly #243:
PM, For rationalists ``do no harm`` is not a value. It’s a cover. Especially when harm is directed at them.”
HahahahAH! C’mon, man…stay the course. Remember, “dignity, my man, dignity”. It does not become a dignified man to resort to such puerile accusations when engaged in rational debate. It evokes a man clutching at straws.
You actually had me fooled there for a while, with your “we-should-tackle-PM’s-arguments-with-reason” façade.
I guess that was going to be your strategy only until PM shot down your own attempt at rationalizing religious authority.
Hey, C’mon, tell me where I’m wrong in purporting that your basis of morality is, in the end, no less arbritary than mine is. Look, I’m not even asking you do such inconvenient things as (tacitly) justifying pedophilia in one case (which was probably not even consensual in any meaningful sense) with your moral opposition to it in another case.
But feel free to poison the well now, which is exactly what you will, no doubt, do now.

dost-mittar:
re. Do you realise that the very nature of your orientation means that you cannot have a permanent involvement with anyone? As soon as a boy turns adult, you would lose interest in him.
Dost sahib, Your question betrays a perception that my interest is limited to the physicality of the boy. It is about as valid a supposition, in any case, as that you will lose interest in your wife once her hair starts to fall out.
(Sorry to get “personal”. I trust you will see that I mean no disrespect to either you or your good wife. Is that the point is gotten across better when personalized.)
But I think I understand another underlying concern in your question. The answer to that is that I never assumed that these relationships are of the same nature as the marriage bond (“normal” or otherwise). My fiancée understands this perfectly.

correction:
in #255: ``And finally, let`s not forget, this issue is about boylove.``

Romair,
Still waiting on your reply to `waht actions?`
Let`s make this a quid pro quo.

Romair:
[though polygamy should be allowed under special conditions, with the written consent of all parties, in my opinion)]

Do you mean polygamy, polygny or polyandry? Definitions:
Polygamy: One spouse having more than one spouse of the other sex (no limit)
Polygny: A husband having more than one wives (no limit)
Polyandry: A wife having more than one husbands (no limit)

Romair: ``It is very scary when people start making decisions, which affect other individuals, based on a study carried out by someone. For everyone of your studies, I can provide you many others which will counter them``
Then go ahead. Find ONE! And we`ll take it from there.
You`d be surprised to find how little your understanding is based on any credible facts (or real; studies) as opposed to the rantings and raving, and psychobabble of the morally watchdogs, who, not so long ago, precribed the mental asylum for anyone indicating whati s now regarded as ``normal`` homosexual tendencies.
But now I fear I am sounding like a broken record. Irony is, no one seems to belistenting to the record; everyone is intent only on breaking it.
The Rind Report is a meta analysis, that is, a study of many other studies-- 90 if memory serves. If anyone is really interested in the truth, as opposed to finding reasons and `logic` to support their position, I challenge them to fight with the facts.
``A high proportion of the people who abuse children sexually tend to have been abused themselves as children.``
I don`t careto talk about sexual abuse here. Please define `abuse`, and then we can decide whether we have anything to discuss or not. My position is very simple: (1) Children of twelve should have the right to say `Yes`, keeping certain safeguards in pace. And (2) sex between adoloscents and adults is not necessarily abusive. Far Fethced? The people (majority) of several European states don`t seem to think so.
And finally, let`s not forget, this article s about boylove.
As for your questions relating to my past personal experiences, you`ll havta work for your answers. Find them on the boylove interact board.
rgds,
PM

romair,

would you address #243?

urstruly,

i take it that you are busy composing an answer...

PM #249: ``“Nice try :-) but the questions aren`t ``technical`` at all.``

My questions were actually very technical. Let me give you the reason I asked them:

It is very scary when people start making decisions, which affect other individuals, based on a study carried out by someone. For everyone of your studies, I can provide you many others which will counter them. You can only site the study to justify an action, if you are carrying out any action, with the individual who believes in the study. You do not have a right to apply the study to someone else.

I have worked with kid(s) who have been sexually abused as children. I used to get career counseling in a dept., while in college. The counsellor was also a psychologist, and through her, I got involved in this. I have had long discussions with her on these issues. The affects of child sexual abuse on children is so damaging, that it is impossible to express it in words. I would put it as the next worst thing to actually killing the child. It can and does disturb the child psychologically, forever. One of the facts the psychologist brought out (with studies) is as follows:

- A high proportion of the people who abuse children sexually tend to have been abused themselves as children. (this does not mean, all individuals who are abused as children, become sexual abusers of children)

Such individuals, who carry out such acts with children, are thus in need of psychiatric help. They would obviously, themselves, not recognize this. One maybe able to live one’s own life, based on studies carried out somewhere. But one cannot impose those studies on others, especially on children. Just ask yourself, could the child you are mentioning even understand the study, to its completeness, that you are quoting?

Based on this, I will ask you the same techincal question, again. With the hope that since you have already disclosed so much about yourself (and you seem to agree with my, “philosophies,”) you will answer the question honestly. In any case, if you feel justified in your actions, you should not have any problem in answering the question. And if you cannot answer this question, or do not want to, then maybe your actions aren’t as justified as you may seem to think. So,:

- Were you abused, either physically, emotionally, or sexually as a child?

S. Where is Shankar when he is needed......................``
Pobably working on the next big theory of Pseudo-scientific Psychology. Maybe Repressed and Recovered Memory Syndrome II?
The less of the qualified idiots, the better.
But if you really are interested in what the American Journal of Psychiatry has to say about pedophilia, look up the Rind Report.
Go ahead, it can`t beTHAT difficult!

PM

For rationalists ``do no harm`` is not a value. Its a cover. Especially when harm is directed at them.

Folks, am in transit at the airport. Can`t answer at any length.
Dost-Mittar: Your questions have all been answered on the original boylove board. Take a trip there. I promise it won`t be boring.
Just one comment on the questions you asked. Faulting me for not `informing the parents` is disingenuous. Assuming I did, you would then fault the parents for not reporting me. Point is: My not informing the parents is a breach of trust issue, but not at all germane to the issue at hand here.

---

Someone wrote:
``[PM] admits to mutual fondeling of a boy of 11 he had charge of ``
Looks like that someone definitely needs remedial reading comprehension classes.

---

Urstruly:
I knew where you were getting with your `logic`. Yes, as David Hume `proved` (and as anyone can deduce through a little mental effort), there can be no rational basis for morality.
Guess what? Even intractable rationalists like myself know that. But that doesn`t stop us from having basic values anyway. Only, these values (the most basic of which is `do no harm`) come from a source other than revealed word.
Neither does your appeal to revealed word solve any problem: there is always the question as to which revelaed word, tio mention nothign of proof of it`s revelation. So, in the end, you reason for ascription to a values system is really as fundamentally arbritary as mine.
Oh, btw, when you find the time, define `sexual predator` please, and tell me what in my essay made me one. (Just testing reading skills here, nothing else :) )

---

TAhmed:
This is also my last reply to you, just to let you know that are not only seriously mentally/linguistically challenged, but probably the most self-righteous idiot I have ever seen here on chowk. You want an answer to your question so bad? Ok.. here it is. :``Yes``
Now, kindly tell me what difference it makes to the debate. Or what difference it would have made had I answered in the negative. Is this debate about me??
And another thing: You can take your US statutory rape laws and shove them up where the sun don`t shine. That would probably satisfy your anal urge for a while.

---

Romair:
Nice try :-) but the questions aren`t ``technical`` at all. As to asking myself whether my actions cause damage to the kids (what actions do you have in mind anyway??), well, why would you want just my answer. I could be lying; or, I could answer in all earnestness and still be wrong. In any case, itwould be merely anecdotal. That is why I have posted links to studies on the subject here aplenty.
But it seems like science is no match for preconceived notions and prejudices.

---

All:
If your position is that all forms of physical erotic contact between adults and minors is wrong, ignore the rest of the post. (And make sure you don`t go to Holland or Spain!)
Folks here ned to know that there are various forms physical activity that come under the rubric sexual (at least in the West-- out here in Pakistan, you`d be surprised what doesn`t, as witnessed in broad daylight in parks-- but that`s another subject.)
Point is... no matter how much it satisfies your fancy for titillation, it would probably be a good thing to not think `sodomy` every time you hear someone supporting fredom of choice for minors. Most states (even in the US) anyway have structured laws that state the limits of activities (touching/fondling etc.) invovling minors at different ages.

---

To all the self-righteous idiots who insist, despite tonnes of objective evidence, that all sexual activity between adults and minors is harmful, well, grow up!! Read a little! And stop watching so much cable!

urstruly,

[...neither I nor tahmad (I suppose) paraised Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) in any of our posts below...]

do you have to write something in every one of your thousands of posts on chowk for it to be considered valid?

[...If you are interested to know the answer to your #243 you must first admit that you wrongly attributed something to me and tahmad...]

fair enough. i admit that you did not condemn PM.

[...By the way what you just did is termed as ``poisoning the well`` in the science of logic...]

not really. the topic is the same. actually it is very relevant for people who praise the prophet and are interacting on this board.

Concerned1

I took out the `sexual predator` sentence out because I am not here to issue character certificate to others. We are here to evaluate each others opinions and not each others characters.

The question in # 243 does not stand. because the question was based on wrong premise - neither I nor tahmad (I suppose) paraised Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) in any of our posts below, and atleast I did not condemn PM.

If you are interested to know the answer to your #243 you must first admit that you wrongly attributed something to me and tahmad. By the way what you just did is termed as ``poisoning the well`` in the science of logic.

urstruly,

since you took out the `sexual predator` sentence as an afterthought, i assumed you consider PM could be one.
the question in #243 still stands.

concerned1

I am not criticising PM, I am actually supporting his point of view to the extent that rational justification of human behavior eventually lead us to a morality free animalism. (he is stating it only differently). Let me elborate it for you:

PM supports the idea of a sex with a 12 year old.

His opponent say that if they support his opinion, then what is wrong with:

1. Incest

2. Pedophilia in general

3. Polygamy.

4. fetish - as long as parties are willing.

5. adultery

6. fornication

7. homosexuality (or heterosexuality)

10. Suicide

11. Any moral value in general

PM bases his arguments on naturalism (what is ``natural``) and humanist secularism. His logic is correct. He wins the case. What I am trying to say is that although he wins the argument yet it does not mean that his argument was strong, instead I am saying that the arguments presented by secular humanists are week.. That shows the week and immoral basis of both naturalism and humanist secularism. David Hume wrote his thesis on morality of suicide, presenting the same arguments as that of PM.

The above argument proves that we as human beings are incapable of rationalizing the moral values. There will always be a rationale that will cancel the previous one. Now that is where divinity steps in. Divinity provides us a sort of a package or a framework of moral values that cannot be altered. It is like a constitution where all laws must be derived and be made in conformance with that constitution.

tahmed#239:
I am not sure if you wanted a response from. I stand by my opinion that in relative scale of values, the society back home regards adultery as more unacceptable than paedophilia (which implies that it is still unacceptable!). As regards my statement re. courage and honesty, please notice my later remark to roohi that ``I take back my remark about PM`s courage and honesty if he did not inform the boy`s parents. ``

And I do not see any moral equivocation on my part. I dispprove of paedophilia but not someone`s right to express a different opinion about it.

roohi:
I hope my post#234 answers your questions.

PM:
Yes, I think it is okay to discuss matters philosophically but as a responsible citizen of a society, one has to accept the codified morality of the society or face the consequences. The society`s mores change and with that the acceptable behaviour.
So, while I personally disapprove of your act in no uncertain terms, I defend your right to speak up your mind. If you feel strongly about the moral correctness of your philosophy you have the right to campaign to change the societal views on the subject, which it views as the most abhorent at the present time.

does the prophet mohammad`s `consummation` with a 9 year old girl qualify as pedophilia? i am asking this only to find out how urstruly/tahmad are able to criticize PM on one hand and have nothing but respect for the prophet.

Correction:

I would like to delete the following sentence from my last post (not that I am suggesting that you are one).

PM# 212

I did not approve of your ``expressing your opinion`` as a personal favor but as a matter of principle. The principle being that everybody has a right to express his opinion. However, it does not mean that I approve of your opinion too.

Free speech is a wonderful thing. It lets us reach into the mind of a sexual predator (not that I am suggesting that you are one). It helps us understand the nature of the beast. A sexual predator who keeps quite and does his deed secretively is more dangerous than the one who claims to do it openly.

You might have not realized it but your posts have slipped the rug from under the feet of two kinds of people:

1. Secular Humanists

2. Naturalists.

Your posts prove that a set of moral values cannot be based on these two so called ideals. These ideals after a process of reiteration and redefinition eventually lead to animalism, where human beings live without any moral values. Human Beings, on the other hand have struggled for the past 10,000 years to escape from that animalism. Only that struggle has helped us evolve from being animals and continue living as such. Isn`t it clear as sunlight that both naturalism and secular humanism are regressive processes that will eventually lead us being animals again.

This is turning into an inerteresting debate.

So far, we have had some ladies admit that they see nothing wrong with polygamy. And one individual admit that they see nothing wrong with sex with children of the same gender (and apparently/maybe even a different religion). And a lot of people admit there is nothing wrong with gay marriages.

Then, there are people like me, who consider all of the above to be wrong (though polygamy should be allowed under special conditions, with the written consent of all parties, in my opinion), though they feel secular societies have to support two out of the above three.

Without getting into the details of the individuals involved, even at the purest philosophical levels, the only way sex with an 11 year old, of the same or different gender, can be justified is if the gaurdians of the child are involved in the process, and are there to guide the child.

If that is not occuring, then this is nothing more than the exploitation on a child (even at the purest philosophical levels). Philosophical ideas are based on the fact that all decisions are being made by individuals who fully understand the consequences. There is no endevour, much less a complicated one like sex and love, in which an 11 year old can undertand all the involved issues, without the guidance of a gaurdian. In situations like this, the important issue is the vulnerability of the child, not the desires of the adult.

Anyone who feels their 11 year old can make sound judgements on sex and love relationships could (not should, but could) support this. Anyone who does not feel that way, has to on principle, oppose this. Or they need to give up the right to complain, if they find their own child in such a relationship. They cannot have one rule for other people`s children and another rule for their own children, i.e. if their 11 year old son makes a decision to have a relationship with the author, they have to allow him to go ahead with it.

PM: Two questions, purely from a technical point of view:

- Were you ever abused as a child, either sexually or physically or emotionally?
- You seem to have convinced yourself that there is nothing wrong with your actions. This is quite easy to do for anyone. Did you ever consider the possibility that maybe there is something wrong with your actions? Have you taken the time to discuss it with psychiatrists etc., before convincing yourself of the correctness of your actions? If you have not done so, then don`t you think you are making a one-sided decision, based only on your own logic?

P.S. Where is Shankar when he is needed......................

re. dost-mittar #222:
``I disapprove PM`s affair with the boy but ...``
So, dost sahib, it is okay to discuss the merits and demerits of this matter philosophically, but not okay to put the theory to it`s ultimate test: practice? Seems to me that that is the position you are taking.
If time permits, now that you have read the essay, I would like to hear from you what you found worthy of your disapproval.
rgds,
PM

PM #225 #226 #227 #230: You will note that my posts were not addressed to you. one was to roohi, supporting her condemnation of your pedophilia, and one to dost-mittar, expressing disappointment at what i consider to be his equivocation. As such, I am not interested in your responses.

I had already raised the question of the affect your sexual behavior with the 11 year old student, and you have not been able to answer it. Instead you have chosen to hide behind a torrent of pious statements. You have thus demonstrated that you are nothing but a self-indulgent pedophiliac and a statutory rapist under US law. If the boy`s father brought charges against you in court, you would be put away for 20-30 years, and in many states your neighbors would be permitted to put up a sign-post in front of your house warning parents and children that a ``convicted pedophiliac lives here``. And this is the justice that individuals like you who sacrifice a child`s life for a few moments of self-gratification deserve.

You can come back with a torrent of posts in reply, or whatever. I dont care. This is my last post to you.

dost mittar #233 this your specific quote i had commented on: ````admire his courage and honesty in narrating it in an open forum``

you have ignored that quote of yours, ignored the questions i raised about the ``courage`` and ``honesty`` in talking in an anonymous forum, and chosen to provide some other quote and to tell me to improve my reading skills. I had expected something more responsible and mature from you.

nor was the quote i had commented on an isolated one from you. earlier you had written: ``And values too are time and society specific. Take the example of adultery and paedophilia. The society from where we come considers adultery to be a lot more unacceptable than this society....``

If this is not moral equivocation, I dont know what is. So excuse me, but i will have to beg off further discussion on this topic since I have nothing more to add.

dost -

PM has not admitted any (legal) wrong doing but he has argued endlessly that sex with a minor boy is NOT wrong.

Given that he

1. admits to being an unapologetic pedophile (his words)

2. admits to boys ages 10-15 being his primary erotic focus

3. admits to mutual fondeling of a boy of 11 he had charge of

4. admits abusing the trust of his students parents in his position as a teacher

5. has argued endlessly that sex with a minor boy over 12 and an adult man is NOT wrong

Given these facts ... do you believe he should be trusted with boys in this age group as a teacher ? What is to stop him from trying to seduce some boy he ``falls in love with`` ?

Do the parents of his students and the Principle and Faculty of his School have no right to any warning/knowledge about his background ?

Assertions like sheltered middle-class (I assume) subcontinental children as young as 11 or 12 are mature enough for the age of consent and know abuse and ``will not take it`` are RUBBISH in my experience as a student and as a teacher in New Delhi. Unless something in the Hawa-Pani changes more drastically than I ever imagined at Wagah - the average middle-class Pakistani 11 year old is not any more mature.

---

tahmed32 - I`m glad I make sense to some one ...

dost saab - I did not see your last posts ... you and others are far more capable than I of discussing this issue in a productive way ... for me at this stage in life it is very personal ... so I leave you to it

PM:
I had mistakenly believed that your discussion was philosophicla in nature. Now that I know that it is personal I have a few questions to ask of you. I am sorry if you have already answered them since I have not been reading all your posts.
-Do you tell your prospective clients (parents) of your sexual orientation? If not, dont you think you should so that they may assess the risks themselves?
-Do you realise the hurt that you may have caused the boy`s parents and the potential ridicule to himself if the story of his tryst got around, as these things ususually do in our societies?
-Do you realise that the very nature of your orientation means that you cannot have a permanent involvement with anyone? As soon as a boy turns adult, you would lose interest in him.

tahmed32
[I AM disappointed at dost-mittar`s equivocation (when he says that such behavior is acceptable in desi society - as if that makes it understandable)]

You really must improve your reading skills. Here is what I said:

``I disapprove PM`s affair with the boy``

``at the same time a Masterji having a relationship with a boy is considered bad behaviour and may evoke some smirks or jokes but does not create the same kind of trauma that it does over here. ``

Where does it say that I approve such activity or that it is acceptable in desi society? All I said was that it causes less trauma in the society there than it does here. And that, sir, is a statement of fact.

roohi:
I take back my remark about PM`s courage and honesty if he did not inform the boy`s parents.

re. AlephNull:
``I would add that sex involves many more dimensions of one’s being than common addictive substances. It crucially involves one’s ideas of personal identity, self-respect and general outlook on life.``
At 12? At 15? Aren`t you over-intellectualizing the whole deal a little? Granted, all of the above may attend the sexual experience, but what pasrt ofthat is a certain civilization`s discontent, and what paert natural, normal, or een healthy, is a question I think needs further exploration.
(But I guess you really havta be there to know how silly this sounds in the context of adoloscent sex-play. I mean, have you completely forgotten what it was like when you were 12? 15?)
``The essence of my position is that sex is an activity, fraught with consequences, in which mature adults can engage responsibly (i.e. without harm to themselves or other party involved) – although many obviously do not. The same assumption simply cannot be made for children and early adolescents.``
With all due respect, your contention has no real cross-cultural validity, and frankly, seems to me more bias than basis.
``From my recollections of my own process of growing up, 12 was simply far too young. Ditto with 14, though at that age I would have made my disapproval plain in no uncertain terms. Sorry.
That`s fine. No need to be sorry. To each his own. Now, surely you would not derprive others the right, at 14, to show their approval-- to be able to say ``Yes` as well as `No`.
``You may notice that I have made no reference to any so-called absolute moral code enshrined in some musty Revealed Book allegedly handed down from on high.``
Yes, but I`m aure you;er aware of what Russel says about the true motivations of even some of the otherwise most clear-headed phiosophers when it cam to the question of God`s existence. ;-)
``A sexual relationship between an adult and a juvenile would in most cases massively violate my assumption (I admit it’s just that) of broad power equality as the desirable ideal in sexual relationships.``
hmmm... waht if the sexual was jsut one of many components i na relationsip that is necessaily defined and enriched by the power inequality? Does `calculated rsk` and `necessary evil` apply here?
Thanks for your considered thoughts.. Been great interacting with you.
rgds,
PM

for AlephNull:
This link even more `resourceful`

For TAhmed:
Who Owns Hate on the Net?

for AlephNull: (the Morally Unassaible need not bother with these trifling science issues)
Click here

This one of particular interest to you perhaps:
Pedophilia, Science and Self-Deception
Author Arne Frederiksen argues that the mental health community routinely mis-diagnose pedophiles as having cognitive distortion because they are unable to accept that children can enjoy sexual activity. Furthermore, they base their diagnoses on insufficient and poorly conducted research into pedophilia and child sexuality.
rgds,
PM

AlephNull:
Damn! Too much to answer here, and a plane to catch in 12 hours!
Here`s the rub: You write: ``There is good reason to believe that some extensive rewiring of the brain occurs during these episodes. They are stressful enough for an adult with all the resources of a developed intelligence, a bookish prior ‘knowledge’ of the phenomena involved, and a certain cynicism to boot. I would not assume that a twelve- or fourteen-year old had anywhere near the same resources available.``
has it occured to you that the stress is related to the resources of ``developed intelligence, the bookish prior knowledge, of the phenomena involved etc (all sometimes called ``baggage``. and/or the discontent of civilization.
Let me relate an anecdote I read about a guy who writes of his sexual experience with a 15-yo, with whom he later started to fall in love. When he started buying him gifts, taking him out and ingratuating himself to the `boy`, the latter told him to lay off. All he was in it for were the blow jobs. Simple as that!
Will post some material here about why the dynamics of adult relations don`t apply here.
later...
PM

TAhmed:
The pontification index is usually a pretty good indicator of how well you`re doing in a debate.
You write: ``what courage do you see here? all i see is brazen self-indulgent moralizing of a criminal.
You still haven`t old me what it is in what I wrote that consitutes criminal behaviour.
`` in courts in any civilized country (not India and Pakistan, i would agree)...``
hmmm.. I knew you were a Bush-lover, Ahmed, but c`mon, even he didn`t term the Europeans uncivilized, just irrelevant. Reality check bro: Average Age-of-consent in European nations is 13.8.
``... his brazen boasting about his sexual attack on his student... ``
hmmm... did read the same easy I wrote?? Which internet are you on?!?
This is precious, coming from you! Oh, now I get it... throw in words like ``attack`` and `brazen boasting`, and you somehow feel you have a stronger case, eh? No? WEll, I`m sure it at least maks you feel all righteous inside. Only problem, your words are not backed up by substance. You need that little detail in a court of law, you know?-- or even to make a credible point here.
``...would be regarded as unrepentent behavior and would probably earn him another few years of jail time...``
Yaar.. why this countinued ranting on jail? I`ve already told you, I`m well aware of the moral climate there on this issue. Not so long ago, witches and then homosexuals (they kind you know approve of) were being meted out the same kinda treatment. learn some history, if nothing else, yaar.
``...Where he would probably get all the gay sex he can handle at the hands of fellow criminals.``
Ahhhh,, now I get it... the old anal fixation rearing its ugly head again. It`s cool, TAhemed, even understandable, given the problems you have ``getting some``, as related to us earlier.
``In the US, sexual activity with a minor (under 18 years, and this boy was only 11) is considered statutory rape.``
In Georgia, sexual activity with another man is considered a felony. Your point is...? echo... you wanna help him out here, maybe?
``...and what honesty are you commending him for?``
Ok, I`ll agree with you here. I don;t see what the deal was with honesty.
`` if he was honest, he would have told the boy`s father his gay and pedophiliac tendencies.``
Duh, if you read the article without your pontifical gown on, you might have noticed my claim that, prior to that experience, I had no knowledge/experience of that side of me.
But to answer you concern... I`m sure that, growing up, being the morally upright person you are you divluged every detail of your every action and motivation to your parents, i nthe spirit of honesty. And yes, its the same difference!!
In any case, I don`t care too much for your seeking to characterize my relationships as ``sexual``-- though I suppose for the sex-starved-and-repressed, and the prurient, that would be the natural thing to do.
But it ain`t the reality!
So grab yourself a six pack, slouch on the EZboy (no pun intended) and read the interacts. No, first re-read the passage roohi psoted. This time dispensing of the preconceived notions.

TAhmed, re. 223:
``He then makes the article more disgusting with his supercilious, self-indulgent talk about how the ``more psychologically sophisticated`` (or something like that) readers will understand his love for the boy.
You completely missed the point (the irony) in what I said about `more psychologically savvy readers`--which, just fyi, includes the likes of yourself. I guess lanaguage skills are the first to go when moral outrage breaks.
``Nor has this self-professed pedophile been able to answer a simple question I asked him, i.e. if he has considered the emotional (and indeed physical) harm to a child he did for a few moments of personal pleasure. Being unable to answer, he again strikes a ``holier than thou`` pose and lecture me on my ignorance.``
Hey, I could answer, but what difference would that make? First, would you believe a ``self-professed pedophile``? anad second, how would my answer impact on the direction of the debate? ahem.. you mentioned the words `moralizing` and `holier than thou` somewhere up there? :-)
And ``lecturing`` you on your ignorance is the least I can do. At least I do so with reason ad argument. I don`t think I`ve taken a holier than thou attitude anywhere.. please point out where I have. And please re-read you own posts to see whether you have.

TAhmed, re. 223:
`` And yet, when a pedophile produly talks about having sex with children ``around 12 years`` of age, urstruly finds that behavior tolerable. This is consistent with the moral depravity that exists in our ``elite`` - particularly the shariah-spouting elite.
AAAahhhhhH! Now I can see where you`r getting with all this bluster. Kool... aik teer sae do shikaar!``
You`re good manny-- real good!!
Okay, you`ve had your fifteen minutes. Now get of that pulpit already!

Roohi #215 you write ``I can only register my disappointment in the moral ambiguity of this website and bid it goodbye. ``

I am with you 100 percent on this one. Thanks for also posting that article by PM where he describes his sexual activity with a 11 year old student of his. You are absolutely right in pointing out that he has betrayed the trust that the boy`s parents placed on him as a teacher. He then makes the article more disgusting with his supercilious, self-indulgent talk about how the ``more psychologically sophisticated`` (or something like that) readers will understand his love for the boy.

Nor has this self-professed pedophile been able to answer a simple question I asked him, i.e. if he has considered the emotional (and indeed physical) harm to a child he did for a few moments of personal pleasure. Being unable to answer, he again strikes a ``holier than thou`` pose and lecture me on my ignorance.

To their credit a number of chowk posters have taken him to task on this. I AM disappointed at dost-mittar`s equivocation (when he says that such behavior is acceptable in desi society - as if that makes it understandable). I dont think chowk can do much, since being in Pakistan he would probably pay off the police (In the US, it would be a different matter - and if the boy`s parents became aware of this article, they could have him arrested). I am not even sure of the legal situation with respect to pedophilia in Pakistan, but I cant imagine that we wont have laws in the books against it. In any case, the only people who have been punished in practice for sexual crimes of some sort have been women under the hadood laws.

Thus, you should not be too surprised at urstruly`s equivocation. He is the guy who writes articles on islamic law and defends hadood and shariah laws that have been used to issue merciless punishments (the latest being the woman who narrowly escaped stoning to death in Nigeria after an international outcry) against women for the crime of having sexual relations with a man of their choice. And yet, when a pedophile produly talks about having sex with children ``around 12 years`` of age, urstruly finds that behavior tolerable. This is consistent with the moral depravity that exists in our ``elite`` - particularly the shariah-spouting elite. I dont know what dost mittar`s excuse is for his equivocation - to say that this is merely consistent with desi norms is a cop out.

Nor is PM a total ignoramus who is incapable of understanding what he is doing - he simply is not willing to take responsibility. But, excepting urstruly and dost mittar, i think a number of other chowk posters have recognized this pedophile for what he is (i havent read everyone`s posts, but this is my impression).

dostt mittar #222 ``admire his courage and honesty in narrating it in an open forum``

what courage do you see here? all i see is brazen self-indulgent moralizing of a criminal. in courts in any civilized country (not India and Pakistan, i would agree) his brazen boasting about his sexual attack on his student would be regarded as unrepentent behavior and would probably earn him another few years of jail time. Where he would probably get all the gay sex he can handle at the hands of fellow criminals.

In the US, sexual activity with a minor (under 18 years, and this boy was only 11) is considered statutory rape.

and what honesty are you commending him for? if he was honest, he would have told the boy`s father his gay and pedophiliac tendencies.

as i wrote to roohi, i am greatly disappointed at your moral equivocation here.

roohi#215
I see now where you are coming from. I disapprove PM`s affair with the boy but admire his courage and honesty in narrating it in an open forum.

PM #187

{{However, where I don`t agree is that sexual activity--addicitve as it may be-- can be lumped with the known `vices` of alcohol, tobacco or other drugs, whose long- and short-term negative affects are indisputibale, especially on brains not fully `developed`. Terming child sexual activity as harmful, therefore, begs the question.}}

I do not consider sexual activity as such a vice. [Ditto with moderate alcohol consumption – though it does nothing for me.]

However, many of its physical and psychological effects are broadly similar in nature, and arguably stronger and more persistent than, those of common addictive substances. These effects can be just as pronounced even if the stimuli are purely psychological. Romantic infatuation can be an utterly shattering experience even in if it first happens in one’s early twenties – I write from first-hand knowledge here – and perhaps at any age. There is good reason to believe that some extensive rewiring of the brain occurs during these episodes. They are stressful enough for an adult with all the resources of a developed intelligence, a bookish prior ‘knowledge’ of the phenomena involved, and a certain cynicism to boot. I would not assume that a twelve- or fourteen-year old had anywhere near the same resources available.

I would add that sex involves many more dimensions of one’s being than common addictive substances. It crucially involves one’s ideas of personal identity, self-respect and general outlook on life. It is know to be a domain where otherwise fastidious people shed their scruples. And it has been known to drive otherwise ‘normal’ adults to suicide and, less commonly, murder. There are any number of red flags to indicate that caution is advisable where sexual activity involving immature people is concerned.

The essence of my position is that sex is an activity, fraught with consequences, in which mature adults can engage responsibly (i.e. without harm to themselves or other party involved) – although many obviously do not. The same assumption simply cannot be made for children and early adolescents.

{{Disparity in power dynamics would seem a more valid objection. This has been debated extensively (though I would have to admit not in any sense conclusively) by many.}}

To be frank, this is what bothers me most of all. The potential for abuse, intimidation, coercion is so obvious when young people are involved with those much older – after all it is commonplace even in intra-adult relationships. There are good reasons for the advice given to children not to talk to strangers. Nine in ten might be utterly harmless but the one who isn’t can utterly ruin your day or your life. This danger to a child’s well-being is magnified when the other person is a slave of the harsh and cruel master of sexual desire, looking out for his or her own gratification.

You may notice that I have made no reference to any so-called absolute moral code enshrined in some musty Revealed Book allegedly handed down from on high. Nor is homoerotism an issue with me. In searching for any non-rational roots of my position, I believe I am partly influenced by my strong distaste for rank power inequality in all my close relationships, with or without a sexual component. My assumption, based on long experience, when I am forced into a situation where the other person is inferior in some obvious way, without any compensating advantages, is that he or she chafes at the situation and does not wish it to be a permanent feature. If the power disparity is unavoidable, I feel a sense of quasi-parental or quasi-feudal responsibility, noblesse oblige almost. I have generally expected a similar attitude from those in authority over me and have felt outraged when those expectations were not met. A sexual relationship between an adult and a juvenile would in most cases massively violate my assumption (I admit it’s just that) of broad power equality as the desirable ideal in sexual relationships.

{{12, give or take a few years, seems conservative to me.}}

From my recollections of my own process of growing up, 12 was simply far too young. Ditto with 14, though at that age I would have made my disapproval plain in no uncertain terms. Sorry.

Roohi:
I suppose my tutors parents, assuming I was doing something illegal with their kids would start to be concerned if they (the `kids`--let`s assume they are kids) started acting in a manner suggesting abuse.
You see, unlike Boston, or anywhere in Victim-culture Land of The Free, people here, even kids as young as 12, know pretty much when they`re being abused, wil not `take the abuse` for 3-4 years, and only be affected by it 10-15 years later in life (usually around early mid-life crises), when everybody and their mother knows there`s a pretty penny to be made out suing a Cash Cow.
Not that I absolve the Catholic Church of all wrong doing.. by it`s own standards, it acted unforgivably. But you have to ask yourself how kids of 12-13 in this day and age (``you can, no must, tell teacher if Uncle Sam touches you improperly``) can allow themselves to `suffer` abuse, and why its only after a protracted period that their memory of the `abuse` is recovered.
Don`t bring up rape victims. There is no trauma involved in the above cases. Different situation.
Yes, they may not be lying outright, but are easily susceptible to phony psychology like Recovered Memory Syndrome (remember that joke?
More later... It`s later here
rgds,
PM

Urstruly,

When you misquoted Mirza Sahib, it seems that you copied and pasted incorrect stuff from a website without verification. Furthermore, you claimed that the original quote in Urdu stated “kanjrioN ke bachchay”.

I had to point out that the original quote was in Arabic, and not in Urdu.
I further provided the correct quote … with references and explanation … which was different from what you quoted.
And now you are trying to cover it up instead of admitting you screwed up.

This is another example of how low you mullahs have sunk in your propaganda against Ahmadis. This is the reason why I referred to you, Naqsh, and your mullah brigade as filthy gutter cockroaches.

I have looked into scores of similar quotes attributed to Mirza Sahib when challanged by other mullahs. In almost all the cases I only had to provide the full quote (after some searching and reading up) and their objections completely fizzled.

Your apology is rejected ... as it is grounded in false claims. Feel free to “not discuss” this issue anymore … it’s fine by me now.

re. roohi: ``You broke the trust of the Parents (your employers) who gave you access to their child.``
So, it`s now a breach-of-trust issue, not ``sexual abuse``? Disappointing.
Why your ``friends`` at Chowk with whom you have been ``out`` have not taken steps to ensure you never have unsupervised access to kids I cannot say.
Er.. they haven`t spent much time in Land of the Hysterics, maybe? Dunno, you`d ahve to ask them. You`d have to be here, really, know me as PERSON, instead of an artificial, and hated, construct.
``Why indeed Chowk Staff ? Any of YOUR children been taking tutions from PM - or only some nameless faceless kids you need not concern yourself with?``
Actually, the nephew of one of chowk`s staff was in class I taught once. I understand he gave a glowing report when ``interrogated``.
``as a PARENT I would take whatever neccessary steps to keep you away from any children - as I am sure would the PARENTS of any child in Neatherlands AND Spain AND Russia AND Korea AND Canada AND Mexico who read your article.``
C`mon, lady.. i can understand your visceral reation as a Bostonian parent and all, but no need to make silly statements here. Do you have any idea of the law-making process in democracies? Do `public consent` and `Parliament` ring any bells??
``How is Chowk Staff different from Bernard Law?``
I guess chowkstaff should answer this one, but knowing they won`t, let me hazard a guess:
Chowkstaff, and chowk readers for that matter, have no knowledge of any wrongdoing. The fiteen second episode alluded to in my article was, as mentioned, initiated by the boy. Now, I`m sure there are many moral watchdogs in the US who would find some way to use even that as evidence, but fortunately, in Pakistan, we are not contiminated with pedophilia hysteria (This has an ugly side-- there is much real sexaul abuse taking place, but that`s a different thread altogether.)
Roohi, one liitle personal detail I`ll divulge here: 18 months ago, I was instrumental in blowing the whistle on abusive (physically, sexually, emotionally) rector of a boys` boarding home. Regrettably, the Church that ran the house acted in manner that would make Bernad Law seem like an angel. They dragged their feet and only took action when I threatened them with exposure (I had video-taped the boy`s testimony). More regrettably, the abuser in question got away with a ticket to his home country. I am currently working out a strategy to win some compensation for the boy (who actaully seems to bear no scars, but I think should be made good on some of the promises made by that cad.)
Why am I mentioning this? I think it ludicrous, to say the least, that there is no distinction made between motivations, actions and method, when all forms of a given interaction are lumped under the umbrella of `abuse` or `molestation`.
I will not be interacting any more on this issue now, becaue all your concerns have been addressed in the interacts folloing the Boylove article. If there is anything new, i will respond.
rgds,
PM

esp for Urstruly:
The struggles about the free will, facts and morality

ATTN temporal:
No response from your chowk addy.
Will be in Islington area Sun night. Please email if interested. youkowmyaddy@yahoo :)

Urstruly,

And what Sahib, do you understand about Quran and logic anyway …?

… when Quran prescribes flogging for adultery, you think that adulterers should be killed!

… when Quran asks one to ignore blasphemers, you think that blasphemers should be killed!!

… when Quran asks one to prevent chaos from spreading, you think that polytheists should be killed!!!

Sahib, are you a Muslim, or a hate-filled killing machine? You read one thing, and ascribe to it any meaning you want. And then you talk about logic and deduction!

Dost - I refer not to PM`s interacts but to the Chowk article written by him to which he provided the link on this board -

``Of Boylove and Boylovers``

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00000632&channel=gulberg&start=0&end=9&page=1&chapter=1

Please read it before you read my comments ... I can only register my disappointment in the moral ambiguity of this website and bid it goodbye.

EXCERPT

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. 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.
PM