"We can all sympathize with those who out of desperation and desire for sexual encounter engaged in these practices. That doesn't make these practices a good thing necessarily." Why not? What is wrong with two people engaging in a little mutual enjoyment? I for one do indeed "sympathise" with those who evince a "desire for sexual encounter" and are even prepared to engage in "these practices". Eugh! Casual sex! How revolting! I have no further time to waste on this maidenauntyism. It is ridiculous to adopt a moralistic tone towards "practices", as you put it, that everyone here apart from a few eunuchs would jump at if they had the chance. And if you actually read the book you'll find that many of these sexual encounters were not the sordid events you seem to imply. They involved real tenderness and mutual friendliness and curiosity. The one thing I will concede is that a "full life for a boylover" would be lived in a world where deep pederastic relationships were available and pursued. I have several times on this site defending the ideal of mentorship pederasty that others are only too happy to consign to historical oblivion. But Nicholson was living in a world very different to that of Norman Douglas. He didn't enjoy the luxury of being able to pursue relationships with his pupils, for example. Or rather he - very wisely, in my opinion - chose not to, in view of the potential punitive consequences. But even if he didn't live the ideal life of a boylover, he did have a very full life in a broader sense; and the proof of that proposition is contained in his memoir, if I could only persuade people to read it before casting cheap moralistic judgements on other people's harmless fun. |