The Professor Who Preaches Child Love
Thursday, 28. January 2010 - 2:48 AM
So when I read this email exchange between a certain Professor Ashley Tellis and Nitin earlier this evening, I merely smiled. I attributed the Professor’s venomous tirade to either of these: uncontrollable blood pressure that blasted through his keyboard, or a naive assumption that Nitin is his student. And such venom on a really trivial issue: publishing a photograph.
And then I read this on Offstumped‘s blog and congratulated him mentally for a solid response. But when I read this, I began typing this post out. In a word it is chilling and it reveals a very sick mind. I can’t couch it in polite language.
Prof Ashley Tellis who teaches in the Liberal Arts department of IIT Hyderabad advocates paedophilia in that Indian Express article dated Nov 29, 2009. I have no issues with him being a card-carrying Communist and a rabid abuse-dropper: “radical,” “right wing,” “donkeys,” “idiots,” “hysterical,” “shit” are some of the frequently-used terms in his vocabulary when someone criticizes him. But he’s dangerous because of what he advocates and tries to justify. He probably realizes that he’s trying to justify the injustifiable and therefore couches his dribble in brain-deadening language and appalling prose.
Read this and feel very sick. Have a bucket ready, just in case you feel like vomitting. No exaggeration.
One of the derogatory French words for gay is ‘pédé’ and it comes from pederasty, or the practice of man-boy love, easily conflatable with a practice reprehensible to the hypocritical European mind: paedophilia. I say hypocritical because while Europeans, and, on a much more hysterical scale, Americans, are terrified of this practice and want to ‘save the children’ (as many such campaigns in these countries are entitled) from it, they will not accept that this practice is at the heart of the heterosexual complex, that most ‘offenders’ are indeed heterosexual men and the ‘victims’ are young girls, often daughters, nieces and cousins’ children, most often within the context of incest, another unexamined taboo. [...] we need to ask several more uncomfortable and possibly dangerous (given the amount of high moralising whack jobs out there, and even moderates and liberals begin to shudder if you talk about paedophile rights, by the way) questions. Nevertheless, I feel it is important to ask them: When does one become an adult? Is child marriage, a long-standing practice in India not a form of institutionalised paedophilia? Doesn’t the construction of the child as a pure victim rob the child of all agency in the business of the negotiation of sexuality? [....] perhaps the way to answer this FAQ is not to hasten to distinguish between homosexuality and paedophilia (with the explicit assumption being that the homos are the good guys and the child sex guys the bad ones) but to argue that homosexuality may sometimes have a lot to do with paedophilia, and, further, that if it is based on mutual consent, it is no big deal. In the Netherlands, where Heum, the recent offender hauled into jail in Chennai, there is a group fighting for paedophile rights. The Netherlands is one of the most sexually progressive parts of the world and we should perhaps think about why it exists.
If that didn’t disgust you already, wait till you read the nauseating climax.
I think we ought to recognise that children (younger than the legal age of 16 in some places, 18 in others, when they suddenly and miraculously become adults/agents, capable of complicity in a sexual act) can be complicit and willing subjects of sexual acts when they are, say, 10 and some arbitrary legal cut-off is just absurd. Indeed, an indication of this arbitrariness is the fact that the legal age ranges across the globe from 9 to 18. I think we ought to recognise that man-boy or woman-girl love can be beautiful and men, homosexual or otherwise, do not have a copyright on desiring children. The hidden history of women messing with little boys and girls in India needs to be written.
But why stop at kids who are just 10 years old. Why not indulge in some hot “man-boy love (sic!)” with a baby that’s just 2 years old? Or perhaps you prefer a newborn? You see, at that age, you can obtain “mutual consent (sic)” rather easily. And just to preempt any criticism, he rounds off his perverse “argument” with
What a man might do with a boy or a woman with a girl need not be Heum-like at all. It might be a beautiful thing. And if you disagree then on that, we need to begin a discussion on it, not have hysterical rightwing illiteracy and condemnation.
And yet, when people do agree to have a discussion, the deviant professor unleashes furious, obscene hysteria. Read all his responses to readers’ comments (pasted verbatim below) on that vile piece of trash he wrote:
Exhibit 1:
Mr. Bhattacharjee’s sick imagination and his comments about my life (about which he knows nothing) do not merit any comment. Searching hard for any “argument” in his hysterical, rightwing, ultra-fetid outpourings, I only find the old nonsense about innocent ten year olds completely uncomplciit with “sexual acts” and little else. Taking his hypothetical situation as real, I’d be delighted if my ten yer old was having consensual sex with my best friend. However, if I saw him/her talking to Sanjay Bhattacharjee, i’d be really worried.
Exhibit 2:
Rotten, disgust, cheap, gimmick, sick. These are words that Ms. Anuradha bandies about with great ease. Yet she fails to check her own sickness in wanting to know the details about my life and if letting a child have freedom of expression and agency is “speaking lowly” of them, I’d rather speak lowly of them than be a fascist and deny the child all agency like Ms. Anuradha does. I would urge idiots like her and Mr. Bhatacharjee to read the basic Rights of the Child document. With adults like them around, children are really in danger.
Exhibit 3:
And if this sick humanbeing thinks there is anything that the public really needs to know about his life let him say so. ” This is what you wrote, you profoundly sick idiot. This shows how sick you really are. The NIE should stop publishing maniacal abuisve sick letter writers like you not article writers who want to generate debate and discussion
Exhibit 4:
Following your own non-logic, Mr. Arunkumar, you are not gay, so what moral right or authority do you have to speak about me?, You have not read anything on the Rights of the child, so go do some homework before making insubstantiated claims about my selective quoting (of what?) I am deeply critical of the IPC and want parts of the Constitution re-written. Clearly, you think they are Holy Scripture, not I. Your AFSPA point makes no sense because you make no sense. No one said what Freud said was indisputable but I guess idiots like you who recognise donkeys braying better than anyone else, need indisputable theories. Well, it is indisputable that you are stupid.. That much is clear.
Exhibit 5:
Priya, you need help even bigger time. You need to start a nuthouse yourself and run it with your friends here. Insanity clearly runs in your family. Many women end up with the arse-as-face syndrome. Your arse is clearly your face. Go get it washed. Your top end is an arsehole so it stinks like the rest of you. I’m not complaining. If you can’t stand the heat, burn yourself to death in the kitchen, you sad sorry apology for a human being.
Exhibit 6:
O,r wait a minute, maybe you are a gay man yourself since you know so much about gay men’s arses and shitting. Or maybe you came out a gay arse and that is why you are a true freak of nature. Now go crawl under that pile of shit you came from and leave the world alone.
This guy needs to be urgently sacked from his position at the IIT (Hyd) and locked up for life before he can inflict greater damage on society. And what was Indian Express smoking when it published this shocking piece of depravity?
It’s quite dreadful to think that the Left, which still has a stranglehold on the media and academia, has such folks working for its “cause.” I recall reading long ago, a vile piece in that Communist rag, the (anti-)Hindu (or was it Frontline?) characterizing RSS workers as sexually repressed men. Will the CPI (M-L) own up and admit that this guy doesn’t represent its hoary ideology? Or is it okay to have such perverts as long as they remain committed to ideology?
Postscript: Considering that this was published more than two months ago, it’s kind of interesting that NOBODY picked up this story. Where are the pink-panty-wearing feminists? Clearly, it wasn’t “important” enough or in the same league as raped or paraded-nude Dalit women. And will they who’ve smothered this by their silence, send their young boys to become students of this advocate of “beautiful man-boy love?”
Tags: Academia, Ashley Tellis, Ashley Tellis Advocates Paedophilia, Commentary, Communists, CPI-CPIM, CPM, Depraved Professor at IIT Hyderabad, IIT Hyderabad Liberal Arts, IIT Hyderabad: Ashley Tellis, India, Indian Academia, Indian Universities, Naxals, Professor Ashley Tellis, Smothering News, Society & Culture, War on Communism
28. January 2010 - 5:36 AM
Sandeep:
I don’t agree with Mr Ashley Tellis and I certainly will not publish his idiotic rants. That a newspaper gives him a platform is poor judgement on the newspaper’s part.
Sure I would not want to have a drink with the man — after all, he is a left-wing nut job. But I would not throttle him either — literally and figuratively. I would have him fired for incompetency if that were the case, but I will not get him fired for holding unpopular views.
A lot has been written on the matter of pedophilia and people hold a wide range of views. Like most controversial matters, attempting to stifle debate does not illuminate the subject.
I do think that Mr Tellis is a foul-mouthed retard and one is ill-advised to give him a platform. But his right to hold and express unpopular views must be protected.
Atanu
28. January 2010 - 6:44 AM
Sandeep:
I am arguing my point in a debate over at Offstumped.
Regards,
Atanu
28. January 2010 - 11:32 AM
Just an odd observation in this link where the good prof has signed up for
http://www.petitiononline.com/Moily/petition.html
look at all the points they are complaining about especially the 3rd one and this dude has apparently started this petition
(His name is the 7th in the And… list).
28. January 2010 - 7:18 PM
Someone alerted me to this “debate” and I have to say, tiring as it is to answer a bunch of rightwing, raving, ranting, calling-to-burn-at-the stake bunch of fundamentalists which is what most of you are, save for Atanu (and thanks, Atanu, for that, even though you do agree with a lot of the crap these fundamentalists say about me, I guess you and I can have a debate about that some other time and without a chorus of idiots behind us), that I want to clarify only one or two things that have come up here.
I) At no point in my article on paedophilia (and Ot, I hope you are listening here) do I say it is okay to force anything on children. I say point a)that children have a sexuality, something Freud said over a hundred years ago and was pilloried for it and I am merely repeating it and getting pilloried for it, which shows that human society rarely grows up b) that it is okay for adults to have sex with children under a particular country’s permissible age, which, in any case, ranges across the world from 9 to 18 as I point out in my article IF IT IS BASED ON CONSENT and c) that consent IS the issue of importance, not age and that we should not infantilise children and deny them all agency by only constructing them as braindead, sublegal and stupid and incapable of agency and desire, especially as they are constantly abused under this infantilisation, especially within the family. AT NO POINT DO I SAY FORCE IS OKAY, NO POINT DO I SAY PAEDOPHILIA IS IN GENERAL GREAT OR ANY SUCH THING. The page is on LGBT sexualities; the article is part of a series on FAQs, addressing popular misconceptions around issues of sexuality and I was addressing one such issue. I have a complex set of arguments about it but none of them are assimilable to the distortions on this website and I take strong objection to the articulation of these distortions as my views and the rabble-rousing against me consequent to it.
I have contacted my lawyer and will consider filing cases of criminal offence and slander against offstumped and Ot and demand public apologies for this slander if one more slanderous comment attributed to me or about me is published here. This is the sort of stuff that breaks peoples careers and lives and it is all of you who have absolutely no morals or scruples and checks on your freedom of expression which allows you to write such poisionous and distortionate stuff about someone you do not even know and whose views you do not bother to even read (taking one paragraph out of context from my article is not a summary of my argument and will not stand up in a court of law) but distort and abuse and call for the public humiliation and sacking and hanging or whatever of.
II)IIT students are all above the age of consent so there is no question of my damaging sub-legal minds, but surely if there is anyone who needs to sue me for my views, it is them (and not any of you) if I articulate them in class and they object to them.
III) Concerned citizens can write to the Director of IIT at Hyderabad and voice their protests and call for my sacking. His mail id is publicly available on the internet. The Head of my Department is in IIT Madras, our mentoring institution, and you can write to him too questioning his wisdom in hiring me and warning him about the dangerous nature of my mind. His id is also publicly available on the IIT Hyderabad site. I hope doing this will make you feel better about how sick, pathetic and ignorant you really are. Please go ahead. I am not one to be scared or cowed down by public distortions of my work and views by frothing-at-the-mouth fundamentalists and I will have my responses, legal and otherwise, ready.
Further,just for the record, I was hired because I have a PhD from Cambridge, a Rockefeller Residency postdoctoral fellowship from the US, eight years of teaching experience in India, England and the US. IITs have Departments called Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) and at IIT Hyd it is called Department of Liberal Arts, where I teach English.
I am also a journalist, a gay rights activist, a anti-communal activist, an independent Leftist and a feminist and do all that work outside office hours, including attending Left wing dharnas protesting the killing of tribals in rural AP.
I would appreciate it if you think before you heap public abuse, views and opinions on people, especially attributing them to those very people, but if you continue to do so, you have been warned.
Dr. Ashley Tellis
28. January 2010 - 7:33 PM
Mr Tellis:
I am happy to see your responses here (and on Offstumped) but not very thrilled about the tone. I would be the last one to disparage your academic achievements and your obvious commitment to various causes.
In most cases, people are not merely academically interested in causes; often a lot of emotional energy is expended as well. National interest is one cause that I am emotionally and academically interested in. By your gratuitous attack on the editor of Pragati and on the magazine, you have attacked my emotional interests that that publication represents.
I am what is called a “First Amendment Absolutist.” (For those who are not familiar with this, it refers to the first amendment of the US constitution — also known as the ‘Establishment clause’. It prohibits lawmakers in the US from making laws prohibiting free speech under any circumstances.)
I will defend who is being attacked for expressing a viewpoint. Therein lies my defense of your right to speak your mind. Whether I agree or not with your viewpoint is totally irrelevant in that context.
I am always happy to discuss the substance of the disagreement. That is why I want to protect free speech, so that I can either convince you of my position or be convinced by you of your position.
Regards,
Atanu
28. January 2010 - 8:14 PM
“Is child marriage, a long-standing practice in India not a form of institutionalised paedophilia? ”
The practice of “child-marriage”, as it is called, used to take place between children of the same age or around the same age and was the reaction to the islamic jihad and the humiliating dhimmi status that it inflicted on Hindus. Muhammadans used to take any girl child as sex-slaves and millions of Hindus died in the slave-traffic of HinduKush.
I am not arguing with an insane person and I call the person who wrote the article above favouring paedophilia clinically insane. I do not even have to call him clinically insane, he actually is. He is a misfit in any sane society and should be placed in an insane asylum. Perhaps he is trying to justify the altar-boy rapes so common in the cult of catholicism, or else he is talking about muhammadanism that allows “marriage” with girls 6 years old. In any case, put him in a home so he is not a threat to normal, sane human beings.
28. January 2010 - 8:29 PM
I had not seen the clinically insane professor’s reply to comments on his article, so here is my final reply to a madman who will try to use his elegant language in response to my comment. FO and die.
28. January 2010 - 9:58 PM
The scholarship and erudition of this illustrious representative of a prestigious institution remind me of my old favorite, the postmodernism generator. Equally scholarly and erudite. And when I visit it after several months, guess what I get? This very apropos text.
QUOTE
“1. Baudrillardist hyperreality and dialectic narrative
“Sexual identity is a legal fiction,” says Sartre; however, according to Dietrich[1] , it is not so much sexual identity that is a legal fiction, but rather the meaninglessness, and some would say the genre, of sexual identity. But in Material Girl, Madonna analyses the precultural paradigm of context; in Sex she affirms neocultural materialism. The subject is contextualised into a dialectic capitalism that includes art as a whole.
However, Foucault suggests the use of postdialectic feminism to analyse society. Derrida’s essay on neomaterial desituationism implies that consciousness is part of the futility of sexuality.
Thus, the main theme of the works of Madonna is the bridge between art and society. Marx promotes the use of neocultural materialism to deconstruct capitalism.
It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a dialectic narrative that includes consciousness as a reality. Many narratives concerning dialectic subcultural theory may be found.”
UNQUOTE
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
Enjoy maadi.
28. January 2010 - 10:19 PM
“I have contacted my lawyer and will consider filing cases of criminal offence and slander against offstumped and Ot and demand public apologies for this slander if one more slanderous comment attributed to me or about me is published here.” – ha ha ha!!! The great liberal feeling about freedom of speech rights (which is “your views are absolutely un-acceptable when they do not agree with mine”). Classic Burqa Dutt style. I wonder what “Atanu Dey” has to say about this!!!
Let us not mix a covert support of paedophilia with freedom of speech. Liberals are known for this kind of confusion, we non-liberal “hindu bigots” are not used to such ‘intellectual achievement’. There are people out there who wants to kill specific group of people because they do not agree to a particular religious view or world view. Yet, right to practice religion is used to justify the very behavior/opinion the concept of secualrism seeks to eliminate. Another example of liberal confusion.
I second what S said about the “long tradition of child marriages” in India. One fine example of western scholarships on Indian practices. Is this guy Wendy Doniger’s brother or relative or something? Why is it that all the western nut jobs find India as their asylum?
Finally, “…I was hired because I have a PhD from Cambridge…” – does it look like we are interested to know? Before reading Michael Witzel, I had a lot of respect for Harvard. Prof. Tellis, I am not your student and there is very low probability that I would ever be. If you and your liberal brothers can find a way to spare our culture, our religion and our society, we may have some time to find our path out of this mess. Our humble request is, please spare us.
28. January 2010 - 11:45 PM
OT,
Thanks a ton for reminding me of that long-forgotten POMO generator.
29. January 2010 - 1:23 AM
It is absolutely chilling to know that Offstumped so easily got frightened of Dr. Tellis’ threats and agreed to self-censor itself. How easily a single threat broke Offstumped’s spine, which until now I used to hold in high regard… as one of the voices of Dharma in the Blog world.
Offstumped, you have sadly not stood up yourself for the Dharma you so loftily preach to others about. Dr. Tellis can get away with abusing you and yet it is you who censors your comments? Where is the Dharma in that? I am extremely disappointed.
Atanu, you have stood up for freedom of speech in good faith. But it seems to me like it was futile.
29. January 2010 - 1:53 AM
For heavens sake ashley tellis
- So you can continue to slander us and if we question you we will be in legal trouble? Talk abt hypocrisy.
BTW this is the same type of hypocrisy Muslim Fundos practice. We need freedome of religion but will not give you freedom of religion
29. January 2010 - 2:03 AM
The comparison of child-marriage with paedophilia is laughable and shows the ignorance of this nut.
First in almost every pre modern culture marriage used to take place at much younger ages because of the short life expectancy and the limited window of fertility possible for women.
Second part of the reason why child marriage gained so much popularity, especially in the North was because of the Islamic practice of carrying off unmarried Hindu women to their harems.
Third in most of these marriages the children were only married in a formal ceremony but not allowed to live together as husband & wife until both of them were physically mature. My grandmother was married at 14 but did not live with my grandfather as his wife until she was 16 (which is the legal age for marriage in many states of US with parental consent).
29. January 2010 - 2:44 AM
OK, I have been following this debate from the very beginning – came to know of it through The Acorn (I am a fan of sorts of Pragati and follow many of its editors blogs). I have two observations (or opinions) about this whole affair –
1) On reading the mail exchange on ‘The Acorn’ my first reaction was “Wow! Mr. Tellis is either immature or insecure or both.” The reason why I thought so was that in his entire mail he never bothered to attack any idea from the magazine or from the article, instead he resorted to mere name calling. Sir, calling an article “raving and ranting rightwing article” may fetch you some nods from similar minded ‘left-wingers’ but it helps little in promoting your point of view or in convincing the other side. In fact, it creates the exact same situation that you were so rightly trying to avoid regarding your own article elsewhere – “And if you disagree then on that, we need to begin a discussion on it, not have hysterical rightwing illiteracy and condemnation.” In the mail, it was you who came across as ‘hysterical leftwing illiterate’, as you yourself might have said.
2) My second observation is regarding Mr. Tellis’ “Man-boy love” post and its criticism at Offstumped and here. From a personal experience, which I relate later, I got a different interpretation of Mr. Tellis’ article. To begin with, let us first list the point he makes in the article as I understand it-
i) Paedophilia is not exclusively homosexual.
ii) Children have sexuality.
iii)If paedophilia is based on mutual consent then it is no big deal.
Now, let’s leave this article aside for a second and consider my personal experience in this regard. (Please, bear with me, I will get to the point.)
Due to my early physical growth as a child I used to play with children that were upto 5-7 years older than me. By the time I was in class 6th (~10-11 yrs old), these other guys were adolescent and were already talking about their sexuality (read girls, sex and masturbation etc.) which I got exposed to while still being quite young. So I discovered my own sexuality when I was still a child. (The reason why I say I discovered my sexuality as opposed to saying that I gained knowlede of sexuality as a concept is that I felt sexually attracted towards the girls around me and I started to masturbate). Being an otherwise nice and normal kid, there was a guilt involved in this sexual attaraction for the girls of my own age who I thought were innocent and ignorant of these sexual feelings. And I think this guilt was one of the reason for my early shyness with girls in school even though I was quite active in predominantly guy activities like sports. The upshot of this was that even though I avoided interactions with the girls of my own age I fantasized about girls that were older than me – mainly the ones that had affair with some of the elder guys in the group and so, about whom I knew that they were not innocent in such matters.
Now back to the article and the three points.
Point (i) is self evident an I don’t think there is any argument about it.
Point (ii) My experience of discovering my sexuality at the age of 10 makes me believe that this is true in some cases.
Point (iii) Now, if one of the older girls that I fantasized about would have asked for sexual favours, I probably would have agreed. Not because she would have manipulated me, but because I myself wanted it. Now, this scenario is a also a valid case of Paedophilia but in this particular case the child is not a victim. So, by my experience this point too has a certain degree of truth to it.
So, in my opinion, and as I have explained above – the article by Mr.Tellis is not as outrageous as it might seem at first sight. Further, I think he is well within his limits (more so as an academics) to raise such uncomfortable questions. If only he was not so aggressive while defending his views to the point of being alienating, he might have been able to generate a bit more engagement on such topics.
P.S. I will not be replying to any personal attacks but if anyone has anything to say about my reasoning or opinion, I will be happy to note.
29. January 2010 - 3:36 AM
Sachin,
Thanks for writing in. I’m afraid you entirely missed what the Professor’s key point. I’m all for mutual consent, etc but that’s not what he says: he wants to push the age of consent farther down to 9 or something. Further, he says it’s okay to indulge in Man-boy love: like a 50 year old guy making love to a 9 year old child. Picture that. You might differ in the specifics of the definition of Paedophilia but real life doesn’t run on academic/dictionary definitions.
Here’s the thing: in my fictional scenario above, think of the various possibilities by which a 50 year old guy “obtains the consent” of that 9 year old kid. I’m excluding coercion/physical threat. Bribe usually works. Giving the kid his favorite toy/book/desired object…think about it. Even going by your point of sexuality being awakened at that age, do you seriously suggest that the kid can actually comprehend the complete consequences of the said “man-boy love (sic)?” What about the long-term effects such an experience might have on the boy’s emotional well-being?
Also, why do you think juvenile offenders have separate punishment/treatment?
I agree with Tellis that we can’t automatically assume that kids are idiots/stupid by default. But there’s something called reasonableness. How far will you go? For instance, why do you chide a child when he/she speaks obscenities in public/before elders?
To call the Professor’s questions as “uncomfortable” is to look at the issue in a very narrow and 1-sided perspective. Sure they are “bold” (or whatever fancy word we want to use)
but are they reasonable? In real life, why don’t 99.95% of parents allow their children to feel up an “Uncle’s” privates?
This is not to deny your childhood/growing up experiences. They are your own and they represent the truth to you only as far as you’re personally concerned. However, one or a few individuals’ personal truths can’t be made the basis of setting an unhealthy precedent to the society as a whole. You don’t want to all it Paedophilia, fine. Call it what you want but there’s no way you can justify it.
This kind of thinking occurs when you use sex/sexuality as the ONLY measure/yardstick to view everything. A child’s sexual awakening at a very young age is not the only factor you take into consideration when you look at the issue: there’s plenty evidence that shows that at say 9 or 10 or 12, a kid is unable to make “adult” like decisions. If you apply this professor’s logic, you give permission to a child to sign on legal paper giving away his/her entire inheritance to a scheming relative. You ask me how this is related to sex? I’ll ask you why a boy/girl of 8 is not taught Calculus.
Cheers!
29. January 2010 - 3:59 AM
Putting asside Mr. Tellis’ nervous ranting, I too think he has some valid points about possible non-abusive adult-child sexual relations. Even taking this into account, there are numerous problems with trying to change the views of society and law on this matter.
The biggest issue is that it goes almost entirely against mainstream social conventions on sexual behavior. I would venture a guess (and this is being generous) that less than 10% of the entire population of the U.S. would even consider the mere possibility of pedophilia not being harmful, and less than 1% even consider it possible to be somewhat positive. Think about that! That’s like trying to steer an aircraft carrier with a spatula!
The second problem is, even if somehow society just barely managed to get over the ‘squick’ factor and considered enacting legislation toward loosening of age of consent laws, how would we keep true predators (the ones who deliberately kidnap, rape, and even murder children), from taking this as a green light to hurt others? Moreover, how would we distinguish between blatant abuse and non-abusive relations? Or cases in between, involving misuse or exploitation but not outright sexual assault?
I agree with some of Mr Tellis’ ideas because I’ve spent a while reflecting on such concepts, but the unfortunate reality, I believe anyway, is that we as a society are not yet ready to tackle this sort of issue head on, and we might not be for a long time to come.
29. January 2010 - 6:19 AM
@sachin,
two kids making out with each other is a completely different ballgame from an older adult who is in a position of power relative to child molesting a kid
29. January 2010 - 7:12 AM
I am impressed with the Professor’s qualifications! Truely!! But still it does not answer the question why such education failed in his case, for him to write such sick article?
29. January 2010 - 8:28 AM
Though at first glance, I am more inclined to Atanu’s stance, there are a few things which still prick me and prevent me from wholeheartedly agreeing to his point of view. Apologies if what I write is similar to what anyone has mentioned…
1. The designation “IIT professor” is distinctly different from say, “Software Engineer”, “Hedge Fund Manager”, “CEO, XYZ Inc”, “Dentist” or “Gynaecologist”. Call it faulty system or screwed-up society, professorship at an IIT carries much more public/national responsibility than any other profession, this is a fact which we have to accept, whether we like it or not.
2. Point 1 notwithstanding, whoever be the individual, he/she is definitely entitled to opinions/views. I do not mean to say that by virtue of his position in society, he should not be allowed to express controversial/dangerous opinions in public, not at all. But the manner in which this man has expressed it is another concern – responding if you’ve been asked is one thing, but writing such a blatantly provocative article is another. (Though the person in question claims it was part of a series and he was addressing some issues, his article seemed more on the lines of advocating something new & shockingly provocative and not addressing something like gay rights).
3. Combine Point 2 with publication in a renowned (for whatever reason) publication like Indian Express, this is where I really cannot tolerate it. Once again, if this person had blogged it (Point 2 minus Point 3), though I would’ve found it highly objectionable & scary, I would shout out Atanu’s opinion from roof-tops.
But take points 1, 2 and 3 collectively – that’s where it well-and-truly goes wrong and the argument for allowing him to express his opinion… falls apart, IMHO.
Bottomline – Am I saying this guy should be put in jail? No.
Am I saying this guy should be killed? Of course not, because it would be great if such people lived to see their opinions/beliefs shredded to bits.
Does this guy need to be expelled from IIT-H? Contentious one. Depends on what he is supposed to teach at IIT-H, how well he’s doing it, more imp. what else he’s teaching there.
For the sake of this epic comment, all I feel is the dude’s article shouldn’t have been published by a publicly acclaimed & circulated newspaper like Indian Express.
Thoughts?
29. January 2010 - 10:08 AM
This has nothing to do with Child Marriages and the assorted claims by this Ashley Tellis.
To me it looks more like SAVE BROTHER PAUL ALLEN, the convicted Missionary Pedophile campaign.
It is a disgrace that this guy’s vote is actually counted for electing a government in India.
Some times I wonder that dont we have padded cells in India, if we do have, then whom do we lock in them if not this guy Ashley Tellis
29. January 2010 - 10:35 AM
comprehension skills are the only thing i see as lacking in the various responses to Tellis’ piece. The debatable point and which he frames quite clearly as something that needs to be debated is the idea of a child’s sexual agency. It is indeed unfortunate that you and many others respond from such biased positions and throw ridiculous allegations which have nothing whatsoever to do with this point of debate. It is indeed a pity that a rich tradition and history of hindu ways of tarka are reduced to this mockery in the style of Oprah or the worst of mudslinging US presidential debates. All one needs to fight with Mr. Tellis about are on questions such as how one determines sexual agency and consent in the child? Can the category ‘child’ be framed as needing support and direction in thinking through choices as it does in any document on the rights of the child while at the same time not requiring intervention in the case of choices regarding sexual expression? How does the experiential knowledge difference that exists between adults and children when it comes to pre and post puberty states be factored into the idea of consent? etc etc.
if you read the debates of our saints you’ll see that many of these and other unpalatable notions are discussed in great detail with the rigour that is demanded from such debates. But it looks like debate is not what these forums are for!
29. January 2010 - 11:17 AM
Gentlemen,
either I am missing something here or the world has gone real mad!!! Paedophilia as defined as:
“Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is a psychological disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children.”
Now how is teen-sex coming under this definition? Children and teens are not same. There are troubles with the idea of pushing with idea of teen-sex as well. Teens have some sexual ideas (often wrong and our social taboos do not help at all), their bodies start to mature and emotional maturity does not arrive. Mistakes and confusion are common in this age, and a confused consent really can not be treated same way we treat consent from a thirty year old individual. When an adult has sex with a teen with less than 18 years of age, generally it is classified under Paedophilia and above is the reason why it should be treated so. The age limit of 18 does not mean that everybody gets matured by that age but it still defines the acceptable age cut-off.
What exactly am I missing here?
29. January 2010 - 11:25 AM
>>>>Tellis was senior policy analyst at the RAND Corporation>>>>
Also, Tellis had a role with the Bush Administration negotiating the denuke deal, which was foisted upon a pliant UPA.
And this fellow is accusing Hindus of being “rightists.” What a joke.
29. January 2010 - 11:31 AM
A self-described leftist working for the neocolonial RAND corporation. It’s the story of the indian “intelligentsia”
29. January 2010 - 1:01 PM
Dear Ninan,
You seem very eager to overlook the fact that the man has a penchant for abuse. Do look at his response to his opponents (the “exhibits” above). Those who are seriously interested in debate display an important personality trait: they acknowledge the relevant points raised by critics while ignoring the non sequiturs (as you yourself have quite generously done). To the contrary, those who are on a mission to impose their ideas on others turn hostile at the first sign of dissent. Tellis fits the bill.
Furthermore, consider these key facts:
1. The publication that Tellis printed his piece in — a popular newspaper — is not exactly an academic platform.
2. The subject of his *opinion piece* (not a scholarly paper, mind you), _is_ touchy and sensitive. His ideas _are_ controversial — even within scholarly circles, if I am not mistaken — and outside among the general population at any rate. His opinion article was addressing the latter.
3. Given the above, he should have anticipated a predictable and hostile reaction. He had two options: ignore the reaction, or, deal with it civilly. If he deems himself a scholar worthy of scholarly engagement, he has no other option. He let loose choice invective instead.
Ergo, I’m quite surprised you find issue with bloggers who have quite correctly seen through his bitter, angry and frustrated mind.
29. January 2010 - 2:17 PM
Sandeep,
Firstly, I agree with you in that for the one scenario that I cited above, there will be 1000 others in which paedophilia (even with the child’s consent) is evil. But, my point is that the very presence of this one valid scenario (by some definition of paedophilia) justifies proposing such an hypotheses by Mr. Tellis.
However, there definitely are issues with his hypotheses. For instance, sexuality can not be discussed in isolation. As you rightly point out it has to be discussed in conjunction with social, emotional and psychological development of a child. I am not an expert in this area but I understand that sexual encounters have a considerable emotional and psychological elements to them – even for adults. So, it is only appropriate to raise the questions about the effects of sexual encounters on a child, even after (s)he has discovered his/her sexuality, for the discovery of sexuality need not coincide with emotional maturity. Further, it is reasonable to ask at what point does a human being become capable of an independent sexual agency. Mr. Tellis laments the arbitrariness of law in fixing this age limit but he then himself uses ambiguous word ‘child’ without providing an alternative definition.
I agree with Ninan when he says – “All one needs to fight with Mr. Tellis about are on questions such as how one determines sexual agency and consent in the child?”
29. January 2010 - 5:39 PM
The
nuttylearned professor’s arguments are equally applicable to other cases as well. Sample- “ I say point a) thatchildrenanimals have a sexuality, b) that it is okay for adults to have sex withchildrenanimals….IF IT IS BASED ON CONSENT and c) that consent IS the issue of importance, …and that we should not deny them all agency by only constructing them as braindead, sublegal and stupid and incapable of agency and desire…..AT NO POINT DO I SAY FORCE IS OKAY, NO POINT DO I SAYPAEDOPHILIAZOOPHILIA/ INCEST IS IN GENERAL GREAT OR ANY SUCH THING. I have a complex set of arguments about it but none of them are assimilable to the distortions on this website….”Jiggs may have a point- “SAVE BROTHER PAUL ALLEN”
29. January 2010 - 5:49 PM
Sachin. Ninan, Justin, Jasmine, Naveen and Praveen,
I’ve to ask this question before some other jackass Jiten troops in to eagerly agree with ALL of you that the central question Dr Prof Mr Tellis needs to address here is how one determines sexual agency etc.
I’m perplexed why do ALL of you guys — every single one of you — thinks that Dr Prof Mr Tellis’s other contention, viz:
“Many women end up with the arse-as-face syndrome”
is not worth debating. You guys — ALL of you jointly and each one of you severally — need to ask how Prof Mr Dr Tellis diagnoses the female ass-as-face syndrome. But first you have to invite the prof to debate with you; ALL of you guys aggressively agreeing with every other one of you is like mutual pleasuring. Please get the prof to give you some company and make it real good fun. Two to tango etc.
30. January 2010 - 12:42 AM
To Ot:
Um…I don’t get the whole “ass-as-face” syndrome thing you’re talking about but I think it would be fine to have a debate with the professor.
30. January 2010 - 6:45 AM
Baron Julius Evola’s the “Metaphysics of Sex”–is a great book in answer to this stupid professor (no its not a manual about sex as the title implies, but something much deeper)–as Sandeep said, I also felt sick reading what this professor had to say….I think the left needs more defenses like this Baron’s like this to keep them in check (intellectually speaking that is..)
30. January 2010 - 6:59 AM
Baron Julius Evola’s the “Eros and the mystery of love–the Metaphysics of Sex”–is a great book in answer to this professor (no its not a manual about sex as the title implies, but something much deeper)–as Sandeep said, I also felt sick reading what this professor had to say….I think defenses like this Baron’s is much needed to respond to such people with clear, cogent arguments–
30. January 2010 - 7:57 AM
Ashley is just another core communist to whom life is very simple, to whom complete truth is reveled.All communists derives logic their from the same gutter.
In one of his comments in other blog he says, state is a bigger criminal than naxalits and hence questions the moral authority of state in taking actions against Maoist, how silly?
So Mr Ashley whats your solution? Corruption will be part of any democratic setup though in various degree in different countries, what should be done to tackle the state crime? who will govern the country?
I know you answer, you want your communist bosses to take over the state. In fact thats the end goal of communism, brain wash young minds and take every opportunity to cease power.
Impotency with Communism is same as with other semitic religions, they claim to know the complete truth, and for them life is very simple, and they cliam to know the root cause evil behind all problems in life, and its “CLASS CONFLICT”
Question 1 : Why did Married couple failed to give birth child?
Ans : Its because Upper class impotent sperm suppressed the lower class potent sperms and stopped them from leaking.
Question 2 :Why did mother scolded her son when he scored less marks in exams.
Ans : Mother scolded her son because, she saw through her sons motive to remain poor (oppressed) and wanted to him to become rich(suppressor).
I know I’m exaggerating bit, but this is how communist gutter smells.
Comments are welcome
30. January 2010 - 9:28 AM
Kaushik wrote in the comment above that he does not wholeheartedly agree with me, only partially.
His first point was that as an IIT faculty member, a person has to be held to a higher standard. Yes, of course, but those standards have to be relevant to the job description. Being an IIT professor should not become a handicap and one’s personal rights abridged.
I am for the free expression of ideas by anyone about anything at all. Don’t like what someone is saying or writing? Don’t listen, don’t read. Go read something else.
What if X does something bad as a consequence of Y’s writing? Go after X for breaking the law. Y’s writing cannot be the causal agent in an action taken by X. People do interpret things according to who they are and there’s nothing to prevent X from misinterpreting what Y wrote.
I like this story. A man was being given a psychological test. That test required the man M to respond immediately with the first thought that arose in him upon hearing words that the psychiatrist P listed.
P: House.
M: Sex
P: Book
M: Sex
P: Cloud
M: Sex
P: Train
M: Sex
. . .
P: Why is it that every word I say remind you of sex?
M: Because all those are sexy words.
The reason I entered this debate was to just make one simple point. It was about not preventing a person from expressing his viewpoint. I don’t care what the actual content is. I just don’t want to curb anyone’s freedom to say what he has to say. [I write "he" to stand in for "he or she".]
This debate seems now to be about pedophilia. It’s an important subject but hardly a matter that affects the larger society with the same force as the idea of free expression. I choose to focus on free expression and not waste my time discussing pedophilia, fascinating though the subject is. [I am not even sure if that is the right spelling.]
So here’s where I stand.
1. I don’t care for Mr Tellis’ tone when debating. I would not like to be spoken to in that tone of voice. (hat tip: Hitchens.)
2. I don’t think that NIE was wrong in publishing Mr Tellis’ article. If you don’t like it, don’t read NIE.
3. I don’t think that the freedom of speech should only be extended to content that is deemed safe. Especially, the “Will someone not think of the children?” argument circumscribing free expression seems specious to me.
4. I am a “First Amendment Absolutist” — like my hero Mr Christopher Hitchens. I may not care for the content of the speech but I will not allow anyone to prevent any speech. I will prevent anyone from coming at me with sticks and stone, but I will never prevent anyone from coming at me with words.
Regards,
Atanu
30. January 2010 - 10:45 AM
Words hurt too. You can incite hatred and violence with just words. You can turn mobs violent with just words. It seems quite silly to point out the obvious, but human beings can be emotionally damaged and it hurts just as much as physically beating someone with a stick. You just cannot blindly sweep hate filled vitriolic, and violent words under the “free speech” umbrella. The emotional trauma of a black man being called a “ni66er” should help one understand why “absolute” positions make no sense.
Tellis is not just advocating debate on a certain criminal topic; he according to his own words actually believes that it’s OKAY for an older man to have physical relations with a young boy so long as the little boy can provide consent. Absurd. Amazingly absurd.
30. January 2010 - 11:40 AM
>>You can incite hatred and violence with just words. You can turn mobs violent with just words. It seems quite silly to point out the obvious,
Do you get violent and start murdering when words hurt you? How many people have you killed lately?
Oh, perhaps you are enlightened and therefore different
>>he according to his own words actually believes that it’s OKAY for an older man to have physical relations with a young boy so long as the little boy can provide consent. Absurd. Amazingly absurd.
I agree with you, but you don’t mean to get him killed for that reason, do you?
30. January 2010 - 1:36 PM
“I agree with you, but you don’t mean to get him killed for that reason, do you?”
No. Just committed to a mental asylum. You have heard about straitjackets and padded cells ?
30. January 2010 - 2:03 PM
Prof. Tellis is not alone in this.
See how this lady Prof. is playing with Hindoo deities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rukmini_Bhaya_Nair
http://web.iitd.ac.in/~rbnair/interview_with_chitra_panikkar.htm
http://web.iitd.ac.in/~rbnair/interview_with_ritu_menon.htm
http://web.iitd.ac.in/~rbnair/BriefBio.htm
31. January 2010 - 12:41 AM
Sorry for out of topic message and using Sandeep’s blog to broadcast this message
OT
Do you have a Twitter handle?Or some other way of getting in touch with you?
31. January 2010 - 3:04 AM
31. January 2010 - 4:08 AM
Kishikindhaa, this is from Nitin’s blog post:
“This morning we got an email from a Dr Ashley Tellis from the Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad (not the well-known Washington-based international relations scholar).“
31. January 2010 - 4:08 AM
(emphasis mine)
31. January 2010 - 5:02 AM
Wow. Thanks for the correction. So there are two sepoys by the name Ashley Tellis. Reminds me of another pair: Dilip and Dinesh D’Souza; the more adept sepoy moves into the bosom of the master race (Dinesh) where he ascends to the top of the sepoy food chain, while the embittered sepoy remains in Desh eg (Dilip). Are we sure this is not a case of intra-sepoy spat? Must be frustrating having to always explain that you are the ‘other’ Ashley Tellis.
31. January 2010 - 4:21 PM
Prasanna, auldtimer@twitter, but I don’t tweet much.
31. January 2010 - 11:30 PM
@Atanu Dey (this comment)
Sirjee, again, I cannot but agree with the inherent decency & fairness in your statements. Just this -
>> My argument is from a thoroughly pragmatic point of view. I’m prob. a little low on imagination, but your suggestion of free expression of ideas (esp. considering this idea) appears to be a bit more Utopian than is possible in contemporary society. Again just IMHO (which might be not informed enough).
>> “Yes, of course, but those standards have to be relevant to the job description.”
- Exactly, but the way I see it, contemporary Indian society does not subscribe to this perfectly sensible notion. It is ingrained in our psyche to somehow link not-at-all-related issues and make a big deal out of it. Which is where the prof’s public expression of this kind of opinion, however unrelated to his professorship, might/will matter to the public, if and when they come to know of it.
>> I hope I do not come across as someone saying the prof’s writings/opinions need to be banned/prevented from reaching the masses. No. Strict No. Whatever he opines should be solely from him, without the support of any established media like NIE.
>> Again, there might also be a difference in what we perceive/believe to be the duty of the print media. If one believes it is the media’s duty to convey news & responsible opinions (like I do), then NIE probably shouldn’t have published the prof’s article. If the print media’s responsibility is just articulating ideas, then they did no wrong.
]
[In retrospection, my belief in this issue seems a tad Utopian, considering the abundance of the Sagarika Ghose/Burkha Dutt types today. "Responsible opinions" it seems.
Footnote: I really am not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, just trying to improve my perception of things. Using this platform to communicate with obviously-much-better-read, more-informed-and-coherent folks like Atanu. Sorry if it appears otherwise.
5. February 2010 - 4:27 AM
Here’s the part that I take issue with. The biggest claim against adult-child sexual activity is that there is a big power/knowledge gap between adults and children. This is obviously true. However, from birth until early adulthood, this gap is present in almost all aspects of a child’s life and manifests itself in the daily interactions with parents, teachers, and other authority figures. It’s typical for kids to be ordered to do chores and finish homework. There is sometimes also pressure to engage in sports, attend religious activities, and even adopt their parent’s cultural/political beliefs.
School and house chores are pretty much a given; one would have a hard time taking care of oneself as an adult without them. But the sports (aside from the health and fitness benefits), religious activities, and adoption of values are, in my view, within the domain of the child’s personal preferences, so interference in these areas by parents or any other adult could be considered a form of coercion, yet it is not really considered as such. But when it comes to sexual activity, it suddenly becomes a heinous crime that causes psychological trauma to innocent children.
Now I think we can all agree that prepubescent children are not even physically adapted for sexual intercourse, and that attempting to do so would almost certainly result in severe physical injury, so such activity is out of the question. But what about non-intercourse sexual intimacy? Why is it that it is within the rights of parents to influence some personal aspects of their children’s lives, but that sexual contact is considered a dangerous taboo?
I imagine that most people would consider such intimacy with a young child to be little more than self-serving exploitation for the adult with little benefit for the child, since they comprehend very little about the concepts of sex. But then can’t the same be said for parents bringing their children to church or Sunday school? How much can they really understand about the concept of God or his moral teachings? Would parents then not be dubiously projecting their own beliefs onto their children?
I am not suggesting that parents shouldn’t be allowed to take part in shaping their kids’ personal aspects. My point is that I don’t believe that all adult-child sexual intimacy is, in and of itself, harmful. To me, the bigger question is HOW adults exert this personal influence. For example, I would consider aggressive pressure on a child from an adult to win in a sports activity to more psychologically harmful than non-aggressive sexual intimacy.
I’m not so naive as to think that adult-child sexual intimacy is without emotional or interpersonal complications, and I’m not attributing all harm to children involved in sexual relation with adults as a result of society and it’s mores and taboos, although I do believe that this plays a substantial part in causing such distress. And while I think the parameters and conditions of the age of consent laws ought to be changed, I also believed that the law should be upheld. Besides, I don’t think it’s worth a lengthy prison sentence, a permanent brand as a sex offender and the accompanying societal loathing, and the potential for years of misery and dysfunction for the children involved.
6. February 2010 - 1:05 PM
“I am not suggesting that parents shouldn’t be allowed to take part in shaping their kids’ personal aspects. My point is that I don’t believe that all adult-child sexual intimacy is, in and of itself, harmful. To me, the bigger question is HOW adults exert this personal influence. For example, I would consider aggressive pressure on a child from an adult to win in a sports activity to more psychologically harmful than non-aggressive sexual intimacy.”
Yeah, you’re right. I also am in favour of classifying sex as a sport. You must agree that it is a physical activity.
“I’m not so naive as to think that adult-child sexual intimacy is without emotional or interpersonal complications, and I’m not attributing all harm to children involved in sexual relation with adults as a result of society and it’s mores and taboos, although I do believe that this plays a substantial part in causing such distress. And while I think the parameters and conditions of the age of consent laws ought to be changed, I also believed that the law should be upheld. Besides, I don’t think it’s worth a lengthy prison sentence, a permanent brand as a sex offender and the accompanying societal loathing, and the potential for years of misery and dysfunction for the children involved.”
Instead of writing lengthy posts, why not simply state that you favour paedophilia and paedophiles ? Perhaps you are a muhammadan, or a christian pastor who rapes the “saved” heathens, but you are a paedophile.
9. February 2010 - 8:54 AM
To S:
Do you have a serious rebuttal to my comments or are you just being a troll? I suspect the latter. Listen, if you don’t like what I have to say, there’s this little thing on your screen called the ‘Back’ button. I suggest you try clicking it.
And by the way, I’m a very secular individual, thank you very much.
19. February 2010 - 1:07 AM
I’m not surprised at all.
Evolution does not matter.
Experience does not matter.
Traditions/cultures do not matter.
What matters is the right to push one’s dope and the legitimacy that liberalism provides, to the dope pusher and buyer.
Thank you