I understand that what I interpreted as your defensiveness mostly came from a desire not be part of a mob judging the man on one source of information alone, and I respect your willingness to consider the story from lots of different perspectives. Not hearing and seeing the Irish press every day, I was not aware of the the mob you refer to – i was just surprised that so many people were jumping to defend Ó Searcaigh so quickly, without, as you agree, much more information.

I’m sure you have had enough of this debate for the time being, but let us know how your thinking evolves if you get more information.

Adam, you say here that “The experiences and opinions of Ó Searcaigh’s partners are valid in this issue but they are not what a society, community or judicial system should base their opinions and actions upon.”

To follow your logic, should there be a law that declares intergenerational sex is illegal? Or that prohibits sex between rich and poor?

“At no point did I suggest that the Nepalese boys’ experience is invalid or worthless to the debate and for you to suggest this is a complete distortion of my point – I’m not worried, though, people can read what I said for themselves.”

And people can read what I said too: “Denying him his self-definition is patronising and emasculating. Where do we draw the line though?” It wasn’t about you directly, it’s about those who hint/suggest that, for example, Nareng’s re-evaluation of his experience two years later, is tainted by association and not to be believed.

Someone called “In my grumble opinion” wrote here a long comment about how he has found my stance worrying and troubling.

Grumble: “people rushing to defend Ó Searcaigh may come to regret doing so”.

I may end up criticising Ó Searcaigh severely, if I have a sense that I’ve got to the root of the issue, if I have enough information, if I have a sense of the context, if I’ve heard enough from the young men to give me an understanding of the role he played in their lives. When he gives his side of the story, and he will, then we’ll all be in a better position to judge.

Grumble, about me: “And I think he is also clever enough to eventually mull over his own writings and wish to himself that before taking the debate in lots of interesting directions, he had first dealt firmly and squarely with the central issue … namely, that it is wrong to run the risk of hurting other people emotionally by having sex with them if you cannot be completely sure that they aren’t just doing what you want to curry favour with you – is it what they really want, too?”

Ó Searcaigh’s seeming lack of awareness about this is key, and he certainly needs to address this, as I said clearly in my first article. No contest. My “massive flaw”, apparently, is that I didn’t expand on that, emphasise it enough. Was it that I was wary of being part of a stone-throwing mob?

“Ultimately, we must wonder why so many people publicly defended Ó Searcaigh. I cannot imagine it happening in the press here in London.”"

As regards London – I imagine that one of the first items in the agenda in a production meeting at the BBC or Channel 4 about making a documentary about a single gay poet in the third world would be: “who’s he having sex with? How will we handle that?” The absence of that awareness has led us to the sorry state we’re in now.

I am quite prepared at some stage, if I have enough information, to say that Ó Searcaigh’s behaviour has been repugnant. I have written last year about how I “could not forgive” the men who had sex with the 14 year old who was looking for sex in Dublin on Gaydar. That, I hope, is clear enough for everyone.

When it comes to young men over the age of consent, my assumption is that they are not victims, unless it’s been against their will or a matter of coercion. I’ve said more than once that I want to know whether his generosity was conditional on sex – and that’s not merely whether he propositioned them, it’s whether or not it was generally accepted that they would have to have sex with him.

“I am still trying to work out why Dermod’s arguments have such a defensive tone. Dermod, could you please tell me more what you think is right and wrong when it comes to sexual relations – this is where the debate lies.”

My “defensiveness” is really an instinctive urge that, when there’s a public stoning, I will walk away from the crowd, and make up my mind for myself. Ask for more information, complain about how the information has been presented to me in such a one-sided way, and attempt to frame his “gay lifestyle” cruising defence in a way that I can digest.

Consensual sex between adults is not for me to judge. Poverty distorts everything, however. How much it has distorted things is something I’d really like to know.

My inclination is to close comments because of the hours and hours I’ve spent on this – and, yet I’m not trying to avoid a debate. At some stage, I’ve got to draw a line under this. 30 comments so far – this is an extremely large amount of material for anyone to read in one go, in one page. I’m sure there’ll be more opportunities to bring all this up again when Ó Searcaigh finally breaks his silence, or if the guards press charges.

At some stage, we have to decide when a young man’s own perception of his experience is valid, and give him a fair opportunity to express it, if he wishes to, and if he’s fully aware of the consequences of doing so on film. This of course could still be a statement that he considers himself damaged and abused, or one stating that he is happy with the choices he made, as Nareng has done, two years after filming ceased in Kathmandu. Denying him his self-definition is patronising and emasculating. Where do we draw the line though?

“The subject of an event can be just as blinkered” – that is true of us all. Lover, rich patron, poor youth, film-maker, viewer. The observer of an event, like a film maker, can also be blinkered, or see things from a particular perspective. When a film maker chooses to present her evidence in a way that doesn’t fairly offer alternative perspectives to hers, she is asking of her viewers that we trust her, inviting us to accept her values. When such a sensitive and complex matter is given such a personalised approach, it becomes problematic.

The subordinate nature of the youths’ role with Ó Searcaigh does indeed influence things, and if in that dependence on him they felt coerced or obliged to have sex with him then he does have a hell of a lot to answer for. But after all this time, and all those years of film-making, we still aren’t any closer to having an answer to this.

Of course, in those extreme terms, you are absolutely right. No quibble there. But I don’t think even the film maker is accusing him of that level of abuse.

No, I don’t think they are which is why I gave it as an extreme example of how the subject’s attitude to an event should not be the basis for the legal or moral reaction of others. It not being the same level of abuse is not the point of my example – the fact that the subject of an event can be just as blinkered is.

Between consenting adults, it’s none of anyone’s business. But of course, that brings us back to the notion of consent, the difference in wealth and age and … we could go on and on for ever on this.

I agree, but I don’t think the subjects were in a position to properly consent here. That’s based more on the subordinate nature of the role they played in the relationship than their age – although that aspect in itself is reason enough.

May I also say that it’s unfortunate to see you close the comments here – I don’t think it does much to aid the complex debate that you apparently had wished to engage in and add to.