Re: Just one point

"defining relationships by setting a certain time limit is not actually being in a relationship" I see what you're saying, but I still think you're making generalizations that are unwarranted. I think that what you're attacking are boylovers who define their love by AOAs – who say that they will no longer love a boy after a certain point. I agree that this is highly distressful. But I've met plenty of boylovers who knew perfectly well what their AOAs were, and yet maintained deep friendships with the boys (now men) that they were no longer attracted to. I think that it's possible to be aware that you will not be sexually attracted to a person after a certain point, and yet still wish to maintain your love for the person. In fact, I can see absolutely no contradiction between those two actions: if the love was true love, then of course it will survive the loss of sexual attraction – especially if the boylover is clear-eyed enough to know that the sexual attraction won't last. In fact, in that respect, boylovers may be at an advantage over nonpedophiles, who too often are cocksure that sexual desire will last a lifetime, and therefore confuse sexual desire with love. So I would say that there's no logical connection between being a boylover with a limited AOA and being certain that you will no longer love a boy after he reaches the limit of your AOA. Boylovers who believe that are limited, not by their AOAs, but by their unwillingness to make an emotional commitment to the boys they claim to love. Heather [E-mail]   [Home Page]