Commonly accepted definitions...
Submitted by d on April 29 1999 at 18:54:19
In reply to An Approach to Pure Boylove Submitted by Thumb on April 29 1999 at 02:01:33
|
Commonly accepted definitions are hard to change. Here are some definitions I've seen on BL web sites (emphasis is mine). Most of them refer to erotic or sexual attraction as part of being a boylover: Free Spirits: [Boylove is] a phenomenon of attraction to boys that many males exhibit, in which there are erotic, aesthetic, emotional, and spiritual aspects. Many people call it an orientation just like any other. The BoyChat FAQ Question #1 "Who are these people posting here": In most cases this [affinity for boys] encompasses a clearly sexual attraction, plus an ability to relate to boys in an almost magical way. There is a fairly long Statement of Boylove at www.boylove.net which is also worth reading. There has been at least one recent thread on BoyChat which discussed this, not everyone buys into the "Boylovers must be pedophiles" definition. I am not a BoyLover (I am not a pedophile). Why I go with the "Boylovers must be pedophiles" definition? One, because it seems to be the commonly-accepted definition and there is no point in fighting the status quo. Two, without that 'restriction' there would be tens or hundreds of millions of boylovers in the USA alone and the term would lose most of its meaning, and a new term or phrase would have to be invented to describe people who love boys and are sexually attracted to them. I think you are just a normal guy who happens to be a "child magnet" (or "boy magnet") and likes being one. That would be me also. That would (I hope) also be every teacher, every youth/scout leader, every youth-camp counselor, etc. etc. etc. -d (david_tx on IRC, mostly EFNET) |